HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 HIGH SCHOOL - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-02Lester M. Kaplan
140 Palmer Drive e Fort Collins • Colorado 80525
Phone: (970) 226-6819 Fax: (970) 207-9256
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
r t w [Irr
rp
Community Planning and Environmental Services - -
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: Fort Collins High School Proposal
Ziegler/ Rock Creek
Dear Ted:
As an owner of property on Cambridge Avenue close to where the 1800 student Fort
Collins High School project is proposed, I would like to express my concerns regarding
the inevitability for errant traffic on Cambridge Avenue. This High School traffic would be
in conjunction with traffic from the recently approved Brookfield Subdivision and the
Willowbrook Subdivision. While Cambridge Avenue is not currently being considered as
access to any of these developments, it is the most direct route and, although
unimproved, will be used by those not knowing the way or as a shortcut.
Currently, Cambridge Avenue is an approximately 1600 foot private drive, with public
right-of-way for only the first 700 feet or so. Designated as an eventual minor arterial
with approved construction drawings, this private drive currently provides access to five
(5) houses and dead ends about 1000 north of east -west Rock Creek Drive, which is the
primary access road for the Brookfield/Willowbrook Subdivisions and the High School.
Whether Cambridge Avenue is improved or not, new residents to the area and students
will try to use Cambridge Avenue as the most direct route to their homes and to the High
School. This means errant traffic going north on Cambridge Avenue then, once reaching
the dead end, turning around. Not only a traffic intrusion onto a private drive maintained
by the property owners, this traffic also would add to the existing safety problem of traffic
turning east and west at the Cambridge/Harmony intersection. There will no doubt be
those with four-wheel drive vehicles trying to drive across private property where no
improved road exists, attempting to cut through the last 1000 feet from where Cambridge
Avenue dead ends to reach Rock Creek Drive
Of course, the improvement of Cambridge Avenue consistent with the City's master
street plan would solve the problem. Unfortunately, this is not scheduled. As you know,
the final approval for Hewlett-Packard's project on the west side of Cambridge Avenue
includes the improvement of Cambridge Avenue. However, Hewlett-Packard has
indefintely postponed its' project, thereby indefinitely postponing the improvement of
Cambridge Avenue. Neither the Brookfield Subdivision nor the Willowbrook Subdivision
are being required to improve Cambridge Avenue. You will recall that the applicants for
these projects had proposed to the City that Cambridge Avenue, the most direct route to
these neighborhoods from Harmony Road, be improved by them to serve as their
primary access road. However, the City and Colorado Department of Transportation
required that east -west Rock Creek, instead of Cambridge Avenue, serve as the primary
access road to these new neighborhoods.
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height
with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the
line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so
that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground,
and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists.
Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be
removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of
visibility.
61
The private drive that connects Cambridge Avenue with Ziegler Road needs to be
dedicated as an emergency access easement for emergency access. In addition,
because this roadway is shared with the future park development, the roadway should
also be dedicated as a public access easement to allow legal public access. A legal
description with a deed of dedication to the City of Fort Collins as a public access and
emergency access easement should be submitted prior to mylar sign off on the plan set.
62
Is a median proposed for the private drive bus entrance off Rock Creek Drive? The site
and landscape plans appear to show this, but are not clearly reflected on the utility
plans.
Topic: Grading
45
In general, the contours on the drainage plan appear to differ from the grading plan.
Topic: Groundwater
29
[DR 051 There is a concern that the detention/irrigation facility may result in additional
water collection via groundwater. The soils report indicates a boring (B-29) nearby with
groundwater encountered at 8' below the existing surface. Because the
detention/irrigation pond could possibly draw down this groundwater, a professional
engineer should verify that any adjudicated water rights to property owners are not
being harmed by this design. A report similar to the requirements in LCUASS 5.6.2
should be submitted.
Topic: Irrigation
27
[UT 01-021 Irrigation lines along Kechter Road and Ziegler Road are shown on the plan
set. These irrigation lines cannot be within the 15' of utility easement. These irrigation
lines need to be within their own private easement and permission from the property
owner is required if the land is not owned by PSD.
Page 2
Topic: Street design
30
The improvements along Rock Creek Drive that were approved with Willow Brook
appear to have some issues with the improvements proposed on the plan set and are
listed following. In general, revisions to the Willow Brook plan set should be submitted
to the City for the improvements shown on these plans that were not shown on Willow
Brook. Because Willow Brook may shortly begin on the Rock Creek Drive
improvements, it would appear to be beneficial to have the Willow Brook revisions made
soon:
31
Both driveways out: to Rock Creek Drive are not reflected on the approved Willow Brook
plans. Ideally, the Willow Brook plans should be revised to reflect the driveways in order
to prevent construction by Willow Brook without the drive entrances -- street cut penalty
fees would be levied if the driveway cuts were made later.
32
Both driveways out to Rock Creek Drive appear to show 30' corner radii. 15' corner radii
is the maximum allowed to intersect a collector street in accordance with the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) (Table 8-2 and 8.2.9A). A variance
request to the City Engineer is required to vary the standards.
33
The westernmost driveway out to Rock Creek Drive does not appear to have pavement
in front of it to allow for left turn movements; the Willow Brook plan set specified that the
center portion of the roadway east of the Rock Creek Drive/Ziegler Road intersection for
a distance of over 600 feet would not have pavement. Pavement should be added
along this stretch (and perhaps landscaping if interested.) Ideally, Willow Brook plans
would be revised to reflect the changes before Willow Brook constructs the plan set as
currently shown.
34
A revision to Willow Brook's striping plan should be submitted in order to reflect the
change in striping by having full turning movements out the westernmost driveway out to
Rock Creek Drive.
35
The eastern leg of Rock Creek Drive along the Ziegler Road/Rock Creek Drive
intersection was not designed by Willow Brook as a permanent improvement and was
designed with temporary paving to transition into the existing portion of Ziegler Road.
The utility plans should show an ultimate design of this area, which ties into the
improvements proposed on Ziegler Road.
36
The Willow Brook plan set shows construction of the street stub to continue Technology
Parkway south of Rock Creek Drive. The Willow Brook plan set should be revised to
show the roadway continuing straight across at this point before Willow Brook builds this
roadway.
Page 3
37
Just west of the eastern driveway out to Rock Creek Drive and just west of the Rock
Creek Drive/Cambridge intersection, the plan set specifies the installation of Type R
inlets. Again, it would be beneficial to have this reflected on Willow Brook's plan set
before the roadway is constructed without these inlets and street cut penalty fees would
be levied.
38
The improvements along Cambridge Avenue that were approved with Willow Brook
appear to have some issues with the improvements proposed on the plan set and are
listed following. In general, revisions to the Willow Brook plan set should be submitted
to the City for the improvements shown on these plans that were not shown on Willow
Brook. While Cambridge Avenue is shown as a phase 2 improvement for Willow Brook
and may not be constructed as soon as Rock Creek Drive, it was my understanding that
there may be agreements between PSD and the Willow Brook developer regarding the
construction of Cambridge Avenue which should then be revised on the Willow Brook
plan set.
39
Cambridge Avenue: on the Willow Brook plan set adjacent to Willow Brook does not
specify the construiction of the 8' parking lane on the west side of the roadway. It would
appear to be beneficial if the entire roadway from curb to curb was built at once with
both sides of the street now being developed. The Willow Brook plan set would need to
be revised to reflect the full width construction. If Willow Brook constructs Cambridge as
currently shown on the plan set, the addition of the parking lane and curb and gutter at a
later date may require saw cut removal of a portion of the then existing roadway in
accordance with street cut criteria and would become more expensive rather than the
construction of the entire roadway at once.
40
The Willow Brook plans for Cambridge Avenue specifies two street stubs on the west
side of the roadway that are no longer being reflected on the school site. This should
also be revised on the Willow Brook plan set.
41
The utility plan set [01-05] specifies a type R inlet where a street stub is currently
proposed on the Willow Brook plan set. Willow Brook's plan set should be revised
accordingly.
42
All driveways out to Rock Creek, Ziegler, & Cambridge should be built to LCUASS
Standard Detail 7-29B (concrete to the property line, access ramps, etc.) Include this
detail on the detain sheet and revise the drawings to reflect this standard.
