HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/06/2007 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2007, AMENDING ITEM NUMBER: 27
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: February6, 2007
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Mike Herzig
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No.025,2007,Amending Certain Sections of the Latimer County Urban
Area Street Standards by Repeal and Readoption Thereof.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is recommended that the"Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards"(Standards)be revised.
The current Standards,originally adopted in 2001,are in need of revision to make clarifications and
corrections. This is the second of periodic revisions planned to keep the document current and more
easily understood. These revisions are scheduled for consideration by Larimer County and the City
of Loveland on February 12, 2007, and February 20, 2007, respectively. It is planned that the
revisions to the Standards will become effective April 1, 2007.
BACKGROUND
The City adopted the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" in January 2001. The
standards were the result of a three year project involving the City of Fort Collins, the City of
Loveland, and Larimer County to develop common technical standards, one document, to be used
by all three agencies. The Standards are used and enforced within the city limits of the two cities
and the Growth Management Areas for each city in Larimer County. The first revisions to these
Standards were adopted in July of 2002 and became effective October 1, 2002.
The proposed revisions are the second of an ongoing process to continually improve and update the
I'I Standards. Similar to the Land Use Code, as staff uses the document, areas are found that need
revision. Most of these changes are corrections and clarifications and some are made to match new
policy adopted by City Council and other legal requirements. Many of the proposed revisions have
come from the consulting engineers who use the Standards.
The proposed revisions are available to users and can be reviewed at the following website:
http://www.ci.loveland.co.us/PublicWorks/DevEng/LCUASSPage.htm. In addition, a copy of the
proposed revisions may be viewed in the City Clerk's office and the City Engineer's office.
li
February 6, 2007 -2- Item No. 27
The current version of the Standards can be accessed at the following web address:
htip://www.co.larimer.co.us/engineerinp-/. Scroll to "Standards and Permits" and click on the
"Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards."
Attachment 2, entitled,"Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Standards,"provides a list of the
proposed revisions and gives a brief description of each change. Several Figures and Drawings were
revised for clarifications, new information related to new construction materials approved for use
in the City and to match policy changes that were previously approved.
Increased Cost to Developers
The only proposed change that creates a potential cost increase for developers is in Chapter 22,
Section 22.4.2A. 1&2,which proposes to increase the strength requirement for concrete sidewalks
and curb and gutter from 3500 psi concrete to 4000 psi concrete. The change requires more cement
added to the concrete to provide greater strength.
There have been problems in many developments where the concrete has been "spauling,"which
happens when the concrete surface cracks into small pieces and comes loose, leaving a rough scaly
surface on the concrete. This causes developers to pay for expensive fixes to reconstruct the
concrete within the warranty period, in one case about 40%of the concrete. On the other hand, the
concrete pavements in the street have not shown "spauling" problems. A stronger concrete is
required for pavements. Staff expects the increased strength will reduce costs for many as there will
no be expensive replacement done. The contractors have supported the change, and staff has heard
no objections from developers.
It is not known whether a cost increase will result. Looking at the material costs for concrete, the
cost increase calculates to approximately$0.70 per front foot on each side of a local street. The cost
for a 50-foot lot frontage would be $35 more. However, since the problem has been serious,many
contractors have already been using the 4000 psi concrete to avoid replacing it. One contractor
stated it was cheap insurance for him not to have to remove and replace concrete. Staff believes the
increased concrete price is already built into the market.
Public Process
The revisions have been through a public review process which included meetings with developers
and consultants and two open houses on November 9,2006,and December 14,2006. Copies of the
public comments from the open houses including staff responses are included as Attachment 3.
The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed revisions in a work session on January 12,
2007, and no concerns were raised. The Transportation Board, on January 17, 2007, reviewed the
proposed revisions and voted to recommend their adoption by City Council. The Affordable
Housing Board is expected to have their comments on February 1, 2007 and results of that
discussion will be reported to City Council in a memo prior to its consideration of this Ordinance.
February 6, 2007 -3. Item No. 27
The public was directly involved in the following ways prior to public hearings:
• Emails and mailings sent to the users of the Standards;
• Numerous subcommittee meetings with consultants and developers to review their
comments;
• Two open houses held to present the proposed revisions to the Standards and seek
final comments from the development community.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Table of Contents of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.
2. Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Standards.
3. Public Comments from Open Houses held November 9, 2006 and December 14, 2006.
4. Minutes from Transportation Board Meeting of January 17, 2007.
ATTACHMENT 1
LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS Update Review Draft 1/17/07
General Information 1 General Provisions
2 Submittal&Review Procedures
3 Information Requirements for Construction Plans
4 Transportation Impact Studies
5 Soils Investigations and Report
6 Permits
Design 7 Street Design and Technical Criteria
8 Intersections
9 Access Requirements and Design Criteria
10 Pavement Design and Report
11 Structures
12 Utility Locations
13 Street Naming and Addressing
14 Traffic Control Devices
15 Street Lighting
16 Pedestrian Facilities
17 Bicycle Facilities
18 Neighborhood Traffic Safety
19 Parking
Construction 20 Public Improvement Cost Estimate
21 Reserved
22 Construction Specifications
23 Inspection and Testing Procedures
24 AcceptancefWatranty Procedures&Record Drawings
25 Reconstruction and Repair
Index Document Index
Appendices A Standard Drawings
B Forms: Reimbursement,Permits,Licensing
C Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines
D Master Street Plans
E Standard Notes,Approval Blocks,Checklists
F Fort Collins Traffic Operations Manual
G Fort Collins Annexed Infrastructure Requirement
B Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual
I Roundabout Design Manual
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
*Original page#'s and Section #'s may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
(orStandard* dried s
Added 0' for
(orig 2002 Vs wrlim Item Description/How Changed
New Repealed and Re-enacted date on cover and footers of each Page
Uniformity in stds Always L.E.E., Developer(except for contractor where noted
Title Page 00 Rather than title change,put Add to title page:
this wording in Ch 1 to From Chapter 1,Section 1.2.1 to help clarify the intent of the standards:
indicate who uses these stds The following Local Entities are covered by these Standards:
A.The City of Loveland,Colorado
B.The City of Fort Collins, Colorado
C. Larimer County, Colorado(unincorporated GMAs only)
Larimer County, Colorado jurisdictions covered by these Standards include the GMA boundaries around the City of
Loveland and the GMA boundaries around the City of Fort Collins.
