Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD PUD, FIRST FILING - FINAL - 7-95C - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)l� 14. Please include detailed drawings of all inlets, sidewalk culverts, etc. Provide details of riprap installation. Show a detail of the detention pond outlet. Erosion control details are also needed. RESPONSE: 15. An erosion control cost estimate must be submitted. RESPONSE: 16. The UDSewer output printout needs to be formatted to the information readable. The current printout makes it difficult to review. RESPONSE: 17. Please provide a detail of the detention pond overflow spillway on the plans. RESPONSE: 18. All drainage swales must have cross -sections shown on the plans. Please show the 100-year water surface elevation and drainage easement boundaries on all swale cross - sections. RESPONSE: 19. Please provide a true north symbol on all plan sheets. Please refer to the redline plans and report for additional review comments. 7. Signature from the Lake Canal is needed to discharge detained flows and subdrain flows into the ditch. Also, provide signatures from the Larimer and Weld Canal and the diversion lateral for construction within the ditch right-of-way. Approval from the Larimer and Weld Canal will be needed RESPONSE: 8. Capacities for the proposed streets and inlets need to be checked. City criteria for the initial and major storm must be met. RESPONSE: 9. There are several locations where the proposed grading exceeds 4:1. Please revise the grading to slopes no greater than 4:1 slopes. RESPONSE: 10. Please provide more design points on the drainage plan. Place design points at all locations where a capacity calculation is performed. RESPONSE:. 11. Please provide a subbasin for Vine Drive and provide calculations for the undetained runoff into the ditch. It is not clear how the allowable release of 2.75 cfs was developed from the 2-year historic rate of 7.5 cfs. RESPONSE: 12. The sump inlets on Bufflehead, Black Scoter, and Bryant Courts must have overflow swales. The overflow swales need to be sized for the 100-year discharge for each design point. The swales must be within easements. Please provide calculations and cross - sections for each swale. RESPONSE: 13. All inlets, sidewalk culverts, etc. must have calculations showing that adequate stormwater capacity is provided by these facilities. RESPONSE: 2. There is a concern about the flows in the Larimer and Weld Canal. It is not clear that the location and elevation of the overflow weir is the spill location. Also, if the ditch does spill, how much flow is the spill? Please contact the ditch rider for the canal (Bill Johnston 492-7671) to see if he is aware of any spills in the vicinity of this development. Please provide more details of the ditch to see if the location of the weir is at the place of limited capacity. RESPONSE: 3. Please address where the spill from the Larimer and Weld Canal will travel after leaving the ditch. Please show more detail of a swale to convey this flow away from structures and through the site. RESPONSE: 4. The water surface elevation for the maximum irrigation flow and the water surface elevation for the irrigation plus 100-year storm flow are needed for the Lake Canal in the vicinity for the pond outfall. The maximum irrigation water surface elevation must be below the pipe invert, and the irrigation flow plus 100-year storm flow water surface should be considered in the design of the pond outlet and storage. Please provide written verification from the ditch company on these flows. RESPONSE: 5. There are several locations where the proposed contours do not tie in properly with existing contours. Please tie in all proposed contours with existing contours. RESPONSE: 6. The plat submitted is lacking several drainage easements. Easements must be in place for all drainage facilities before final approval. All drainage facilities and grading outside the property boundaries will require off -site easements. RESPONSE: AA Qualified Affordable ® ®� Housing Project J J --A rr-Comment Sheet Current Planning DATE: June 24, 1997 DEPT: Stormwater Utility PROJECT: #7-95C Waterfield PUD LDGS Final PLANNER: Mike Ludwig All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting: July ,1997 No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Note: Comments 1-9 are comments that must be addressed for the submittal to be considered for a Final Planning and Hearing Zoning. Please address these comments with the next submittal. 1. The report states that a SWMM model will be developed for the entire Waterfield PUD with the second filing. The first filing is large enough that a SWMM model is needed with the first filing. Please provide the model with the next submittal. RESPONSE: Date: CHECK HERE IF YOU WE TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site _ Drainage Report UOY — U4 _ CC. T'A» &?Jon i`0ty m; KPz vdA015 ANor.+49rn ;, lo%rado Le�/20 i O1a Citv of Fort Collins comments continued from the previous page... Sheet 18 of 35: Garganey Drive Plan and Profile • Need to show grade and ground lines for 150' beyond construction to the west of where Garganey Drive ends per City standards. • Provide centerline profile at mid -block crosspans per City standards. • Show concrete crosspans in the profiles with all of the appropriate information. • Show the PC's in the profiles. • Curb return radii are incorrect. Refer to the standards for the correct radii dimensions for the types of streets. • The typical cross-section needs to reflect the current standards. • See sheet number 18 for additional comments and concerns. Sheet 19 of 35: Brant, Black Scoter, and Bufflehead Court Plan and Profile • See sheet number 19 for additional comments and concerns. Sheet 20 of 35: County Road 9E Plan and Profile • We will need to see a design of the Vine/Summitview intersection (150' in all directions) to see how the lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. relate to each other. • Provide edge of asphalt profiles on each side of County Road 9E as well as the centerline profile. • See comment above about the crown on County Road 9E. • Need to show centerline profiles through intersections per City standards. • See sheet number 20 for additional comments and concerns. Sheet 21 of 35: County Road 9E Plan and Profile • See comments on the previous sheet. • See comments