Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY, 2ND FILING - FDP - 39-94E - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (5)that the developer of this site incorporate into his grading plans some of the vision shown on these cross -sections by grading the bank ditch in a way that is consistent with this vision. Topic: Plat Number: 63 Created: 6/4/2004 [6/17/05] [2/4/05] [6/4/04] Tracts G and H should be designated as a drainage irrigation, access and utility easement since an irrigation line may be located in the future to be within these tracts. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 107 Created: 2/1/2005 [6/14/05] The vertical separation less than 18 inches for both the sanitary and water crossings of the storm line between inlets D1 and D5. Need to discuss how to best address this issue. Storm Sewer system D does not have an acceptable separation from water lines between inlets D-1 and D-5. Please clarify if line is being raised at this location, plans are not clear. Provide 18" of clearance between storm and sanitary line at Beachcomber Lane. The utility plans text is incomprehensible in several areas notably the grading, overall utility and erosion control plans are unreadable. Please clarify. Use appropriate line text weights as shown in legend and eliminate extraneous information whenever possible. 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, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yours Truly, Bob Barkeen City Planner Page 9 [1/20/05] Please add at least one standard bicycle lane stencil marking to each side of the street on Brightwater. Halfway between the roundabout and Thoreau Dr. would be great. Thanks. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Ditch Company Approval Number: 106 Created: 2/1/2005 [6/7/05] [2/1/05] Please provide the City with a letter showing approval from the ditch company for releasing flows into the ditch and for building the riprap and the outflow pipe into the Canal No.8 ditch easement. Topic: Drainage Plan Number: 113 Created: 2/4/2005 [6/7/05] [2/4/05] Please provide pond summary tables for both ponds on the drainage plan. Number the detention ponds. Make this exhibit readable. Topic: Erosion Control Number: 53 Created: 4/23/2004 [6/17/05] Third Review June 16, 2005 Please delete the notes on plan sheet CS001 under "Grading and Erosion Control Notes". They are confusing and contradict other erosion control notes that are called out on other sheets. [2/1/05] Second Review February 1, 2005 Please change the erosion control notes and the project schedule utilizing the latest versions of both, which can be obtained from stormwater engineering. [4/23/041 Sediment/Erosion Control Plan Comments Lind Property 2nd Filing April 12, 2004 There are no erosion control notes, plans, calculations, etc. Please provide. A section should be included in the report mentioning that erosion control final calculations shall be provided with a final submittal. It should also describe in general what BMP measures are envisioned at this time. Topic: Grading Along Ditch Number: 126 Created: 6/17/2005 [6/17/05] The City has developed a number of potential ditch cross -sections for the area around the Canal Number 8. We have developed concept plans that call[ for the ditch to meander and for it to have softened banks, compared to the steep side slopes that currently exist. I can email you copies of these renderings developed by BHA Design. We are asking Page 8 [6/23/05] [2/25/05] [6/9/04] APF is at issue with this project. The project is more than a mile away from the intersection of Vine/Lemay and produces <10,000 trips/day. However, this project does affect the intersection and the discussion of APF needs to occur. Number: 65 Created: 6/9/2004 [6/23/05] [2/25/05] [6/9/04] Offsite improvements are called for at Timberline/Vine, CR11/Country Club, MT Vista/CR9, and Vine/Lemay. Who is responsible for these improvements and when will they occur? Number: 66 Created: 6/16/2004 [6/23/05] [2/25/05] [6/16/04] After further discussion, the APF trigger is considered pulled. The intersection of Vine/Lemay falls below the required LOS of D or better. It is suggested that the land owners, developer, and City discuss improvement district options. Number: 67 Created: 6/16/2004 [6/23/05] [2/25/05] [6/16/04] With the APF issue at hand, the project can move forward through final design. However, no building permits can be issued until the intersection of Vine/Lemay are corrected and the off -site improvements are completed. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: Traffic Number: 39 Created: 4/23/2004 (6/23/05] [2/25/05] [4/23/04] TIS indicates a LOS of E in the short term at Vine and Lemay. This is a failing condition at this intersection. Some level of improvements are required to mitigate the LOS back to an accepatable level, per the APF code requirements. Number: 40 Created: 4/23/2004 [6/23/05] [2/25/05] [4/23/04] No roundabout analysis was provided for the intersections meeting the criteria of Resolution 2001-120. Please provide those analysis. The Lemay and Vine , and the Timberline and Vine intersections can be excluded. Number: 41 Created: 4/23/2004 [6/23/05] [2/25/05] [4/23/04] Full review of the TIS and the area intersections has not been completed yet. Full review will be completed the week of April 26th. Due to this additional comments may be forth coming by the end of that week also. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: Grading Number: 117 Created: 5/29/2005 [5/29/05] Being the location for a future Regional Trail, Tract G in needs to provide a public access easement. Tracts I,G, and L, should also be public easements so as not to preclude pedestrian access from future development to the northwest. Thanks. Topic: Traffic Number: 68 Created: 1 /20/2005 [5/29/05] Utility plans are not showing the standard bikelane "diamond" or correctly oriented bicycle stencil, and is only showing up on one side of the street. Please fix. Also, if your going to show the striping plan at that scale, please provide a callout of the standard stencil in order for it to be more legible on the plan. Thanks. Page 7 Number: 58 Created: 5/25/2004 [6/15/05] This plan set does not meet the requirements set forth in Appendix E6. [5/25/04] Sheet 1 is unscannable. Please see Appendix E6 for minimum font size, etc. Number: 101 Created: 1/31/2005 [6/15/051 [1/31/051 See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. The sheets will not scan well as shown. Number: 102 Created: 1/31/2005 [6/15/05] [1/31/05] Please include the various line weights and the driveway symbol in the Legend. Number: 124 Created: 6/15/2005 [6/15/05] Remove all future Filing information from all sheets. Topic: Soils Report Number: 28 Created: 4/21/2004 [6/14/05] [1/31/05] [4/21/04] Please provide another copy of the Soils Report (this can be done any time from now through final compliance). We have a copy in the 1st filing file but we need another for the 2nd filing file (the files need to be complete in and of themselves). Thanks very much! Topic: Traffic Number: 45 Created: 4/23/2004 [6/14/05] [1/31/05] [4/23/04] Please provide long term geometry. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 129 Created: 6/23/2005 [6/23/05] Easements shown do not match the plat. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore Topic: General Number: 2 Created: 4/1/2004 [6/23/05] [4/1/04] All electric facilities must be shown on the utlity plans. This includes electric line locations, vaults, streetlights, meters, etc. Contact Monica Moore (224-6150) to coordinate the electric design. Number: 3 Created: 4/1/2004 [6/23/05] [4/1/04] Streetlight locations must be shown on both the landscape plan and the utility plan. A streetlight layout can be provided upon request. Street trees must maintain minimum clearances to streetlights. (15ft from ornamental trees and 40ft from shade trees.) Number: 4 Created: 4/1/2004 [6/23/05] [4/1/04] Normal electric development policies and practices will apply. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: Traffic Number: 64 Created: 6/9/2004 Page 6 [4/21/04] From Technical Services: Legal and plat do not close and do not match. See redlines. Number: 96 Created: 1/31/2005 [6/14/05] The plat language still has not been updated and the new ramp detail has not been added to the utility plans and it is not clear that the appropriate row has been dedicated for all local -local intersection ramps. [1/31/05] I've emailed the updated Plat Language to Jim Allen -Morley. Please update the plat with it. I've also emailed Jim the new Directional Ramp Detail, please make sure that the correct row is dedicated to install them. Number: 97 Created: 1/31/2005 [6/14/05] [1/31/05] Can vacate the easements by separate document or by this plat. If you choose to vacate by separate doc, then the reception numbers need to be shown on the plat. Number: 98 Created: 1/31/2005 [6/14/05] [1/31/05] Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Please correct all overlapped labeling and remove all shading. Number: 99 Created: 1/31/2005 [6/14/05] Incorrect row has been dedicated on Beachcomber and Flagship. [1/31/05] Need to show and dimension all row from the CL. Need to label what this project is dedicating. Number: 118 Created: 6/15/2005 [6/15/05] From Technical Services: All "Blocks" must be uniquely identified by bounds and line type. We prefer lots numbered with no blocks. Number: 119 Created: 6/15/2005 [6/15/05] From Technical Services: Center of Section 29 is not described. Number: 120 Created: 6/15/2005 [6/15/05] From Technical Services: Still has type overs - see redlines. Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Number: 121 Created: 6/15/2005 [6/15/05] Tract H is called out on the Site and Landscape plans but not shown here. The regional trail is labeled as "dedicated on the plat" on the landscape plans but it is not. BUT the actual alignment has not been determined at this time and it will require that Tract G have a blanket access and trail easement on it to allow for the placement of the trail at a future date. Topic: Site Number: 15 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/15/05] [4/19/04] Please label all tracts. The tracts that are labeled do not match the plat. Easements do not match the plat. Number: 57 Created: 5/25/2004 [6/15/05] This plan set does not meet the requirements set forth in Appendix E6. [5/25/04] Sheet 3 is unscannable. Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Page 5 Number: 104 Created: 1/31/2005 [6/15/05] [1/31/05] The Legend needs to include the driveway symbol and the various line weights. Number: 105 Created: 1 /31 /2005 [6/15/05] [1/31/05] Remove all 3rd Filing info, all sheets. Number: 128 Created: 6/23/2005 [6/23/05] Easements do not match the plat. Topic: Plan and Profiles Number: 71 Created: 1 /28/2005 [6/15/05] Still not included on all applicable sheets. [1/28/05] Include the driveway symbol in the legend. Number: 84 Created: 1 /28/2005 [6/14/05] Vertical curves are not in accordance with detail 7-18 and 7-18. [1/28/05] Need to show and label all grade breaks, VCs, driveway stationing where there is vertical curb, see redlines. Some info missing on some sheets. Number: 87 Created: 1 /28/2005 [6/14/05] Row has been changed since the last submittal and is now incorrect on Beachcomber and Flagship. [1/28/05] Plan and Profiles - need to label and dimension row and fl to fl widths, each sheet. Number: 90 Created: 1 /28/2005 [6/14/05] [1/28/05] Grades may not exceed 3% at the intersections. Number: 122 Created: 6/15/2005 [6/15/05] Intersection details do not identify the grade transition length and spot elevation as required. These sheets were not reviewed as comment 84, 87, and 90 will alter the spots shown. Number: 123 Created: 6/15/2005 [6/15/05) Crosspans on Thoreau are mixed and matched - some are 8' and some are 6'. Is this your intention? 6' is all that is required. Topic: Plat Number: 16 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/14/05] The note on the plat states that the HOA will maintain the tracts, however, the note also needs to include who OWNS the tracts too. [1/27/05] [4/19/04] Please provide a tract table listing the tracts, what they are for, who owns and who maintains. This may be a little more clear than labeling each one within the tract itself and making the tract a little less crowded. Not all tracts are currently labeled with what they are for. Should tracts G and H have access easements? See redlines for other Q's. Number: 36 [6/15/051 Repeat comment. Created: 4/21 /2004 Page 4 [6/14/05] The response letter states that the sidewalk will be serving as the ditch rider road in one area and then later states that the sidewalk is not being constructed with this filing in another. Craig Foreman with Parks does not want the sidewalk built with this project as the alignment is unknown at this time. With this in mind, the ditch rider road will need to be relocated outside of any lot and reconstructed in a location satisfactory to the ditch company. [1/31/05] This project is responsible for designing and constructing the sidewalk and bridge shown along the eastern portion of the site. Number: 115 Created: 2/25/2005 [6/15/05] Repeat. Need to show the Gillespie intersections on the other side so I can see how your streets line up. Vine and Lemay comments still apply. [2/25/05] This comment was made with the ODP & first filing and still applies here as well: This development must be coordinated with the Gillespie development (Maple Hill) to the south. All streets at CR 52 must align with Gillespie's proposed streets. In addition, this developer is responsible for the interim design improvements to the Vine and Lemay intersection. In the event that the transportation tax is approved, the money is appropriated by the city, and the improvements are scheduled for construction, this developer will no longer be responsible for any improvements to the Vine and Lemay intersection. However, it could be years before this happens. If this development wants to go to construction before then, then the developer would need to design and construct the interim improvements to Vine and Lemay. Number: 127 Created: 6/23/2005 [6/23/05] The oil company will need to sign off on all of the plan sets (site, landscape, utility, and plat). Number: 130 Created: 6/23/2005 [6/23/05] It does not appear that all affected parties were routed with the last two rounds of review. I will attempt to verify this when the planner, Ted Shepard, gets back from vacation the week of July 11 th. Topic: Grading Sheets Number: 79 Created: 1 /28/2005 (6/14/05] [1/28/05] If reworking the detention pond from the first filing, we'll need temp construction and grading easements from the first filing OR you can revise the 1 st filing utility sheets. Number: 80 Created: 1 /28/2005 [6/14/05] [1/28/05] Please label all slope ratios. Number: 82 Created: 1 /28/2005 [6/14/05] [1/28/05] Lot corners missing spot elevations. Topic: Landscape Number: 56 Created: 5/25/2004 [6/15/05] [1/31/05] This set does not meet the requirements of Appendix E6. [5/25/04] Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Page 