1.7 01-08 Director,title changes Loveland-change from Director of Community Services to Director of Public Works. Ft Collins-Transportation
Operations became Transportation Services
1.9.2.B.3.d 01-19,20 Delete refs Delete refs to sample ROW forms and criteria listing,called out as attach 1A, 1B,and 1C.They don't exist.
1.9.2.B.3.a.1) 01-18 Developer responsibility for Loveland only—Upgraded reqt.from local to collector streets, 17 ft.
ad'acent property streets
1.9.4.B.2.c&d 01-24 Change Local to Collector Loveland only—Development obligation and reimbursement is now based upon collector instead of local street,to
a for ad'acent/future needs.Also fixed wrong section callout number ref.
i.QABA variance n. .
no Ion er needed with def change above
1.9.5C 01-27 Typo delete period
1.13 Ot-28 Loveland infill re is Added Loveland re uirements as new section 1.13
2.1.2.A 02-01 Designer's signature Deleted wording that Designer should sign/stamp documents, plans,etc. "following the signing by the Local Entity";
instead the Deskiner should submit signed material at the start.
2.3.2.B.2.d 02-06 Mylar signature The'wet signature"r uirement is deleted since it is obtained earlier now in 2.1.2.A
3.2.7.A4 03-03 o Should be ratio
3.3.4.13.1 03-07 Moved exception note Add"this re uirement may be waived... curves"at end of B.1; removed from B.3.
4.2.1 E 04-08 New subsection Add time limit between scoping meetim and promect submittal y
4.3.3.A2 04-12 Clarifications Add sentence at end, unless otherwise approved... ;delete second mention of Loveland GMA and Ci Limits 3
4.3.3.B5.a&b 0413 Add exception Add sentence at end,unless otherwise approved...
4.3.3.C2.a&b 04-13 Add exception Add sentence at end,unless otherwise al3proved...
4.3.3.83 04-13 Fix punctuation Go to all periods,commas or semicolons for 5.a&b, C2.a&b etc. y
inconsistent
4.5.23.3 04-23 Clarify table ranges Change to: Up to and equal to 2000;greater than 2000 t�7
Table 4.2 04-25 Fix title Should not call out Ft Collins y
Table 4.3 04-25 Fix title+wordin thane "GMA&Ci Limits"to be consistent with Table 4.2; insert arterial/arterial in stop sign control ref N
1
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
*Original page #'s and Section #'s may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
Standard* (odg#)
Added 0's for
(orig 2002 Vs wrfing Item Description/How Chan ed
4.5.38 04-27 o Deleted eriod mid-sentence in Ist paragraph
Attach A 04-35 Don't lock in date Rather than 2020, just call it long range
Ch 4,Attach C 04-38 Transportation Worksheet Question#15,add NA as an option;question#16,separate into new numbered item,rephrase as question,delete
minor fixes ref to year 2020,add NA as option,delete ref to 2020,add yestno check off options.
Ch 4,Attach C 04-40 Transportation Worksheet Question#17,fix property question to be phrased as question,and separately numbered item 17.
minor fixes
5.2.313 05-02 Minor fix Change pavement to sub grade
5.3.2A 05-03 Expand samples description Added 3 elaborating sentences to composite samples description, HVEEM,Atterberg refs,etc.
5.4.2 05-04 Subgrade support testing Add Loveland requirement,'the top foot of subgrade shall have an R-value of 20 orgreater".
5.6.2A9.a 0567 Subsurface Drains Add language that underdrains may not drain to the gutter/flowline of public streets;and that local entities are not
responsible for maintenance or damage.
5.6.2A9.b 05-07 Drain Lines Add wording that flexible HDPE piping will not be accepted.
5.7.2 05-07 Mitigation for Swell Expand description,including test requirement of initial moisture content equal to or less than 4 points below
optimum moisture.
5.7.3.D 05-08 Mitigation/Moisture Added these sentences:The geotechnical engineer shall specify the target moisture content based on laboratory
Treatments testing. Moisture content of the prepared subgrade soils shall be tested within 24-hours prior to paving. If
unstable paving conditions due to over moistened soils appear,the contractor shall cease paving and the
eotechnical en ineer shall develop other forms of mitigation.
6.1.7.B.2 06-05 Proper ref to official Change traffic engineer to local entity engineer
6.1.9.A.1 06-08 Insurance wording Clarification of who/what:applicant or the applicant's contractor shall present proof of carrying...
