The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutINVERNESS INNOVATION PARK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2011-06-21"..art Collins REVISION c 11-r,nt Planning COMMENT SHEET W) Box 5N 1'011 Collins. (_Y) 80522-0580 FIv: 970- ?24-0134 DATE: September 11, 2009 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard My #30-09 INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK ODP - TYPE II 2nd Round of Review PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: I. '7�K 9 v�I T r /01- 4-,4J 5 T I G L ,t1�4 5 0 A/ 97 M IA10,9 L i,v 5 0 V 6-,e TExT / SSt1' . September 23, 2009 TNT LE A L '7CSG121,P7'1c.4 15 /Nebvin c-r; , ONLY Pi9i2?"O Tf�i< D�'ScBiP�-�a,J Note -.Please identify your redlines fior future reference ❑ No Problems �] Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) WGnn 11AC, q Iz.'l O9 Name (p ease print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS X Plat X Site _Drainage Report —Other - X Utility XRedline Utility KLandscape emphasized and occupants are highly green motivated. There's a contradiction I see and would like to have the presentation revised as a result. Number: 85 [8/26/091 Key concerns prior to hearing involve: Created: 8/26/2009 - obtaining of all necessary letters of intent from offsite property owners - receiving revised information on how a design of Vine Drive that achieves a right turn lane at Linden operates and affects the development as a whole - receiving information on how the reduced geometric design affects operational speed - provide clearer interim design information, with more suitable transitions - addressing inadequate cover over storm lines within Vine Number: 93 Created: 8/2 [8/28/091 In checking with Sheri Langenberger, the TDR fee p ovided appears of the amount needed. The site plan specifies a building square footage size that is higher than the size lindicated in the TDR fee that was calculated and then posted. Topic: Plat Number: 71 [8/26/09] The plat shows areas outside of the platted property being6/ g20a� y described (such as the drainage easement for the pond on the south side of Vine and the portion of the access, utility and drainage easement to the east of Lot 1). I've verified with the City Surveyor that the plat cannot be the document that establishes these areas because they're outside of the platted boundary. Either these areas need to be conveyed by separate document to the City, or the platted boundary needs to be expanded to include these areas. One consideration in this regard between the two options, may be the cost differential between the increased TDR fee of an expanded plat boundary against the TDR fee to dedicate by separate document. Number: 83 [8/26/09] The lack of a continuous 15' utility easement behind Vine Drive will need a from the utility providers. approval Topic: site Plan Number: 94 [8/28/09] The site plan shows a 15' utility easement along the entire8/2009 property which does not correspond to the plat. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 72 [8/26/091 The construction drawings specify the use of 8 1eated:taper sin the existing interim condition for Vine Drive. AASHTO's "Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" 2004, specifies that an 8:1 taper is appropriate for design speeds up to 30 mph and 15:1 for design speeds up to 50 mph. Given the minor arterial classification for Vine Drive (and the 50 mph design speed of a minor arterial), please use the 15:1 taper. Number: 73 [8/26/091 The storm drain system within Vine Drive is lacking meet ng2mi0n mum cover depth below the pavement. (Storm lines A, D & F). Perhaps raising the road should be looked at the outlet depth is apparently set. Page 2 Number: 75 2009 [8/26/091 On the construction drawings, please add a typ caltcross / se tion for Vine, label street names on the plan view (Vine, Redwood, etc.), and a vicinity map would be ideal. Number: 76 [8/26/09] The interim condition is very difficult to follow andareview/overO09 the contours of the grading plan. Please prepare a horizontal control plan to provide more clarity on the interim condition. Number: 79 [8/26/09] Please ensure the property line boundary is shown on all sh/eet0s9of the construction plan set. Sheet 4 of the plan set does not indicate property line boundaries to verify if all the grading can be contained on -site. It does appear that offsite grading will be needed at least to the east. Number: 80 Created: 8/26/2009 [8/26/09] The grading plan appear to show curb and gutter on both sides of Vine Drive, which has my assuming that both sides of the street along the development's property frontage is to be built at this time, however interim tapers are only shown on the north side. Is the curb and gutter (and driveway) on the south side not being proposed at this time and the grading plan combines showing interim and ultimate conditions? Again an interim horizontal control plan would be beneficial. Please note that the frontage improvements abutting the infiltration