43
All driveways out to Rock Creek, Ziegler, & Cambridge are limited in the amount of
drainage that can enter the public street from the driveway. With the exception of the
driveway out to Cambridge, which has inlets, the other driveways may exceed the
Page 4
maximum of 500 square feet as specified under LCUASS 9.4.11A. (Additional detail is
needed on the grading plan with spot elevations to help discern this.)
44
Why aren't directional access ramps and enhanced crosswalks shown along the north
leg of the Cambridge/Kechter intersection?
46
On the road design sheets, additional gradations (beyond 5 foot vertical intervals)
should be shown.
47
[RD 01] On the Cambridge plan and profile, provide the elevation and show the
transition point to remove the crown of Cambridge as it approaches Kechter Avenue.
48
[RD 01] The driveway out to Cambridge shows 30' corner radii. 15' corner radii are the
maximum allowed to intersect a collector street in accordance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). A variance request to the City Engineer is
required to vary the standards. Because this driveway was not intended for normal
school bus operations and the smaller radii would decrease speeds at this intersection,
the City's Transportation group does not see a compelling reason to allow for the larger
radii.
50
[RD 02-031 The driveway out to Ziegler shows 30' corner radii. 20' corner radii are the
maximum allowed to intersect a collector street in accordance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). A variance request to the City Engineer is
required to vary the standards. Because this driveway was not intended for normal
school bus operations and the smaller radii would decrease speeds at this intersection,
the City's Transportation group does not see a compelling reason to allow for the larger
radii.
51
[RD 02-03] The design of Ziegler Road needs cross -sections at 50-foot intervals in order
to verify that a constant cross -slope is being maintained from the existing edge of
pavement to the proposed. Please use centerline stationing for the cross sections and
have the centerline: stationing shown on these sheets in order to form a basis of
comparison between the cross -sections, saw cut line and flowline.
52
[RD 02-03] Curve data and line table information is missing.
53
[RD 02-03] A note needs to be added after the indication of the saw cut line stating:
"Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the
City Engineering Inspector." Remove the indication of "-1' from EOP".
54
Page 5
[RD 02-031 Please :show the full -width of Ziegler on the plan view
55
[RD 02-031 Information was presented by Nolte indicating that Ziegler Road was not
constructed to the approved plan set for the Sage Creek development. The City
contacted Sear -Brawn, the surveyor/engineer for Sage Creek to confirm/dispute this.
Sear -Brown did their own survey work and the data was presented by Sear -Brown to
the City on January 29, 2001. It indicates that the roadway was not built according to
plan. The City is currently working on how to address this issue in order for the design
of Ziegler on this plan set to proceed without delay.
56
(RD 01-031 Use directional ramps on all new construction and provide the construction
detail (LCUASS SD164D)
57
[RD 03] A grade break is shown along the flowline that does not meet design standards.
58
[RD 03] The 30' corner radius at the intersection of Kechter Road and Ziegler Road is
too large and is required to be 25' under the LCUASS.
Adesign for the hazes across Cambridge is required on the utility plan drawings with structural calculations from a structural engineer prior to sign off on
the plan set.
Topic: Striping Plan
59
[RD 051 Shouldn't the right turn lane and the bike lane be switched for the street striping
on Cambridge as it approaches Kechter Road?
60
[RD 061 It would appear that an incorrect symbol was used for the through lane on
Ziegler Road at the Kechter Road intersection.
Topic: Utilities
28
[UT 02] An existing sanitary sewer line is shown running parallel to the McClelland
Channel along the north. There is also a subdrain that follows this line for a short
distance then daylights into the channel. This subdrain (for Harvest Park & Sage Creek)
should be shown on the plan set.
Topic: Utility Plan
22
ICYB 11 Ensure that the Utility Plan Approval Block is on every sheet of the plan set and add Natural Resources to the Approval Block.
23
[CV 02] Revise the: utility plan general notes to the newer version (as attached with the
redlines and available in electronic format if desired.)
Page 6
24
[UT 01-02] There are dedicated right-of-way "stubs" on Rock Creek Drive (at the
termination of Technology Parkway) and on Cambridge Avenue (two locations) that
should be vacated with 9' being retained for utility easement. The process should begin
to vacate these right-of-way portions, with legal descriptions submitted to the City.
25
[UT 01-02] There does not appear to be existing right-of-way along the eastern part of
Ziegler Road to complete the roadway improvement started with Harvest Park/Sage
Creek. Please provide the necessary deeds of dedication and legal descriptions to
dedicate the right-of-way. Ideally, these deeds of dedication should be submitted to the
City prior to mylar signatures. (Please note that there are still deeds of dedication that
have not been given to the City for the Staley Elementary School site.)
26
[UT 01-0219' of utility easement behind the right-of-way exists along Rock Creek Drive
and most of Cambridge Avenue (Reception #2001085365) which was acquired with the
Willow Brook development. 15' of utility easement on Ziegler & Kechter Road and 9' of
utility easement along the curved portion of Cambridge is required to be dedicated
behind the right-of-way in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS). Legal descriptions along with deeds of dedication for these
easements dedicated to the City should be provided prior to final sign off on the mylars.
Page 7
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: March 11, 2002 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #43-01A Webster Farm, Poudre School Dist.
2004 High School — Site Plan Advisory Review
- Type II (LUC)
All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the
staff review meeting:
April 3, 2002
No Comment
ElProblems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE, COPIES OF REVISIONS
I)Ael!tSite Drainage Report 4
Hhli y— Rcdlin-c [Uiry — n scab pe
Project Comments Sheet
Selected Departments
(_itvoJ FortColling
. �
Department: Engineering
Date: April 5, 2002
Project:
POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004 HIGH SCHOOL - SITE PLAN
ADVISORY REVIEW, #43-01A
All comments must be received by TED SHEPARD in Current Planning no later than
the staff review meeting:
April 03, 2002
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: Bridge Structure
63
A design of the boxes across Cambridge is required on the utility plan drawings with
structural calculations from a structural engineer prior to sign off on the plan set.
[4/3] Structural talcs have not been received. The structural talcs are required to be in
the form of a sufficiency rating as specified in LCUASS 11.2.2.
69
There is a concern on the culvert design regarding the drainage flow as it approaches
the structure. The direction of flow is not perpendicular to the culverts, this combined
with the grading of the channel prior to the culvert raises a potential concern of scouring
at the structure and compromising the integrity of the structure. Why can't the channel
be graded to be less circuitous to reduce potential scouring at the structure and the
structure designed to be perpendicular to the flow? Additional measures to reduce
scouring (rip -rap) may need to be investigated. The structural talcs previously
mentioned should also address this potential scouring issue.
70
Additional right-of-way along Cambridge will be needed along the east side to include all
of the bridge structure (the additional right-of-way is evidently not needed on the west
side as it is now owned by the City?)
.Signature Date
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat _ Site Drainage Report
Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape
pmze I
71
It should be verified what the utility needs are around the bridge structure, what amount
of sleeving needs to be specified and whether utility easement is required outside of the
right-of-way at the bridge structure. A utility coordination meeting is recommended to
evaluate utility needs and ensure that the proper information is specified on the plan set.
This should also include ensuring that irrigation lines are extended for irrigation of the
landscape strip at the structure.
72
The sidewalk across the bridge structure needs to be widened out to 6' in order to meet
separation requirements from a fixed structure. A transition should be shown from the 5'
to the 6'.
73
[CT02] The loading data on this sheet specifies HS-20-44, what is the "44"? Please
note and label on I:he plans that LCUASS (11.2.4.B.2) specifies a requirement of HS-25
Topic: General
49
[RD 01, Site and Landscape Plan] A sight distance easement is needed for the driveway
entrance off Cambridge Avenue in accordance with LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-16.
This is sketched out on the Landscape Plan. Please show this easement on the site,
landscape, and utility plans, provide the standard note below regarding sight distance
and provide the necessary deed of dedication to the City to record the easement.