7.2.2.A.3 07-02 Master Street Plan Added attorney wording for County Transportation Plan requirements which cite the local entity street plan but also
requirements allow for use of Larimer county Road Functional Classification Ma
7.2.1 07-01 Secondary means of access Deleted emergency stipulation,so requirement is now more general for the second access.
7.3 07-03 Street classifications Added lanes and alleys to initial description of what is included in street classifications
7.3.1.A 07-03 Removed Narrow Removed Figure 7-1 OF since Narrow Residential streets are removed from the street standards.
Residential figure
Table 7-1 07-05 Deleted ref to Narrow Deleted column and edited note a in Table 7;also deleted reference to Narrow Residential
Residential
Table 7-2 07-06 Gen. Street Parameters Adjust Minor collector min. ROW;simplify sidewalk width criteria,so only lists min.widths
Table 7-3 07-07 Minor clarifications Ft Collins Tech Design Criteria. Now ref Figure 9-1 for distance between driveways and intersections; Ref Section
9.3.2 for commercial driveways with radial curb returns.
Table 7-4 0768 Ft Collins Tech Design Criteria. Now ref Figure 9-1 for distance between driveways and intersections;changed 2-
lane min distance to 660 ft.
7.4.1.B.2 07-10 Flowline grades Extended Ft Collins flowline grades for all no longer call out Ft Collins
7.4.1.C.1 & 07-11 Clarifying edits for stopping Moved text around and added clarification.
7.4.1.C.2 sight distance on curves as
marked
2
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
'Original page Ws and Section Xs may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
Standard' (orig#)
Added O's for
(orig 2002#'s sorfinq Item Description/How Changed
7.4.1.C.7 07-12 Loveland only—new Added this new sight distance requirement for Loveland
subsection#
7.5.1.A3 07-14 Add new note#3 Add: raised center medians shall have an 8 in high curb... Loveland only.
7.7.6.A.1 07-19 Removed requirement for The narrow residential designation is removed from the standards,so this requirement for no cul-de-sacs on
Narrow Residential streets narrow residential is no longer relevant
7.7.6.13.1 07-19 Drive over curbs Now refers to Tables 7-1 and 7-2 and'the corresponding figures"
8.1 08-01 typo Corrected AASHTO s ellin
8.2.7.8 08-03 clarification Added year 1985 to callouts of NCHRP acceleration lane criteria
Table 8-1 08-04 Min Curb Radii Clarification: Inserted"Commercial Driveways-
Table 8-2 08-04 Curb return radii for Ft Add separate alley category with 5'radius
Collins
Ch 8 08—all Fixed page numbering to
include Chapter
8.2.17 08-08 Roundabout design All local entities are now using the same roundabout design approach:
• City of Ft Collins and Larimer County have agreed to adopt Loveland's roundabout design criteria.
• The roundabout criteria are now separated into the new Appendix I,"Roundabout Design Manual".The
initial version is authored by City of Loveland.
• Appendix I contains the"current"Roundabout Design Manual for City of Loveland,City of Ft Collins, and
Larimer County urban areas. It can be updated separately from Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards.
• Section 8.2.17 now simply refers to Appendix I; previously it delineated the different approaches for
different Local Entities.
9.2.6.0 09-05 Deleted Narrow Residential Deleted subsection 9.2.6.0 since Narrow Residential is no longer a street category
Critera
9.3.2.A.1 09-07 lypo Chan ed ref to Dn 708
9.3.3.A 09-07 Sight distance Added ref to multifamily residential
9.3.3.E 5-9 7 Move ref to 8%max Moved to 9.4.4
driveway slope
9.4.4 09-10 Slope Moved 9.3.3 text to here, ref to 8%max driveway slope
9.5.4 09-12 Delete Delete paragraph about sight distance for private property curb openings
10.1.2 10-01 AASHTO pavement criteria Added an exception for City of Loveland,option for designer to use different approach.
10.1.3 10-01 Pavement type Added sti ulation for Loveland,that subgrode must be at least one foot of R=20 material.
10.1.5 10-02 Roundabouts pavement Now refers to Appendix 1.
thickness
10.1.6 10-02 New New Pavement thickness desi n for collector and arterial intersections requires separate design analysis
Table 10-1 10-05 Flexible Pavement Design Edits to notes 2&7 about full depth pavement and HMA; recalculated min. structural numbers per CDOT, resulted
Criteria in several tweaks in values and note changes. Clarify EDLA requirement in note 3.Clarify design requirement in
note 4 is for resilient modulus calcs.
3
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
*Original page #'s and Section#'s may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
Standard* long 's
naaed o�:for
(orig 2002 Ws aorta Item Description/How Changed
10.4.1 10-06 Min.pavement section Added Clarifications
10.4.2.A 10-06 Hot mix asphalt Change from HPB to HMA
10.4.2.A.2 10-07 Manhole riser rin s Extended Ft Collins prohibition to all
10.4.2.B1 10-07 Full depth section Change HBP to HMA
10.5.1.E 10-09 Flexible pavement desi n Expanded specifics of designprocedure;inserted word"required"before"structural numbers"in items 4&5.