above about the crown and easements on County Road 9E. • See sheet number 21 for additional comments and concerns. Sheet 22 of 35: County Road 9E Cross -sections • Items that need to be included on all of the cross -sections: i. The crown of the road needs to be along the centerline of the road. ii. Label the cross -slopes, ROW lines, slopes of the ditch, proposed and existing ground iii. It would be nice to see what the cross -sections will look like when the curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. are built. Note: The above mentioned comments may raise other issues from other departments. These comments are from one perspective only and will need to be addressed in accordance with other departments comments and concerns. More comments will follow throughout the other submittals. comments continued from the previous page... • The temporary road improvements that are being shown for County Road 9E show that the crown does not follow the centerline of the road. This may be because the centerline of the road does not follow the section line. It also appears that the road "meanders" along the section line. At this time these issues are not acceptable. Please make the necessary adjustments so that the improvements meet our standards. • Staff will need to see letters of intent for all offsite easements related to this construction. See the utility plans for more specific comments concerning these issues. GENERAL COMMENTS: Sheet 1 of 35: Cover Sheet • Add the appropriate changes to the General Notes as noted. Sheet 2 of 35: Overall Utility Plan • Refer to sheet number 2 for comments. Sheet 16 of 35: Merganser Drive Plan and Profile • Per our comments in January, Merganser Drive (formally Wood Duck Drive) needs to be a collector street. Staff is requiring it to be a collector with parking from Vine Drive to the third street intersection. From this intersection, north to Garganey Drive, Merganser Drive needs to be a connector street. We would like to see the transition take place at the third intersection. • At the intersections of streets, you will need to add spot elevations per details D-18 and D-19. • You need to show a typical cross-section for the collector and connector portions of Merganser Drive reflecting the current standards. • Cur radii need to be adjusted in accordance with the street standards and the type of street. See utility plans for the affected curves. • Show all PC's in the profiles. • See sheet number 16 for additional comments and concerns. Sheet 17 of 35: Merganser Drive Plan and Profile • You are missing a portion of the design for Merganser Drive. Please include in the next submittal. comments continued on the next page w Qualified Affordable Housing Project Comment Sheet Current Planning DATE: June 24; 1997 DEPT: Engingeering PROJECT: #7-95C Waterfield PUD LDGS Final PLANNER: Mike Ludwig All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting: July t 1997 ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) COMMENTS/CONCERNS NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR THE MAY P & Z HEARING • Merganser Drive needs to be a collector street with parking according to the traffic study. This has been a comment ever since the Waterfield project was submitted for preliminary. The current standards state that the minimum ROW dimension needs to be 76 feet. Please make the appropriate modifications to the plans as well as the Final Plat. See the redlined utility plans for the area where Merganser Drive will transition into a connector street. • It appears as though the improvements to County Road 9E are extending past the property line to the north of the site. This is fine, however, you will need to obtain the appropriate easements to perform this construction. comments continued on the next oa¢e ra• Date: aW HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECENE COPIES OF REVISIONS xPW X Sid _D k* _Offer Y—' Uft IsReWhk 1S City of Fort colum 7/8/97 TO: Mike Ludwig, Project Planner, and applicants FM: Clark Mapes, City Planner RE: Waterfield Landscape Plans My comments have to do with 1) meeting the functional purposes of LDGS criteria and 2) recognizing some special opportunities presented by the site and the site plan. The site is at a City/County interface, and as more development occurs in the vicinity, many people hope that the outcome combines efficient urban development with preservation of some of the natural and pastoral characteristics of the vicinity, such as simple, generous spaces and plantings. The site plan offers large areas of consolidated space which are consistent with this idea. All of this seems to support the use of native cottonwood trees in places where there is adequate space. The benefits are fast canopy growth, significant enough size to mitigate the impacts of the development and set a strong image. These should be cottonless Plains and Lanceleaf Cottonwood. Along the same lines of reasoning, generous clumps of Common Lilac could be used as another layer of tough, simple planting for functional purposes, seasonal effect, and character. The Austrian Pines and seeded turf ( I assume Tall Fescue ) shown on the plans are consistent with this and together would seem to form a perfect basic palette of tough plants to set a strong image and character. The blank end walls of buildings should be thought of as a backdrop for significant trees, preferably cottonwoods or pines, especially facing streets. In making these comments I acknowledge that cottonwoods should not be planted too close to structures or sewer lines, and I have discussed these comments with the City Forester. Also, I acknowledge that the lack of trees is probably to make it affordable, but a tree canopy is one inexpensive thing that can make new development more acceptable and keep affordable housing from standing out as starker or bleaker than market housing. Note that cottonwoods especially can yield a lot of "bang for the bucks". See the specific notes on the enclosed plans. I have noted on the plans a guestion about the south western edge, and a ueq stion about the "Potential Access" to the comer of Vine/Summitview. I have no comments on other criteria except to say that the buildings look solid and dignified, the articulated front -to -back units evoke traditional housing, and the site plan is a well -organized pattern of buildings and spaces.