Please note the vertical requirements of a sight distance easement, including how
fences are required to be no greater than 42 inches in height and do not obstruct the
line of sight for motorists; there is a vertical crest along the travel of Cambridge in
between the start of the sight distance easement and the driveway entrance that. The
ballfield fence may need to be less than 42 inches in order to maintain the proper
degree of visibility Also note that conifer trees are not allowed in a sight distance
easement and thus requires changes to the landscape plan.
----------Add the following note to the site, landscape and utility plans ----------------
Sight Distance Easement - The sight distance easement is an easement required by the
City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a
motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle
into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy
a sight distance easement for level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height
with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the
line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so
that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground,
and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists.
Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be
removed by the owner.
Paee
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of
visibility.
[4/3] The response from the Engineer states that the creation of a 3-way stop at this
intersection causes the sight distance easement to be removed. This is not the case. A
sight distance easement is required regardless of any traffic control devices at an
intersection and is still required here.
61
The private drive that connects Cambridge Avenue with Ziegler Road needs to be
dedicated as an emergency access easement for emergency access. In addition,
because this roadway is shared with the future park development, the roadway should
also be dedicated as a public access easement to allow legal public access. A legal
description with a deed of dedication to the City of Fort Collins as a public access and
emergency access easement should be submitted prior to mylar sign off on the plan set.
(4/3] In conversation with the Parks Department, they are supportive of this private drive
needing to be dedicated as an access and emergency access easement. Again, these
documents should be submitted prior to mylar sign off on the plan set.
68
In general, there are comments that were made last round which the design engineer
responded that TST would coordinate. This coordination should be made prior to final
sign off on the plan set. Please note that there may be some disagreement as to
Nolte/TST responsibilities based upon an email sent by the Planning Manager for
Village Homes dated 4/4/02.
Topic: Groundwater
29
[DR 05] There is a concern that the detention/irrigation facility may result in additional
water collection via groundwater. The soils report indicates a boring (B-29) nearby with
groundwater encountered at 8' below the existing surface. Because the
detention/irrigation pond could possibly draw down this groundwater, a professional
engineer should verify that any adjudicated water rights to property owners are not
being harmed by this design. A report similar to the requirements in LCUASS 5.6.2
should be submitted.
[4/3] The response indicates that this will be addressed via a pond liner for the pond.
There did not appear to be any indication on the plan set that a liner would be used.
Please ensure that this is indicated on the plan set along with material/type details.
Topic: Street design
30
The improvements along Rock Creek Drive that were approved with Willow Brook
appear to have some issues with the improvements proposed on the plan set and are
Page 3
It would seem logical that the new high school would trigger the improvement of
Cambridge Avenue, but I understand that the traffic impact analysis required of the
School District surprisingly does not indicate that the improvement of Cambridge Avenue
is necessary to accommodate the traffic needs of the High School. Therefore, a
situation is being created where nearly 1000 new residences have been approved, and
an 1800 student high school is about to be approved, with the most direct route to these
developments remaining unimproved and dead ending just 1000 feet short of the center
of these developments.
The problem of drivers either not knowing the way or looking for a shortcut could
increase for years and is not likely to go away in the long term. Consider the additional
traffic generated from visitors, contractor and service vehicles to these new
neighborhoods. Plus, consider the sporting events with visiting teams to be held in the
new baseball diamonds and soccer fields that are part of the new High School.
The public safety problems extend beyond the publics' use of an unimproved private
drive and increased turning movements at the Cambridge/Harmony intersection: The
School District school bus currently stops directly in the Cambridge/Harmony
intersection to pickup and drop-off students. On January 31 st, 2001 a student was nearly
struck by an eastbound motorist who, not seeing the school bus, veered to the right into
an irrigation ditch, just missing a child leaving the bus (Police Report No. 02-1988).
1 respectfully urge the City to consider that the construction of the new High School, in
conjunction with the development of the Brookfield and Willowbrook residential
subdivisions, would introduce both unnecessary traffic intrusions and safety problems on
Cambridge Avenue. Short of Cambridge Avenue being properly improved to assume its'
eventual role in accessing these areas, traffic mitigation measures along Cambridge
Avenue should be required of the new High School project. These would include 1)
signage at the Cambridge/Harmony and Cambridge/Rock Creek intersections, 2)
barricade placement where Cambridge Avenue currently end and at the Cambridge/
Rock Creek intersection, 3) a commitment to install a turn around where Cambridge
Avenue ends, 4) and any other measures necessary to avoid problems during the
indefinite time period before Cambridge Avenue is improved.
I appreciate your passing my concerns to the applicant, appropriate staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board.
Sincerely,
Lester M. Kaplain
Cc. Cambridge Avenue residents
listed following. In general, revisions to the Willow Brook plan set should be submitted
to the City for the improvements shown on these plans that were not shown on Willow
Brook. Because Willow Brook may shortly begin on the Rock Creek Drive
improvements, it would appear to be beneficial to have the Willow Brook revisions made
soon,
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
31
Both driveways out to Rock Creek Drive are not reflected on the approved Willow Brook
plans. Ideally, the Willow Brook plans should be revised to reflect the driveways in order
to prevent construction by Willow Brook without the drive entrances -- street cut penalty
fees would be levied if the driveway cuts were made later.
[4/3] It was agreed that these driveways would be designed on Nolte plans and left off
TST drawings. Care must be exhibited when making the driveway cuts as street cut
penalty fees would be levied if damage to the asphalt occurs.
32
Both driveways out to Rock Creek Drive appear to show 30' corner radii. 15' corner radii
is the maximum allowed to intersect a collector street in accordance with the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) (Table 8-2 and 8.2.9A). A variance
request to the City Engineer is required to vary the standards.
[4/3] In response to the variance request submitted by Nolte on 3/11/02, the City
Engineer has issued a letter dated 4/3/2002. This states that the City Engineer does not
support the use of 30' corner radii, though will support 25' radii for the driveway
entrances out to Rock Creek Drive.
33
The westernmost driveway out to Rock Creek Drive does not appear to have pavement
in front of it to allow for left turn movements; the Willow Brook plan set specified that the
center portion of the roadway east of the Rock Creek Drive/Ziegler Road intersection for
a distance of over 600 feet would not have pavement. Pavement should be added
along this stretch (and perhaps landscaping if interested.) Ideally, Willow Brook plans
would be revised to reflect the changes before Willow Brook constructs the plan set as
currently shown.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
34
A revision to Willow Brook's striping plan should be submitted in order to reflect the
change in striping by having full turning movements out the westernmost driveway out to
Rock Creek Drive.
Page 4
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
35
The eastern leg of Rock Creek Drive along the Ziegler Road/Rock Creek Drive
intersection was not designed by Willow Brook as a permanent improvement and was
designed with temporary paving to transition into the existing portion of Ziegler Road.
The utility plans should show an ultimate design of this area, which ties into the
improvements proposed on Ziegler Road.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
36
The Willow Brook plan set shows construction of the street stub to continue Technology
Parkway south of Rock Creek Drive. The Willow Brook plan set should be revised to
show the roadway continuing straight across at this point before Willow Brook builds this
roadway.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
37
Just west of the eastern driveway out to Rock Creek Drive and just west of the Rock
Creek Drive/Cambridge intersection, the plan set specifies the installation of Type R
inlets. Again, it would be beneficial to have this reflected on Willow Brook's plan set
before the roadway is constructed without these inlets and street cut penalty fees would
be levied.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
38
The improvements along Cambridge Avenue that were approved with Willow Brook
appear to have some issues with the improvements proposed on the plan set and are
listed following. In general, revisions to the Willow Brook plan set should be submitted
to the City for the improvements shown on these plans that were not shown on Willow
Brook. While Cambridge Avenue is shown as a phase 2 improvement for Willow Brook
and may not be constructed as soon as Rock Creek Drive, it was my understanding that
there may be agreements between PSD and the Willow Brook developer regarding the
construction of Cambridge Avenue which should then be revised on the Willow Brook
plan set.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
39
Cambridge Avenue on the Willow Brook plan set adjacent to Willow Brook does not
specify the construction of the 8' parking lane on the west side of the roadway. It would
Page �
appear to be beneficial if the entire roadway from curb to curb was built at once with
both sides of the street now being developed. The Willow Brook plan set would need to
be revised to reflect the full width construction. If Willow Brook constructs Cambridge as
currently shown on the plan set, the addition of the parking lane and curb and gutter at a
later date may require saw cut removal of a portion of the then existing roadway in
accordance with street cut criteria and would become more expensive rather than the
construction of the entire roadway at once.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
40
The Willow Brook plans for Cambridge Avenue specifies two street stubs on the west
side of the roadway that are no longer being reflected on the school site. This should
also be revised on the Willow Brook plan set.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
41
The utility plan set [0105] specifies a type R inlet where a street stub is currently
proposed on the Willow Brook plan set. Willow Brook's plan set should be revised
accordingly.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
43
All driveways out to Rock Creek, Ziegler, & Cambridge are limited in the amount of
drainage that can enter the public street from the driveway. With the exception of the
driveway out to Cambridge, which has inlets, the other driveways may not exceed the
maximum of 500 square feet as specified under LCUASS 9.4.11A. (Additional detail is
needed on the grading plan with spot elevations to help discern this.)