10.5.1.13.5 10-10 Design thickness equation Changed HBP to HMA in variables in formula,other notes,changed multiplier
Table 10-4 10-10 Pavement Strength Added notes about mixing and strength credits
coefficient
10.5.2.0 10-14 Joint design Re is for plans and joint filling scheme
10.1.6 10-02 Approval waiver Loveland If desiciner uses Table 10-1,Loveland may waive prelim and final design
Table 10-1 10-03 Recalc values in table Various adjustments to values in Table 10-1;also several clarifying notes including talc basis
10.2.1 10-04 Timing of soil borings Clarification about sanitary sewer lines
Table 10-2 1 10-05 Added ref Added ref to LISC, in addition to AASHTO
10.4.1.0 10-06 Pavement thickness design Added note that table 10-1 values can be used for final design when approved by Local Entity Engineer;also spell
out options on how to submit physical construction sequence.
10.4.2.A 10-07 Staged construction Chan ed HBP designation to HMA asphalt
10.4.2.A.2 10-08 Manhole&valve settings Riser rings shall not be accepted,removed Ft Collins exception
10.4.2.B.1 10-08 Changed asphalt grade
callouts
10.5.1.B.3 10-09 Convert R-value Added AASHTO&CDOT refs for method to convert R-value
Chapter 11 11-00 NO CHANGES No chancies to Chapter 11
12.2.4.0 12-01 Insert new sub-section, Not in flowline,etc.
Access Cover Location
Chapter 13 13-00 NO CHANGES No chan es to Chapter 13
14.2.1.A 14-01 Loveland specific Traffic Added more specific Loveland only traffic signal design regts,including several specific vendors
Control Devices
14.2.1 14-01 Ref Stds Refer to 1994 version of Colo DOT Stds for traffic signals this is apparently an old version?
14.2.1.B 14-01 Ft Collins traffic control Previously just Loveland regts,added list of 14 regts for Ft Collins
design reqts
14.2.2 14-02 Delete Deleted this 2-sentence ref to Traffic Signal Controller design by Local Entity,which may be charged back to
developer
14.3 and 14.4 14-02 thru Added several Ft Collins . 14.3.1.13,E,and F—general sign regts
14-07 specific points thru Traffic 14.3.3.C, D, and E—several changes,traffic control signage
Control Devices chapter 14.4.1 —added Ft Collins for Loveland paint criteria
* 14.4.2A,C,E,F, and G several changes,pavement markings
* 14.4.4—added ref to Appendix F Ft Collins Traffic Operations Manual,temporary striping
4
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
*Original page#'s and Section #'s may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
Standard* tong#I
Added 0's for
(orig 2002 Ws wrUna Item Description/How Changed
14.3.1.E 14-03 Sign post anchoring and Edits to 1.a, 1.b,2, and 3 to clarify anchoring procedures and sizes.
sign attachment
14.3.1.E 14-03 Sign reflectivity Specify High Intensity material or greater
14.3.2.A.2 14-04 Minor Intersection Stipulate sign sizes
14.3.2.A.4 14-04 Sign Assembly Stipulate sign materials
14.3.2.A.5.a 14-04 Si n face letter sizes Increased letter size nuirements
14.3.2.A.7 14-04 Change of name or numbers How to divide sign when change occurs
14.3.2.13&C 14-04 Emphasize street light Urge looking first at street light poles for sign mounting
mountin
14.3.3.E 14-06 Add criteria Added MUTCD for sto si n criteria
14.3.3.B.2 14-06 Add criteria Added MUTCD for stop sign criteria
14.3.4.A 14-06 Roundabout sign size Added stipulations
14.3.3.0&D 14-06 Various sign criteria Clarify stop,yield and pedestrian sign requirements
14.4.2 14-08&09 "ONLY"'s Chan ed to this callout for clarity
14.4.2.0 14-08 Thermoplastic pavement Added stipulation of$in black contrasting border
marking
14.4.2.13 14-08 Stop bars Added, Re 'd where sp2ed limit is 35 mph or more
14.4.2.E 14-09 exce lion 90 mils for bike symbols
14.4.2.G 14-09 Roundabouts yield line Increased roundabout yield line requirement—.from 8"to 16"w de
14.4.3.A.2 14-09 Clarify striping strping Specify fast dry latex 2-coat
14.4.3.A.2 14-09 rify striping Added specific frequency of min 25 It for striping layout to
pe
14.4.3.B 14-09 1 Clarifv stripinn Add 8 inch wide less frequent striping option
14.4.3.0 14-09 Clarify striping Taper into 8 inch wide for turn bay
114.4.3.13 14-10 Clarify striping Added"minimum"to 4 in centerlinespec
14.4.3.E 14-10 Clarifv stri in Added"minimum"to 4 in bike lanespec
15.2.3.J 15-03 typo Lease should be"least"
16.6.1 16-05 Enhanced Crosswalks Delete drwq 1611
16.6.1 1-6 5 Enhanced crosswalks Added spec for concrete type,and colored asphalt not acceptable.Also stipulate Lorimer County will not
manintain.
16.6.3 16-05 typo Delete Deriod in title
Chapter 17 17-00 NO CHANGES No changes to Chapter 17
Chapter 18 18-00 NO CHANGES No changes to Chapter 18
19.2.3.a.1 19701 LE res onsibili Delete maintenance responsibility statement of Local Entity for on street parking within Row
19.2.3.A 1962 Off Street Perpendicular Corrected Figure callout to Fig 19-3
Parkin
19.2.3.A.3 19-02 Fixed wrong callout Change to Table 19-3 ref
5
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
*Original page #'s and Section #'s may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
Standard* tong#)
Added 0's for
(orig 2002rs soding Item Description/How Changed
20.2.10 20-04 Insert new item on units& Add wastewater and subcategories
costs form
20.2.9 20-04 Insert new item on units& Add water and subcategories
costs form
Chapter 21 21-XX NO CHAPTER 21 IN STDS. The LCUASS standards do not include a Chapter 21;this chapter was deleted in an earlier standards update.The
other chapters retained their numbers to avoid confusion.
