HomeMy WebLinkAboutGOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE - PDP - 27-96B - CORRESPONDENCE -17. Please use the outlet pipe inverts as the bottom of the pond elevation for the stage -storage
calculations. Also, please use the volume equation in section 9.2 of the SDDC to compute the
available volumes.
RESPONSE:
18. Please use the upstream HGL elevation from the detailed pipe report for P-13a as the
tailwater elevation for pond 51. Please note that the storage below this tailwater elevation
cannot be used, since it would be ineffective.
RESPONSE:
19. Please use only the 100-year orifice calculations for the outfall from pond 51.
RESPONSE:
20. Please provide approval from Larimer County for the changes to the inlets in the cul-de-sacs
of Pluto and Sundown. This can be done with signature block(s) on the plans.
RESPONSE:
21. Please provide a detail of the floodgate for the end of storm sewer SD-5.
RESPONSE:
Erosion/Sediment Control Comments
1. The project schedule on the plan doesn't match the one in the report.
RESPONSE:
2. Your cost per acre for reseeding in the surety calculation is highly inflated. Please correct to
City standards. You can also delete the sod placement item.
RESPONSE:
3. Your report includes temporary seeding and mulching, please add a note to the plan
indicating that disturbed areas (with temporary irrigation, per your report) are to have this
treatment.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review comments.
GoodSam-2.doc
Page 4 of
9. Please call out all dimensions of the riprap pads shown on the storm sewer profiles.
RESPONSE:
10. Please provide calculations that show how the imperviousness of each SWMM basin was
obtained based on the actual proposed conditions per section 3.1.6 of the SDDC. Some of the
imperviousness values listed seem lower than what they appear to be on the plans (see
redlined report). This is a repeat comment. The response to this comment was that these
calculations were included. However, they could not be found in the report.
RESPONSE:
11. Please review and revise the conveyance element data list to match what is shown in the
SWMM (see redlined report).
RESPONSE:
12. Please use the basin widths shown on the summary table in the SWMM runs.
RESPONSE:
13. Please do not include any parameter values in the direct flow node conveyance elements 11,
34, and 35.
RESPONSE:
14. How will the WSEL in pond 53 effect the storm sewers entering this pond? Please consider
the tailwater from pond 53 in the StormCAD calculations for the storm sewers that enter this
pond. The most commonly used and conservative method for considering tailwater is to use
the 100-year WSEL of the downstream pond. Please note that this may cause a rise in the
HGL at the outlet of pond 51. Please consider this change in the pond 51 calculations (orifice
equation and starting WSEL).
RESPONSE:
15. Please provide StormCAD detailed pipe reports for pipes P-62 and P-68.
RESPONSE:
16. Please revise the 2-year internal vertical and drive -over curb and gutter calculations to not
include crown overtopping per section 4.2.2 of the SDDC. .
RESPONSE:
GoodSam-2.doc I Page 3 of 4
justification for the variance request, which could include the information discussed above.
Also, the justification could include the amount of drain time required to evacuate the 100-
year storm (calculations for this should be provided in the appendix of the report). The fact
that the original outfall location was not used due to an unwilling property owner should also
be documented as part of the justification to allow a retention pond, instead of a standard
detention pond. Another justification for a retention pond is the fact that this pond has a
spillway so if the volume is exceeded the flooding is minimized.
RESPONSE:
2. The swale cross-section provided on sheet 21 for the pond 53 spillway shows a concrete pan
in the swale, however the pan is not shown on any other plans. Please clarify.
RESPONSE:
3. Please provide swale cross -sections for the remainder of the spillway swale (if different the
spillway cross-section) and the swale for the outlet of the pond.
RESPONSE:
4. Please clarify the outlet pipe elevations on the grading plan with the storm sewer profiles (and
pond volume calculations) and pond outlet structure (sheet 21).
RESPONSE:
5. Please provide the area and percent imperviousness values in the drainage summary table on
the drainage plan. Note the 10-year flows can be removed from the table.
RESPONSE:
6. Please call out a metal sidewalk chase for the pond 53 outlet flows into Constellation Drive
on the plans.
RESPONSE:
7. Please call out the class of RCP for all storm sewers (class III recommended under any paved
sections).
RESPONSE:
8. Please check with the Fort Collins -Loveland water district to see if they want concrete
encasements around water line crossings. If so, please show encasements for all crossings.
RESPONSE:
GoodSam-2.doc Page 2 of 4
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 2, 2000 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #22-96B Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
November 22, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
The report states that the retention pond only has 1.5 times the volume required for the 100-
year event. The City has maintained the policy that retention ponds must have 2 times the
volume required for the 100-year event assuming a zero release rate from the pond. The
reason for requiring the excess volume with no release rate is to hold back to back 100-year
events in case there is failure of the pump that evacuates the pond. In the previous drainage
report, the amount of retention volume provided was 1.7 times the 100-year volume required.
