HomeMy WebLinkAboutGLENMOOR P.U.D., 2ND & 3RD FILING - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 8-95C - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: March 14, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #8-95C Glenmoor PDP — Type 1 — PDP (LUC)
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Tim Blandford
All comments must be received by: April 12, 2000
❑ No Problems
121 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• Please modify the Maintenance Guarantee statement as indicated on the plat.
Refer to the attached sheet.
• Please modify the signature blocks.
• Please provide cross sections along Plum Creek where indicated on the plans.
• Please provide a mid -block crossing on the other side of the enhanced crosswalk
Also, the enhanced crosswalk needs to align with the access ramp.
• Please provide curve information and lengths for the "Plum Creek" concrete pan.
• Provide spot elevations at the street intersections as per detail D-18 and D-19.
• On sheet 5. show the proposed sidewalk along Glenmoor Drive tying into the
existing sidewalk.
• It appears from the elevations provided at the intersection of Glenmoor Drive and
Plum Creek Drive that a cross -pan is needed.
• Please include a detail of the sidewalk chase.
The headwall and wingwall of Plum Creek at Taft Hill needs to be constructed
outside of the ROW.
• Please show the headwall location, depth, etc. on the sewer and water profiles.
• Refer to the utility plans for additional comments and concerns.
Date: April 17, 2000 Signature: _
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS �-
0 Plat 2 Site [0 Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: March 14, 2000 TO: Natural Resources
PROJECT: #8-95C Glenmoor PDP — Type 1 —
PDP (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
12
Wednesday, April -$, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
s 4w1K6 Pluw. C..Cv
$we A -Woe. VA yel l 4r PosSbl� ckklr " °' ► vo j� l w�• Cm�.�k- CIn.�Ln►ne
g i c bb� ," v\ r to 4-ci low. j n co r p o r wf
G�
• ��w d�}dI 6� RII 3 wo.11s .
wt+(a—1 O'KktSariwv\ V>6v. vwds +o k'hQ, -SL�w,%Acl • As M��,•n�d �o ��c,�
wilna_ c1r1d or., Off. II,IRA1 1P,4se- iacorPorA,+e_ ) 440 441A- desi r�
1�i vv wv �Jlpo ri4 EA e\"n. L
A v' . \ `4 ova A�v. o v4 a00 r- cAa ss ►vo m . P L �Q,o. s Q. U nkQb{ 0✓v�—
��,�� � r���r,�� -�•,- aas��jr. ,ate . �—
Date: K En I l BD VISIOlQ3 ignature
a� Site Other
U- — Redline Utility it UndsW —
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: March 14, 2000 DEPT: Water/Wastewater
PROJECT: #8-95C Glenrnoor P.U.D., 2nd & 3rd Filing —
PDP/Final —Type 1(LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, April 5, 2000
➢ Water and sewer services must project at a 90-degree angle to mains whenever
possible.
➢ Include note to the maximum joint deflection on overall utility plans..
➢ Maintain a 10 feet minimum separation distance between proposed sanitary
sewer main and retaining wall.
➢ Maintain a minimum of 5 feet of separation between all inlets and water/sewer
mains and services.
➢ Provide complete details of insulation above sanitary sewer main wherever
sanitary sewer main is less than 4 feet deep.
➢ See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Date: Signature:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
X Plat X Site Drainage Report _Other
X Utility X Redline Utility X Landscape
City of Fort Collins
A
16. It was noted that the Plum Street Channel is designed to carry 133% of the `existing
condition' discharge. Please document that the channel can handled the `fully
developed condition' discharge as well. The City has this information available.
RESPONSE:
Erosion Control Comments
1. There must be a note on the plan stating that Plum Creek flows are not to be diverted
into the new Plum Creek channel until it is completed, seeded, and mulched.
RESPONSE:
2. The lot numbers have been revised, please change the notes on the plans to reflect
these changes (sequence of construction on the channel and old lots 29 — 42).
RESPONSE:
3. Where is the silt fence? Please clearly indicate its location on the plan.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redline plans and report for additional review comments.
g1enmoor2&3-3.doc
1
9. A floodplain use permit was received with the submittal. However, a final version of
the floodplain use permit version, with all applicable signatures, will be needed when
the project is finalized. Also, the $300 floodplain use permit fee will be needed at
that time.
