HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTHEAST FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK - PDP - PDP140014 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement
May 11, 2015
Clark Mapes
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Southeast Fort Collins Community Park, PDP140014, Round Number 1
Description of project: This is a request to develop a new park at the northeast corner of Kechter Road
and Ziegler Road (Parcel # 86040-00-932). The park may contain areas for sports fields, baseball diamonds,
trails, restrooms, a community garden and a dog park over the 53.7 acre site. The parcel is located in the
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. The project is subject to Administrative (Type I)
review.
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 green please contact Matt Delich at Delich Associates.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General and 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: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: 09/10/2014: The pedestrian network as shown raises questions discussed at the
meeting:
a. The west sidewalk access at Sage Creek Drive is minimal and incongruous with the remainder of the
park and walkway system. It appears to need significant additional design attention. The swale and
culvert crossing should be revised to allow for detached sidewalks on both side of the drive. This creates
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 2 of 15
an opportunity to frame the access drive with trees to highlight the entry. This is not a place to skimp on
the parkway – 8’ would allow for ease of maintenance and create a generous effect. The area outside of
the sidewalk should then be considered. It would be a striking effect if the sidewalks were lined with trees
on both sides. (Each sidewalk a short allee; and significant seasonal effect from the block of trees created
by the four rows.) This would require revised grading and longer culvert pipes.
b. Access to the restrooms is not clear, but to the extent it can be discerned it appears very indirect – the
restrooms are shown surrounded by grass.
c. This west area in general appears to warrant significant clarification about redundant sidewalks in some
areas and lack of sidewalk connections along logical desire lines, per discussion and marked plans at the
meeting.
d. The paved area at the south loading zone needs to be clarified.
e. A walkway appears superimposed over steep banks of the creek in a couple of locations.
Response: N/A Please see revised plans
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Please adjust the plans so that they are easier to read. This may include omitting
certain items like fields, shelters, playground equipment, etc. Another option could be
minimizing the overall thickness of the existing and proposed floodplain lines or to create an
overall utility plan with subsequent sheets going into more detail.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: The Site Plan currently shows pavers in the certain parking stalls in both parking
lots, however, they are not present on the Utility Plans. Please adjust the Utility Plans so that
they are consistent. Please see redlines.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Please show all existing and proposed ADA ramps on the Utility Plans.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Please provide utility plan approval signature blocks on all sheets
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: A legend is required on each sheet identifying the symbols that are being used on
each particular sheet.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Since there are more than three utility sheets, please provide a key map on all
Utility and Grading sheets.
Response: Completed
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 3 of 15
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Please differentiate between existing utilities/features and proposed
utilities/features by either using a ghosted line or an alternate line weight.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Please clearly show the limits of work for the proposed project.
Response: A limits of work boundary has been added to the overall utility plan.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Existing features must be shown for a minimum 150' beyond the project limits on
the Utility Plan Sheets. This includes the roundabout at the intersection of Ziegler Road and
Ketcher Road.
Response: Additional existing features have been shown.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
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.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Show the approximate street and sidewalk cuts for the proposed driveways to the
parking lots, any curb and gutter work, and ADA ramp additions or modifications along Ziegler
Road, Ketcher Road and Lady Moon Drive. Please see redlines.
Response: Approximate limits of street cuts have been shown.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: We will need a detail for the fire access to the south parking lot along Kecther road
that calls for a rollover curb with gate. This detail will need to show the transition from the vertical
curb to the roll over curb and can be included in the final plans.
Response: N/A, please see revised plans
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: The Site Plan needs to have match-lines with correlating numbers.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
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.
Response: N/A, please see revised plans
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 4 of 15
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
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.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: Please add the standard sidewalk repair note to the utility plan and the site plan:
"Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this
project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's
expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy."
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: The site plans call for fire access to the property. An Alignment for these accesses
will be needed. Please coordinate with PFA.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
09/09/2014: The exact locations for the accesses to the site will need to be confirmed with
Martina Wilkinson in Traffic Operations. The south access along Kecther Road appears too
close to Evening Primrose Lane to the west, which could create turning conflicts. Please
coordinate with Martina for final locations.
Response: N/A Please see revised 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.
Response: Completed
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.
Response: Acknowledged
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 5 of 15
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
Thank you for including the note about a free tree permit from the City Forester. Since it
pertains to all trees on this project please edit it to read as follows.
A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees are planted on this
project. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of tree locations after utility locates. Trees
must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of
the code of the City of Fort Collins.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
Please show any existing street trees along Saber Cat and Lady Moon. Also show existing
trees that are in the area shown on sheet LL-08.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
If not already included on the plans please provide tree and shrub planting details.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
Provide direct tree species labeling for all trees shown on the plan. Include the number of trees
associated with each direct species label. Currently some are labeled and some are not and
tree numbers for groups are not shown.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
It appears there may be some inconsistency occurring in the use of tree symbols (more than
one symbol used for the same species). In these cases it is unclear which species is intended
to be defined by the symbol. The following are some possible inconsistencies that were
noticed. There may be others so please provide a detail review for the next round of submittal.
