Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1310 LAPORTE AVE., MCKINLEY COTTAGES SUBDIVISION - PDP - 35-04A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSResponse: A note has been added to the utility plan (Sheet 3) calling for concrete encasement of sewer lines that cross above or are within 18-inches vertically of the water main in Laporte Ave. An encasement detail is provided in the details (Sheet 7). A detail for the relocation of the existing curb stop for Lot 1 is provided on Sheet 7. Number: 29 Created: 5/26/2005 [7/13/05] [5/26/05] See utility and plat for other comments. Response: Redlines from the plat and utility plan have been addressed as noted on the returned copies. Page 6 [7/8/05] Please provide the standard city detail for sidewalk widening. Repeat of last part of comment below. LCUASS 25-01 [5/12105] Please add a detail for sidewalk widening. Also, the existing drive -over curb does not match the current detail. Please provide a detail for the existing drive -over curb. Response: The above -referenced standard detail has been added to Sheet 6. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: General Number: 32 Created: 7/1/2005 [7/1/05] No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 50 Created: 7/15/2005 [7/15/05] Please show on the grading plan the amount of impervious area for each lot per drainage report calculations. The plat should only have a note referencing the grading plan. Response: The above -referenced note has been removed from the plat and added to the grading plan. Number: 51 Created: 7/15/2005 [7/15/051 At final plan review, review will take place for the detailed grading and other final compliance issues. Response Acknowledged Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kurt Ravenschlag Topic: General Number: 47 Created: 7/13/2005 [7/13/051 Repeat Comment #39 from Engineering: Label and dimension all ROW, parkways, sidewalks, driveway widths, and easements on the utility plans. Response: The above -referenced labels and dimensions have been added to this Final Compliance submittal. Number: 48 Created: 7/13/2005 [7/13/05] Need to provide directional sidewalk ramps crossing McKinley at Laporte and Leland. Response: See response above to Comment #53 Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General Number: 28 Created: 5/26/2005 [7/13/05] Will a conflict occur between the existing water main and the proposed sanitary sewer service in Laporte? Provide concrete encasement of sewer lines which cross above or within 18-inches vertically of the water main. [5/26/05] Provide a detail for the relocation of the existing curb stop located on lot 2 for lot 1. Page 5 Please re -label the pedestrian easements as public access easements. Response: The above -referenced easements have been re -labeled Number: 34 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please clarify whether the access easements over the shared driveways are public or private, and if private, who owns them. Response: The above -referenced easements have been re -labeled as private easements and a note has been added to the plat to clarify for whom the private easements are dedicated. As is the customary case with easements, the lot owner still owns the land underlying the easements, and is responsible for the maintenance of that land. Number: 35 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please see plat redlines for additional comments. Response: Additional plat redlines have been addressed as noted on the returned copies. Topic: Utility Plan Number: 13 Created: 5/12/2005 [7/8/05] Please show the encroachments in the ROW by the property owner to the north as a justification for not paving the full width of the alley. Please pave the alley to the southern ROW line of the alley. Please provide a profile of the north edge of the alley - it is needed to verify cross -slopes. Please provide off -site design as required below. Please label the proposed width of the alley. This item is required prior to scheduling a hearing. [5/12/05] An engineered plan and profile design for the alley is required prior to hearing. Please provide alley design per LCUASS. Also, the width of alley paving should match the width of the alley ROW. Please widen the alley to fit the ROW. Please provide preliminary offsite design to a location north of the curve in the alley (to the east of this site). Please show clearly how this will affect the lot to the north of the alley - will any of their landscaping have to be removed? Driveway altered? Will the north edge of the alley tie in exactly to existing grades or will easements be needed for grading. Provide spot elevations, especially along the north edge of the alley, to show what is going on. Response: The above -referenced existing features north of the alley are shown on Sheet 5, the alley plan and profile sheet. The alley plan and profile included with this Final Compliance submittal depicts the proposed north and south flowline, and the off -site design extended through the existing alley corner. Number: 15 Created: 5/12/2005 [7/8/05] Please provide more detail for the swale, especially as it rounds corners. [5/12/05] Please provide minimum 50' offsite grading, especially for the property to the east. It appears that the swale needs to be better designed around the corners to prevent flows from entering the neighbor's property. Response: Detail for the swale design is provided on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet 4). This detail includes dimensions for the swale, and spot elevations along the swale flowline around the corners. Number: 16 Created: 5/12/2005 Page 4 Response: Additional labels were added to the utility plans to identify the dimensions of the rights -of -way, and the proposed parkways, sidewalks, driveways, alleys, and easements on the plans. Number: 40 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please relocate the existing vault on Leland outside of the widened sidewalk area, rather than matching surfaces. Response: A note has been added to the utility plans identifying the requirement to relocate the existing electric vault outside of the widened sidewalk. Number: 41 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please note the removal of the low rock walls on the plans. Response: A note calling for the removal of the low rock walls affected by the proposed sidewalk improvements was already on the plans; see Sheet 4 of the utility plans. Number: 52 Created: 7/15/2005 [7/15/05] Please remove the note from the plat regarding impervious surface/stormwater issues and cover these issues on the utility plans. Response: The above -referenced note was removed from the plat and placed on the grading and erosion control plans (Sheet 4). Number: 53 Created: 7/15/2005 (7/15/05] Please use detail 1603 for corner ramps, but modify it to have 90-degree directional ramps using