22.1.4 22-03 Clarify compacted to 95%maximum standardproctor",delete maximum
22.1.4.B.3 22-03 Embankment Mall Added unsatisfactory material as item 3
22-04
22.1.6.0 22-05 Unsatisfactory borrow matt Added gapgraded matl as a specifically non-allowed material
22.1.7.D.1 22-06 Wrong preposition Changed to"flow to the roadway"
22.1.8.A 22-06 Changed ref document Was USDA, now a manual by Urban Drainage and Flood control District
22.1.8.D 22-07 thru Delete entire section and Deleted all of the subheadings about Loveland erosion control reqts;now call out City of Loveland Storm Drainage
22-15 1 instead call out ref Standards
22 1 R r' 22-44 AmbieAt Tamp Stipulate that 40 deqFae6 ambient applies also tgFipFap and gFound no longer relevant with above deletion
22.2.3.D 22-17 Flowable Fill Added note that curing accelerators( flash-fill")shall not be used.Also change values:cement, .45 sack and water
to 325 Ib/c
22.3.7.G 22-29 Cold Weather Re is Added this new subsection from earlier 1986 standards
22.4.2.A.1&2 22-30 Change concrete specs Change to 4000 psi,add criteria for max water/cement ratio 0.45
22.4.2.A.3.b 22-31 Fixed typo as marked Table 22-7 callout got separated
22.4.3.D 22-34 Inserted Cold Weather Simply refer to 22.3.7.D
Recite
22.4.3.D.2 22-34 Clarification As marked,does not change substance
#before insert
22.5 22-49 Fix wrong auto-numbering Fix where Table name got weird
Table 22-11 22-49 Design mix criteria Increased retained aggregate spec for both 75 and 100 gyrations from 70 to 90(80 SG);also corrected table
cross-refs
22.5.8 22-57 Construction Re guts Added back 2001 stds content that was dropped by accident,as section 22.5.8
Table 22-15 22-58 Placement Temperature Changed Table and column titres from degrees C to degrees F;the numeric values in the table were already listed
Limitations in degrees F.
22.6.2.E.2.a.1 22-60 Traffic striping mat'Is-clarify Add"and concrete"to asphalt pavement ref. ; also added"at least"to paint moisture resistant beads per gal callout
of 6.5
22.6.2.E.2.b 22-61 Pre-striping delete ref to 3M
• added language and Motion for temporary tape,and must match paint color
22.6.2.E.2.c 22-61 Pre-striping specify that inspection is by L.E.E.
• min interval apart is 25 ft
6
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
*Original page#'s and Section #'s may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
Standard* (ori9 n)
Added 0's for
(orig 2002 S's wrfina Item Description/How Changed
22.6.2.E.2.d 22-61 Striping layout Changed from 50 It spacing with exceptions,to all 25 foot spacinq of tabs or tape
22.6.2.E.3.a 22-61 Marking Reduced preformed thermoplastic spec from 150 to 125 mils,still Flint Trading Co.
23.1.1.A 23-01 Delete ref Delete ref to Larimer County note A
23.1.3.6.1 23-05 Material annual approvals Reworked this list to have appropHate subheadings and clarifications,as marked up, and made it subsection 1
23.1.3.B.2 23-05 Additional materials the LEE Pulled these away from above list per Mike,new subsection 2
may require to be tested
23.2.1 B,C,D 23-06 Typo Headings were impropedy shifted,does not change meaning;Add back C. Compaction
23.4.1.H.2.a 23-09 Tying rebar Added that in no case shall less than 30%of intersections be tied
23.4.1.1.2.c 23-10 Concrete Sampling criteria Previously says AASHTO T23;add-ASTM41-saa-find added ASTM C-31
23.4.1.1.2.d 23-10 Table 23-2 Concrete Require one additional cylinder break for high strength early concrete operations
Cylinder Breaks
23.4.1.J 23-11 Testing frequency Added same comment from Table 23-2 above
23.6.2.D 23-20 Traffic sign reqts. Several changes about sign specs, placement,and mounting through this section for consistency with changes in
Chapter 14 above,plus additional placement guidelines.
23.6.3.C.2.k 23-20 Roadway inspection specs Eliminated exception"if only finishing equipment is carried on the existing lane,paving in adjoining lanes"
emitted at only 2000 psi instead of 3000. Changed to 3000 because equipment is heavy.
23.7.1 23-23 Bituminous Pavement Rim Manholes to be 5/8 below final instead of%inch. Eliminated wording about 2 foot transition for Y.inch.
Tolerance
23.9 23-25 Stop work order Add Ft Collins stipulation,inspectors may issue ticket for anyone who refuses to stop work
24.1.1.C,E,F 24-01 Developer's Process; C.Added specifications to existing mention of standards&agreements
Clarifications as noted E. Ref section 24-5 for record plans
F.Added posting of warranty surety by Developer as a criteria for initial acceptance
25.5.6.B.3.c 25-14 Paving fabric Dro ed re t from 2.5 to 2 inches min pavement over fabric;this is what Ft Collins uses
25.5.6.B.3.e 25-17 Placement of New Asphalt Added:must be SG grading for pavement>4 inches thick
25.5.6.F.4 25-18 Adjoining Concrete Repairs Clarified that asphalt remove for conventional patching must be removed to a minimum width of 24 inches.
