HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTHEAST FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK - PDP - PDP140014 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSland planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement
September 2, 2015
Clark Mapes
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College
Fort Collins, CO
RE: Southeast Fort Collins Community Park, PDP140014, Round Number 2
If have any questions regarding the responses in red contact Robin Rooney with Civitas Inc.
For responses in blue please contact Mike Oberlander at Interwest Engineering
For responses in purple please contact Gopal Shrestha at RB+B Architects
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015
05/26/2015: Plan components labels: It's difficult/impossible to tell what some
of the plan components are - we can clarify at the meeting. Some aren't crucial
to LUC review or the hearing, but a few more labels might be worthwhile to
make final plans a bit more understandable for long term use.
Response: We have added additional information for 09.02.2015 submittal.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: From FC-Loveland Water District and SFC Sanitation District: The
District does not allow trees, extensive landscaping, structures, etc. within 10
feet of District facilities or within District easements. The District will require a
permanent and temporary construction easement for the installation of a 24-inch
waterline. The property will need to petition into the sanitation District with a
$50 per acre fee. There is a reimbursement for connection to the water
infrastructure of approximately $62,566.76 as of September 3, 2014. There is
an interest rate factor that will increase over time. The District will require
another review of plans to resolve these comments.
Response: We will verify that all structures and trees maintain the above minimum distances. This will be finalized
at FDP Plan review set.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
05/27/2015: Please verify that the directional ramps that cross Ziegler Road
lines up with the existing ramps on Sage Creek Road.
Response: A view of the Sage Creek / Ziegler intersection has been added to the right turn lane plan and profile (sheet
16-PP1).
09/09/2014: The proposed driveway to the parking lot on Ziegler road appears
too close to the existing ADA ramp connecting to Sage Creek Road. This may
need to be rebuilt with the construction of the proposed driveway. Please see
LCUASS Drawing 707 for driveway details. This detail will be required for final
plans.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 2 of 11
05/27/2015: The proposed diagonal parking along Saber Cat Drive appears to
be on Poudre School District Property. An offsite easement will be required to
complete this work. If half of the drive is owned by the applicant, please show
the correct property line boundaries.
Response: City Survey is checking into prior documentation for a joint access agreement between the school and the
City along Saber Cat Drive. John Von Nieda is assisting us in this process.
09/09/2014: Plans call for work outside the property limits. There is a section
on the southeast corner of the property where the pond, walk and boardwalk are
proposed that lie outside the limits that belong to the Poudre School District. A
letter or an agreement will be required to develop on their property.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
05/27/2015: The ADA ramp at this intersection will need to move further south
to accommodate the ramp flares. See redlines.
Response: The ramp has been shifted south.
09/09/2014: An ADA ramp(s) will need to be added to the intersection of Lady
Moon Drive and Saber Cat Drive where a proposed crosswalk will be added
across of Lady Moon Drive. See Redlines (Sheet UT-08). This detail will be
required in the final plans.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Please show the location of the subdrain, cleanouts and point of
subdrain discharge from the Harvest Park Subdivision to the east on the Utility
Plans. The subdrain location can be found on the Utility Plans for Harvest Park,
sheets 124-126.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Please label Saber Cat Drive as a "Private Drive" on all sheets in
the Utility, Landscape & Site Plan.
Response: Saber Cat Drive has been labeled as a “Private Drive” on all sheets.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Plans show a future 24" water main extension and easement by
Fort Collins Loveland Water District. Is there an existing Utility Alignment or
easement? If this waterline is not going to be installed with this project, please
omit this detail from the Utility Plans.
Response: Terry Farrill with FCLWD requested that this future water main extension be shown on the plans. An
easement for this main will be processed by separate document with final design.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Please show the ROW and property boundaries along Kechter
Road and Ziegler Road. The public sidewalk along these streets appears to be
on the property. Please show all alignment boundaries for the sidewalks as well
as all Utility Alignments throughout the project. Future alignments will be needed
for any fire lanes, drainage areas, rain gardens, etc. Please show these
boundaries on the Utility Plan.
Response: The existing ROW shown is accurate. When the improvements on the north side of Kechter - including the
roundabout - were constructed, no additional right of way was dedicated because the city owned the property. City
Survey (John Von Nieda) has confirmed that we are showing the existing ROW and property lines correctly. Additional
ROW along Ziegler will be required for the right turn lanes as well. This is being coordinated through the City Surveying
department. An emergency access easement has been shown for the fire access. Drainage easements have not
been requested from stormwater.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: The exact layout for the angled parking will be discussed internally.