[4/3] In response to the variance request submitted by Nolte on 3/11/02, the City
Engineer has issued a letter dated 4/3/2002. This states that the City Engineer is
supportive of the variance request to allow the design of the drainage off the driveway
out to Ziegler as proposed.
48
[RD 01] The driveway out to Cambridge shows 30' corner radii. 15' corner radii are the
maximum allowed to intersect a collector street in accordance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). A variance request to the City Engineer is
required to vary the standards. Because this driveway was not intended for normal
school bus operations and the smaller radii would decrease speeds at this intersection,
the City's Transportation group does not see a compelling reason to allow for the larger
radii.
Page 6
[4/31 In response to the variance request submitted by Nolte on 3/11/02, the City
Engineer has issued a letter dated 4/3/2002. This states that the City Engineer does not
support the use of 30' corner radii for the driveway out to Cambridge and will only
support 15' radii for the driveway entrances as required under LCUASS.
50
[RD 02-031 The driveway out to Ziegler shows 30' corner radii. 20' corner radii are the
maximum allowed to intersect a collector street in accordance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). A variance request to the City Engineer is
required to vary the standards. Because this driveway was not intended for normal
school bus operations and the smaller radii would decrease speeds at this intersection,
the City's Transportation group does not see a compelling reason to allow for the larger
radii.
[4/3] In response to the variance request submitted by Nolte on 3/11/02, the City
Engineer has issued a letter dated 4/3/2002. This states that the City Engineer does not
support the use of 30' corner radii for the driveway out to Ziegler and will only support
20' radii for the driveway entrances as required under LCUASS.
51
[RD 02-031 The design of Ziegler Road needs cross -sections at 50-foot intervals in order
to verify that a constant cross -slope is being maintained from the existing edge of
pavement to the proposed. Please use centerline stationing for the cross sections and
have the centerline stationing shown on these sheets in order to form a basis of
comparison between the cross -sections, saw cut line and flowline.
[4/31 The submitted cross sections need additional labels:
-elevation at the flowline
-cross slope of existing roadway
-cross slope of new road section
It should be demonstrated with this additional information that the additional road
widening results in a cross slope that is equal to or greater than the existing cross slope,
though not exceeding 3% as required under LCUASS.
66
The additional widening shown with the cross sections demonstrates varying pavement
widths. Because the road widening often falls within the wheel track of the through
lanes or in the middle of the bike lane (neither are allowed) the additional widening
needs to be shown as extended to the middle of the through lane. The patching note
should still be left in place, as there may be some allowances to minimize this
requirement in the field, however, the plans should be revised to show the additional
road widening widish.
Topic: Utilities
67
Page 7
Provide Water/Sanitation District signature blocks where appropriate for their sign off.
Topic: Utility Plari
24
[UT 01-02] There are dedicated right-of-way "stubs" on Rock Creek Drive (at the
termination of Technology Parkway) and on Cambridge Avenue (two locations) that
should be vacated with 9' being retained for utility easement. The process should begin
to vacate these right-of-way portions, with legal descriptions submitted to the City.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until the information is provided.
25
[UT 01-02] There does not appear to be existing right-of-way along the eastern part of
Ziegler Road to complete the roadway improvement started with Harvest Park/Sage
Creek. Please provide the necessary deeds of dedication and legal descriptions to
dedicate the right-of-way. Ideally, these deeds of dedication should be submitted to the
City prior to mylar signatures. (Please note that there are still deeds of dedication that
have not been given to the City for the Staley Elementary School site.)
[4/3] This comment is left as unresolved until the deeds and legals are provided.
26
[UT 01-0219' of utility easement behind the right-of-way exists along Rock Creek Drive
and most of Cambridge Avenue (Reception #2001085365) which was acquired with the
Willow Brook development. 15' of utility easement on Ziegler & Kechter Road and 9' of
utility easement along the curved portion of Cambridge is required to be dedicated
behind the right-of-way in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS). Legal descriptions along with deeds of dedication for these
easements dedicated to the City should be provided prior to final sign off on the mylars.
[4/3] This comment is left as unresolved until the deeds and legals are provided.
74
Please ensure that: the plans by indicating and shading distinguishes between:
-proposed by PSD (solid)
-existing (faded)
-proposed by Village Homes (dashed?)
Page 8
Project Comments Sheet
Selected Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: July 17, 2002
Project:
POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004 HIGH SCHOOL - SITE PLAN
ADVISORY REVIEW, #43-01A
All comments must be received by TED SHEPARD in Current Planning no later than
the staff review meeting:
July 17, 2002
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: Bridge Structure
63
A design of the boxes across Cambridge is required on the utility plan drawings with
structural calculations from a structural engineer prior to sign off on the plan set.
[4/3] Structural talcs have not been received. The structural talcs are required to be in
the form of a sufficiency rating as specified in LCUASS 11.2.2.
[7/15] Structural talcs may need to be revised with issues regarding the design of the
bridge structure outstanding.
69
There is a concern on the culvert design regarding the drainage flow as it approaches
the structure. The direction of flow is not perpendicular to the culverts, this combined
with the grading of the channel prior to the culvert raises a potential concern of scouring
at the structure and compromising the integrity of the structure. Why can't the channel
be graded to be less circuitous to reduce potential scouring at the structure and the
structure designed to be perpendicular to the flow? Additional measures to reduce
scouring (rip -rap) may need to be investigated. The structural talcs previously
mentioned should also address this potential scouring issue.
[7/15] Stormwater its doing further analysis of this issue.
Dole
CHECK ]HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat ✓'Si a Drainage Report Other_
Utility _ Atedline Utility -landscape
Page I
70
Additional right-of-way along Cambridge will be needed along the east side to include all
of the bridge structure (the additional right-of-way is evidently not needed on the west
side as it is now owned by the City?)
With this area being within City property, right-of-way dedication is not required.
However, area needs to be reserved as notice in lieu of dedication of right-of-way.
Please provide a legal description and picture sketch of the expanded area on both
sides of the structure. (4' beyond the wing walls is needed.)
71
It should be verified what the utility needs are around the bridge structure, what amount
of sleeving needs to be specified and whether utility easement is required outside of the
right-of-way at the bridge structure. A utility coordination meeting is recommended to
evaluate utility needs and ensure that the proper information is specified on the plan set.
This should also include ensuring that irrigation lines are extended for irrigation of the
landscape strip at the structure.
[7/17] Was this done with the pre -con that was done a month ago?
72
The sidewalk across the bridge structure needs to be widened out to 6' in order to meet
separation requirements from a fixed structure. A transition should be shown from the 5'
to the 6'.
[7/17] This was not addressed.
Topic: General
49
[RD 01, Site and Landscape Plan] A sight distance easement is needed for the driveway
entrance off Cambridge Avenue in accordance with LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-16.
This is sketched out on the Landscape Plan. Please show this easement on the site,
landscape, and utility plans, provide the standard note below regarding sight distance
and provide the necessary deed of dedication to the City to record the easement.
