Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSETTLERS CREEK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-04-24Selected Issues Report CiteoF Fort f:ollziir 3/20/2008 Date: SETTLER'S CREEK AT HARMONY CENTER PDP AND FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number:7 Created:9/2/2004 Resolved [1/4/05] Repeat [10/12/04] Progress has been made toward the comment below, but there are still areas that need attention. Please take another look at the plans and revise accordingly. [9/2/04] Please see the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Appendix E, for scanability requirements for all plan sheets. Currently the plans do not meet the requirements. Number:8 Created:9/2/2004 Resolved [9/2/04] Per LUC 3.6.6 (D) 3,. the minimum width of an emergency access road serving buildings 3 or more stories tall must be 30 feet. Please revise all parking lot aisles adjacent to the condos to be a minimum of 30' wide. Number:9 Created:9/2/2004 Resolved [9/2/04] Per LUC 3.6.6 (D) 4.g, the minimum radius for emergency access roads must be 25' inside and 50' outside (measured from same centerpoint). Please revise curbs around curves to accommodate this requirement. Number:10 Created:9/2/2004 Resolved [2/16/051 [1/4105] Please provide a completed deed of dedication to the City (using the City's standard language, with P&Z acceptance) for this emergency access easement. NEEDED PRIOR TO HEARING: [10112/04] Thank you for showing more information regarding this emergency access. Please provide a letter of intent from Home Depot for the emergency access easement prior to scheduling a hearing date for the project. [9/2/04] How will the emergency access connect to the Home Depot driveway? The drive is currently shown to stop short at the property line. Please show how it will be built and provide any needed offsite easements for the connection. (If the current Home Depot plat does not show an emergency access easement on this driveway, the easement will need to connect the EAE on Settler's Creek to the ROW on JFK through this driveway. Number:11 Created:9/2/2004 Resolved [1/4/05] A note on the plans indicates that alignment of this path is not yet figured out, yet it is shown on the plans to end at the bridge. Please show the final alignment on the plans. NEEDED PRIOR TO HEARING: F Page I F REVISION REC.D COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 6, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #6-960 Settler's Creek at Harmony Center PDP — Type II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: October 20, 2004 :"M No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) %!2. "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE" b XG1,?eCAIor w T KI eCLz-C:T/<'« eA.sct;•eVT V Name (please print) r CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Date �� City of Fort Collins 9:11 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current PlanninLy REM DATE: August 24, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #6-960 Settler's Creek at Harmony Center PDP — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: September 15, 2004 Note -PLEASE identifv vour redlinec for future reference %,BouivDRky � LEGAL �uasr, Z. PC -'--As f- � 1 �� t4, J. F k- dArL�«vj 1s IC'p/c,4Te O 3 ALA ��f�R/h'C11 E� 4-�(ST�JvC C'S �NJ /J6 �UGA'TrQ-I3Cf?" rQ 7z� S« 1 „JA, PC.,4-r Name (ple+e print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Flat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape ti 1-4 PROJECT: #6-960 Settler's Creek at Harmony Center PDP — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: September 15, 2004 Note -PLEASE identify your redlines for Future reference A/o Ce)rv... n , Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins 1041 [10/12/04) Please resolve any issues with Parks regarding this sidewalk connection prior to the City scheduling a hearing for the project. Please have Craig Foreman contact me when he is ready for the project to go to a hearing. [9/2/04] Currently, only the site plan shows the sidewalk connection to Landings Park all the way to its end. This should be shown on all plans. Also, please work with Parks to obtain any needed easements/approval for that sidewalk connection on Parks property. It would be a good idea to take a closer look at the termination of this sidewalk - it is currently proposed to dead end at the end of a parking stall. Perhaps it should be continued to the street sidewalk on Boardwalk to make it more functional? Number:12 Created:9/2/2004 Resolved [1/4/05] Which lane of eastbound Pavilion is going to have the through movement? Does it align with the lane proposed by this development? NEEDED PRIOR TO HEARING: [10/12/04] Pavilion is shown on these plans as a 30' cross-section, but on the Goodwill plans it is shown as a 50' cross-section. Please coordinate with