RESPONSE:
10. Please provide a summary table in the text of the report showing proposed and
existing cross -sections numbers, water surface elevations, discharges, and velocities
for the areas impacted by the proposed construction.
RESPONSE:
11. Please verify the channel and overbank lengths of cross-section 1415, 1668, and 1709.
These lengths in the model do not appear to match the floodplain map.
RESPONSE:
12. Please provide a copy of all HEC-2 and SWMM models on disk.
RESPONSE:
13. Please plot the proposed condition 100-year floodplain and show the 100-year water
surface elevations on sheet 8. The proposed condition floodplain should be shown to
tie-in with the upstream and downstream effective floodplain.
RESPONSE:
14. If the design of the Plum Street Channel will include cattails in the bottom (see
Drainage Comment #3), then the hydraulic analysis should account for a higher
roughness reflective of a cattail bottom.
RESPONSE:
15. Please provide actual cross -sections for each of the HEC-2 cross -sections used in the
analysis.
RESPONSE:
glemnoor2&3-3.doc
contraction of flow through the culverts needed for SC analysis. The BT card for the
overflow of Taft Hill should also be verified with the actual conditions of Taft Hill.
RESPONSE!
4. The discharge downstream of Glenmoor PDP and the starting water surface elevation
were not changed in the HEC-2 analysis to reflect the updated hydrology of the basin.
This downstream hydrology may effect the backwater analysis through the site.
Please revise the existing and proposed condition models to reflect the updated
hydrology.
RESPONSE:
5. On the floodplain map, please begin and end each cross-section at the same location
as used in the model.
RESPONSE:
6. The model shows an elevation of 27' for station 221 of cross-section 1383. It appears
this elevation should be 57'. Please correct the model to match the proposed
topography.
RESPONSE:
7. The model shows an elevation of 28' for stations 222 and 229 of cross-section 1383.
It appears this elevation should be 58'. Please correct the model to match the
proposed topography.
RESPONSE:
8. The hydraulic analysis shows high velocities with supercritical flow likely for the
flow exiting the culverts of Taft Hill Road. High velocities are a concern because of
erosion of the channel and the high possibility of the flow not following the ninety -
degree bend of the channel. Please provide additional erosion protection and energy
dissipation downstream of Taft Hill to transition the flow back to a low velocity
subcritical regime.
RESPONSE:
glenmoor2&3-3.doc
0
Floodplain Administration Comments
Note: It appears the majority of the floodplain comments from the previous submittal
were not addressed. Please address all comments before resubmitting. Additional
comments may arise once further information is provided.
As part of the update to the Canal Importation Master Plan, a new HEC-2 for the Plum
Street Channel is available. In the interest of your client and the future property owners,
please consider using this more recent model for the existing and proposed condition
floodplain analysis.
The City has recently developed guidelines for submitting floodplain modeling reports.
These guidelines will help in developing the floodplain report and has been included with
the comments.
Repeated Comments
More information is needed for the floodplain analysis such as: more discussion in the
text regarding the analysis, a duplicate effective model for the site and upstream of
Taft Hill, comparison of existing and proposed condition floodplains, etc. This
information is needed to fully document the site's impact on the floodplain. The City
can provide guidelines that will help in preparing a floodplain report. Please contact
the floodplain administrator (Marsha Hilmes at 224-6036) to set up a meeting to
discuss this project.
RESPONSE:
2. Please provide more information on the existing/effective condition floodplain
through the site and upstream of Taft Hill Road. This baseline condition is needed to
verify the project is not impacting off -site properties. The existing condition model
should be run with the updated flows from the Canal Importation Hydrology Update.
Please map this existing condition floodplain through the site and show cross -
sections.
RESPONSE:
3. There is a concern the modifications to the Plum Street Channel and the culverts
under Taft Hill Road may increase the water surface elevation upstream of Taft Hill
Road. Please provide more detail for the existing and proposed condition analysis of
the Taft Hill Road culverts. Please show the cross -sections and floodplain mapping
for no less than one cross-section upstream of Taft Hill as part of the floodplain
mapping for the entire site. Please add cross -sections at the upstream and
downstream faces of the culverts and provide encroachments to reflect expansion and
glenmoor2&3-3.doc
M
9. Please provide a profile view(s) of the culvert extensions under Taft Hill Road,
showing all inverts, lengths, slopes, RCP class (minimum of class III required under
ROW), etc.