If allowed, outflow curb will be required in these areas. Spot elevations in these
areas will be needed to ensure that there is proper drainage.
Response: Outflow curb has been proposed. See the preliminary plan and profile for the outflow curb at the flowline
and the 4’ pan on sheet 18-PP-3.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Please show the angled parking on Lady Moon Drive in concrete,
not asphalt.
Response: The parking is shown as concrete
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 3 of 11
Response: The sidewalk layout has been revised. See the typical section on sheet 18-PP-3
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Please show sidewalk cut limits on the Utility Plan for the addition
of the angled parking. Show the existing sidewalk vs new sidewalk along Lady
Moon Drive.
Response: Proposed sawcut lines have been added to the utility plan and street plan and profile.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: I have received and reviewed the ECS and preliminary plans - this
project is ready for hearing from an Environmental Planning perspective. I will
review the proposed landscape materials, e.g., seed mixes, at time of final.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/29/2015: Continued comment from 9/10/14
Response: This is included on sheet LD-02. This spacing is identical to Larimer County Fair Grounds.
09/10/2014:
Provide a typical detail for the orchard planting. It would be helpful to display the
following in this detail. Display a few rows that can define distance between
rows, distance between trees, the dimension of the mulch rows that include the
tree rows, dimension of grass rows between tree mulch rows and the locations
where landscape fabric will be used. Consider following dimensions of the
community orchard at the Larimer County Fair Grounds to the extent feasible.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/29/2015: Comment continued from 9/10/15. The mitigation tree number
appears to be 41.5. Mitigation trees are not clearly identified in the deciduous
tree list on sheet LL00.
Response: Mitigation tree symbols have been revised to include “M” within each symbol in plan view, as well as the
legend. The correct number of trees is in the plans, and the calipers are accurate.
09/10/2014:
Check to see that the required 51 up-sized mitigation trees are provided.
Indicate which trees are designated as mitigation trees in the plant list on sheet
LL-00 and on the landscape sheets. Placing an M by mitigation tree labeling on
the landscape sheets is a standard way of mark mitigation trees. Sizes for
mitigation trees should meet or exceed the following minimum sizes.
Canopy shade trees 3.0-inch caliper
Ornamental trees 2.5-inch caliper
Conifer trees 8 feet height
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/29/2015: Comment continued from 09/10/14 only for item 6.
Response: We are providing 45 fruit trees in this plan. This number has been verified and reviewed by City Park
Planning staff.
09/10/2014:
Tree location Comments:
1. Only 31 of the 561 are conifers. Explore if a significant increase in the use of
conifers if feasible within the design intent of the project so as to provide more
winter interest and increased contrast between tree forms. Greater mixing in of
conifer trees in the design along perimeter areas of the park and in strategic
location in interior zones should be considered. Two addition large conifer
species that could be considered are blue spruce and southwest white pine.
2. Explore if greater use of ornamental trees in strategic locations is feasible
within the design intent of the project to provide increased seasonal color and
contrast. Ornamental trees are currently concentrated in defined zones
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 4 of 11
3. Please review the street tree planting requirements in LUC 3.2.1 D 2 and
provide street trees in all adjacent parkways.
4. Show street light locations and all underground utilities on the landscape plan.
Provide tree locations that meet the separation standards in LUC 3.2.1 K.
5. Review the parking lot landscape standards in LUC D 4-6. The density of
trees between parking lots and public streets and screening is described.
Review the application of these standards to this project with Clark Mapes in
the City Planning Department and provide screening and trees as required.
6. There appears to be an opportunity to provide a greater number of fruit trees
for the community orchard component of this project. Can some ornamental
trees be changed to fruit trees or can an increased area of the park be used for
the community orchard?
7. Evaluate what the distance between fruit tree rows should be. Twenty feet
between trees and tree rows could work for the growth of semi-dwarf fruit trees
but providing 30 feet between trees rows with 20 feet between trees in the row
provides for better visibility through the orchards and improved maintenance
access.