pond will need to be satisfied with this development. Number: 82 [8/26/09] The ultimate design should call out what the limits ofthe /design0 are tying into and show such on the drawings. Does the terminus of the offsite design to the west tie into designs done with Old Town North? Does the terminus of the offsite design to the east need to show a transition to tie into existing edge of pavement? Number: 95 Creed: 8/2 [8/28/091 On the construction drawings, please further efine the diosplay0 of information to be more readable (and thereby more scanable). There is information such as elevation numbers on the grading plan that cannot be easily read and won't scan (in the hatched spillway area). Numbers, text, and data need to not have any overlapping shading, lines, etc. Page 3 Fort Collins Current Planning N) Box 580 1`011 Collins. CO 80522-0580 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: September 11, 2009 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard M V #30-09A RMI2 AT INVERNESS INNOVATION 4 �£` GLoSE • PARK PDP - TYPE I 2nd Round of Review Z, iNre Sr-r6 Pt RN 5P I.I t4*5 So -we: Mf,JOP- L1N6 o-✓EE TEXT- 15-5U65. PLEASE NOTE: 3, 1 �E �EGf�G, bESG�Pr�oN p,v 8oT1-1 51Te 1 5 lojc"V-�PL-ETS Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: q-Pc, aE C+4A-At6-e 774 a F;ZO Or;Gr T-1 Tf.r: o v $ori4 r Ic FL A-) 5tf6E 1-5, T-o '�E P�.EGT T/•t 5ae5V'tV' S c Cry PLA r Ti r .£ , September 23, 2009 w xow6 5, 5NCET' 2 a>; -rH£ L+Nor>5c"6 PcAaS Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference +moov►uE scr-P-r1,AJ NanWr-4s �o,e ASEr�tE,�T'r's !�ocJ PR 02 To A ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) Name (please print) 7, -FLc-A 5 c CH A4A)1,£ 'TN 6 Pj& S�GT-r/T1_£ o� r3v-rI4 L,+A- D5c ri-ec- rL AAJ 10 1Z£ rL'KT -rN r- 5 u 5T71' 15 t b 1-1 P" -r -rl -roia , CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS (Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other_ ZL Utility )(Redline Utility X Landscape Project Comments Sheet -owl I I dolft Ciit of Fort Collins Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: September 25, 2009 Project: RM12 AT INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK PDP - TYPE I All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: September 23, 2009 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 74 Created: 8/26/2009 [9/22/09) Was a letter of intent provided from Urban Development Partners? I would like to see some sort of written acknowledgement from the owner of Parcel B given this sight distance easement affects that property. [8/26/09] Sheet 6 of the construction drawings sketches out what I measure as a required sight distance easement based upon LCUASS 7-16 and the driveway location. Most of this occurs on the future lot to the east, however a sight distance easement would need to be dedicated at this time with the creation of the driveway access on the current lot. Number: 81 Created: 8/26/2009 [9/22/09] Carried over for reference. [8/26/09] Please ensure that the drive approaches onto Vine are constructed fully in concrete to the property line in accordance to our driveway detail. The plans seem to show them more like street intersections. Note that the driveway detail provided in the details section is not the radius style driveway as proposed on the plans. Number: 93 Created: 8/28/2009 [9/22/09] The site plan appears to have some discrepancies in the reporting of square footage for Building #2. The commercial square footage is listed as 23,400 in 3 different locations, but was crossed out in one location and revised to 21,000. If the correct amount is 21,000, then please also revise this in the two other locations (and the TDR fee submitted is then correct). If the correct amount is the 23,400, then an additional TDR fee amount is needed. [8/28/091 In checking with Sheri Langenberger, the TDR fee provided appears to fall short of the amount needed. The site plan specifies a building square footage size that is higher than the size indicated in the TDR fee that Was calculated and then posted. Date HECK HERE F YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS �t Site -' Drainage Report Other ✓ Utility ✓Redline Utility ---lCa ndscape Page 1 Number: 97 Created: 9/22/2009 [9/22/09] The variance requests need to be stamped; I don't have any further concerns other than the requests being signed and stamped. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 118 Created: 9/25/2009 [9/25/09] At the time of final plan submittal please provide the following information on the landscape plan for sight distance easements: - Fences shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height and shall be of an open design. - Deciduous trees may be permitted to encroach into the clearance triangle provided that the lowest branch of any such tree shall be at least six (6) feet from grade. - At the intersection of roadways or vehicular access points, no plant material with a mature height greater than two (2) feet shall be planted within sight triangle measuring thirty (30) feet along the boundary of each of the intersecting roadways, measured from the point of intersecting curb lines, except where engineering standards indicate otherwise. Number: 119 Created: 9/25/2009 [9/25/09] Add "Park" to the title of the plan to be consistent with the other drawings. Topic: Plat Number: 71 Created: 8/26/2009 [9/21/09] The plat now no longer shows these areas to be dedicated with the plat and references that they are by separate document. We will need to keep up with the processing of the easements to ensure that they are processed in time to record and then have the reception numbers shown on the plat as a result. As a backup, I would recommend that these various easements and rights -of -way are "to be recorded by separate document" so as to not necessarily be recorded prior to the plat being recorded given the tight schedule for the project. We will still need the signed offsite easements/rights-of-way in hand before the plat can be recorded, but then we're not holding up the plat from recording should the easement recordation process when left with the City become problematic from a timing standpoint.. [8/26/09] The plat shows areas outside of the platted property being legally described (such as the drainage easement for the pond on the south side of Vine and the portion of the access, utility and drainage easement to the east of Lot 1). I've verified with the City Surveyor that the plat cannot be the document that establishes these areas because they're outside of the platted boundary. Either these areas need to be conveyed by separate document to the City, or the platted boundary needs to be expanded to include these areas. One consideration in this regard between the two options, may be the cost differential between the increased TDR fee of an expanded plat boundary against the TDR fee to dedicate by separate document. Topic: Site Plan Number: 108 Created: 9/23/2009 [9/23/09] Please look to indicating on the site plan that the Vine Drive will be fully built along the property only and that transitions to existing pavement will need to be done east and west of the site. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 76 Created: 8/26/2009 Page 2 [9/22/09] The interim condition is now easier to follow though the existing right-of-way east and west of the site is not shown. It should be verified if the roadwork being done (such as the pavement transitioning back to existing is fully within right-of-way or is additional right-of- way needed). [8/26/09] The interim condition is very difficult to follow and review over the contours of the grading plan. Please prepare a horizontal control plan to provide more clarity on the interim condition. Number: 79 Created: 8/26/2009 [9/22/09] The property lines (when going off the site) are not shown on all sheets. [8/26/091 Please ensure the property line boundary is shown on all sheets of the construction plan set. Sheet 4 of the plan set does not indicate property line boundaries to verify if all the grading can be contained on -site. It does appear that offsite grading will be needed at least to the east. Number: 80 Created: 8/26/2009 [9/22/091 At time of final the patching limits will need to be expanded in accordance with our patching requirements. There will also need to be enough information (spot elevations/cross sections to show that the interim improvements will work properly in the interim condition and that these improvements along the frontage will match the ultimate condition. [8/26/091 The grading plan appears to show curb and gutter on both sides of Vine Drive, which has my assuming that both sides of the street along the development's property frontage is to be built at this time, however interim tapers are only shown on the north side. Is the curb and gutter (and driveway) on the south side not being proposed at this time and the grading plan combines showing interim and ultimate conditions? Again an interim horizontal control plan would be beneficial. Please note that the frontage improvements abutting the infiltration pond will need to be satisfied with this development. Number: 82 Created: 8/26/2009 [9/22/09] At time of final please ensure the information referenced in the response letter is included in the drawings. [8/26/09] The ultimate design should call out what the limits of the design are tying into and show such on the drawings. Does the terminus of the offsite design to the west tie into designs done with Old Town North? Does the terminus of the offsite design to the east need to show a transition to tie into existing edge of pavement? Number: 95 Created: 8/28/2009 [9/22/09] The revised information displayed is far more readable and appreciated. As more information is displayed with the final submittal, it is hoped that the information remains clear. [8/28/09] On the construction drawings, please further refine the display of information to be more readable (and thereby more scanable). There is information such