Please note the vertical requirements of a sight distance easement, including how
fences are required to be no greater than 42 inches in height and do not obstruct the
line of sight for motorists; there is a vertical crest along the travel of Cambridge in
between the start of the sight distance easement and the driveway entrance that. The
ballfield fence may need to be less than 42 inches in order to maintain the proper
degree of visibility. Also note that conifer trees are not allowed in a sight distance
easement and thus requires changes to the landscape plan.
----------Add the following note to the site, landscape and utility plans ----------------
Page 2
Sight Distance Easement - The sight distance easement is an easement required by the
City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a
motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle
into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy
a sight distance easement for level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height
with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42' inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the
line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so
that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground,
and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists.
Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be
removed by the owner.
For non -level areas. these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of
visibility.
[4/3] The response from the Enigneer states that the creation of a 3-way stop at this
intersection causes the sight distance easement to be removed. This is not the case. A
sight distance easement is required regardless of any traffic control devices at an
intersection and is still required here.
[7/17] The sight distance easement is reflected with the typical sight distance easement
language revised, this was satisfactory to Traffic Engineering and therefore the revised
language is okay to remain. A sight distance easement deed of dedication is required to
be dedicated for this sight distance.
61
The private drive that connects Cambridge Avenue with Ziegler Road needs to be
dedicated as an emergency access easement for emergency access. In addition,
because this roadway is shared with the future park development, the roadway should
also be dedicated as a public access easement to allow legal public access. A legal
description with a deed of dedication to the City of Fort Collins as a public access and
emergency access easement should be submitted prior to mylar sign off on the plan set.
[4/3] In conversation with the Parks Department, they are supportive of this private drive
needing to be dedicated as an access and emergency access easement. Again, these
documents should be submitted prior to mylar sign off on the plan set.
[7/17]This deed of dedication is required prior to sign off on the plan set.
E•,
Page 3
The pump house now being shown with a driveway off of Cambridge results in a sight
distance issue. Please provide legal descriptions and an exhibit of this area which will
need to be reserved because the sight distance is within City property.
85
Coordinate the access ramp locations along Cambridge with the Willow Brook plan set.
There are access ramps shown on the high school site that weren't provided on the
Cambridge Road design of Willow Brook.
86
With the eastern driveway off Rock Creek Drive no longer proposed but indicated as
future, the plan set should either:
1) note that revisions to the plan set are required to be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to any construction of the future parking area; or
2) have the area fully designed at this time, showing spot elevations of the parking lot
and driveway, patching to the edge of the bikelane and through lane, specify a cross
pan is applicable, etc.
In either situation an excavation permit will be required to be obtained from City
Engineering prior to any construction.
87
A Type III barricade is needed at the northern termination of Cambridge construction
defined by the plan set if construction is ahead of Willow Brook. Please indicate the
requirment of a Type III barricade and provide a detail (CDOT S-630-2) on the plan set.
88
The street striping of Cambridge at Kechter does not work from the standpoint that the
combined left turn/through lane would line up directly with the left turn lane across the
street. Please reconfigure the striping with the bike lane along the outside edge, a
combined through/right lane, and a center left turn lane. In the future, please include the
existing/approved striping across the street of any intersection to help determine offset
and alignment issues.
Topic: Street design
31
Both driveways out to Rock Creek Drive are not reflected on the approved Willow Brook
plans. Ideally, the Willow Brook plans should be revised to reflect the driveways in order
to prevent construction by Willow Brook without the drive entrances -- street cut penalty
fees would be levied if the driveway cuts were made later.
[4/31 It was agreed that these driveways would be designed on Nolte plans and left off
TST drawings. Care must be exhibited when making the driveway cuts as street cut
penalty fees would be levied if damage to the asphalt occurs.
[7/171 The plans should indicate street patching in front of the driveway (as well as
where inlets and access ramps are being shown) with limits to between the through lane
and bikelane. Add note to reference these: "Limits of street repair are approximate.
Page 4
Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to
be in accordance with City Street repair standards." This comment is made with the
understanding that patching may not be needed and street penalty fees may not be
assessed if the construction of the driveway, inlets, and access ramps can be made
without impact to the pavement.
35
The eastern leg of [Rock Creek Drive along the Ziegler Road/Rock Creek Drive
intersection was not designed by Willow Brook as a permanent improvement and was
designed with temporary paving to transition into the existing portion of Ziegler Road.
The utility plans should show an ultimate design of this area, which ties into the
improvements proposed on Ziegler Road.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
[7/17] The revisions that were approved for Willow brook still show temporary paving, it
will be the responsibility of the high school to reflect permanent improvements. This
should perhaps be incorporated into the Ziegler Road design which has been removed
from the high school site, as the permanent improvements along Rock Creek Drive can
only be demonstrated to tie into Ziegler Road with a proper design of Ziegler.
37
Just west of the eastern driveway out to Rock Creek Drive and just west of the Rock
Creek Drive/Cambridge intersection, the plan set specifies the installation of Type R
inlets. Again, it would be beneficial to have this reflected on Willow Brook's plan set
before the roadway is constructed without these inlets and street cut penalty fees would
be levied.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
[7/15] See Issue 31 with regards to reflecting patching and adding street patching notes.
39
Cambridge Avenue on the Willow Brook plan set adjacent to Willow Brook does not
specify the construction of the 8' parking lane on the west side of the roadway. It would
appear to be beneficial if the entire roadway from curb to curb was built at once with
both sides of the street now being developed. The Willow Brook plan set would need to
be revised to reflect the full width construction. If Willow Brook constructs Cambridge as
currently shown on the plan set, the addition of the parking lane and curb and gutter at a
later date may require saw cut removal of a portion of the then existing roadway in
accordance with street cut criteria and would become more expensive rather than the
construction of the entire roadway at once.
[4/3] This comment will be left as unresolved until drawings have been submitted.
Page 5
March 11, 2002
FCO194
Mr. Cam McNair, P.E., City Engineer
Transportation Services/Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
SUBJECT: Variance Requests:
LCUASS Table 8-2 - Curb Return Radii
LCUASS 9.4.11A — Driveway Runoff
Dear Mr. McNair:
BEY ON D E N G IN E E R ING
We are requesting a variance for 30' curb return radii (from 20') at the entrances to the 2004 High School
site. This request is in response to the comments from our meeting with Mr. Mark Virata on February 7,
2002 related to the 2004 High School Civil Improvement Plans.
We believe that a deviation from the City's Standard Criteria of 20' maximum curb return radii is warranted
for this project. There will be a relatively high amount of bus traffic that will be occurring at the entrances to
this site as compared to standard intersections around the City. In particular, as buses are waiting in queue to
exit from the site, other buses will be turning into the site. Additionally, there is the potential for fire
emergency vehicles needing access to the site while buses are queued. Increasing the turning radii to 30' and
the widening of travel lanes from 12 feet to 14 feet at these entrances will minimize conflicts between
incoming turning vehicles and buses waiting to exit.
In addition, a variance to the driveway runoff (LCUASS 9.4.11 A) at the private entrance from Ziegler Road
to the high school site is requested. The 42-foot wide private drive makes meeting this criteria difficult
because the proposed entrances to the high school are more similar to a street intersection then to a typical
curb cut driveway. The 42' width means that only 1 1.9' of driveway can drain to the street without this
variance. Our design grades and transitions at this entrance have minimized runoff onto the public street.
Storm drainage flow travels only about 250' down Ziegler Road from the school entry before emptying into
McClellands Creek. This direct release of storm flows is consistent with direction provided by City staff.
Thank you for your lime and consideration regarding these variance requests. Please call if you have
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Nolte Associates, Inc.
Tom Ochwat, P.E.
Project Manager
NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC.
1901 SHARP POINT DRIVE, SUITE A
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
970. 221.2400 TFI 9]0.221 2415 FAX
WWW. NOITE. COM
[7/15] Willow Brook revisions have been approved reflecting full -width construction of
Cambridge and showing inlet locations with stationing with a note that the design of the
inlets are to be done by Nolte. The two plan sets use different bearings to determine
locations. Ideally, Nolte's design should verify that the locations are the same.
Otherwise the contractor should have both plan sets on site and verify the locations are
the same prior to any construction.