Previously said shall be removed to width of 24 inches
25.5.6.J 25-21 Manhole Frames&Valve Changed clearance around these objects from 1 foot to 2 feet.
Box Adjustments
Appx:A A-1 LI ated drawing list Update titles,add new drawincis to list; modified drawings are identified with red std drawing numbers
Appx B-3 B-inserted Added/updated these Ft. Devel Consfr Permit
Collins permits Permit for Excav on Public Property in Right-of-Way
Permit for Drive Approach in Public Right-of-Way
x C C NO CHANGES No chan es to ndix C
A x D D NO CHANGES No chan es toAppendix D
Appx E-1 E-5 Gen Notes for Dwgs Add note telling designer to include only the relevant standard notes,and to use the note numbers from the street
standards,omit irrelevant ones
7
Revisions to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1/17/07 update
*Original page #'s and Section #'s may have shifted slightly in the review document due to additions and deletions
Page*
Standard* (orig#)
Added 0's for
(orig 2002 Vs wrUng Item Description/How Changed
Appx E2 E-17 Replace Erosion Control Got from Bob Zakely
Notes
Appx E-3 E-28 Loveland signature block Add note to ensure P.E.of record signs before submitting, and reiterate that design responsibility remains with
engineer of record.
Appx E-4 E-47 Reqts for Util Plans,minor Reformat for better looking form, no change in content
cleanup
Appx F F I NO CHANGES No changes to Appendix F
Appx G Appx G Ft Collins Stds for Maint& Changed ref from Policy GM 2.1 to Policy GM 3.1
Improvement of Annexed
Infrastructure
Appx H H NO CHANGES No changes to Appendix H
Appx I I all new Roundabout Design Manual Add this new Appendix so the Local Entities can collectively update the design criteria for roundabouts as new
approaches are agreed upon.(This initial version is authored by City of Loveland and adopted by City of Ft Collins
and Larimer County)
8
ATTACH144ENT3
11/9/06 LCUASS Open House#1 Comments and Comment Responses
1) Developer obligation for a collector street was increased from a local to a
collector—why?
Current policy causes confusion:
-Developer responsible for cost of all streets for Local and Collector designation
-For Arterial Streets, the developer is responsible only for Local Street Equivalent
-What about bike lanes?
Proposal:
-Creates consistency—Development always pays for up through Collector
Classification
-Addresses issue of bike lane cost responsibility(part of Collector Street Cross
Section
-Shift in cost burden
-Local Street - $138/foot
-34 foot street, 5 foot walks, 5.5 inches of asphalt
-Collector Street - $179/foot
-38 foot street, 6 foot walks, 8 inches of asphalt
2) Why does the Local Entity Engineer have two weeks to approve final
pavement design? A 48 hour turnaround would be more favorable for
construction
The two week period has always been the standard. Sometimes it is necessary to
do investigative work to confirm /refute claims made in the pavement design
report. Additionally, it is sometimes it is necessary to travel to the site or speak
with the contractor/inspector to get site intelligence on bedrock or water table
depth issues that may not be characterized in the soils borings. These issues can
take some time. Thus the two weeks allows for these issues to be resolved.
3) What sort of"ticket' will be issued if a developer refuses to stop work?
Per LMC Section 1.12.010 would be the"general violation"that they could be
ticketed with.
4) Page E-18, Section C; I am an EC Certified Inspector and just one suggestion
is to clarify what"sufficiently stabilized" is. Example, 70% cover, EC
blankets, bales, etc. There have been issues in other areas with not having
sufficient stabilization.
Thank you for your input. However, we prefer to leave the language as is in order
to give the inspector flexibility to work with each developer to determine whether
or not the site is sufficiently stabilized.
5) Page E-19; You might want to add a section regarding generators or other
equipment. Keep away from U.S. Waters in designated areas.
Thank you for your input. However we have decided not to add any more notes
at this time and feel that this scenario is already covered. The state already
mandates that potential pollutant sources must be located a minimum distance
from waters of the U.S.
6) Figure 9-1; Confusing—how do we determine when to use FL and when to
use CL? (Kim Lambrecht)
Instead we'll add language that indicates that the proposed access shall not be<
200' from the centerline of an arterial roadway unless otherwise approved by the
Local Entity Engineer.
7) Section 1.13; Make sure redevelopment of areas outside the core downtown
and surrounding area is covered. (Kim Lambrecht)
These infill areas are intended to only include the core downtown area. Areas
outside of the core downtown area were intentionally not included in this section.
8) Table 7-2; Essential elimination of attached walks—may not work with
infill/redevelopment. Will flexibility be allowed? (Kim Lambrecht)
Yes, flexibility will be allowed on a case-by-case basis.
9) Figure 7-16; I still believe the corner sight distance should be 100 feet for
each 10 mph of design speed. Drivers will choose the gap that they feel is
adequate. Having more sight distance will not accomplish what is intended
with having the larger S.D. (Matt Delich)
The sight distance requirements in the LCUASS are intentionally conservative in
order to account for all situations. The applicant's traffic engineer is always
welcome to submit a formal variance request that addresses the sight distance
requirements for a specific access point.