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 6 of 15
Shademaster Honeylocut - appears there are two symbols used
Coffeetree – appears there are two symbols used
Catalpa – appears there are two symbols use. There is confusion with symbols for Catalpa and
Prospector elm and which species is intended.
Response: N/A Please see revised plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
Are the few new trees shown on the north side of Saber Cat Drive part of the park and located
on City property? If not on City property please coordinate with PSD and determine
maintenance responsibility.
Response:N/A Please see revised plans
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
For final plan provide a shrub and perennial list and plan.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
On Sheet LL07 there are four or five hackberry along the edge of the parking area that are very
close to a storm drain line. Moving the line away from these proposed trees will provide
required tree utility separation. Explore moving this line away from these important trees to
avoid this conflict.
Response: N/A Please see revised plans
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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
Response: N/A Please see revised plans
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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
3. Please review the street tree planting requirements in LUC 3.2.1 D 2 and provide street trees
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 7 of 15
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.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
Species and Size Comments:
1.Native serviceberry can be a large shrub and depending on intent should be specified either by
height/15 gallon container or 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 accepting on City projects.
Accolade Elm Ulmus sp. ‘Accolade’
David Elm ‘Fort Collins Select’ Ulmus davidiana ‘Fort Collins Select’ Available only in smaller
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 8 of 15
quantities on a annual basis
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.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014:
Landscape and Tree Protection Notes:
1. Please add to the tree protection notes specification number 7 and the associated table that
is found in LUC 3.2.1 G 7. Some of this information is currently described in Landscape note
number 16, which can be removed with the placement of this information in the tree protection
notes.
2. Please add information to landscape note number 10 that says in effect the following. All
shrub beds to be mulched with a minimum of 3 inches of wood chip mulch or cobbles. All trees
in grass areas shall be mulched with three inches of wood chip mulch as shown in the tree
planting detail.
3. Please add this landscape note.
Wood mulch is to be provided by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. Contractor is
responsible for pickup and hauling. The City Forestry Division will load the mulch into
contractor¿s truck or trailer. Mulch location is near the intersection of East Prospect and
Timberline Road. Contact Del Bernhardt, Forestry Supervisor ( 970 221 6361) at least five days
before hand to arrange pick up and loading.
4. Please edit landscape notes number 5 and 6 to reference all trees in the park and not just
street trees or the description of right-of-way or open space areas.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/11/2014
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
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 9 of 15
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.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/11/2014
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.
Response: We will adjust grades to minimize impact to existing trees to remain.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
09/10/2014: Fire access needs have been achieved under the current site plan.
Response: Please review the new layout.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
09/11/2014: WATER SUPPLY
The PFA would like to see a fire hydrant positioned on the north side of Kechter Road at or
near the easternmost vehicle entry point to the park. From the terminus of the circular loop road
on the SE side of the park, it is approximately 1,200 feet to the next closest hydrant. Our
engines carry only 800 feet of 5" hose apiece.
Response: A new fire hydrant has been proposed at the parking lot turn-around.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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.
Response: Additional detail has been included.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Need to see info on the BMX WQ facility prior to approval on PDP plans.
Response: Additional detail for the BMX WQ facility has been included in the drainage report.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: City staff will not support a variance request to the 25% porous pavement
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 10 of 15
requirement.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Recommend relocation of pavers for maximum WQ treatment. Consider placement
along the downstream (north) end of the parking lot.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: WQ ponds in basins A & D are extended detention. This is not considered to be
LID.
Response: Acknowledged, WQ ponds have been eliminated from the design.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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.
Response: Acknowledged, please refer to the drainage report for justification.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Why is the C factor for Basin B so high? As it appears that it is mostly grassy area,
it is expected to see a lower factor. Please review/explain.
Response: N/A, basins have been revised with new park layout
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Please check and label all slopes to be no steeper than 4:1 within the park area.
3:1 slopes are acceptable within the creek section only.
Response: 3:1 slopes are proposed with the Coulee grading which will be stabilized with specific landscaping. All other slopes
within the park area will not exceed 4:1.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
09/12/2014: Provide WQ treatment for the dog park area.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
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 (ie.
riprap level spreader).
Response: Existing buried riprap from the existing channel outfall will be re-used in the new channel.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
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.
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 11 of 15
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014
09/12/2014: Please show channel design in utility plans.
Response: Channel design will be detailed with final construction plans.