8. On sheet LL-06 explore providing a greater diversity of tree species in the
area between the sidewalk and parking lot. It appears that only one species is
used in this area. The use of some conifer trees in this area could be beneficial
to the design for screening and visual interest.
9. On sheet LL-07 in the tree band/rows there is a large group of either elm or
Catalpa; unsure as to species with the symbol used. This large group of 18
trees could be broken in to two groups using two different species with one
group of 6 trees and one group of 12 trees.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/29/2015: Comment continued from 09/10/2014 for items 4,5,6,8, and 13.
Response: #4 We have added in Thunderchild Crabapple, and Hot Wings Tatarian Maple.
#5 We are working through Fruit Tree selection currently with Fort Collins Wholesale Nursery. We will
include a final list in our FDP Submittal.
#6 See response in #5
#8 Ulmus ‘Accoldate’ is being proposed. We are not using Prospector Elm.
#13 We have included both Quercus gambelli, and Prunus virginiana melanocarpa in the plans.
09/10/2014:
Species and Size Comments:
1. Native serviceberry is a large shrub and should be specified either by
height/15 gallon container of by height/B&B.
2. Forestry prefers the use of Skyline honeylocust to Shademaster honeylocust.
Change all of the honeylocust to the cultivar Skyline or a mix of the two cultivars.
3. Please change Indian Summer crabapple to Radiant crabapple.
4. The following are a few other good ornamental trees to consider for use in the
park.
Thunder Child crabapple
Red Barron crabapple where an upright form ornamental be needed.
Hotwings Tatarian maple
5. Specify fruit trees as semi-dwarf to facilitate harvesting by citizens.
6. Additional discussion will need to occur on the selection of fruit tree cultivars.
The process should include the project manager setting up meetings with some
fruit tree experts and Forestry staff. Forestry can provide suggestions on
experts to use for this consultation. Discussion with these fruit tree professionals
can also evaluate if specifying fruit trees at 2.5-inch caliper should be the
standard or if another size should be used.
7. Amur Chokecherry has not proven to be a very durable tree in Fort Collins
environment. Forestry asks that it be substituted with Russian hawthorn or
another adapted xeric species.
8. It is unclear from the tree symbols if Prospector elm is used on the plan. If
elms are to be used then the following are two species/cultivars that Forestry is
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 5 of 11
9. Please use more bur oak on the project. It appears that bur oak could be
used in place of some of the hackberry and possibly some of the catalpa at
locations where these species are used. It could also possibly be used for
some additional shade trees for the project. Specify bur oak in the plant list as
Bullet Gall Resistant by placing this by its name in the plant list.
10. Please closely evaluate increasing the diversity of conifer trees used. Blue
spruce and southwest white pine should be considered to increase conifer
diversity and to provide a greater conifer percentage compared to total trees
used.
11. One-seed juniper is specified at 10-12 feet. It may be very difficult to find
this species in larger sizes. Specifying it at 6-7 feet is recommended.
12. Please check the numbers of species listed in the plant list for accuracy and
make any needed adjustments for the next submittal.
13. Consider use of Gambel oak and chokecherry in the native grass area.
These are excellent drought tolerant native plants that also provide wildlife
benefits.
14. Change Northern Red Oak to Shumard Oak. These species are very similar
but Shumard Oak tolerates the alkaline soils in Fort Collins but Northern Red
Oak does not.
15. Redbud is not a highly xeric plant and some seed sources are not fully cold
hardy. Consider using Yellow-Horn ¿Clear Creek¿ (Xanthoceras sorbifolia) in
the native grass areas where redbud is currently shown. Yellow-Horn has very
good spring flowers and excellent drought tolerance.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/11/2014
05/29/2015: Comment continued from 09/11/2014
Response: We have verified through additional site walks with the City and Forestry the existing trees on site. We have
revised the base plans accordingly.
09/11/2014:
There appear to be some inaccuracies in the tree inventory information on
SP-02 particularly at the west end of the site in reference to some tree
locations, species and intent to remove or retain. Also there are existing street
trees along Saber Cat and some other existing landscape trees along the north
boundary and the east area by the pond that are not shown on Tree Evaluation
Sheet SP-02 that will need to be inventoried.
Please contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to review and refine the
tree inventory information. All existing trees will need to be accurately shown by
location with the species, size, condition, intent to protect or remove and
mitigation recorded. This also includes all landscape and street trees that are
located on the site.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/11/2014
05/29/2015: Comment continued from 09/11/2014
Response:There will not be any grading within the drip line of existing trees to remain. The grading plan has been
revised.