Goodwill and redesign the driveway for this site to have through lanes align across JFK. [9/2/04] The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requires that, across an intersection, lanes must align or be no more than 2' offset from the lanes across the street. The current configuration of the driveway onto JFK doesn't meet this requirement. It appears that the median will have to be significantly shrunk or removed. Number:13 Created:9/2/2004 Resolved [10112/04] If these stalls need to be labeled as compact, please show this on the site plan. [9/2/04] Will cars be able to fully pull into the 17' stalls where the tree grates protrude into the parking stalls? If not, do these stalls need to be lengthened? Where open parking stalls are opposite these shorter stalls, can they be made into the shorter stalls, and the extra 2 feet added to the stalls with the tree grates? Number:14 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] There are a number of locations where bike racks were placed right in front of ped ramps in the direct path of the sidewalk. Functionality of the ramps and walks would be greatly increased by moving these racks to a side. Number:15 Created:9/312004 Resolved [913/041 Please provide a copy of the no -build easement on the south side of the site. Is it ok to build parking in it? Number:16 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [1/4/05] Please note the approved variance in the general notes on the utility plan set. NEEDED PRIOR TO HEARING: [10/12/041 The variance request has been received. Please note that all variance requests must address whether the health, safety, and welfare of the public is being diminished in any way. Also, driveway and intersection separation requirements apply to driveways and streets on both sides of the road both north and south of the development, so addressing only the drives on the east side of JFK leaves some holes in the variance request. Please review 1.9.4 in LCUASS when writing variance requests. Please take a few minutes to revise this variance request and resubmit. [9/3/04] A variance request is required for the driveway separation requirement on an arterial street. Staff anticipates supporting the variance, but it needs to be submitted and substantiated per LCUASS 1.9.4. Page 2 r Number:20 Created:913/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] Please clearly show the property line around the project consistently in all plans. Number:24 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] Would it be possible to get a ped connection to Somerset Apartments to improve the connectivity of the area? Current configuration of the garages and landscaping presents a large "wall" separating the two developments. A site visit revealed that Someret Apartments has installed a gate in the fence at the southwest corner of their site. A walkway connecting this gate to the sidewalk on JFK would seem to be in order, since there is already a well-worn path in this location. Number:27 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [1/41051 [10/12/04] [9/3/04] Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for additional comments. Number:28 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [10/12/04] [9/3/04] Please provide an enhanced crosswalk across JFK on the south side of the driveway/Pavilion intersection with JFK. The crosswalk must be striped, signed, and lights provided per Traffic Operations requirements. Number:40 Created:9/14/2004 Resolved [9/14/04] Most of the plans for this project are simply titled "Settler's Creek". The title in DMS is shown as Settler's Creek at Harmony Center and should be changed to just "Settler's Creek." The utility plans are titled Settler's Creek Condominiums and should also match the plat, site and landscape plan title of "Settler's Creek". Number:47 Created:9/14/2004 Resolved [9/14/041 Regarding the modification request: When referring to LUC 3.6.2(L)la regarding private drives, the last sentence states that: "A private drive shall not be permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of this Land Use Code." Since a public street with a cul-de-sac (in lieu of the private drives proposed) could be located on the property to help with compliance with the connecting walkway standard, shouldn't a modification to this standard also be requested? Number:61 Created:10/12/2004 Resolved NEED PRIOR TO HEARING: [10112/04] Please provide documentation of a "good -faith" effort to work with Home Depot to provide joint access and realign the north Home Depot access with the King Soopers access across the street. Number:62 Created:10/12/2004 Resolved [1/4/05] As a result of the meeting on Jan 5, 1 will route the utilities with the developer's request to place a 2' tall seat wall over a utility easement. Comments will be due back to me on the 24th