RESPONSE:
10. Please provide a note that all storm sewers and culverts shall be inspected by the City.
Also, please provide pressure -sealed joints for any pipe sections under pressure flow.
RESPONSE:
11. Please show the ,proposed 100-year floodplain limits on the drainage and plum creek
plans when completed.
RESPONSE:
12. Please provide a detail for the proposed 5-foot curb inlet on Kirra Court.
RESPONSE:
13. Please provide riprap calculations for the various riprap pads throughout the site,
including the outlet of the culverts under Taft Hill Road. This is a repeat comment.
RESPONSE:
14. Please include calculations for the stone sewers and inlets at the site. This is a repeat
comment.
RESPONSE:
15. Please include calculations in the report for all the swales denoted in the plans. The
swale cross -sections should include 100-year WSELs and side slopes. This is a repeat
comment.
RESPONSE:
glenmoor2&3-3.doc
v
3. The 100-year flows coming through the culverts under Taft Hill Road will have high
velocities that will create superelevation on the proposed floodwall. Also, the channel
will take another 90-degree turn downstream of the culverts. Please provide
superelevation calculations in the report for these locations that follow the equation in
section 7.1 of the SDDC. One foot of freeboard should be provided above the
superelevation height for these swales. Also, please provide railing or fencing for this
wall.
RESPONSE:
4. If the proposed floodwall at the Taft Hill Road culverts mentioned in the previous
comment will be higher than currently shown, it may block flows coming from lots 1
and 27. Where would these flows be directed? Please provide conveyance for these
flows if necessary.
RESPONSE:
5. Undercutting of the proposed floodwall due to scour is a concern. Please consider
scour in the design of the wall and place buried riprap at the base of the wall if
necessary.
RESPONSE:
6. Please place an area inlet and drop box at the end of the swale that is proposed to flow
over the retaining wall to keep small, nuisance flows from overtopping the wall. This
will require a small sump area to collect the flows. It is acceptable for larger flows to
go over the wall, in which case the riprap will still be required.
RESPONSE:
7. Please show the 100-year WSEL of the Plum Creek channel on the profile view of the
storm sewer in Kirra Court. This elevation can be obtained from extrapolating from
the cross -sections of the HEC-2 model. This elevation can be used as a tailwater
elevation for the computation of the HGL in the storm sewer.
RESPONSE:
8. Please provide the 100-year HGL on the storm sewer profiles instead of the 2-year.
RESPONSE:
gienmoorM3-3.doc
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: March 14, 2000 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #8-95C Glenmoor PDP — Type 1 —
PDP (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
l2
Wednesday, April -f, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
Drainage Comments
1. Please be aware that the master planning department is considering purchasing this
site as a potential location for regional detention. Susan Hayes has contacted the
property owner to discuss this option.
RESPONSE:
2. The swales between the lots north of Kirra Court carry flows from more than three
lots. Please provide tracts for these swales (see redlined plat) which should be
maintained by the homeowners association.
RESPONSE:
Date: I t UV Signature:
CHECK BEE it Y jH MINIM
Pig oSRe _pDcaWeRepod 'lOther S `r ,j
pUtifiV �6Redl= Utility V Landscape �, cWL (fj�AvL
with ornamental trees at a spacing closer than 30 foot spacing. Current
Planning supports the proposed tree spacing, but it really needs to be
addressed with an alternative compliance request.
i. The City Forester was routed a copy of the landscape plan. I have not
received any comments from him as of yet. He may have some comments on
the proposed street tree arrangement. I will forward his comments to you
as soon as I receive them.
j. If any of the comments are conflicting between the tree spacing,
Engineering, Water/Wastewater, and/or Stormwater, we may need to
conduct another utility coordination meeting to make it all work. Contact me
(Troy Jones) to arrange this if it is needed.
k. The site plan does not need to be on 2 sheets. We do not need to see very
much of the surrounding neighborhood on the site plan. Please scale put all
the notes from page 1 of 2 on page 2 of 2 and eliminate the first page.