09/11/2014:
Will there be any grading or grade changes within the drip line of any of the
existing trees to retain? Please provide information describing grade changes
within the drip line of existing trees to retain and review with the City Forester. It
is recommended that this be reviewed in an on-site meeting with Forestry staff.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015
05/29/2015:
Set up a meeting with the City Forester and Assistant City Forester to discuss
and receive some additional detail comments on the recent plans.
Response: We have met with Forestry.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015
05/29/2015: Please add these notes under the following heading.
Response: We have included the below notes on sheet LL-00
Required Meetings and Warrantee:
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 6 of 11
3. Contractor shall arrange for regular inspections during installation with the
owners representative.
4. Substantial completion inspections shall be scheduled by the landscape
contractor. Punch list items shall be identified and provided to the landscape
contractor by owner. Punch list items to be corrected within two weeks of
identification.
5. Landscape contractor shall provide a two year warrantee on plant material,
including trees and irrigation. Landscape contractor shall schedule two
inspections per year with the owner’s representatives of all trees, landscape
plants and irrigation, one in June and one in September, during the two year
warrantee period.
6.The landscape contractor shall schedule a final inspection with the owner’s
representatives at the end of the two year warrantee period.
7. Landscape contractor shall replace trees and landscape plants found to have
died or in poor condition at any of the site inspections a directed by the owner’s
representative. Plant replacements shall be made within two weeks of
identification unless directed otherwise by the owner’s representative.
Any tree or landscape plant that is replaced after the final installation inspection
shall have a full warrantee provided by the landscape contractor for minimum of
one year or to the end of the two year maintenance/warrantee period whichever
is longer. This may involve providing a warrantee on individually identified plants
that have been replaced during the two year warrantee period that extends past
the completion of the two year maintenance/warrantee period.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015
05/29/2015:
The Forestry Division has revised tree protection specifications for City
projects. These tree protection specifications will be provided to Park Planning
staff either by email or at the meeting requested in comment number 16. Please
place the tree portection specifications on the tree inventory sheet SP 02 in
place of those on sheet LL 00 if possible.
Response: We have included the most current information on sheet SP-03 in this submittal.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/29/201505/29/2015:
Change note number 12 under tree protection notes to reflect the following.
Since the Forestry Division is uncertain if we can meet all the demand for mulch
with several current capital project this is what we are asking.
Projects should specify wood mulch to be provided by the contractor and made
part of the bid. At the time a project is ready to be mulched the PM can check
with Del Bernhardt Forestry Supervisor to see Forestry mulch will be available
to the project. If it is determined at the time of the inquiry that Forestry mulch can
be provided then the contractor can arrange pick up at the Forestry wood lot
and coordinate that with Del.
Please check all of your project specification to be sure mulch is specified to be
provided by the contractor and not Forestry. The project will then have a bid
price in the event that Forestry cannot supply the mulch.
Response: We have revised this on LL-00.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Light & Power has existing facilities running along the West side of
Lady Moon Dr. and along the South side of Kechter Rd. Electric facilities along
Ziegler Rd. are in the roadway. Any relocation or modification to existing
electric facilities will be at the applicant's expense.
Response: Acknowledged. Approximate location of electric facilities along Ziegler and Kechter have been
shown. Locates will be ordered prior to construction to verify these alignments in the field.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and system
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 7 of 11
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Will single-phase or three-phase power be needed for the park?
Response: Three-phase power will be used.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Coordinate a transformer location with Light & Power Engineering
within 10' of a paved surface. Submit a C-1 Form and One-line diagram to
Light & Power Engineering for review.
Response: Design team will work to coordinate transformer location
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: Please take a look at the following link for Electric Construction
Policies, Practices and Procedures. Any questions or comments contact Light
& Power Engineering @ 970-221-6700.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Thank you for the link.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015
05/26/2015: CUL-DE-SACS
The dead-end, park access road terminating in a Cul-de-sac is approximately
880' in length. Dead-end roads in excess of 660' typically require a second
point of access. The fire marshal would like investigate the possibility of
designing the sidewalk connection between the Cul-de-sac and Kechter Road
to support fire apparatus and serve as a second access point. Further
discussion is recommended. Code language provided below.