Due to SWMM revisions that were needed to meet our design criteria on the last submittal,
the required 100-year volume went up, leaving less volume available for retention storage
(even though the pond size has not changed). The City admits that 1.7 times the 100-year
volume required should not have been allowed in the previous submittal. Because of this
oversight and the fact that the site has back up generators that will keep the pump going, the
City is willing to allow the 1.7 times the 100-year volume required with the 1 cfs release rate
considered. Please provide this amount of volume in the pond. Please provide a section in
the text of the report that formally requests a variance to allow a retention pond and to allow a
reduction from the 2 times the 100-year volume requirement. The request should provide
Date: l'LU/t7� Signature: (�fbLVl [�o � "i R\Iyl
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ' ( 5
Plat Site Drainage Report Other P,ES ng�jS S
-L0 Utility Redline Utility _ Landscape
FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT
November 20, 2000
Mr. Troy Jones, Planner
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: #22-96B Good Samaritan Village
Dear Mr. Jones,
The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed
the above mentioned project and submit the following comments.
The existing 4 inch water line located along the north side of Trilby Road is to be connected to the
proposed 8 inch water line: The existing water line along the north side of Trilby Road is to be
abandoned in accordance with District requirements and specifications.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Respectfully,
Mr. Terry W. Farrill
Systems Engineer
xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
5150 Snead Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186
REVISION
SECEIVED
COMMENT SHEL6F 212000
;. NNING
r�,W.,,„„. tv,URRENT PI -A
DATE: November 2, 2000 TO: Light & Power
PROJECT: #22-96B Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
November 22, 2000
No Comment
l 1 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**
QZ 4 ', ,,✓CCta.✓ o c1E
�cILEJ CooROi ✓A�' �1E7 [ T9.✓r�iyvrC,� 4497
—CO�.1,F�/�% G//r//lorylE L./y�iL�it .cE/Zvi�Ef LEs�i•✓G �.✓"�f/ �ovw, �.�
XC/Lv/CE T ,*"1,d7,A1J
-!✓/LL /%ir9/r/T�/'�i9�CE ,BuicDi�l6 ,c?E 5�,�0(�"fl Q1' F.xijr��G /1ovrE Pc,�F/C
Z,-r4_1677 ,✓KO G—/ 1zGfz 9 d- /°"'j.
Date: //— �2 Signature: / ( --�
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
zplat _✓Site _ Drainage Report _ Other
!/Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape
of Fort
DATE: 11/2/2000
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
TO: Traffic Op's
PROJECT: #22-96B Fort Collins Good Sam. Village
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
11/22/2000
F—I. No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Site Plan does not reflect revised median, crosswalk and sidewalks at Trilby and Avondale..
Signature: Ward Stanford Date November 22, 2000
Check here to receive copies of revisions:
X Plat X Site X Utility X Redlined Utility X Landscaped
_Other:
Citv of Fort Collins
ZONING DEPT. COMMENT SIEET
Project: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Date: November 7, 2000
Planner: Troy Jones
No.
Comment:
LUC Section
Reviewer
1
They indicate in their "response" letter that they'll label the private
driveway parking as "private drive parking" rather than "on -street"
parking. However, the parking data on sheet 1 of 8 still calls it "on -
street". Need to make change to sheet 1 of 8 to label it correctly. Also,
sheet 1 of 8 states that there are 20 "on -street" (private drive) spaces,
but I count 24 such spaces.
Peter
F EVISIOl��'` TR' D
NOV 7000
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 2, 2000 TO: Zoning
PROJECT: #22-96B Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
November 22, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**
Date: ((— ' / 'vU
6&, az: a-LtL R E C E I V E D
Signature:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat Site _ Drainage Report _ Other
_ Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape
NOV 07 M0
CURRENT PLANNING
�� A
i
Citv of Fort Collins
the street cuts are made.
5. Edit the note on Sheet 14 accordingly ("type III" not "tape" barricade.)
6. Should the General Notes specify minimum & maximum cover over waterlines? The numbers cited
are for the City and I believe the District has a different depth requirement. Correct the phone
number shown on General Note 97.
7. Add Utility Plan (and District) approval blocks on sheets 22, 28, & 29.
8. I'm assuming that Note I on Sheet 5 of 29 refers to an offsite construction on right-of-way, and as
such offsite easements are not required — otherwise letters of intent from the property owner(s) is
required prior to a hearing.