3 [6/15/05] [5/25/04] Please complete Appendix E4 and resubmit for Final Compliance. Any item not addressed or included in the plans will become a new comment. [4/20/04] Please complete the new Appendix E4 and submit with the next round of review. All the highlighted items need to be complete before going to hearing. I can email this document if you'd like - just send a request to me at sjoy@fcgov.com Number: 33 Created: 4/21/2004 [6/15/05] [1/28/05] Please provide the note as requested. [5/25/04] Note was provided on the Site plan, still must be provided on the plat. [4/21/04] Rear access only off lots 3-6, block 6 at the roundabout, possibly even lots 2 and/or 7. A statement on the plat and site plan to this effect is required. See table 7 for separation distances from driveways to intersections. Number: 44 Created: 4/23/2004 [6/14/051 Offsite grading and construction easements required from Filing One and Filing Three. Please provide legals and exhibits for verification and then you'll need to record them. The grading around the detention pond in Filing One can be handled as a revision to Filing One plans. Grading offsite to the east of Filing Two will require offsite grading and construction easements from that property owner. [1/27/05] Easements need to be recorded for any offsite improvements and the reception number needs to go on the plans. [5/25/041 [4/23/04] Please provide letters of intent from the ditch company and/or other property owners for offsite grading in order to go to hearing. The actual easement can be provided during final compliance. Number: 55 Created: 5/25/2004 [6/14/05] Repeat. Some sheets indicate the regional trail is going in now and some say later. Parks and Rec department have indicated the trail should not be constructed with this project as the alignment has not been determined at this time. Tract G will need a blanket trail easement on it to allow for the future construction. The ditch road will need to removed from the future lots and relocated to an alignment acceptable to the ditch company in the interim. Tracts and easements on the Utility, Site and Landscape plans do not match the Plat. [1/31/051 [5/25/04] The Site and Landscape plans do not match the Utility plans (ie: Tract A is shown with improvements that aren't shown on the utility plans). The various plan sets need to be coordinated to show the same information. The utility plans will need to provide a preliminary design before going to hearing to determine that the proposed improvements meet city standards. Number: 60 Created: 6/3/2004 [6/14/05] [1/31/051 This is being done with the first filing and the improvements will need to be complete before any building permit is issued with the 2nd filing. Just keeping this comment alive until the DA. [6/3/04] This project is responsible for the construction of County Road 52 along their frontage. Number: 95 Created: 1 /31 /2005 Page 2 6 = I City of Fort Collins VIGNETTE STUDIOS TERENCE HOAGLUND 144 N. MASON ST. #2 FT. COLLINS, CO 80524 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Date: 11 /30/2005 Staff has reviewed your submittal for LIND PROPERTY 2ND FILING PDP/FC - TYPE I, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Bob Barkeen Topic: General Number: 69 Created: 1 /24/2005 [6/23/05] [1/24/05] The neighborhood center will need to be shown on the final compliance plans similar to the PDP. Topic: Neighborhood Center Number: 24 Created: 4/20/2004 [6/23/05] [4/20/04] The neighborhood Center within the project needs to begin taking shape. Permitted uses will need to be identified, building footprints based on allowable setbacks, parking locations, drive cuts, utilities stubbed to the site, etc. The center shouldn't be final designed. Ideally, enough information should be included consistant with PDP level of review, to allow future uses to be processed as a minor amendment. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Cross Sections Number: 92 Created: 1 /28/2005 [6/14/051 1 did not receive the cross slope exhibit redlines from the last round of review or the corrected exhibit to review. This issue remains open. Comments under the Plan and Profile section will change most of the cross sections previously submitted and will need to be reviewed as a new submittal. [1/28/05] See redlines for the cross slope exhibit comments. Some areas outside the transition areas do not meet the minimum 2% cross slope requirement. Thank you for the exhibit, it really made reviewing the design easy!! Topic: Erosion Control Number: 77 Created: 1/28/2005 [6/14/05] [1/28/051 Erosion Control Plan - Unscannable. Will need to provide a grading and temp construction easement for all offsite work. Topic: General Number: 14 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/15/05] [1/27/05] Some of the sheets were illegible and may have more detailed comments to follow with the next submittal once the text becomes clear. [5/25/04] [4/19/04] See Appendix E6 for all scanning requirements and bring the plans sets into conformance. Number: 20 Created: 4/20/2004 Page 1