of January. Also, the end of the seat will still needs to be shown and labeled at least 2' from the end of the sidewalk on JFK (if allowed by the utilities). [10/12/04] How tall is the proposed decorative/seat wall between Buildings A and H on JFK? The utilities typically do not want permanent structures constructed over the utility easement. Please work with the various utilities to obtain their approval for this seat wall. Page 3 r Also, please note that the wall should end a minimum of 2' from the back of the sidewalk on JFK. Number:63 Created:10/12/2004 Resolved [1/4/05] The ped connection doesn't match on all the plans, and it is unclear how it ties into any existing walk on the Home Depot property. Please clarify/show this connection and coordinate the utility plans with the other plans. [10/12/041 In the comment response letter, a pedestrian connection to Home Depot is discussed. This connection is not shown on any of the plans, though. Please show it on the plans. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Langenberger Topic: General Number:106 Created:11/27/2007 Pending [1/11/08] believe that this has been addressed, but can not verify until I receive the mylars back to check this. [11/27/07) The site plan shows all the internal x-walks as being raised. The utility plans show them all as being enhanced. The main sidewalk connections thru the site should have the raised x-walks, the other are okay with just being enhanced. Number:107 Created:11/27/2007 Pending (1/11/081 [11/27/071 Before we will be able to sign off on the utility plans I will need a fully signed copy of the emergency access agreement submitted to me along with filing fees as per our email discussion in September 2007 Number:108 Created:11/27/2007 Pending [1/11/08] (11/27/07] Once the vacation is filed for the vacation of the drainage easement, please provide a copy of the document with the County reception numbers on it. Number:109 Created:11/27/2007 Resolved [11/27/07] The sidewalk connection to the Park needs to be a 6 foot wide sidewalk. The utility plans correctly reference this — the site plan incorrectly labels this walk as a 5 foot sidewalk. Number:110 Created:11/27/2007 Pending [1/11/08) believe that this has been addressed, but can not verify until I receive the mylars back to check this. [11127/07] Need more clarification on the widths of the sidewalks in the site. You have labels that indicate that sidewalks are 6 feet typical, 7.5 feet typical and 5 feet typical, so it is very unclear as to how wide each sidewalk really is thru out the site. In addition there are a few sidewalks labeled on the utility plans at 5.5 feet, 6.5 feet and 10 feet which do not fall in those typical widths. Also there are a couple of places where the sidewalk width is labeled and it conflicts with the dimension shown on the typical section. Number:111 Created:11/27/2007 Resolved [11/27/07] Is there anything that is going to be placed to limit the emergency access to only be emergency access? Number:112 Created:11/27/2007 Pending [1/11108] believe that this has been addressed, but can not verify until I receive the mylars back to check this. F Page 4 F [11/27/071 Need more information on the grading or drainage plans. The pan sizes, pipe sizes and types that go under the sidewalks, sidewalk culvert sizing, pipes sizes and types for other storm pipes, and which pipes are existing and which pipes are new need to be identified on the grading and/or drainage plans. Number:113 Created:11/27/2007 Pending [1/111081 believe that this has been addressed, but can not verify until I receive the mylars back to check this. [11/27/07] The plans need to meet the scanning requirements. There are some places on the plans where you have text over text or other scanning concerns. Number:114 Created:11/27/2007 Resolved (11/27/071 It is not clear on the plat, but I am guessing that the detention pond easement is being vacated by separate document. If this is the case, please make sure that "by separate document" is in the note. Number:115 Created:11/27/2007 Pending [1/11/08] believe that this has been addressed, but can not verify until I receive a copy of the plat to check this. [11/27/07] There is a sidewalk that is shown going to the north between two of the carriage houses for a future sidewalk connection to the north. There is not currently enough room between the building envelopes on the plat for this sidewalk to exist in a public access easement. The building envelopes need to be modified so that the sidewalk can exist when needed. Number:133 Created:l2/4/2007 Pending [1/11108] No plat was received with the submittal for review, so until a plat is submitted for review , we can not determine if the comments on the plat have been addressed. [12/4/07] Technical Services has the following comments: 1. Boundary and legal close. 