48
[RD 01] The driveway out to Cambridge shows 30' corner radii. 15' corner radii are the
maximum allowed to intersect a collector street in accordance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). A variance request to the City Engineer is
required to vary the standards. Because this driveway was not intended for normal
school bus operations and the smaller radii would decrease speeds at this intersection,
the City's Transpod:ation group does not see a compelling reason to allow for the larger
radii.
[4/3] In response to the variance request submitted by Nolte on 3/11/02, the City
Engineer has issued a letter dated 4/3/2002. This states that the City Engineer does not
support the use of :30' corner radii for the driveway out to Cambridge and will only
support 15' radii for the driveway entrances as required under LCUASS.
[7/17] The plans reflect this directive with the exception of a 25' radius is proposed at the
northwest corner of Cambridge and the private drive. 15' is required per the directive
from the City Enigneer.
51
[RD 02-03] The design of Ziegler Road needs cross -sections at 50-foot intervals in order
to verify that a constant cross -slope is being maintained from the existing edge of
pavement to the proposed. Please use centerline stationing for the cross sections and
have the centerline stationing shown on these sheets in order to form a basis of
comparison between the cross -sections, saw cut line and flowline.
[4/3] The submitted) cross sections need additional labels:
-elevation at the flowline
-cross slope of exiting roadway
-cross slope of new road section
It should be demonstrated with this additional information that the additional road
widening results in a cross slope that is equal to or greater than the existing cross slope,
though not exceeding 3% as required under LCUASS.
[7/15] Issues regarding Ziegler Road are left as unresolved, though it is understood that
Ziegler Road is to be removed from the high school site.
:IF
Page 6
See redlines for Ziegler Road design issues. This was not reviewed extensively due to
outstanding issues on the design and the removal of Ziegler from the plan set at this
time.
Topic: Utility Plan
25
[UT 01-021 There does not appear to be existing right-of-way along the eastern part of
Ziegler Road to complete the roadway improvement started with Harvest Park/Sage
Creek. Please provide the necessary deeds of dedication and legal descriptions to
dedicate the right-of-way. Ideally, these deeds of dedication should be submitted to the
City prior to mylar signatures. (Please note that there are still deeds of dedication that
have not been given to the City for the Staley Elementary School site.)
[4/3 & 6/281 This comment is left as unresolved until the deeds and legals are provided.
[7/17] Preliminary legals were provided, however this will be left as unrresolved while
issues regarding Ziegler are worked out.
74
Please ensure that the plans by indicating and shading distinguishes between:
-proposed by PSD (solid)
-existing (faded)
-proposed by Village Homes (dashed?)
Page 7
Iml
,REVISI
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: 2/2001_1
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Ziegler Road (as part of the 2004 High School)
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
❑ No Problems
R1 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
o Remove/edit all references to "suicide", per Traffic Engineering.
o Revise the City approval block as redlined due to the project no longer being a "site plan
advisory review".
o Note # 1 throughout the plan set does not appear to be applicable with the recent (re)work done
by the developer to the west.
o The use of a meandering sidewalk along the Park property (as well as PSD property if desired)
was not viewed unfavorably from City Transportation, provided:
• The meandering walk maintains the minimum separation from the curb required for
Ziegler Road.
■ The meandering walk is designed in such away that the distance traveled from Kechter
Road to Rock Creek Drive is substantially equal if the path did not meander.
o No angle points are allowed. Provide an arc at STA 19+97.04 with a minimum arc length of
400'.
o Label the curb return radii proposed for the High School/Ziegler entrance. (Note that 20' radii is
the largest radii the City Engineer would support based upon a previous variance request; it dogs
appear 20' is being proposed).
o Provide a curve/line table for the street plan view.
o Ensure that vertical curves are to standard (crest curve on RD03 falls short.)
o On Sheet RD04 a note indicates installation of driveover curb and gutter for a portion of the curb
along HP, was this intended? If this is meant for maintenance access of some sort, is this to
continue an existing maintenance operation or will this be new? There may be some concerns
on the amount: of traffic if this is a new access.
o Specify the design of the median proposed (catch/spill curb?) Refer to the detail to be used.
o Show patching limits for utility cuts (typ.)
o Show utility crossings/depth and inlet locations on the street profile view (typ.)
o Add the following note to the General Notes: "Existing Ziegler Road does not appear to be built
in accordance with the plans "Sage Creek/Harvest Park County Road 9", dated 7/11/00. The
City will work: with these developments to coincide with these plans."
o Please add the enclosed detail for the construction of the access ramp warning strip/truncated
dome.
Date: March 7, 2003 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIO S
0 Plat El Site 0 Utility ❑Landscape ❑Drainage eport ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
B E Y O N D E N G I N E E R I N G
March11, 2002
rC019400
Mr. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
Current Planning Division
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
SUBJECT: Response to City of Fort Collins Comments dated January 23, 2002
Webster Farm - Proposed 2004 High School
Site Plan Advisory Review, #43-01A
Dear: Mr. Shepard:
This letter is in response to the comments received from the City of Fort Collins and other entities.
Specific responses are in the order of each comment sheet for each department and reference the
note number where applicable.
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District / South Fort Collins Sanitation District — Response
• Fasement documents will be prepared after installation to depict accurate location of these
utilities.
• The water lines in Cambridge Avenue and Kechter Road are now shown on the applicable
plans.
• We will continue to meet and coordinate with the District on water line issues.
Forestry — Response (by BHA)
Noted; street tree species have been changed to those recommended and the representative plant list
reflects the concerns about Norway Maples. The final landscape plan will take consideration of plant
suitability to the region and longevity of trees.
Natural Resources — Response (by BHA)
Noted; a note has been added to the landscape plan indicating that street trees shall be located a
minimum of 40 feet from street lights.
Excel Energy — Response (by BHA)
A note has been added to the landscape plan stating that no trees shall be located within 4 feet of gas
mains and services.
NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC.
IYII SIIARP POINT DRIVE. SUITE A
FORT COLLING CO 80525
,,,, 221 )100 TEL V10 221.2a11 FAX
'N'NN D10LTL COM
Mr. Ted Shepard
03/11/02
Page 2
Zoning — Response (by BHA)
l . The School District does not prefer the City standard of breaking up the parking lot with
landscaped islands due to snow removal and ease of maintenance. The school site plan has
large bio-swale islands within the lots, replacing the typical smaller islands, and the
percentage of landscaped area within the parking lot is representative of what it would be if
there were small islands.
2. A note has been added to the site plan stating that lights will comply with City of Fort Collins
standards.
3. Handicap ramps have been labeled at intersections and in the parking lots on the site plan.
4. The building envelope has been added to the site plan. It is labeled and dimensioned to the
property lines.
5. BHA is currently working with the existing High Schools in evaluating the number of the
student population that ride bicycles. The final construction drawings for the High School
2004 may have increased numbers of bicycle racks based upon findings from the evaluation
of bicycle riders at the other high schools.
6. Street trees have been added along Ziegler Rd. between Rock Creek Dr. and the private
drive.
Transportation Planning Department — Response
1. Direction ramps and an enhanced crosswalk at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and
Kechter Road. are now shown on the plans.
2. Access ramps (4) along the west side of Cambridge Avenue have been coordinated with TST
Consultants to be reflected on their road improvement plans for this portion of Cambridge
Avenue.
3. Directional ramps have been incorporated at all intersections to the public road system.
4. Noted. The striping plan has been revised.
5. The curb cut has been eliminated and is on reflected on the TST road improvement plans for
this portion of Cambridge Avenue.
6. The Poudre School District will explore a pedestrian signal upon the pedestrian patterns
when the high school is open.
7. This comment will be addressed by Traffic & Transportation Engineering (TIS Consultant).
NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mr. Ted Shepard
03/11/02
Page 3
Engineering Department - Responses
General:
49. A 3-way stop and the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and the eaabt
�ance td the High
School Private Drive has been incorporated into the plans to climin4te the sib{ distance
easement requested.
61. The Poudre School District and City of Fort Collins (CFC) Parks Department will
determine the type of easement for the Private Drive.
There will be no median at this location.
Grad=�
.1 inDrainage plan contours and grading plan contours have been updated to be the same.