Contact: Mark Taylor, , mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; add wording identifying the McClellands Creek floodplain as being a
city-regulated 100-year floodplain, the date the Master plan was approved, etc.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; discuss the erosion buffer zone and how it will be addressed.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; explain why the modeling report is needed and what will be achieved.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; describe the location of the structures to the floodplain.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; discuss how the changes to the floodplain will be contained on
City-owned property and connect those changes to the appropriate section of Chapter 10 of
City Code.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; a pedestrian bridge is discussed. The plans show two bridges. Will the
relocated bridge be a breakaway bridge? Discuss both bridges in the floodplain section of the
report.
Response: Completed. Bridges are breakaway.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; include a copy of the FIRM panel with the location of the park
highlighted.
Response: Completed. Copy is in appendix.
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 12 of 15
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
In the drainage report; discuss flooplain use permits for the work on the site and when they will
be obtained.
Response: Completed
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
On the site plan; show the location and label the existing and proposed boundaries of the
McClellands Creek 100-year floodway, and the erosion buffer zone.
Response: Acknowledged. Please see revised sheets.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
There are numerous areas circled with question marks, and associated comments on the
Grading Plans (GR-01 to GR-08). Please note these and take action as needed. Specifically,
there are several more comments listed individually below that all deal with the grading plans.
Response: Acknowledged, see revised layout and floodway linework.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
Can the trails be moved out of the proposed floodway, or the floodway adjusted through
grading and modeling to exclude the trails? Then they won't be under water as often or suffer
erosion damage as frequently.
Response: The majority of concrete trails are outside of the floodway. City parks acknowledges that portions of the crusher fine
trails are within the floodway and accepts the additional maintenance that may be needed associated with flood damage.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
How will water and sewer crossings of the drainage channel/floodway be protected from scour?
Response: We will be incorporating drop structures throughout the channel with final design. The locations of the drop
structures in addition to the final channel design is being coordinated with Shane Boyle. It is our intent to have the utility
crossings near a drop structure to protect from scour.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
We are concerned about the proximity of the ball field and associated lights to the floodway on
Sheet GR-02. Suggest protecting both from erosion.
Response: See revised layout and floodway linework.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014
Cleanouts for the sanitary sewer service lines are show in the floodway. I would suggest
moving the service so that the cleanouts are located outside of the floodway.
Response: All cleanouts are outside of the floodway, see revised layout and floodway linework.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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_Report_Guidelin
es.pdf
Response: Acknowledged
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 13 of 15
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: No comments.
Response: Acknowledged. Please see new elevations.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
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 +
_______.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Please review revised plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: Please correct the spelling of "matchline" on all sheets.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: Please change all sheets to be titled Landscape. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There is text that needs to be masked. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 14 of 15
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: Please correct the spelling of "matchline" on all sheets.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There is text that appears to not be needed. Please remove all text not related to
the lighting.
Response: Acknowledged
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: Please add a legal description for the project property to sheet LS-00.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014
09/08/2014: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: The lack of a parking lot turnaround on the west end of the south lot will likely
cause issues.
Response: N/A/ Please see revised plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Further review of pedestrian connections is needed.
Response: Please see revised plans
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Were the pm counts that were taken done on a weekday afternoon? The
appendix seems to indicate that they were done on a Saturday afternoon.
Response: Revised in new TIS.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: The text in the existing operation discussion on page 8 is confusing. It would be
very difficult to understand what acceptable operation is for the SECP intersections from this
text and requires the reviewer and/or citizens to access LCUASS to determine the applicable
LOS.
Response: Revised in new TIS.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: The level of service tables include some poor LOSs, including Fs. Please
Southeast Community Park PDP – PDP Round 1 Responses
May 11, 2015
Page 15 of 15
provide number of seconds of delay for LOS Es and Fs so a better understanding is available
for the extent of traffic delay.
Response: Revised in new TIS.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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 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.
Response: added required right-turn lane at key intersections in new TIS.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Access Location. During the scoping substantial discussion was held regarding
the access location and the need to evaluate the preferred location. The report evaluates
delay for two options and concludes an offset option is preferred. This is only one component
for identifying a preferred location. Others would include: design standards (do the options
meet intersetion spacing requirements? Does an offset design accommodate the back-to-back
turn lanes? What are maximum queue lengths that could overlap? Where's the preferred
location based on citizen concern over headlights?) It will be a combination of these elements
that determines the ultimate location for an access and the report needs to provide a strong
justification for the decision.
Response: Not an issue with revised site plan.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
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.
Response: Revised in new TIS.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: How will trash and recycling be handled?
Response: All main walks through the park are accessible by maintenance vehicles.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014
09/10/2014: Are the bicycle racks shown on the site plan? Please label them.
Response: Acknowledged