2. Incomplete text on sheet 2, 60' TCE along south boundary. 3. Minor redlines. Number:134 Created:12/4/2007 Resolved [1/11/081 [12/4/07] A information for Development Agreement sheet was returned with the comments. I need that filled out and returned to me so that I can start working on the Development Agreement for the project. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Plat Number:17 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [10112/04] Please re -label all adjacent properties that have been platted as well. [9/3/04] Please label adjacent property owners when adjacent property is unplatted. Number:18 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [2/16/051 Please complete, and provide a copy to the City of, the drainage easement vacation. [1/4/05] REPEAT: [10/12/04] This easement can be noted to be vacated on the plat. Please vacate the easement in this manner rather than by separate document. Page 5 [9/3/04] Is it ok to overlap the detention pond easement with the parking drive aisle, garages, and trash enclosure? I believe the portion with the garages and trash enclosures would have to be vacated or the structures would have to be removed from the easement. Number:19 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] Please label lots/tracts as such. Number:29 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] Please dedicate the standard 15' utility easement along JFK. Number:59 Created:10/12/2004 Resolved [10/12/04] There are several easements proposed to be vacated on the plat. Please clarify who these were dedicated to. Do these parties need to sign the plat? Number:60 Created:10/12/2004 Resolved [10/12/04] An additional sidewalk along the southeast edge of Building H from the walk adjacent to the private drive out to the JFK walk was previously discussed in a meeting. Where is this walk? Number: 97 [2/16/05] See redlines for typos. Created:2/16/2005 Resolved Number:98 Created:2116/2005 Resolved [2/16/05] Please complete and return the DA information sheet, and we'll get going on the DA for the project. Topic: Utility Plan Number:21 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] Drainage from a private drive over a public walk is not permitted, and currently over 2200 s.f. of drainage is shown as proposed over the walk on JFK. Please re -grade and/or add an under -walk drain (D-10 from the stormwater manual). Number:22 Created:9/312004 Resolved [9/3/04] The limits of construction for the pond are shown outside of the property boundary to the east and south. Is there an existing easement to accommodate this work, or is an offsite easement needed? Number:23 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [10/12/04] Please show this note on the utility plan rather than the horizontal control plan. [9/3/04] Please show the approximate limits of street cuts and add this note to the plans: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs are to be in accordance with City street repair standards. Number:25 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] Please provide detail sheets with all appropriate LCUASS and other details. Number:26 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [913/041 Will water, sewer, and stormsewer profiles be provided? F fl J F1 0 Page 6 fl Topic: Utility Plans Number:64 Created: 10/1212004 Resolved [10/12/041 A number of design details are shown on the construction detail sheets - please remove unnecessary details. Number:72 Created:10/26/2004 Resolved [10/26/04] Please show raised crosswalks more clearly on utility plans - they should be labeled, and shouldn't the grade lines be revised where they cross these raised crosswalks? Number:82 Created:1/4/2005 Resolved [2/16/05] Please re -add detail 701 - you can note it to be used on JFK only if you like. [1/4/05] Please re -add detail 701, and add the ped ramp details (please let me know where to email these details). Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: Traffic Number:6 Created:8131/2004 Resolved [8/31/04] Traffic in this area can be problematic at times. At one time, there was discussion of combining this developments access with the northern access of Home Depot and realigning the access with King Soopers on the west side of JFK. It appears that this is not the case. The TIS assigned traffic to the Home Depot access and a connection is not shown on the site plan. A traffic signal/RBt is warranted and needed at the intersection of JFK/Troutman. I am not sure if this is a developer cost or Street Oversizing expenditure - either way, it needs to be completed with this project. The TIS displayed that a RBT would work well at the JFK/Troutman intersection and should be pursued. Number:30 Created:9/3/2004 Resolved [9/3/04] An amendment to the TIS has been submitted readdressing the trip assignment. The TIS is acceptable. Department: Traffic Operations Topic: Traffic Number: 136 [12110/071 no issues. Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Created:12/10/2007 Unresolved Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: Plat Number:83 Created:1/4/2005 Resolved [2/15105] Thanks for providing the easement and wider walkway at this location. The easement is a bit narrow at 7' however. Please widen this easement to 10 feet to ensure that any future fencing/landscaping etc will be far enough from the path to maintain an adequate shy distance. Thanks. [1/4/05] Please ensure that the walkway connection to the north (baseball field area of Landings Park, not the path out to the NE) lies in a public access easement on the final plat Thank you. Topic: Transportation Number: 41 Created:9/14/2004 Resolved FJ r F C Page 7 0 [9/14/041 A number of bicycle racks are located directly in the path of handicap access ramps. I believe that this is a detriment to cyclists wishing to lock their bicycles as well as pedestrians. See redlines for bicycle rack locations that will better serve residents of this proposed project. Number:42 Created:9/14/2004 Resolved (9/14/041 A quick site visit revealed that there are a number of "goat paths", or informal pedestrian routes (typically a well-worn dirt path) through this site. One prominent existing path, and one that I think the applicant should consider in the design of this project, originates at the sw corner of Somerset Apts property to the north. In my opinion, it would be advisable for this project to construct a more formal footpath from this point out to the existing sidewalk on JFK (this path would traverse the north-western edge of the "water feature" just north of this projects entryway). Obviously this is only a suggestion, but it would seem to be in the applicants interest to construct such a pathway (crushed rock or pavers would be entirely permissible in this instance) as it would hopefully keep people from Somerset Apts. from creating a new "goat path" through this landscaped area on their way to destinations south and southeast. Number:43 Created:9/14/2004 Resolved [9/14/04] A number of "painted crosswalks" (as designated in the legend, Preliminary Site Plan) are proposed with this project. I would like to direct the applicant to section 3.2.2 C 5 - sections a and b. Striping/painting crosswalks (as a stand-alone treatment) across drive aisles is not a suitable method of providing the pedestrian with the crossing priority intended by the code. Number:44 Created:9/14/2004 Resolved [9114/04] Please place the sidewalk connection to Landings Park (to the northeast) in a public access easement. Number:65 Created: 10119/2004 Resolved [10/19/04] Thanks to the applicant for providing raised crosswalks at strategic locations throughout the project. I do wish to recommend however, that the raised crosswalk linking the walkway between buildings A and H towards the clubhouse be constructed as a "speed table". Basically, this would end up being a raised crosswalk of additional width at this location. If constructed as such it will more suitably address the intent of the connecting walkway standard from an urban design and functionality standpoint. I will provide some examples for the applicant's consideration. Number:66 Created:10/19/2004 Resolved [10/19/04] Related to comment No. 44 from the previous round of review -please make sure to coordinate with Craig Foreman on the location of the sidewalk connection to Landings park. The previous submittal had this connection on the applicants property; now it is shown on City property. Number:68 Created:10/19/2004 Resolved [10/19/04] Thanks for providing the new connection to Landings park in attempt to resolve some of issues identified in comment no. 42 from the previous round of review. However, I think we are talking about different "goat paths". The applicant is correct in stating in the response to comments that the Somerset property to the north is fenced. However, near the western property line (between Somerset Apts and Reflections Senior Apartments) this r Page 8 F fence has a gate in it, and this is the location that I was referring to in my previous comment. Again, it is only a recommendation that the applicant address this at this location. Number:88 Created:1/5/2005 Resolved [1/51051 The walk that goes south to Home Depot (south of buildings G and F) is 5 feet wide as it passes next to some head -in parking. Please widen this portion of the walk to 6 feet in order to maintain the appropriate clear space. Number:89 Created:l/5/2005 Resolved [1/5/05] Can the walkway to the Landings Park ped bridge be widened to 6'. This would seem a more appropriate width for what is anticipated to be a popular pedestrian destination for those who eventually live in this development. Thanks. Page 9