Groundwater:
29. This mingling of irrigation/detention water with potential groundwater has been addressed
by implementing a PVC pond liner for within the pond. A report will not be necessary.
Irrigations
27. The proposed rerouting of the irrigation pipelines along Kechter and Ziegler Roads have
been realigned to traverse outside of the 1;-ft. utility easements. CFC Parks and PSD have
obtained permission from the end users for these modifications. The necessity of private
easement documents will be determined by the CFC Parks and PSD in their ongoing
negotiations of the park parcel.
Street Design:
30&3L
Revisions to Rock Creek Road improvement plans (Willow Brook PUD by TST
Consultants) have been coordinated per the meeting on February 7, 2002. These revisions
will be submitted by "fST Consultants to CFC for approval.
32. A variance request regarding the 30-ft radii to the entrances to the high school will be
submitted as part of this submittal.
33 thru 37:
Revisions to Rock Creek Road improvement plans (Willow Brook PUD by TST
Consultants) have been coordinated per the meeting on February 7, 2002. These revisions
will be submitted by TST Consultants to CFC for approval.
38 thru 41:
Cambridge Avenue improvement plans (Willow Brook PUD by TST Consultants) have
been coordinated per the meeting on February 7, 2002. These plans will reflect full width
design and incorporate proposed drainage improvements (street inlets) relating to the high
NOLTE ASSOCIATES. INC.
Mr. Ted Shepard
03/11/02
Page 4
school site. It is anticipated that inlets will be constructed as part of the high school
construction. Coordination with TST Consultants will be ongoing. These plans will be
submitted by TST Consultants to CFC for approval.
42," Noted and ;included in the plans
43' A variance request regarding the LCUASS 9.4.11A criteria and the entrances to the high
school will be submitted as part of this submittal. Additional grading elevations have been
included and high points at these entrances have been moved to reduce the amount of
/runoff onto the public street.
44 Noted and directional ramps have been included at this location.
46: Noted and included in the plans.
4 Noted and included in the plans.
48 A variance request regarding the 30-ft radii to the entrances to the high school will he
submitted as part of this submittal. A 3-way stop at this location has been incorporated into
the striping plan for speed reduction.
51 A variance request regarding the 30-ft radii to the entrances to the high school will be
/submitted as part of this submittal.
5 Y Noted. Cross -sections of Ziegler Road (50-ft. interval) have been included in the plans.
5 e� Noted. Horizontal Control plan sheets have been in the plans.
53/ Noted on the Ziegler Road improvement plans.
54. Noted on the Ziegler Road improvement plans.
53. Noted. The east flowline design reflects the proposed design presented by Sear Brown
Group per the CFC's direction.
5ZNoted and included in the plans.
V Noted and revised. See No. 55.
58. Please refer to the Kechter Road improvement plans by Northern Engineering.
63. Culvert design plans have been included in the plans.
NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mr. Ted Shepard
03/11/02
Page 5
Striping Plan:
59 The Striping Plan has been revised per your comment.
60 The Striping; Plan has been revised per your comment.
Utilities:
28. The subdrain mentioned in your comment appears to outfall into McClellands Creek east of
the creek crossing Ziegler Road and does not impact our proposed sewer connection
location.
UtilityPlan:
22' Approval blocks have been added to every sheet that includes a signature line for Natural
Resources.
23� The Utility Plan General Notes have been revised to reflect the newest version.
24. The vacation of the proposed right-of-way curb returns on Rock Creek Drive and
Cambridge Avenue are being addressed by TST Consultants per our coordination meeting
on February 7, 2002.
25. Poudre School District will provide the necessary deeds of dedication and legal
descriptions at a later date.
26. POUdre School District will provide the necessary deeds of dedication and legal
descriptions for right-of-way and utility easements where noted at a later date.
Stormwater Utility - Response
Drainage:
17. The drain€;e report has been updated to include hydraulic calculations.
18. Noted and included in the plans. A HEC-2 analysis and report is included in the drainage
report.
19. Noted. Please refer to the plans and drainage report.
20. Please refer to the soil report. Groundwater issues have been investigated and a pond liner
will be installed to eliminate the potential of mingling of groundwater and irrigation water.
21. Water quality will be attained via bio-swales on site. The large surface area of the south
detention/irrigation pond (4 ac.) will provide water quality.
22. Final grading plans have been in the plans.
NOLTE ASSOCIATES. INC.
Mr. Ted Shepard
03/11/02
Page 6
Thank you for your review and consideration of these plans and responses. If you need further
clarification on any of the above responses, please call me (419-1316) at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Nolte Associates, Inc.
Thomas Ochwat, P.E.
Senior Engineer
NOTE ASSOCIATES, INC.
COMMENT-9 REVISION
DATE: 4/2003 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Ziegler Road (as part of the 2004 High School)
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
o While the removal of the angle point was accomplished, a minimum length of curve is still
required — no angle points are allowed. Provide an arc with a minimum arc length of 400'.
o The driveway approaches to Ziegler Road shown south of the southernmost existing driveway
for Celestica are technically variances to our standards for driveway separation and driveway
type. After reviewing this issue internally, it was concluded that the proposed designs are
acceptable, given that the uses may be temporary and are likely limited to farming operations.
o A pedestrian access easement is required for the area of additional width for the sidewalk
widening.
o Remove the truncated dome detail (previously asked to be added). The City will be removing
the truncated dome construction for the time being while construction issues/ADA compliance
are being worked out.
o Please add access ramps across Ziegler Road as shown on the striping plans and noted by
Transportation Planning. The pedestrian refuge shown on the Transportation Planning plans will
be a requirement of the Park site when it develops.
o Please include the ditch company signature blocks on the cover sheet in addition to the sheets
already shown on. Also, include a signature block for FCLWD-SFCSD.
o From the utility coordination meeting on 5/8/03, City electric, Comeast, and FCLWD indicated
that existing utilities are not shown on the plan set (Qwest was not present at the meeting).
Please coordinate with the various utilities to ensure existing facilities are reflected on the plan
set.
Date: May 8, 2003 Signature: '
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
ElPlat ❑ Site 21 Utility ElLandscape ❑ Drainage Re ,o ,- ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: 04/011/02
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager_D4
i
From: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer—" I
RE: Variance Requests for PSD 2004 High School
Nolte Associates, on behalf of the Poudre School District ("PSD") has submitted two
variance requests pertaining to the 2004 High School. The first is a variance to allow the
use of 30' curb return radii at the intersection of the private drives to public streets. The
second is a variance to allow drainage from a private street onto a public street.
Curb Return Radii Variance
PSD is requesting to use 30' curb return radii for all their driveway entrances out to Rock
Creek Drive, Ziegler Road, and Cambridge Avenue. Rock Creek and Cambridge are
both collectors which according to the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards
("LCUASS") Table 8-2 and 8.2.9A requires a maximum curb return radius of 15'.
Ziegler Road is a minor arterial, which requires a maximum curb return radius of 20'.
The consultant engineer's justification to use 30' radius in these cases is based upon the
belief that the larger radii is of benelit to bus traffic as well as emergency services.
Larger vehicles will be able to better make the turning movements afforded by larger
street corner radii.
It should be noted that a similar variance request was granted for the Staley Elementary
School last year. In this case a variance request was allowed to use a 25' radius off of
Kechter Road (an arterial) when 20' is the maximum allowed. It is not explained why
30' for the high school is being proposed when 25' was proposed (and accepted by the
City) for the elementary school.
It is my opinion that the variance request to use 30' curb return radii should not be
supported. The 30' curb return is larger than any curb return that would be specified in
the City according to LCUASS and is even larger than curb return radii at arterial -arterial
2t;1 NorthColhe,icA�cntie • P0.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO80522-0580 • (970)221-6605 • FAX(970)221-6378
www.fcgov.com
Marc Virata - Re: Offsite easements on City property Page 1
From:
Marc Virata
To:
Carrie Daggett; Paul Eckman; Ron Mills
Date:
10/18/02 4:39PM
Subject:
Re: Offsite easements on City property
Carrie,
I'm actually in no hurry for a response from this, there are still other outstanding issues on other PSD
easements (on PSD property) that prevent me from going forward with all of these at once. (The only
concern I have is being unable to commit answers to PSD on this process, fortunately their construction of
the high school is not being held up by this process.) Thanks for looking into this and let me know if I can
further clarify via email, phone, or meeting. I do hope to not have to read the email I sent again though, it
pains me looking at it.