as elevation numbers on the grading plan that cannot be easily read and won't scan (in the hatched spillway area). Numbers, text, and data need to not have any overlapping shading, lines, etc. Number: 104 Created: 9/22/2009 [9/22/09] Sheets 4 and 5 need to have the existing contours in a lineweight that will be more visible for scanning purposes. It appears that the existing contour lineweight on Sheet 6 shows this better. Page 3 Number: 112 Created: 9/24/2009 [9/24/09] I'm assuming the modified inlet design discussed prior to submittal is still being looked at. Please look at providing some sort of written information/variance request (perhaps from the geotech engineer) along with a design detail of the proposed inlet design in order to have this discussion. Number: 120 Created: 9/25/2009 [9/25/09] The eastbound bikelane along Vine shown offsite approaching Linden should be detached from the curb (exchanged in order with the turn lane). Page 4 F6rt Collins Current Planning PO Box 580 * Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 * 970.224.6134 - fax DATE: August 14, 2009 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard PROJECT COMMENT SHEET #30-09 INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK ODP—TYPE II Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: August 26, 2009 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference EaNo Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) AV A Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other. _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape F6rt Collins Current Planning PO Box 580 * Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 * 970.224.6134 - fax PROJECT COMMENT SHEET 9, 1416 1a1G1A/ra FWR PS 67-A.5CY"e"17F5 404/7-5/ �>�C v � TNT %3ou�A�y� N�E7) �o IgE 9ECtr41>Es7 13ti' S�PF�4T� 17vGc1 nn E,n? Ir DATE: August 17, 2009 �& /D, AeC-A 6F Co r 2 AJc-icD5 To ge GFCTVTLIG,wTo� r• x �/ /mac i7�cAT D �ofL VINE -D121 VC, TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENV #30-09A RM12 AT INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK - PDP—TYPE I [, -3ou #JD A-Z i 04,0 5C$ . TM s L e-& Ate- DOE 5 YU0 Ir. `046 LtG 04 E&V Please return all comments to the project planner no later than Z , -�+ c Sw Gv �XV a o-F sE, staffreview meetinp &IV�cSc.0-I PhicA.)5 [Al LC -&-AL 3o-rc� -D0 August 26, 2009 3, 1 4 E Pt o* T -n T i t 15 m i S S! w G rh-r&m OJT Of D-r-✓�/'�-, �pS�/BD�✓�SIc�J• Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference QI.�flSE CHA-AGE Thl� P�gT NBC 1-0 "'1AJVe-"r-55 /��JaVAT'i0.�1 PARKDZ SoM�_ ❑ No Problems 7#- IW61 SIM144-t , Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) 5, Lwebuc--Tex-r ISSUES OX/ SITE Pc#A) (�. Pc r As E &eREefr- Tf/r- Yoo 1 A) -rWe T r44 ,644C e, /A✓ SWeE T 9 Name (please CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility ,Redline Utility Landscape 7. -rYcr Z4WZt,<G,tP� , ,f 5 G/n/6 p yE ,C 7-e�x-r ¢ TExTo WL e If Sc4e"S. g, ? 4-5'q PGA L&V95 6OVn AM Co M�wrt'S- Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: August 31, 2009 Project: RM12 AT INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK PDP - TYPE I All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: August 26, 2009 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 74 Created: 8/26/2009 [8/26/09] Sheet 6 of the construction drawings sketches out what I measure as a required sight distance easement based upon LCUASS 7-16 and the driveway location. Most of this occurs on the future lot to the east, however a sight distance easement would need to be dedicated at this time with the creation of the driveway access on the current lot. Number -78 Created: 8/26/2009 [8/26/09] The results of the Transportation Coordination meeting last Thursday will need to be followed -up on in terms of: 1) seeing how a design for a right turn lane can be accommodated from eastbound Vine to Linden (and how this perhaps affect the overall design) and 2) having information provided on the reduced centerline radii and how it impacts the speed along Vine Drive. This should be a pre -hearing item needing to be addressed. Number: 81 Created: 8/26/2009 [8/26/09] Please ensure that the drive approaches onto Vine are constructed fully in concrete to the property line in accordance to our driveway detail. The plans seem to show them more like street intersections. Note that the driveway detail provided in the details section is not the radius style driveway as proposed on the plans. Number: 84 Created: 8/26/2009 [8/26/09] The rationale behind the reduction in the parking stall depth requirement variance is a little awkward from my perspective. Metting the standard would require the elimination of one or more parking spaces, while at the same time the rationale in approving the shorter setback (and adding parking spaces) is that the development of alterntive modes will be w � o 91 Signadu Dad HECK HERE F YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS V,Plat ' Drainage Report Other ✓ Utility Redline Utility andscape Page 1