Please increase the scale of the site plan to 1"=30' to match the scale of the
landscape plan.
I. Please fill in the date box in the title block.
m. The elevations need to be on their own sheet without floor plans.
n. There is a strange transition between the cul-de-sac's sidewalk and the
sidewalk that connects to Taft Hill Road. Please make this sidewalk connect
to the cul-de-sac sidewalk more perpendicular than shown.
o.
Be sure and return all your redlined plans when you resubmit.
If you have any questions about these or any other issues related to this project
please feel free to call be at 221-6750.
Y urs truly,
Tro �JQr es
City Planner
becomes null and void. Your response to the City's concerns is due by July
18, 2000. A 30 day extension to this deadline is available. All requests for
an extension should be directed to the Current Planning Director. If
remaining issues are those that do not require plan revisions, a status report
verifying continuing efforts toward resolving the issues is required within
the same timeline.
b. Please be aware that the Stormwater Master Planning Department would like
to possibly purchase this property for a regional detention pond. Susan
Hayes of the Stormwater department will be contacting the property owner
to expand upon this discussion.
c. The Stormwater Department has made the comment that a taller retaining
wall is needed (with 3 feet of freeboard) where the channel first turns near
the location where the it comes onto the site. Show a detail of this wall. A
planning concern is that this retaining wall does not become an eyesore.
Section 3.5.1(A) of the LUC requires that the physical and operational
characteristics of uses are compatible when considered within the context
of the surrounding area. If the retaining wall is in a high -visibility
configuration so that it can easily be seen from Taft Hill Road, then it must
have some sort of decorative facing on the wall.
d. The Natural Resources and Stormwater departments would like to see a
detail of all three proposed retaining walls. I would also like to see this
detail. Please provide a section through these retaining walls including the
nearby ground on either site of the wall. I'm worried about the visual impact
of the easterly retaining wall to the residential units who's back yards abut
the wall. Once I see the detail, I may have more comments on the walls.
e. The sewer line connecting out to Taft Hill Road is currently shown under a
retaining wall. This wall must be shortened so that there is 20 feet of
clearance between the end of the wall and the sewer line.
f. At the crosswalk there needs to be a ramp installed on the other side of
6lenmoor Drive.
g. Comment "e" from the February 26, 1999 comments has not been addressed.
The net and gross densities in this project should both be the same because
there are no features on site that would qualify to be subtracted from the
gross density to make a lesser net density (See Section 3.8.18 of the LUC).
If there is a qualifying subtractable feature you are using, please clarify
what and where the feature is.
h. You did not submit an alternative compliance for the tree spacing
requirement. If you remember, you were going to go to P&Z and ask for a
modification, but together we worked out a tree arrangement that works
fairly well, but would still need the formal alternative compliance request.
The street tree requirement in 3.2.1(D) of the LUC requires a 30 to 40 foot
spacing of canopy shade trees. You are proposing to alternate canopy trees
Commur"v Planning and Environmental F` vices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Richard A. Rutherford
Stewart & Associates
P.O. Box 429
Fort Collins, CO 80522
1�vv
April 19, 2000
Staff has reviewed your revisions for the Glenmoor P.D.P., and would like to offer
the following comments.
COMMENTS:
1. Water and Sewer Utility Department, Stormwater Department,
Water/Wastewater Department, Natural Resources Department,
Engineering Department:
a. See the attached comment sheets and accompanying redlined plans.
2. City Forester:
a. Last round of comments the following comment was made, "four of the trees
currently shown to be removed along Taft Hill Road will need to be mitigated
with the number of replacement trees specified in the small green numbered
circles on the accompanying plan. The mitigation effort can be satisfied by
upsizing some of the planned street trees. Call Tim Buchanan, the city
forester, for more info on how to do this." You still need to coordinate
mitigation with Tim.
b. I have not received comments from the Forestry Department. As soon as I
do I will forward it to you.
3. Water Conservation:
a. The landscape plan shall contain a general note calling for the review and
approval by the City of Fort Collins of any required landscape irrigation
system, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
4. Current Planning:
a. Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit
revisions based on this letter within 90 days or the project application
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020