(As a side note: I'd prefer any option that allows required items to go to P&Z instead of Council. P&Z's
manner of discussing items pulled from consent first instead of last is far more agreeable from my
perspective Plus, the P&Z Board has been very informative of potential consent item issues during the
Friday before Worksession.)
Thanks!
Marc
7Na✓cp
^j£
�k H
>>> Carrie Daggett 10/18/0 04:19 M »>
Marc, thank you for your t oroug and well -thought out description of these issues and questions! I agree
with Ron's response on and - - (#2 -Cambridge utility easement should be done like the Hort Cntr
utility easement; and easement to FCLWD). On the other items, I would like to talk with Ron a bit
more, because I think they raise a little thornier questions. I know that you probably need a response as
quickly as you can get it, and apologize that it's taken me'til now to reply to this extent. Ron is out of his
office this afternoon, but I wll try to work with him on Monday to get a more complete response back to you
from my perspective. Thanks again for your patience and diligence in working through these issues! C.
>>> Marc Virata 10/1-4/02 02:06PM >>>
Afternoon all,
I received a phone call from the surveyor at Nolte who is processing easements for the 2004 High School
site She wanted a status checks on the documents I have been gathering; one of the issues on my end
in completing the processing of the high school documents is understanding the process for these
documents. Your input(s) is/are appreciated.
I think we all have an understanding with regards to how we're processing easements/alignments on City
property based upon the Hort Center and other City projects. Perhaps, as a recap, here's my
understanding with regards to the platting of City property.
1) If a plat shows an area reserved for utilities which normally allows an entity outside of the City (Xcel,
Qwest, etc.) to operate within the area, this should be dedicated as a utility easement (the issue that the
City cannot be Grantor/Grantee, is not an issue here.) An example is the typical 9' of utility easement that
runs along Center Avenue for the Hort Center. When this is within City property, this area should be a
utility easement dedicated to the City. Because this utility easement in theory, limits the City's ability to
use the area by virtue of extending rights to Xcel, Qwest, PFA, etc., any such easement requires approval
through City Council, which is why the Hort Center Plat is being presented to Council tomorrow.
2) If a plat shows an area reserved for utilities which only allows a City entity to operate within said area,
(drainage easement). then no dedication takes place and the area is shown as a reservation on the plat,
with a note on the plat providing notice to future City employees regarding this. These areas/alignments,
intersections (25 feet.) If a vehicle had difficulty negotiating less than 30' of curb return
radii along the perimeter of the high school site, then it would stand to reason that the
vehicles could not negotiate the turning movements on the public streets necessary to get
to the high school.
The curb returns for the driveway entrances along Rock Creek Drive could perhaps be
approved for 25' curb return radii because of the predominant bus usage at these
driveways and the fact that the 25' curb return was approved for the elementary school
for similar needs. However, 30' radii for the entrances off of Ziegler and Cambridge
which arc used by high school students to park their vehicles appears to be a potential
safety concern. A 30' radius allows vehicles to turn at a higher rate of speed and this
Should be diiscouraged considering the demographic (high school students) who would
predominately use these driveways; there is an increased potential of danger to
pedestrians at these intersections. 20' curb return radii should be the maximum radii
along Ziegler Road and 15' should be the maximum radii along Cambridge Avenue in
accordance with LCUASS.
Drainage Runoff Variance Request
PSD is requesting that the driveway entrance off Ziegler Road should not be subjected to
the drainage criteria in LCUASS 9.4.11. This section of code specifies drainage across a
driveway and drainage across a sidewalk. I feel the justification can be supported in this
instance because of the fact that this driveway is part of a private street system. This
section of roadway, which connects Ziegler to Cambridge, is being designed for the most
part to look and act like a public street though will be a private street. If this road were a
dedicated public street, such a variance request would not be required. It may perhaps be
a worthy interpretation question of whether private streets are subject to section 9.4.11.
There does not appear to be a detriment to the public good or the compromising of health
and safety by the granting of this variance.
Let me know of any additional information necessary to process this variance request or
any other concerns you might have regarding this.
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of fort Collins
April 3, 2002
Mr. Tom Ochwat
Nolte Associates, Inc.
1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite A
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RE: Variance Requests, 2004 High School
Dear Mr. Ochwat:
I have reviewed your variance requests for this project, and have made the following determinations:
1. With regard to the curb return radii, I cannot support your request as submitted. The purpose of the
tight curb return standards is to promote safety by forcing automobiles to slow down for turning
movements at intersections. This is important for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists as well as
automobiles. The reduced curb return radius also provides some additional advantages (albeit slight) for
pedestrians, by lessening the crosswalk distances that pedestrians must traverse. These safetv
considerations should be especially important for this school site. I can allow a 25-ft radius for the bus
entrance at Rock Creek Drive. This is what we permitted for Staley (now Zach, I believe) Elementary
School at their bus entrance on Kcchter Road. Since the primary traffic at the other entrances will be
automobiles, the standards should be applied without variance. That is, the entrance on Ziegler Road
needs to be designed with a 20-ft curb return radius, and the entrance on Cambridge Ave needs to have a
15-ft radius.
2. Regarding the drainage variance, that is approved. The private drive is actually designed as a street
and will ftmction as a street, although it will be "privately" maintained by PSD. The drainage standard in
LCUASS 9.4.1 l need not apply to this situation.
As always, varying the standards in these cases is not to be construed as setting precedent for varying
these standards in other situations in the future. Each case must be evaluated and decided on its own
conditions and merits.
Feel free to call me at 221-6605 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Cam McNair. PE
City Engineer
cc: Mike Herzig
Dave Stringer
Marc Virata
\� ',
C, 17l)) ;
PROJECT
(is•� COMMENT SHEET
City of Font Collins
Current Planning
DATE: December 21, 2001 TO: Engineering Pavement
zn
PROJECT: #43-01A Webster Farm, Poudre School District 2004
High School - Site Plan Advisory Review
All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff
review meeting:
January 23, 2002
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Nrnne (piease print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH "TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat Site Drainage Report _Other
Utilitv Redline Utility Landscape
PROJECT
i.... COMMENT SHEET
City of Fofi Collins
Current Planning
DATE: December 21, 2001 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #43-01 A Webster Farm, Poudre School District 2004
]High School - Site Plan Advisory Review
All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff
review meeting:
January 23, 2002
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Nacre (please print)
CI IECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat Site Drainage Report Other
Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape
City of Fort Collins
Project Comments Sheet
I_®J Selected Departments
City of Fort Collins
Department: Engineering
Date: January 30, 2002
Project:
WEBSTER FARM, POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004 HIGH SCHOOL -
SITE PLANT ADVISORY REVIEW, #43-01A
All comments must be received by TED SHEPARD in Current Planning no later than
the staff review meeting:
January 23, 2002
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
49
[RD 01, Site and Landscape Plan] A sight distance easement is needed for the driveway
entrance off Cambridge Avenue in accordance with LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-16.
This is sketched out on the Landscape Plan. Please show this easement on the site,
landscape, and utility plans, provide the standard note below regarding sight distance
and provide the necessary deed of dedication to the City to record the easement.
Please note the vertical requirements of a sight distance easement, including how
fences are required to be no greater than 42 inches in height and do not obstruct the
line of sight for motorists; there is a vertical crest along the travel of Cambridge in
between the start of the sight distance easement and the driveway entrance that. The
ballfield fence may need to be less than 42 inches in order to maintain the proper
degree of visibility. Also note that conifer trees are not allowed in a sight distance
easement and thus requires changes to the landscape plan.
----------Add the following note to the site, landscape and utility plans ----------------
Sight Distance Easement - The sight distance easement is an easement required by the
City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a
motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle
into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy
a sight distance easement for level grade:
i
D to
CHECK HERE!F YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat ✓Si a v1 Drainage Report L Other
��Utility - Redline Utility __,,�:Landscape
Page I