the truncated domes and slopes in the new ADA ramp details. Response: A detail for corner ramps at McKinley and Laporte Avenues, and at McKinley and Leland Ave has been included in this Final Compliance submittal on Sheet 6. This detail calls for truncated dome warning panels to be installed in non -directional ramps. Non - directional ramps are preferred at this site for pedestrian safety and because they are constructible on attached walks. Sidewalk ramps currently exist to the west and south opposite the site's corner at McKinley and Laporte (see Sheet 4). Installing truncated dome panels within the current non -directional ramp location allows for the safest pedestrian crossing location for eastbound and westbound pedestrian traffic across McKinley. At McKinley/Leland, where the walk is attached, and considering existing sidewalk conditions, the truncated dome panels within non -directional ramps also is the best design. The ADA slope through the centerline of the ramp (perpendicular to the street flowline) is a maximum of 12:1. This requires at least six feet of sidewalk width just to transition from the flowline to the top of walk; the widened attached walks at the project are 6.5 feet wide. But of greater importance at the McKinley/Leland intersection is the fact that directional ramps would be less safe. There is no opposing ramp across Leland to accept crossing pedestrians or bicycles. The ramp on the west side of McKinley is non -directional and is attached to a walk that currently exists only on the west side of McKinley; no walk exists on the south side of Leland (see Sheet 4). A directional ramp at McKinley/Leland would direct eastbound and westbound pedestrian traffic to cross too far south for safe movement. Topic: Plat Number: 33 [7/8/05] Created: 7/8/2005 Page 3 [5/12/05] Because alley improvements are required, a soils report is also required. Please submit a geotechnical report per LCUASS. Response: A soils report for the project was prepared by CTL-Thompson and is included with this Final Compliance submittal. Number: 17 Created: 5/12/2005 [7/8/05] Lines need to be solid, not dithered, and certain items are too light to read even prior to scanning. See redlines. [5/12/05] Please review plans for scanability (appendix E, LCUASS) and revise as necessary. This comment applies to all plans, not just the utility plans. Response: Line types and line weights on the utility plans have been adjusted to improve readability and scanability. Number: 18 Created: 5/13/2005 [7/8/05] Please provide an explanation/justification for how the sight distance easement was calculated, so that it can be determined whether it is adequate as shown. This item is required prior to scheduling a hearing. [5/13/05] Concerns about sight distance from the proposed driveway on McKinley have been raised. Please address sight distance from this driveway, especially to the north. At a minimum, a sight distance easement across lot one will be needed for drivers at the driveway and southbound drivers turning onto Leland to see each other. Response: A letter to Marc Virata is included with this Final Compliance submittal detailing the calculation of the sight distance easement. The letter is a follow-up to a meeting that was held with Katie Moore prior to the hearing. Number: 36 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please provide a city signature block on every sheet of the utility plan set. Response: A city signature block was added to each sheet of the utility plan set. Number: 37 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please complete and submit a utility plan checklist. It will cover some items not specifically mentioned on the redlines or in these comments. Response: A completed utility plan checklist is included with this Final Compliance submittal. Number: 38 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please add notes to remove the existing sidewalk on Laporte, and the drive cut on Laporte. Response: A note calling for the removal of the existing sidewalk and drive cut was already on the plans; see Sheet 4 of the utility plans. Number: 39 Created: 7/8/2005 [7/8/05] Please label and dimension ROW, parkways, sidewalks, driveway widths, and easements on the utility plans. This item is required prior to hearing. Page 2 Response to City Comments CITY OF FORT COLLINS Date: 09/28/2005 CURRENT PLANNING 281 NORTH COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MCKINLEY COTTAGES SUBDIVISION PDP Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Topic: General Number: 43 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] The following agencies have indicated that they have no issues or concerns with this submittal: County Assessor, and Comcast. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 44 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12105] Forestry comments: "The applicant should contact the City Forester to set up an onsite meeting to evaluate existing trees located on the project. Response: A meeting was held on the site with Tim Buchanan on the afternoon of September 27t'. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the existing trees and to clarify with the developer which will be considered significant and require mitigation if they are to be removed. However, since this application is simply an application to plat the property into 4 lots (it is not a regular PDP), there is no site and landscape plan that will be recorded in association with this application. Peter Barnes in Zoning originally explained this process to us, and I'm sure he can clarify this process to you if there is any confusion. In talking with him, he clarified once the lots are platted, the landscaping will be reviewed as part of the basic development review for each lot. We took careful notes of what Tim Buchanan designated as significant, and we will mitigate for the loss of any significant trees during the basic development review. Number: 54 Created: 7/15/2005 [7/15105] Pre -hearing requirements are to address the alley design issues including offsite design, site distance triangle easement and to call out dimensions. As these issues are all from Engineering, another formal round is not necessary. Address the issues directly with Katie and Katie will alert me when you are ready to schedule the hearing. Response: Tree above pre -hearing requirements were addressed to Engineering s satisfaction such that a hearing was scheduled. The attached letter to Marc Virata addresses the calculation of the sight distance easement, which is depicted on the plat. Alley design issues are addressed below in response to Comment 13. Additional dimensioning on the site plans is addressed below in response to Comments 39 and 47. Department: Engineering Topic: General Number: 12 [7/8/05] Repeated until soils report is received. Issue Contact: Katie Moore Created: 5/12/2005 Palle I