FCLUC 3.6.2(B): Cul-de-sacs are permitted only if they do not exceed 660 feet
in length and have a turnaround at the end with a minimum outside turning
radius of 50 feet (100 foot diameter).
Response: We are currently showing a second point of access off of Kechter Road. This is 12’ wide concrete walk. The
southern end will have a gated entry for fire access.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/26/2015: Some of the detail has been addresses but proposed grading
does not show how these trenches will capture runoff. More detail is needed on
the Grading Plan and Trench Detail.
Response: The french drain detail has been revised to show a 6” depression above the trench and underdrain to help
capture runoff.
09/10/2014: More info in required on the WQ trench. Plans state "filtration of
sediment will occur." Is there media that is to be used to filtrate? The method
will need to be considered a LID design. It does not appear that the trench will
intercept most flows.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/26/2015: Not resolved. Will a snout and sump be enough to adequately
handle the possible large amount of sediment that could be transported from
this site? Calculations or manufacturer's specifications may be necessary in
this area.
Response: The snout and sump is still proposed to help with maintenance. The primary treatment for this area will be
the irrigation pond east of Lady Moon. The runoff from the BMX will be conveyed to the existing storm system that
discharges into the irrigation pond. The pond has no outfall so all sediment will be detained in this pond. There is a
joint maintenance agreement in place between the City and the district to maintain the pond.
09/10/2014: Need to see info on the BMX WQ facility prior to approval on PDP
plans.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 8 of 11
05/26/2015: Not resolved.
Response: Porous pavement is proposed. The park is only able to provide 18% porous pavement in practical
locations. A variance request has been provided with the drainage report.
09/10/2014: City staff will not support a variance request to the 25% porous
pavement requirement.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/26/2015: No modeling submitted.
Response: Modeling has been submitted to and reviewed by Shane Boyle.
09/10/2014: Eliminating the quantity detention requirements must be verified to
be approved with SW Master Planning by submittal of modeling supporting a
variance request.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
05/26/2015: Appears to be proposed but needs more detail.
Response: A french drain system is proposed on the downhill side of the dog park.
09/12/2014: Provide WQ treatment for the dog park area.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
05/26/2015: More detail needed.
Response: We are protecting the last 70’ of the existing drainage swale outfall that runs adjacent to Ziegler and
discharges into the creek. Protecting the existing outfall in place will sustain the stability and eliminate erosion control
concerns. All other point outfalls (pipe systems) have riprap outfall protection. Detailed design of these outfalls will be
completed with the final design plans.
09/12/2014: Please define 100-year conveyance into the creek to address
stability and erosion control concerns. Provide detailed design for stabilized
drainageway improvements (i.e. riprap level spreader).
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
05/26/2015: Modeling is referenced but not included. Who revised the model
and when?
Response: This has been addressed in the drainage report.
09/12/2014: From the offsite drainage section, modeling is required to support
going from 3-30" to 2-30" RCPs. Contact Shane Boyle (221-6339) for
questions or assistance with modeling.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
05/26/2015: Channel design is now shown. Is the intent to regrade the entire
channel or are there sections where the banks will be left undisturbed? Please
highlight areas where the thalweg will be realigned.
Response: The channel design has been reviewed with Shane Boyle
09/12/2014: Please show channel design in utility plans.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan
with corrected redlines, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security
Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any
questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: Acknowledged. An erosion control report will be provided with final design.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
05/26/2015: The requested linework appears to be shown on the Site Plan but
is not labeled.
On the site plan; show the location and label the existing and proposed
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 9 of 11
boundaries of the McClellands Creek 100-year floodway, and the erosion buffer
zone.
Response: These are labeled on the site plan.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/26/2015: No floodplain modeling report submitted.
The floodplain modeling report which is being proposed must be prepared in
conformance with the City's new Floodplain Modeling Guidelines. These
guidelines can be found at the following address:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/Floodplain_Modeling_R
eport_Guidelines.pdf
Response: A floodplain modeling report has been submitted and reviewed by Shane Boyle.
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015
05/26/2015: Please see redlines for additional minor comments.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/26/2015: Plan sheets that are in color are not acceptable.
Response: Plan sheets have been revised and are printed in black and white.
09/08/2014: No comments.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/26/2015: There is a problem with one of the elevations. See redlines.