Plat Comments:
1. See redlined changes with regards to Notice of Other Documents language and replacing Director of
Engineering with City Engineer where shown.
2. I don't believe that Note 12 in Schedule B, Exceptions applies to the City, I believe the District would
be accepting a sanitary system. This easement must be vacated prior to the plat recording.
(See redlines for any additional comments)
Development Review Comments — Page 2
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 2, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #22-96B Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village PDP
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: November 22, 2000
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
The project is ready for a hearing from Engineering's perspective, provided utility plan comments #1 & 3
are addressed prior to scheduling of a hearing. A cursory review to verify these issues are addressed is
needed prior to scheduling a hearing, though a formal round of review isn't required.
Site Plan Comments:
1. The site plan still indicates that curb and gutter on Constellation Drive adjacent to this site is to
remain. Please correct.
2. Coordinate the ped refuge design with the utility plan (see Utility Plan Comment #3).
Utility Plan Comments
I . Show the proposed cross -slopes across the asphalt patch on Constellation Drive on the cross-section
sheet (as was done on Trilby Road.) Add cross sections on stations 7+00, 8+00, & 9+00. The
asphalt patch should closely match the existing cross slope grade; it appears that towards station
13+00 the asphalt patch does not provide positive drainage. In situations similar to Station 13+00 all
along the flowline, the asphalt patch should be lengthened to 8' (or other similar design
modifications) to ensure that positive drainage (2-4% cross -slope) is maintained across the patch.
2. The rollover curb and gutter proposed on Constellation Drive should be vertical curb and gutter as
Constellation Drive is a collector street. However, since the variance request that was accepted by
the City Engineer on 6/2/99 implied that the rollover curb and gutter shown on plan set was
acceptable, in fairness vertical curb can't be required.
3. In discussion with Transportation Planning, the design of the pedestrian refuge should not result in
angled crosswalks. In order to meet pedestrian level of service criteria, access ramps should be
constructed on both sides of the roadway to ensure that the crosswalks are not angled to the
pedestrian refuge island.
4. Show asphalt patches for the tie in of utilities on both Constellation Drive and Trilby Road. The final
size and location of these patches are to be determined by the City Engineer/City. Inspector at the time
Date: November 13, 2000 Signatur .
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISION
0 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 10 Landscape 0 Drain e Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 2, 2000 TO: Trans Planning
PROJECT: #22-96B Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
November 22, 2000
No Comment ( e-,�(1 9 �,t p G ✓
❑ �� Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**
Date:A/6M) Signature:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_ Plat _ Site _ Drainage Report _ Other
Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 2, 2000 TO: Tech Svs
PROJECT: #22-96B Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting: M q
November 22, 2000
No Comment
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE'
j, 7GfJ T �' LE6A L Gio.SE,
Z. I��M�N�iuN L1N1�5 �cvnt61 /2��rjy g Co%csrrs4,gT�v�/
A Cu IJ F-u s I tac? -,-/ 0� 360ova u017t4
% `tYAscs 1>•
3 �lJlc �JJAle EWt/c,LoL PC-S C)VCf?P �/�JL tlev I s .
i s a. ra us v► o t 6.Q PJw a`% '("►, eatoti,
/ti-0
as (�edrCctw ?
Date: Signature:
CHEC RE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_ W _ Site _ Drainage Report _ Other
_ Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape
If you have any questions about these or any other issues related to this project
please feel free to call me at 221-6750.
Yours truly,
J
Troy Jones
City Planner
cc: Marc Virata
Basil Hamdan
2
Communi+-• Planning and Environmental Se -
Current Platt.ang
City of Fort Collins
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Kim Lambrecht
Landmark Engineering
3521 W. Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, CO 80537
;ces
November 29, 2000
Staff reviewed the Submittal of the Good Samaritan Village PDP and offers the
following comments.
COMMENTS:
1. Stormwater, Zoning, Engineering, Technical Services (formerly Mapping &
Drafting), Traffic Operations, Transportation Planning, Light and Power,
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District:
a. Please see the attached redlined plans and/or comment sheets from these
departments.
2. Current Planning:
a. Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit
revisions based on this letter within 90 days or the project application
becomes null and void. Your response to the City's concerns is due by
February 27, 2001. A 30 day extension to this deadline is available. All
requests for an extension should be directed to the Current Planning
Director. If remaining issues are those that do not require plan revisions, a
status report verifying continuing efforts toward resolving the issues is
required within the same timeline.
b. While all comments must be ultimately resolved, all comments with the
exception of Stormwater will not hold up going to hearing. You have the
choice of another full round of review or you can work directly with Basil
from Stormwater to resolve the Stormwater issues. As soon as I hear from
Basil that you are ready to go to hearing, we can schedule the hearing.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
l