Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUCKINGHAM PLACE, 2ND FILING - PDP/FDP - FDP120019 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3) April 25, 2013 Response to Commens: Buckingham Place, Second Filing, FDP120019, Round Number 2 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970‑224‑6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 The site walls now shown on the plans need to be shifted so that the face of the walls are at least three feet from the side lot lines, in order to maintain a less abrupt transition to the neighboring properties. The southern wall needs to be extend further east so that the ground slope is more gradual. The slope appears to be at 2:1 in some areas. Please add existing topo labels and contours (or additional existing spot elevations) to adjacent properties to the north and south so that the grade transition is clear. Response: Please see the revised plans. The wall has now been shifted as requested and additional contour and elevations have been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 A detailed wall section is needed showing material specification, drainage, reinforcement, underdrain, etc. Show adjacent swales and adjacent side property line. Show step locations and spot elevations on the site plan. Versa‑Lok "Weathered Mosaic" is recommended as a long lasting material with a pattern and texture of residential character. Response: We added the spot elevation information and grading information on the site and landscape plan, as well as on the grading plan in the utility plan set. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/13/2013 It's not clear from the landscape plan exactly how much fill is being placed over the two existing ash trees on lot 2. It appears that they will need to be removed or repositioned, as well as the 6" caliper linden. Also of concern is the impact of the fill and retaining wall on the adjacent cottonwoods to the south. The three foot offset of the wall should help with this, and additional gravel backfill behind the wall may also help. Please contact Tim Buchanan for a site visit to verify the appropriate solution for these details. Response: Troy Jones followed up with an on-site meeting with Tim Buchanan on the site on April 11th. Tim identified the species and condition, and specified how he would like the impacts to be handled. The revised landscape plan reflects Tim’s input in these matters. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970‑221‑6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 3/6/2013: Sheet C9 ‑ Label the flowline of the curb and gutter for the existing side of the cross section. 12/11/2012: Sheet C7 ‑ Please provide additional information on the cross sections, label the following; centerline and flowline for both. Correct some error in leaders and line over text. Response: The cross sections have been revised as requested. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C1 ‑ Revise the City signature block to the standard block, see redlines. The typical cross section should be revised to include what improvements are occuring in the "ultimate" design. Response: The signature block has been revised as requested. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C3 ‑ This sheet appears to be missing some layers that may have been turned off, please label the storm pipe. Response: This sheet has been revised to show all items in the ultimate condition after full build out of 3rd Street. In addition sheet C4 has been added to show the interim utility and site condition before 3rd Street and the Coy Ditch are relocated. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C3 ‑ easements may be required for the water meters. Is it the intent that the Coy Ditch will also be a utility easement? Response: We are showing a 3’ utility easement behind the right of way now. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C3 ‑ There is overhead electric in front of the property. Please explore what will be required for this project to relocate the overhead electric now or in the future. Conduits, easements, etc.? Response: Doug Martine says the overhead lines are phone and cable, and the electric is already underground. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C6 ‑ Provide more labels for existing contours. Show the relocated Coy Ditch linework on this sheet. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C6 ‑ Letter of intent will need to be provided prior to hearing from adjacent property owners if "landscape wall" can't be constructed without affecting their property. Judging by the grades in the area it appears the landscape wall will be a fairly signifcant retaining wall that may require a footing and foundation. Additional detail on the wall will need to be provided at time of final submittal. Response: Landscape wall has been moved 3’ inside the property lines so it will not have an effect on neighboring property owners. It will be a simple landscape block wall as shown in more detail on the Site Plan. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C7 ‑ Please revise grading in front of the lot to straight grade to front of the lot. I spoke with Stormwater and they are acceptable to drainage to follow historic patterns of draining to ditch for the interim condition. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Sheet C7 ‑ Please show on the plan or explain how contours are tie‑ing on site as it appears that many of them may need to tie in offsite. If grading is to happen offsite then an grading or construction easement would be required from that property owner. Response: There is no offsite grading planned with this project. Proposed and existing contours have been updated to reflect a tie in at the property line. Topic: General Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970‑221‑6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 3/6/2013: As was discussed prior to resubmittal, the project will be able to make payment in lieu for the frontage improvements and Coy Ditch relocation. This payment will most likely have 3 parts; the local street portion which is $204/lf of frontage, an engineers estimate to construct the new Coy Ditch location and an engineers estimate to abandon the Coy Ditch in the right of way. 12/11/2012: Engineering and transportation staff will need to discuss internally the applicant's desire to escrow funds for the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and Coy Ditch. Recent direction has been to no longer escrow for future construction. Response: An engineer’s estimate is included which shows 2 parts; the local street portion and the new Coy Ditch location. The third part was not included at this time. It seems that the costs to abandon the Coy Ditch in place, would be included in the $204/lf of frontage road improvements since this is within the right of way. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 12/11/2012: A signature block for the Coy Ditch will need to be added to the cover of the plat since an easement is being dedicated per this plat. Response: The following language has been added to the Coy Ditch Signature block: COY DITCH EASEMENT: This plat does hereby convey a 15 foot wide ditch easement to the Coy Ditch, for the purpose of conveyance of irrigation water by relocating the Coy Ditch out of the street right-of-way, into a pipe along the frontage of this development.  An owners association is intended to be established for the purposes of maintaining the improvements to the Coy Ditch, as proposed on these plans, at such time the ditch is relocated per the plans.  It is intended that the owner of each lot be responsible for the upkeep of landscaping on their lot, within the Coy Ditch Easement. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Is there specific Coy Ditch easement language that needs to be included on the plat. For example anything to pertains to specifics regarding Landscaping allowed in easement, maintenance, etc? Response: Please see the revised language above the Coy Ditch signature block on the plat. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970‑221‑6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: the TDRF for this project were overpaid. The total PDP and PDP fee for the two single family lot development would be $2,000. A refund will be processed to return $1, 388.87. Response: Thank you. What do we need to do to finalize this? Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970‑224‑6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/07/2012 12/07/2012: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970‑221‑6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 12/12/2012: No Comments. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Please add tree protection notes in LUC 3.2.1 G Response: Revised. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970‑221‑6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Contact the City Forester for a n on‑site meeting to verify existing tree locations, species and condition. Response: Troy Jones followed up with an on-site meeting with Tim Buchanan on the site on April 11th. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970‑224‑6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/21/2013 02/21/2013: The existing streetlight and electric vault near the N.W. corner of the site will need to be relocated at the developer's expense to just behind the curb . The landscape plan needs to show this light, and street tree locations adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 feet of clearance between the light and the tree (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type). Response: We are now showing an interim condition, where the ditch stays as-is, and the light pole and vault also stay as-is. In this interim condition, we propose no street trees. We are also showing an ultimate condition, where the ditch pipe is installed and then the light pole and vault would be moved. In this ultimate condition, we propose street trees, and have ensured that the closest tree to the light pole is an ornamental tree which is over 15 feet from the light pole. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/21/2013 02/21/2013: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements and electric development charges with Light & Power Engineering (970)221‑6700. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970‑218‑2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/04/2013 03/04/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq‑ft therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970‑218‑2932 or email @ HYPERLINK "mailto:jschlam@fcgov.com" jschlam@fcgov.com Response: Erosion control plans and a report have been included with this submittal. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 03/08/2013: The grading plan submitted is adequate. At time of building permit, if the plot plan is different than the site plan building footprint, a revised grading plan shall be submitted and approved before issuance of the building permit. 12/11/2012: Please provide a more detailed grading plan with the building footprint shown. Response: Noted, thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 03/08/2013: Reminder comment. 12/11/2012: The irrigation company is required to sign the Utility Plans. Response: Noted, thank you. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013 03/08/2013: The retaining walls are very close to the property line. It needs to be shown that no part of the wall or footing is on adjoining properties and that they can be constructed without access onto the adjoining properties. The walls may need to be moved more interior to the site. Response: We have moved the retaining walls back away from the property lines. All construction activities for the retaining walls can be accomplished on-site, without disturbing the neighboring properties. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013 03/08/2013: Retaining walls 4 feet or higher require a building permit and a sturctural design to be submitted and approved. Part of these wall look to be very close to the 4 feet. Response: We intend to use VERSA-LOK Mosaic Retaining Wall System for these retaining walls, which we intend to keep shorter than 4 feet in height. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 03/04/2013: This has been added, but the legal description does not match the Subdivision Plat. The Plat's legal description was changed since the last review. 12/12/2012: Please add "City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado" to the legal description. This legal description should match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 03/04/2013: This benchmark has been removed from sheet C2. Please provide a second benchmark for the plans, per requirement I (G) of the City of Fort Collins "Requirements For Utility Plans". 12/12/2012: The description of benchmark R 402 does not match the NGS & City of Fort Collins description. Please change this. Response: Second benchmark has been added as requested. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 03/04/2013: There are still text over text issues on what was sheet C6 and is now sheet C8. 12/12/2012: There are text over text issues on sheet C6. Response: Revised as requested. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 12/11/2012: The boundary and legal description close. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 12/11/2012: Please make sure that you are using the most current plat language. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012 12/11/2012: Please add a signature block for the owners of the Coy Ditch accepting the easement dedication. Response: The following language has been added to the Coy Ditch Signature block: COY DITCH EASEMENT: This plat does hereby convey a 15 foot wide ditch easement to the Coy Ditch, for the purpose of conveyance of irrigation water by relocating the Coy Ditch out of the street right-of-way, into a pipe along the frontage of this development.  An owners association is intended to be established for the purposes of maintaining the improvements to the Coy Ditch, as proposed on these plans, at such time the ditch is relocated per the plans.  It is intended that the owner of each lot be responsible for the upkeep of landscaping on their lot, within the Coy Ditch Easement. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 03/05/2013: This has not been addressed. Board Rule 6.10 states "all recorded and apparent R.O.W.'s and easements should be depicted regardless of the client's wishes". Either include title commitment information or remove your disclaimer. 12/12/2012: Please review C.R.S. 38‑51‑106 (1)(b) & (1)(k) and Board Rule 6.10, and revise Note #2 accordingly. Response: We have now obtained a title commitment, and have revised this accordingly. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 03/05/2013 03/05/2013: Is the name of the signatory for the Coy Ditch, Dorthy spelled correctly? Response: You’re right, the proper spelling is “Dorothy.” Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012 03/04/2013: This has been added, but the legal description does not match the Subdivision Plat. The Plat's legal description was changed since the last review. 12/12/2012: Please add "City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado" to the legal description. This legal description should match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Revised as requested. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970‑221‑6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012 12/13/2012: Sht C2, Traffic Notes: Please revise all instances of the phrase "the City of Fort Collins Engineer" to read "the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer". This is a permanent Traffic Notes change. Please revise your Traffic Notes file accordingly. Response: Revised as requested. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012 12/13/2012: TIS was waived for this project. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Water‑Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970‑221‑6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: Label the curb stops. Response: The curb stops have been labeled. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013 03/06/2013: The curb stops and meter pits must be in easement or R.O.W. Response: A 3’ utility easement has been added to include the meter pits. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970‑416‑2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 02/21/2013: Street name still not shown on site plan sheet (sheet 2 of 3) 11/19/2012: label the street name on the site plan sheet. Response: Street name is now shown.