Response: Will address at FDP.
09/08/2014: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please
provide elevations for both the NAVD88 & NGVD29 (Unadjusted) datums, state
the project datum, and provide an equation to get from NAVD88 to NGVD29
Unadjusted, i.e. NAVD88 = NGVD29 Unadjusted + _______.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015
05/26/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet numbers. See redlines.
Response: These are addressed.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015
05/26/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: Will address at FDP.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/26/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: These are addressed.
09/08/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/26/2015: There are other issues with the matchlines. See redlines.
Response: These are addressed.
09/08/2014: Please correct the spelling of "matchline" on all sheets.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/26/2015: There is still text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See
redlines.
Response: This text is addressed.
09/08/2014: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/26/2015: This has been done, but the sheets need to be numbered. See
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 10 of 11
redlines.
Response: Sheet numbers is addressed.
09/08/2014: Please change all sheets to be titled Landscape. See redlines.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015
05/26/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: Text issues are addressed.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Response: Text issues are addressed.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: The sheet titles are confusing. There is a landscape layout & site
plans. We would prefer these all be called lighting plans or lighting layout.
Response: These are relabeled.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/27/2015: This has not been corrected. Is this sheet the cover sheet for the
Site & Landscape Plans? It looks like an Overall Landscape Plan.
Response: We have requested this information and will include in the FDP submittal on a cover sheet for the
project. Sheet LS-00 is a site and landscape cover sheet.
09/08/2014: Please add a legal description for the project property to sheet
LS-00.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
05/27/2015: There is still text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See
redlines.
Response: Text issues have been addressed.
09/08/2014: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response: Text issues have been addressed.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/11/2015
06/11/2015: Please work with FCMoves and Engineering on the design of the
parking (and adjacent bike lane) along Lady Moon.
Response: This area has been redesigned after coordination with FC Moves.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
06/11/2015: Please plan on constructing at least the two lanes that are
adjacent to the Park (NB right turns along Ziegler at the Access and Saber Cat)
Response: Two right hand turn lanes have been added, one at the park entry , and one at Saber Cat.
05/27/2015: The revised TIS acknowledges the warrant for three right turn
lanes, and in fact the analysis in the TIS assumes that these lanes are built. This
needs further discussion and at least some of these lanes may well need to be
constructed.
Response: See above, after conversations with Martina, we have included (2) of the (3) discussed in the TIS.
09/10/2014: The geometry text on page 32 acknowledges that the threshold for
several right turn auxiliary lanes is met. The text doesn't indicate what the
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 2 Responses
September 2, 2015
Page 11 of 11
standard is, and by how far this projects exceeds it. The text does recommend
the requirement be waived. The geometry figure and the conclusions of the
report make no mention of this. It would be helpful for the report to clearly spell
out the standard, what is the volume anticipated, why a waiver is appropriate,
and that should be noted in the conclusions.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/27/2015: The pedestrian crossing of Ziegler (type and location) needs to be
addressed.
Response: This is still under evaluation with Traffic Operation Department and is not included as a part of this project
at this time.
09/10/2014: There is substantial interest in bike and ped access to the park. In
addition to the basic statement that the LOS for bike and ped is acceptable, an
evaluation of connections, and understanding where there are gaps would
address some of the questions we're getting.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/26/2015: Still outstanding.
Response: Trash and recycling will be collected within the park and taken to the new maintenance facility still under
design on the northeast corner of Ziegler and Saber Cat.
09/10/2014: How will trash and recycling be
handled?
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
05/26/2015: The entire site plan could use more detail, labels would really help.
Response: We have included more labels.
09/10/2014: Are the bicycle racks shown on the site plan? Please label them.
modification charges where applicable will apply.
1. Contractor shall hold a Pre-construction meeting with representatives of the
City of Fort Collins.
2. Contractor shall arrange for owner to inspect plant material before planting at
either the nursery or on site.
accepting on City projects.
Accolade Elm Ulmus sp. ¿Accolade¿
David Elm ¿Fort Collins Select¿ Ulmus davidiana ¿Fort Collins Select¿
Available only in smaller quantities on a annual basis
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015
05/27/2015: The minimum sidewalk width in front of the angled parking on Lady
Moon Drive is 7'. This includes a 2' overhang for parked vehicles. Please show
this on the Utility Plan.