10)Figure 8-4; This figure should be revisited. The similar charts in NCHRP
279 were intended for higher speed roads. (Matt Delich)
We will be addressing this figure in the next version of the LCUASS revisions. It
did not work with the schedule to address all of the traffic related suggested
revisions.
11)Chapter 8; In some instances (case by case, perhaps), the deceleration
distance should not be added to the storage distance. In the State Highway
Access Code there are classifications of roads that only require storage plus
bay taper, not deceleration plus storage. (Matt Delich)
These case-by-case situations can be appropriately addressed in a formal variance
request submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer.
12)Figure 19-6; What is the source of this figure? (Matt Delich)
This standard has been applied for over 28 years at the City of Fort Collins and by
observation, has worked well.
13)Offer some judgment on Table 7-4 for min. distance between intersections
for arterials for less than 1320 feet and 660 feet. Try to replicate Table 7-3.
At this time, Loveland has decided not to change the intersection spacing
requirements for arterial roadways.
14)Correct spelling error"Loeland" on Page 7-13
Good catch. We will correct this spelling error.
12/14/06 LCUASS Open House#2 Comments
1) Section 16.3.1.A3,JR Engineering would like this section to include more
flexibility since crosswalks every 300 feet often don't work (not safe). So this
should not be "forced." Crosswalks seem to end up in middle of curves.
This section has not changed since the last revision in 2002 and has worked well.
Therefore we are not proposing to change it at this time. There are provisions
available within good design to accommodate compliance with this section while
maintaining a safe pedestrian crossing.
2) What is the cost difference between 3,500 psi concrete and 4,000 psi concrete?
The only proposed change that creates a potential cost increase for developers is
in Chapter 22, Section 22.4.2A. 1&2, where the strength requirement for concrete
sidewalks and curb and gutter is proposed to increase from 3,500 psi concrete to
4,000 psi concrete.
The change requires more cement added to the concrete to provide greater
strength. We have had problems in many developments where the concrete has
been "spauling,"where the concrete surface cracks into small pieces and comes
loose leaving a rough scaley surface on the concrete. This causes developers to
pay for expensive fixes to reconstruct the concrete within the warranty period. In
one case this involved about 40%of the project's concrete. On the other hand,
our concrete pavements in the street have not shown"spauling"problems. The
stronger concrete is required for pavements. We expect the increased strength
will reduce costs for many by their not having to do expensive replacement. The
contractors have supported the change, and we have heard no objections from
developers.
We do not know whether a cost increase will result. Just looking at the material
costs for concrete, the cost increase calculates to be about $0.70 per front foot on
each side of a local street (45 more for each cubic yard of concrete). Therefore
the cost for a 50 foot wide lot frontage would be approximately$35 more.
However, since the problem has been serious, many contractors had already been
using the 4,000 psi concrete. One contractor stated that it was cheap insurance for
him not to have to remove and replace concrete within the 2-year warranty period.
Therefore, we believe the price is already built into the market.
3) Specify color on the brick pavers.
We appreciate the comment. We will specify the color of the brick pavers to be
"River Red" on the Standard Drawings.
4) 6" curb @ back of ramp on truncated dome details? (For Loveland)
Thank you for the comment. We agree that there are situations where we will not
have a 6" curb at the back of the sidewalk ramp. We will revise the figures to
remove the note accordingly.
5) There are some duplicate figures and drawings.
Thank you for the comment. There were some duplicate figures and drawings in
a couple of the books at the Open House. This has already been taken care of.
... ... .__. .._ . .
ATTACHMENT
DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3
Transportation Board
January 17, 2007
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT
None.
7. ACTION ITEMS
a. REVISIONS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET
STANDARDS— M. Herzig
Mike Herzig stated that in 2001, City Council adopted the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards.This was after 3-4 years of work involving Loveland,
Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins to develop common technical
standards, one document, to be used by all three agencies. The first revisions to
these Standards were adopted in October 2002. Staff is now proposing the
second set of revisions.
There is a list of proposed changes in Exhibit B that was included with the
Agenda Item Summary. Much of the changes are fixing typos or adding clarity,
not really a lot of substance to them. The only proposed change that creates a
potential cost increase for developers is in Chapter 22, Section 22.4.2A 1&2,
where the strength requirement for concrete sidewalks and curb and gutter is
proposed to increase from 3500 psi concrete to 4000 psi concrete to help
eliminate a spauling problem. The contractors have actually asked for this
standard, but staff wanted to make sure the developers support it as well. Staff
has heard no objections from the developers because they talk to their
contractors and staff believes they're convinced because the developers have
had some pretty expensive items to repair in the past.
The City of Loveland has gone ahead and endorsed these revisions even though
they didn't have the same amount of problems with concrete as we did up here.
The public process included several informal meetings that were held with the
affected interests in developing the revisions. There were also two open houses
to allow for review of the final versions of the revisions. Several consulting
engineers attended to review the changes and make comments.
Board Discussion:
Price. We have a lot of cyclists who both commute and ride recreationally in and
out of the city. When the county redid north Overland Trail and made nice wide
bike lanes/shoulders, there were some real serious problems when you came out
of the city and into the county. All those gravel roads made for lots of drag out
onto the shoulders so the bikes flying down those beautiful bike lanes had to
swerve out into traffic or go right through the gravel. My question is 1) do the
Standards address these kinds of issues for bicyclists or do the Standards
address any sweeping or maintenance issues? I guess this is a question as much
for DK as anybody because this is the type of question that he should be able to
answer if anyone asks him.
Herzig. The answer is no on the maintenance standards. We don't have
maintenance criteria; these are design and construction standards. We do have
a rural detail showing some detail back into properties so you don't get sloughing
DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4
Transportation Board
January 17, 2007
of the gravel that far into the street. I know that on our capital projects, such as
South Taft Hill, we paved some of those gravel driveways because we didn't
want gravel getting thrown up on the sidewalks.
Price. How do address that? How do we complain and to whom?
Herzig. Since it's in the county, you'd have to call Mark Peterson in Larimer
County Engineering and see whether they'd do anything about that. Our
standards apply to the Urban Growth boundary, then the County has its own
rural road standards.
Robert. City Plan changed the streetscape so that there will not be a roll curb
sidewalk, there will always be a separator. Has that impacted the standards of
how you build curbs? Before they were tied together so they were stronger, but
now its two separate things.
Herzig. We have a standard for curb and gutter that stands alone from the
sidewalk standard. We do allow on residential streets that they do a drive over
curb with no sidewalk and they can separate that. They have to dedicate an
extra foot of right-of-way on each side in order to have an 18-inch curb instead
of a 6-inch curb. That is a standard that is allowed, they have an option of doing
a vertical curb or a drive over curb, but they have to dedicate more ROW for it.
The sidewalk is still detached from the curb.
Robert: Roundabouts. I read in here and it doesn't have all the details, it
appears that we're using the same roundabout standards that were established
by Loveland.
Herzig. Loveland has had the most experience with the design and construction
of roundabouts. I should add that there is a new appendix being added in here
that's labeled as"I"which is Roundabout Design Criteria and our Traffic
Engineer, Eric Bracke, has decided from what he reads in that, that he wants to
be a part of that too. So we're taking Loveland off of that and it will be for Fort
Collins too.
Robert. Good! He has some pretty good designs and I would not want to be
held to some of the Loveland designs.
Thomas There are several pages in here that without reading the entire
document, we don't know what we're voting on. We're sort of taking it by faith
that all the changes in here are administrative, typographical, housekeeping and
that the only real hand grenade, if you will, is this increase in the concrete. Is
there anything else in here that as it goes through the review that someone is
going to raise the Flag and say that you've really changed the world on us.
Herzig. We don't expect anything. We've had the public involved throughout, in
fact many of the changes came from the users and that's the consultants who
use these standards to design by. They find our mistakes. We've also had two
open houses and invited the public, the development community and consultants
and they've come to those open houses. The books were set out and they sat
down and read through the whole thing. Keep in mind that this is a living
document and that there are ongoing changes.
DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5
Transportation Board
January 17, 2007
Haiiock-Solomon: You took this to Planning and Zoning Board, right? What was
their response?
Herzig. A lot less than yours tonight. I will also be going before the Affordable
Housing Board next month.
Grigg made a motion to endorse these rev/slons to the Street
Standards, There was a second by Hallock-Solomon. The motion
carried by a majority vote, 9-1.
Thomas asked Price if he'd like to state why he is opposed, not that he has to.
Price: I'm opposed because of lack of clear direction and time to consider it.
This seems like a rubber stamp. If I'd had 30 more days to ask questions; the
bicycle issue is a good example. You may not want to insert any bicycle
standards in this round, but that would be a nice step forward. This is a
complicated document, very detailed with lots of changes, none of which are
very substantive for this group to address, yet it sounds to me like a rubber
stamp. If someone on Council gets upset about one of these things and says,
"What does the Transportation Board say about this?" it would be zip, because
we really didn't have time to consider it in depth. Hence, I wonder how valuable
this particular action is from this group. If our rubber stamp is really that
important, then we should have seen this 30 days ago.
Grigg. We are only endorsing the revisions, not the whole entire document.
Thomas Fair note. You did raise a point, and I want to thank Mark for doing
this. We are now getting a one-page summary, the Agenda Item Summary, that
at least gives us a heads up going into these what we're going to be asked to do
and what the issues on it would be. Did everyone find this of any value? (Many
members responded affirmatively.)
Robert: This is basically what we're rubber stamping right here (referring to the
AIS).
Herzig. Just a reminder that all of these are available on the Internet and
they're all in there with the red lines and strikeouts.
Thomas thanked Herzig for coming and for taking the time to know what's in the
document. Herzig said that if you "Google"street standards, these standards are
the number one item. Calls come in from all over the country.
Price stated that that deserves a"congratulations"!
ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2007
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE LARIMER COUNTY
URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS BY REPEAL AND READOPTION THEREOF
WHEREAS, by the passage of Ordinance No. 196, 2000, the City Council adopted the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (the"Standards") on January 2, 2001; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption thereof,the City of Fort Collins,by Ordinance No.
103,2002,and the City of Loveland and Larimer County approved an amendment to the Standards
known as Revision No. 1; and
WHEREAS, additional proposed revisions have been recommended by the Transportation
Board of the City and were received with no objection by the Planning and Zoning Board and the
Affordable Housing Board; and
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions have also been made known to the general public
through various media and have received favorable comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these additional proposed amendments
to the Standards should be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that effective April 1,2007,the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards,as repealed
and readopted by Revision No. 1, shall be repealed and readopted to read as shown on that certain
document entitled"Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards(Revision No.2)"a copy of which
is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 6th day of
February,A.D. 2007, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of February,A.D. 2007.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of February, A.D. 2007.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk