HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARVEST PARK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-03-16PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: October 6, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park, PDP — Type 1 (LUC)
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: October 27, 1999
❑ No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments
• Engineering has no objection to the Alternative Compliance Request No. 1 with regards to
the Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards.
• We recommend providing sufficient clearance underneath County Road 9 at the bridge for a
bicycle/pedestrian path to cross underneath the bridge.
• The roadway for Harvest Park Lane was agreed upon by the Developer and the City's Parks
Department to be 61' of dedicated right-of-way, which dedicates right-of-way to the back of
curb along the north boundary. This entails a 4.5' sidewalk and 6' parkway strip along the
south portion of the right of way, plus an 8' parking lane, 6' bike lane and I F travel lane on
both sides of the street, as well as .5' of vertical curb. Future submittals should incorporate
this design. Off -site casements may be required depending on the grading with this roadway
design and may affect issues regarding signatories on the plat.
• A letter of intent for all offsite easements required with this development is required prior to
a hearing for this project (this includes but not limited to, letters of intent from Sage Creek
for the bridge connections, the school district for the offsite sidewalk adjacent to the school,
the land owner southwest of Harvest Park for the pedestrian/bike connection and possibly the
City's Parks Department for work along Harvest Park Lane.)
• A second utility coordination meeting should be scheduled to review any potential utility
conflicts as well as provide the necessary sleeving needed for the utility companies.
Date:---����1 Signature:
PLEASE SE D COPIES `0 PLAT
OF MARKED REVISIONS: a SITE ❑ NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS
i5- UTILITY
LANDSCAPE
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: October 6, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: 925-98A Harvest Park, PDP — Type 1 (LUC)
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: October 27, 1999
❑ No Problems
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments
• Engineering has no objection to the Alternative Compliance Request No. 1 with regards to
the Street Patter and Connectivity Standards.
• We recommend providing sufficient clearance underneath County Road 9 at the bridge for a
bicycle/pedcstrian path to cross underneath the bridge.
• The roadway for Harvest Park Lane was agreed upon by the Developer and the City's Parks
Department to be 6 1 ' of dedicated right-of-way, which dedicates right-of-way to the back of
curb along the north boundary. This entails a 4.5' sidewalk and 6' parkway strip along the
south portion of the right of way, plus an 8' parking lane, 6' bike lane and 11' travel lane on
both sides of the street, as well as .5' of vertical curb. Future submittals should incorporate
this design. Off-sitc easements may be required depending on the grading with this roadway
design and may affect issues regarding signatories on the plat.
• A letter of intent for all offsite easements required with this development is required prior to
a hearing for this project (this includes hilt not limited to, letters of intent from Sage Creek
for the bridge connections, the school district for the offsite sidewalk adjacent to the school,
the land owner southwest of Harvest Park for the pedestrian/bike connection and possibly the
City's Parks Department for work along Harvest Park Lane.)
• A second utility coordination meeting should be scheduled to review any potential utility
conflicts as well as provide the necessary sleeving needed for the utility companies.
Date:
PLEASE SEND COPIES ❑ PLAT
OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ SITE
❑ UTILITY
Signature:
❑ LANDSCAPE
❑ NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS
Plat
• Note that the Plat shows "Golden Harvest" on Sheet 3 as well as "Golden Harvest Lane" on
Sheet 4 at a different area of the project. 'rhe Site Plan seems to correctly show the road on
Sheet 3 as "Golden Wheat".
• Response: Street names have been corrected.
• Provide indication as to what the Tracts in this project are (utility/drainage/access
casements?)
Response: Ownership and maintenance responsibilities are defined on the plat.
• The notation of"Fire Lane" on the plat should be changed to an Emergency Access
Easement. The Emergency Access Easement should be delineated throughout the internal
roadway network. (As such, this should be labeled as a Private Access, Utility, Drainage and
Emergency Access Easement.) The Plat also notes areas as Fire Lanes that do not appear to
need this designation as the drives are not necessary for access by fire or other emergency
service vehicles.
• Response: See Note A on Plat Legend.
• With the exception of Harvest Park Lane along the north boundary of this site, all streets
Should dedicate the required utility easement on both sides of the street, including on the
multi -family portions. This also includes the Tracts for the pocket parks.
• Response: Multi -family is all utility easement. Other easements provided.
• Utility easement dedication width should be 15' on County Road 9, not 9'.
• Response: Changed to 15 feet.
• Provide additional right-of-way dedication along County Road 9 adjacent to this site to
ensure that the all portions of the roadway, including the entire sidewalk along the west half
OF County Road 9 is within right-of-way.
• Response: Completed.
• The Plat should not leave an area of unplatted land between Harvest Park and Sage Creek.
This will be looked at with resumbittal of the plat for Sage Creek. The plat notes this area as
the Spring Canyon WasleWater Ditch, is this correct'?
• Response: There is not a gap between the Harvest Park Plat and the Sage Creek Plat.
• Current Plat Language has been included with this submittal and should be incorporated.
• Response: Current Plat Language has been incorporated.
• Revised the Sight Distance Easement Language to the following:
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 ) 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.
Response: Included.
Site Plan
• The site plan shows minor inconsistencies regarding road and sidewalk widths as well as
street classifications (County Fair Lane is not a collector.)
• Response: Horizontal Control Plan has been corrected.
• The road width and design for Harvest Park Lane needs to be modi tied (the letter resubmittal
reflects this properly.)
• Response: Harvest Park Lane has been modified.
• All elements within the traffic circle are subject to the same restrictions of a Sight Distance
Easement. Please note this on the site and landscape plans, along with the current wording of
the sight distance casement restrictions language.
• Response: Planner has addressed.
• I have concerns regarding the street names. Having Harvest Park Lane, Harvest Park Way,
and Harvest Park Place running and intersecting at almost all ends of the development
project would appear to be of concern for emergency address vehicles to find in a timely
manner since the roads are not necessarily in close proximity to each other. Please consider
using different sounding street names and using similar sounding street names only in cases
where the streets are in close proximity. This is also the case with Country Squire and
Country Squire Lana Also note that Warren Fanns has proposed a street "Harvest Way".
• Response: Planner has addressed.
• What will Country Main be named as heading south into Sage Creek?
• Response: Old Mill Road.
• Signs are not allowed in our right-of-way in conformance with City Code Sec. 24-1.
• Response: Planner has addressed.
• The patterned concrete for the traffic circles cannot be colored.
• Response: Concrete will not be colored.
• Why is County Fair Lane noted as a collector cast of Corbett Drive?
• Response: Planner has addressed.
• Show the sight distance casements noted on the utility plan and add the current Sight
Distance F_,asenrient Language to the notes.
0 Response: Planner has addressed.
Utility Plan
• The design of the traffic circles needs to be coordinated with traffic engineering,
transportation planning, and POUdre Fire Authority. From an internal City Staff meeting it
was determined that splitter islands/pedestrian refuge areas are not required at the 4 legs into
cacti traffic circle. The outer circle shall be designed with vertical curb and gutter, not
driveovcr curb and gutter. The variance requests submitted will be responded to at such time
that the traffic circle design is shown to be satisfactory to all City Departments.
• Response: Coordination has taken place.
• Provide the design for the two-bicycle/pedestrian crossings over the channel between Sage
Creek and Harvest Park.
• Response: Pedestrian crossings provided.
• Show limits of asphalt for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive.
• Response: Has been determined.
• We require wing walls for all three vehicular bridges to flare out at angles, not straight across
and parallel to the roadway.
Response: Erosion protection provided in lieu of wing walls.
• Provide off -site easements for all work outside of the property and right-of-way.
• Response: Provided.
It was agreed upon that County Road 9 could be submitted as a separate plan set to reduce
the redundancy between the Sage Creek and Harvest Park development projects. Approval
of the utility plains for County Road 9 will be in conjunction with approval of the utility plans
for Harvest Park (and Sage Creek.)
• Response: County Road 9 plans are now in a separate plan set.
• 'file storm drain inlets cannot be located along the pedestrian paths/refuge islands as well as
along a curb return. Please note that the inlets are often at or too close to pedestrian paths on
,,,any of the streets. Flow at and leading to the inlets should be directed away from the
pedestrian paths to the greatest extent possible. How would an inlet be placed in the median
pedestrian refuge area if it does not (I assume) have curb?
• Response: Inlets have been relocated.
• Please provide a detail of the pedestrian refuge areas in the median islands.
• Response: Provided on the "Traffic Circles Detail" on sheet 49.
• Provide an intersection detail of Rock Creek Drive and County Road 9.
• Response: Provided.
• Show how the sidewalk proposed along Rock Creek Drive at the west edge of this site ties
into the existing sidewalk for the Stetson Creek 31" Filing. A transition should be provided
from the 4' to 5' width as well as the widening of the landscape strip.
• Response: Corrected.
Right-of-way along County Road 9 should be expanded to include the entire sidewalk along
the west half of County Road 9.
Response: The walk is now within the right of way.
Revise the General Notes as noted:
✓ Revise No. 16 to read: Prior to final inspection and acceptance by The City of Fort
Collins, certification of the drainage facilities, by a registered engineer, must be
submitted to and approved by the Stormwater Utility Department. Certification shall be
submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to the release of
a certificate of occupancy for single family units. For commercial properties, certification
shall be submitted to the StormWater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to the
release of additional building permits to those allowed prior to certification per the
Development Agreement.
✓ Response: Changed
✓ Revise No. 18 to read: All construction activities must comply with the State of
Colorado permitting process for "Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity." For informnation, please contact The Colorado Department of Health, Water
Quality Control Division, WQCD-PE-B2, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver,
Colorado 80222-1530. Attention: Permits and Enforcement Section. ph.: (303) 692-3590.
Identifying the need for a permit, preparing the application, and paying for the review and
submittal fees necessary to secure this pennit, will be the responsibility of the contractor.
✓ Response. Changed
✓ Add the following note: Temporary erosion control during construction shall be
provided as shown on the Erosion Control Plan.
✓ Response: Added.
✓ Replace all occurrences of "Director of Engineering" to "City Engineer".
✓ Response: Changed.
• Based on the intersection details provided for the traffic circles, the cross slopes at the traffic
circles do not meet 2% in cases and exceed 4% in one other instance. This may in fact not be
the case depending on the curb detail on the inside curb of the traffic circle. I cannot find any
indication as to what curb may be used on the inside traffic circle and whether the curb is
infall or outfall, presumably infall curb and gutter is used where the storm drains are located
at but I cannot tell for sure — and the traffic circles without storm drains is presumably
outfall? In general, the cross slopes appear to vary around each traffic circle, potentially
preventing a smooth ride around the circle. Please look at providing as constant of a cross
slope around each traffic circle as possible. Again, there does not seem to be any indication
as to what type of curb and gutter detail is used at the traffic circles the detail sheet shows
multiple types, but the type specific to a traffic circle median is not called out in the plan and
profile details. Arc the traffic circle medians using a straight line grade around the entire
circle or arc there grade breaks/changes? Provide additional spot elevations around the
traffic circles at 10' intervals along with invert elevations.
• Response: All traffic circles are out fall Curb & gutter.
• In general, there .are numerous cases where the elevations on the intersection details shown
on Sheets 50 to 53 do not match the plan and profiles. I have outlined some of these cases
but have not reviewed them all. Please double check the intersection details and be sure they
correspond with the plan and profile drawings in future submittals.
• Response: Sheets 50 through 53 have been corrected to reflect the street plan and profile
information correctly.
• In general there arc numerous cases where the elevations shown on the profile for one street
on one sheet does not match the profile on the intersecting street on another street. I have
outlined some cases below, but not all. The intersection details, plan and profile for each
intersecting street - they should all match.
• Response: Street profile sheets have been corrected so the information from sheet to sheet
corresponds.
• The minimum flowline grade for a cross -pan is .6%. The following streets do not meet this
minimum: Rock Creck Drive across Mill Stone Lane and Spring Harvest Lane (Sheet 57),
Country Main across Amber Waves and Purple Mountain Circle (Sheet 64), Country Main
across Autumn-iarvest Way on both sides of the street (Sheet 65) {note an elevation appears
to be incorrect}. Harvest Park Way across Golden Wheat (Sheet 67), Country Squire across
Country Squire Lane and Amber Harvest Lane (Sheet 70)
• Response: Cross -pans through the intersections all are now at a minimum grade of .6%.
• The stationing shown on Sheet 55 on the plan view does not correspond with the stationing
shown on the profilc. This may perhaps explain why the elevations shown do not match the
intersection details?
• Response: Corrected.
• Elevations/stationing on the profile for PRC and PCC is missing at locations throughout the
plan set (i.e., Sheet 55 along the traffic circle as well as with Corbett Drive between Amber
Waves and Ruff Way Sheet 56 along the southern half of the traffic circle.) Please ensure
that they arc provided to double check ith the intersection details as well as between plan
w
and profile sheets.
• Response. PRC and PCC station and elevation information is provided where changes in
vertical information coincide with these locations.
• on Sheet 55, the median directly north of the traffic circle on Corbett Drive shows a low spot
at the middle of the median (flowline profile). The plan shows an inlet to carry the water on
the west side of the median but does not call it out on the profile. On the east side there does
not appear to be an inlet based on the plan. Also, subsequent pages seem to indicate this as
infall curb and gutter. How will the water leave the median on the east side at the low point`?
A sag curve is required as the difference in grade exceeds .4%.
Response: Inlets arc on each side of the median and are now shown and called out.
• The intersection detail for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive on Sheet 50 shows elevations
that do not match the elevations given in the plan and profile (Sheets 56 & 57) (as well as
cross scction) sheets.
• Response: Information on sheets 50, 56, 57, and cross section sheets have been rectified.
• Sheet 51 (Ruff Way and Corbett Drive) shows a cross slope in the opposite direction
(towards the median.)
• Response: Corrected.
• On Sheet 50, the cross slope along the Rock Creek Drive median where it intersects with
Corbett Drive does not appear to maintain the minimum 2% and shows 1.5%. (However, on
the plan and profile (Sheet 57), the elevations given do not match those on Sheet 50. Please
clarify.)
Response: Clarified.
• Golden Wheat is not labeled on the horizontal control plan (Sheet No. 9). The street shows
4.5' sidewalk on the south side, 5' on the north side. Please correct. Also note that the
typical street section (Sheet No. 49) for this road does not show sidewalk on one side.
Response. Golden Wheat is now labeled. Sidewalk widths are corrected. Sheet 49 is
corrected.
• Distinguish between Golden Harvest Way and Golden Harvest Lane on the typical street
section details (Sheet 48 & 49).
Response: Corrected.
• The intersection of Rock Creek Drive and Millstone Lane has a trickle pan shown along the
south side of Rock Creek Drive that has a low spot in the middle of the pan. This is not
allowed and (low should be taken to one side of the street. (Sheet 51, 57, 75)
• Response: Pan is designed this way to channel flow down the East flow line of Millstone
Lane.
• Provide an additional fire hydrant in the multi -family portion on the northeast edge of this
site. A fire hydrant is required every 600' in multi -family potions and 800' in single-family
portions per PTA.
• Response: Additional fire hydrant has been added.
• Show the bridge structures for Country Main, Corbett Drive, and County Road 9 on the
profile views.
• Response: Bridge structures shown.
What is the pattern shown around the traffic circles and along the entrance to Rock Creek
Drive off County Road 9? More information/detail is needed.
• Response. See traffic circle detail on sheet 49.
• There appears to be an enhanced crosswalk across Rock Creek Drive at Country Road 9. It is
too close to C.R. 9 and needs to be moved back (west) in line with the pedestrian ramps.
Provide a detail of this crosswalk.
• Response: Corrected.
• Offsite drainage easements arc potentially required for the grading work done on County
Road 9. The plan set should show the right-of-way to be dedicated from Sage Creek, which
may negate the need for offsitc drainage easements.
• Response: This will be provided by both Sage Creek and Harvest Park at a later date.
• The horizontal control plan shows three different sidewalk widths for County Fair Lanc.
• Response: Corrected.
• Harvest Park Place is not labeled on the horizontal control plan (Sheet No. 14). No sidewalk
width is called out. Please correct. Also note that the typical street section detail sheets do
not show this roadway.
• Response: Is now labeled as Millstone Way.
• On much of the private drives with spot elevations on both sides of the drive, the elevation
difference is .5', which with a 12' private drive gives a slope of 4.17% -- in excess of the 2 to
4`%o noted in the typical cross section. Please clarify.
• Response: The Shared Private Drivewav Cross Section detail on sheet 49 shows that the first
1'2" of the 12 feet gains 1 3/8" in elevation making the slope of the remaining 10'10" 3.51%.
• Please provide additional spot elevations as indicated on the utility plan (Sheet No. 25) for
the private drive that comes out to Mill Stone Lane.
• Response: Elevations provided.
• The private drive from the multi -family out to Golden Wheat shows a slope of 8.78% (Sheet
No. 30). This is quite excessive and we do not feel is safe. Please reduce this.
• Response: Grading revised to reduce slope in question.
• On Sheets 32 and 34, there are instances where the dead-end of a private drive is at the low
point of the drive and no detail is given as to how flows leave the drive. What type of curb
(if any) is used at the end of these private drives? Will a pan convey water off the drives?
Please provide more detail.
• Response: 2 foot curb cuts are now shown on the multi-familty grading plan.
• Provide more detail of the Harvest Park Place cul-de-sac (Sheet 81) (high -point, cross slopes,
Cie.)
• Response: High point and cross slope provided.
• The south side of Rock Creek Drive on Sheet 58 shows a pan of some sort on the profile
view, but is not called out in plan view. At this point, the elevation at the intersection of
Rock Creek Drive and Harvest Park Way does not match on the southeast corner (Sheet 58
shows an elevation of 18.60 and Sheet 67 shows an elevation of 18.82.)
• Response: Therc is not a cross -pan at this intersection. Sheets 58 and 67 match each other
now.
• Please note the intersection of Country Squire and Rock Creek Drive show conflicting
elevations between different sheets. This occurs in other intersections as well.
• Response: Information on different sheets match now.
• Note the curb and gutter type used on the medians for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive
in the plan and profile sheets, the only labeling of curb and gutter types was found on cross -
sections.
• Response: The type of curb and gutter are now shown by out fall being shaded.
• The grades for each plan and profile of Purple Mountain Lane and Country Main at the
intersection do not match. PI elevations on one sheet are shown as PRC elevations on
another.
• Response: Corrected to match.
• Please show the profile of the temporary cul-de-sac on Sheet 60.
• Response: Marc, we discussed this and I believe the way I now have shown this is
acceptable.
• The stationing shown for the cross -sections of Corbett Drive on Sheet 95 does not correspond
with the stationing used in the plan and profile set for the road.
• Response: Stations now correspond.
• Please show the elevations at the median and curb flowlines for the cross sections on Corbett
Drive, Rock Creek Drive and County Road 9.
• Response: Elevations now shown.
• Provide PI and PRC elevations and stationing for both Rock Creek Drive and County Road 9
at this intersection.
• Response: Intersection detail now included on sheet 952.
• Provide a sample of the stone veneer proposed for the bridges to the Engineering
Department.
• Response: Will be provided.
• Spacious Skies Drive shows a grade break exceeding .40%, please correct. (Sheet 80)
• Response: Corrected.
• The New Driveway Approach detail incorrectly shows sidewalk at 4' of width.
• Response: Corrected.
• The patterned concrete shown on the utility plans may not be colored. Provide additional
detail of the pattern expansion joints should be used at some point in conjunction with the
scoring. Sec the note on the plan regarding the maximum area of each concrete block.
• Response: Concrete will not be colored. See traffic circle detail on sheet 49 for expansion
joints information.
• On some of the streets in the plan and profile sections, the index elevations are not correct.
• Response: Corrected.
• The details and specifications for the subdrain system on Sheet 152 should meet or exceed
the recommendations of the Groundwater Investigation and Recommendations for an
Area Underdrain System provided by Ayres and Associates tic, note the different
alternatives for utility cross -sections, increase the subdrain cicanout to 8" in diameter.)
Please revise the utility plan details accordingly.
Response: Revised.
The sewer plan and profile sheets have a note staling that the subdrain shall be installed
horizontally and vertically as shown on Sheet 152. This sheet shows the vertical installation
as being determined on the plan and profile sheets. How will the subdrains be installed?
Why isn't the Subdrain profile included on the sheets? The recommendations of the Ayres
report on 5.1 and 5.3 should be also included as additional notes (ie., the minimum slope
shall be .4'%)
• Response: Corrected.
• Splash blocks should be provided along the medians, have this noted on the detail. Contact
Matt Baker for the specifications of this design.
• Response: Splash blocks noted on the detail per Matt Baker.
• Provide a detail for the pedestrian crossings that are situated not on street corners.
(Incorporate the detail submitted separately.)
• Response: Detail provided.
• Provide signed and stamped structural calculations for bridge loadings.
• Response: Will be provided with shop drawings.
• Note that there arc instances where the Key Map does not match with the drawing.
• Response: Corrected.
Landscaping Plan
• Much of the landscaping shown along the northeastern edge of this site, buffering Harvest
Park with Wildwood Farms is located over an existing 8" City water line. Separation
requirements for the landscaping as noted by Water/Wastewater apply.
• Response: Response by others.
• Show the sight distance easements noted on the utility plan and add the current Sight
Distance Easement Language to the notes.
• Response: Response by others
• The potential water feature and stone wall in the traffic circles will need to comply with the
Sight Distance Easement Language. As the traffic circle medians are in right-of-way, the
City has Final authority over the placement of objects within the circle.
• Response: Response by others
(See plans for addilional comments — additional comments may he made upon receiving of
revisions. Please include the redlined utility plait set with resubmittal.)
Plat
• Note that the Plat shows "Golden Harvest" on Sheet 3 as well as "Golden Harvest Lane" on
Sheet 4 at a different area of the project. The Site Plan seems to correctly show the road on
Sheet 3 as "Golden Wheat".
• Provide indication as to what the Tracts in this project are (utility/drainage/access
easements?)
• The notation of"Fire Lane" on the plat should be changed to an Emergency Access
Easement. The Emergency Access Easement should be delineated throughout the internal
roadway network. (As such, this should be labeled as a Private Access, Utility, Drainage and
Emergency Access Easement.) The Plat also notes areas as Fire Lanes that do not appear to
need this designation as the drives are not necessary for access by fire or other emergency
service vehicles.
• With the exception of Harvest Park Lane along the north boundary of this site, all streets
should dedicate the required utility easement on both sides of the street, including on the
multi -family portions. This also includes the Tracts for the pocket parks.
• Utility easement dedication width should be 15' on County Road 9, not 9'.
• Provide additional right-of-way dedication along County Road 9 adjacent to this site to
ensure that the all portions of the roadway, including the entire sidewalk along the west half
of County Road 9 is within right-of-way.
• The Plat should not leave an area of unplatted land between Harvest Park and Sage Creek.
This will be looked at with resumbittal of the plat for Sage Creek. The plat notes this area as
the Spring Canyon WasteWater Ditch, is this correct?
• Current Plat Language has been included with this submittal and should be incorporated.
• Revised the Sight Distance Easement Language to the following:
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.
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: September 1, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park PDP — Type 1 (LUC)
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: September 21, 1999
P No Problems
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Private Drive Modification:
With the recent change in the Land Use Code allowing private drives for "additional access"
[3.6.2(L)(1)(c)], the proposed private drive modification request is not seen as a detriment by
Engineering. This request would allow private drives in the Harvest Park PDP to dead-end at lengths
greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet. (Per 3.6.2(L)(2)(c) the maximum dead-end drive length shall be
one hundred fifty (150) feet.) In this case, the private drives are not used as primary access and are
secondary in nature. All Tots can be accessed by all modes of transportation from an adjacent public
street. Of note, emergency services does not need the dead-end private drives for service and can access
lots to provide service from the adjoining public street.
The private drives noted in the modification request serves no public purpose requiring public access and
is secondary in nature. As such, the drive lengths in excess of standard will not impact any public use.
Therefore, we are not opposed to the modification request to allow dead-end drive lengths in excess of
one hundred fifty (150) feet, specifically for Blocks 2, 11, 18, 21, 23, & 24.
Setback Modification:
Engineering has no objection to the modification of the proposed setbacks, so long as all the utilities
companies have no objection and can serve the site with the proposed setbacks. Utility plans with the
proposed setbacks have not been received at this time; however, a utility coordination meeting has been
conducted with all the utility companies, and preliminary discussion indicates that this layout will work.
Subsequent utility coordination meetings will take place as utility plans are further developed and the
project continues along in the approval process.
Date: /Z�/� Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES ❑ PLAT
OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ NO COMMENTS - SUBMIT MYLARS
❑ UTILITY
0 LANDSCAPE
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: September 1, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park PDP — Type 1 (LUC)
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER.: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: September 8, 1999
❑ No Problems
F Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
• The private drive on Block 31 needs to be listed in the modification as the private drive
exceeds 150 feet in length.
• If this private drive needs to be designated as a Fire Lane, the drive cannot dead-end and
requires either an eighty -foot diameter turnaround or continue to a public street
With the recent change in the Land Use Code allowing private drives for "additional access"
[3.6.2(L)(I)(c)], the proposed private drive modification request is not seen as a detriment by
F,ngineering. This request would allow private drives in the Harvest Park PDP to dead-end at
lengths greater than. one hundred fifty (150) feet. (Per 3.6.2(L)(2)(c) the maximum dead-end
drive length shall he one hundred fifty (150)feel.) In this case, the private drives are not used as
primary access and are secondary in nature. All lots can be accessed by all modes of
transportation from an adjacent public street. Of note, emergency services does not need the
private drives for service and can access lots from the adjoining public street.
'rhe private drives noted in the modification request serves no public purpose requiring public
access and is secondary in nature. As such, the drive lengths in excess of standard will not
impact any public use. Therefore, we are not opposed to the modification request to allow dead-
end drive lengths in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet.
Date: Signaturei,_�_
PLEASE SEND C( PIES ❑ PLAT
OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ SITE NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS
❑ UTILITY
0 LANDSCAPE
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: April 21, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park, PDP — Type I (LUC)
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: May 19, 1999
❑ No Problems
EProblems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Plat
• The plat implies that the "alleys" are dedicated public alleys. However, the Site Plan notes
these areas as "rear drives". The Project Development Plan also notes that all alleys are
private.
If these areas are private:
• They should be labeled on the plat as an easement or tract, not as an alley.
• Private drives cannot be used in conjunction with the Narrow Residential Street width.
• City Council approval of the Land Use Code change to allow private drives to serve more
than four lots is needed.
If these areas are public dedicated alleys
• The alleys are not allowed to dead end into private property, easements or tracts.
• The dead end portions should connect to allow connectivity with a public street or
become private.
• Uneven alley widths are not allowed.
Add a note on the plat showing that ownership and maintenance responsibilities of medians
along Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive as well as the area inside the traffic circles shall
be assigned to a Homeowners Association.
Add a note on the plat showing that all tracts are easements with ownership and maintenance
responsibilities assigned to a Homeowners Association.
Add a note on the plat that no lots shall take access off Corbett Drive or Rock Creek Drive.
Date: I Z- Signature:
PLEASE SEND CO IES El� PLAT
OF MARKED REVISIONS: a SITE ❑ UTILITY
NO COMMENTS —SUBMIT MYLARS
7 LANDSCAPE
• Sight distance easements and a note regarding sight distance easement restrictions need to be
added to the plat.
• Emergency access easements are required for the internal roadways within the private access,
utility and drainage easements. (3.6.6.K)
• Add a note regarding the width of utility easements for the front and rear yards. 8' is needed
along the rear drives, 9' along public streets. Please label the easement widths in various
locations within the plat map itself.
• The plat should illustrate existing rights -of -way and the amount of right-of-way being
dedicated to the City.
• Dedicated right -of --way for County Fair Lane should be reduced to a non -collector width.
• Dedicated right-of-way for Harvest Park Lane should be increased to 75'.
• Square corners for rights -of -way are not allowed. Right-of-way dedication shall be rounded
to match with the edge of the proposed public street improvements.
• The dedication of traffic circles on the northern and southern traffic circles for Country Main
should be revised as dedications for standard "T" intersections.
• Evidence of the noted "right-of-way by separate document" will have to be provided prior to
a hearing for this project.
• Language on the plat needs to clearly demonstrate who maintains the private drives, medians,
traffic circles, tracts, parks, etc.
• Add "Notice of Other Documents" on the plat.
• As there appears to be numerous ditches on -site, vacation of interests by any ditch companies
or the retainment of easements needs to be shown on the plat.
Site Plan
• The northern and southern traffic circles for Country Main should be eliminated and
designed as "T'� intersections. Our Traffic Engineer feels that these 3-legged connections do
not generate significant traffic volumes and as a result, vehicles will "shortcut through" the
traffic circles rather than travel around it.
• A variance request needs to be submitted for the use of traffic circles, as they are not in our
standards.
• With the addition of bike lanes for Harvest Park Lane, the 16' travell lane and 7' parking
lanes are insufficient. The travel lane for Harvest Park Lane should be increased to 22' and
the parking lanes should be increased to 8' on either side.
• Shared rear drives cannot be used with Narrow Residential Local Streets if not dedicated as
right-of-way for alleys. A proposal before City Council will allow private rear drives to be
used for access, however, these cannot be used with the Narrow Residential Street Standards
— these streets would have to be widened to residential standards.
• Local connections are required to be made with adjacent parcels at distances no longer than
660'. Possible multiple connections to the Sage Creek development will have to be made.
(3.6.3.D)
• Why is County fair Lane noted as a collector east of Corbett Drive? The Traffic Study
shows the traffic: generated on County Fair Lane to be less than Ruff Way. Please reduce the
width of County Fair Lane to a local width.
• Country Main is noted as a connector on the site plan, except on the street section sheet,
where it is noted as a modified collector. We do not see the need to have the street
designated as a collector.
• The placement of the rear drive along the northeast comer of Rock Creek Drive and Corbett
Drive is too close to the intersection of two collectors and should be relocated to a more
suitable location.
• Additional pedestrian access ramps are needed to the neighborhood parks (3.2.2.C)
• Any elements within the traffic circle will be subject to the same restrictions of a sight
distance easement.
• The placement and types of streetlights used in this development will need approval of the
Utilities Department. We have potential safety concerns about the placement of streetlights
in the middle of medians.
• Signs are not allowed in right-of-way unless in conformance with City Code Sec. 24-1.
• What is the "special paving" noted on this Site Plan? This is not noted on the Utility Plans
and may not be allowed because of the potential additional maintenance.
• The potential art elements within the traffic circles will not be allowed.
• Add a pedestrian crosswalk, median refuge, and access ramps across Rock Creek Drive along
the east side of Spring Harvest/Millstone Lane. (3.2.2.C.6)
• Our street standards require a parkway strip and sidewalks on both sides of a public street. A
variance will be required for the neighborhood park areas along public streets that do not
have these improvements. (3.3.2.E.1)
• Construct sidewalk along the west side of Corbett Drive north of this site to connect with the
existing sidewalk for the school. (3.2.2.C.7)
Utility Plan
• Illustrate on the utility plan that the traffic circles can accommodate single unit trucks (SU-
30).
• Provide off -site grading easements.
• Approximate location of sight distance easements necessary based on a 300-foot sight
distance length have been noted and should be added to the utility plans for the northeast
corner of County Fair Lane and Mill Stone Way. Sight distance easements will need to be
added within all the traffic circles. Additional sight distance easements may be noted as the
design for the traffic circles and other street issues are addressed.
• All private drives and private alley -ways should use the "New Driveway Approach" Detail
D-14. Please add the detail to the plans. (Because the rear drives appear to be private, D-14
will be used rather than providing the "driveway flare" requirements for a public alley.)
• An explanation or detail should be provided on how drainage will be conveyed where the
alleys intersect at right angles and create corners. Are driveways planned for the individual
lots that may cause flow to enter the driveways?
• The design of the traffic circles will need to be coordinated with the Traffic Engineer.
• Numerous ditches appear to traverse the property. Ditch company approval appears to be
needed. We will require signed approval from all ditch companies on the utility and plat
maps prior to City approvals for the project.
• It appears that in some cases where the rear drives dead-end into lots, drainage off the rear
drives may be conveyed through the private lot. Drainage across the lot should be contained
and not allowed to sheet -flow through. Please illustrate how flow will be conveyed across
these properties or if flow will remain within the roadway network and outlet to the public
street.
• Provide a temporary turnaround cul-de-sac with the necessary easements for County Fair
Lane east of this site.
• Provide a detail for the pedestrian crossings that are situated not on street corners (such as D-
12.6)
• On all cross sections sheets please show right-of-way with in relation to the cross sections.
• How will drainage be conveyed at the low spot along County Road 9?
• Show RCP and other below ground improvements (such as the culvert underneath Corbett
Drive) on profile portions of the plan and profile sheets.
• Provide a street -striping plan.
• Please show how street cross -slopes are changing/transitioning at all points where the curbs
start to neck inward/outward from the elimination of the parking lanes (such as at the
approach of the traffic circles.)
• Sheet 43 shows medians with outfall curb and gutter, shouldn't this be infall?
• It appears that drainage off some of the medians along Rock Creek is sheet flowing across
the street to the edge of the roadway (assuming infall curb and gutter.) Drainage off the
medians should utilize the RCP improvements.
• Please provide a closer detail as to how drainage is occurring at the median noses, it is
difficult to read. We have concerns with how drainage is being conveyed in relation to the
pedestrian crossings.
• See the included criteria for engineered subdrain systems. A licensed groundwater
hydrologist engineer should verify and provide information that this criteria is being met.
• Please provide details for the culvert designs on Sheet 110 (such as CDOT M&S Standard
Drawings M-601-1 — 3, M-601-20)
• Manholes should not be located on gutters.
• Add the Traffic Engineer to the signature block for utility plan approval and change Director
of Engineering to City Engineer.
• Revise the General Notes accordingly and add the following notes:
➢ The Developer is responsible for all costs for the installation of traffic signing and
striping for the Development related to the Development's local street operations. In
addition, the Developer is responsible for all costs for traffic signing and striping related
to direct traffic access to and from the Development.
The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for any damages or injuries sustained in
this Development as a result of groundwater seepage, whether resulting from
groundwater flooding, structural damage or other damage unless such damage or injuries
are sustained as a result of The City of Fort Collins failure to properly maintain its water,
wastewater, and/or storm drainage facilities in the department.
Landscaping Plan
• All landscaping within our right-of-way will have to comply with sight distance easement
requirements.
(see plans for additional comments — additional comments may be made upon receiving of
revisions.)
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
Citv of Fort Collins
Current Plannine
DATE: April 21, 1999 TO: Mapping/Drafting
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park, PDP — Type 1 (LUC)
All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, May 19, 1999
Ge� b� CAleciZ7 by
o r 'E, 4✓i 7i o h �o Y 1 �2 4 l
' CgSe �n�S cam Viol e-
3. /✓o�� l� C�f"� �i� Lejj j4( �Z/& 's; "t.J / 4/
1414-5 ti( Oot4& ' 5774w/ s of UTrl�,z
j :5 Ta � T:4 ro T c3 j W6 P IJo
Plo Yn C-0,2_N (
&'l- C }..� A) 1 �i' J 4-rT I
114 E U . D i LC-
�l liC UT� T lJti
U)J ?N!S d-/1-% r
7 14a,6 -ii4 r/Y.Cs IJGUN7A/�
' ,joa Q/ r7fs 1��4T .a
1]/r/1�/�&0
/N L= J ✓ �' L .¢n/ 774 (,s� (i)17L Ff CU.) USC� JC��lC
Vig 0 —�
GaT1/TR4c-Fs /7741,jT l-%VC-- ,%�4s.4 skiru.ru,
mL/�,—�—fv�c�
l r cc 142eas Oi= 7-14S YqA( I Cxcep; I?O&IJ -4Cc/
iYl � S /4,4 v C- Lc 0 IL T rL A c.( -/-)C S 1G /V, T-t0),r .
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: April 2002 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Harvest Park— Minor Amendment (Pool)
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
❑ No Problems
L Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Submit mylars for signature.
Question: Wouldn't it be better to use inflow curb and gutter along the area where the curb cut to the
swale drainage system is utilized? It seems unusual to have spill curb and gutter on either side of the
curb cut.
Date: April 12, 2002 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
❑ Plat ❑ Site ❑ Utillity ❑ Landscape ❑ Drainage Report, 2 SUBMIT MYLARS
Site Plan
• The site plan shows minor inconsistencies regarding road and sidewalk widths as well as
street classifications (County Fair Lane is not a collector.)
• The road width and design for Harvest Park Lane needs to be modified (the letter resubmittal
reflects this properly.)
• All elements within the traffic circle are subject to the same restrictions of a Sight Distance
Easement. Please note this on the site and landscape plans, along with the current wording of
the sight distance easement restrictions language.
• I have concerns regarding the street names. Having Harvest Park Lane, Harvest Park Way,
and Harvest Park Place running and intersecting at almost all ends of the development
project would appear to be of concern for emergency address vehicles to find in a timely
manner since the roads are not necessarily in close proximity to each other. Please consider
using different sounding street names and using similar sounding street names only in cases
where the streets are in close proximity. This is also the case with Country Squire and
Country Squire Lane. Also note that Warren Farms has proposed a street "Harvest Way".
• What will Country Main be named as heading south into Sage Creek?
• Signs are not allowed in our right-of-way in conformance with City Code Sec. 24-1.
• The patterned concrete for the traffic circles cannot be colored.
• Why is County Fair Lane noted as a collector east of Corbett Drive?
• Show the sight distance easements noted on the utility plan and add the current Sight
Distance Easement Language to the notes.
Utility Plan
• The design of the traffic circles needs to be coordinated with traffic engineering,
transportation planning, and Poudre Fire Authority. From an internal City Staff meeting it
was determined that splitter islands/pedestrian refuge areas are not required at the 4 legs into
each traffic circle. The outer circle shall be designed with vertical curb and gutter, not
driveover curb and gutter. The variance requests submitted will be responded to at such time
that the traffic circle design is shown to be satisfactory to all City Departments.
• Provide the design for the two-bicycle/pedestrian crossings over the channel between Sage
Creek and Harvest Park.
• Show limits of asphalt for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive.
• We require wing walls for all three vehicular bridges to flare out at angles, not straight across
and parallel to the roadway.
• Provide off -site easements for all work outside of the property and right-of-way.
• It was agreed upon that County Road 9 could be submitted as a separate plan set to reduce
the redundancy between the Sage Creek and Harvest Park development projects. Approval
of the utility plans for County Road 9 will be in conjunction with approval of the utility plans
for Harvest Park (and Sage Creek.)
WSEAR•BROWN
April 3, 2002
Mark Virata
Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 N. College
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Response to comments for Harvest Park — Minor Amendment (Pool)
209 South Meldrum
Fort Colhon ,CO80521
970.482.5922 phone
970.482,6368 fax
.ww,searbrown.com
Dear Mark,
The following is the response to City of Fort Collins Comments date March 2002.
i The edge of the parking lot has been moved to meet the 20' setback requirements.
We have directed the majority of the drainage to a curb cut. And curb chase.
Y Detail sections have been removed.
We have added the signatures.
5 We have relabeled the new sheet to 27A
i• We have added the District and City of Fort Collins Signature Blocks.
i We have added a note to the original grading sheet to reference the new sheet.
Y We have modified the cover sheet to reflect the new grading sheet.
We have included a detailed grading sheet (27A) for storm water.
1f you have any questions please feel free to call.
Yours Sincerely,
'Jim Allen -Morley, P.E.
Project Manager
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: March 2002 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Harvest Park — Minor Amendment (Pool)
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
❑ No Problems
* Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
• The placement of the parking lot does not meet the minimum setback requirement specified in the
street standards of 20' from the flowline off of Autumn Harvest Way.
• It appears that the entire curb and gutter section in the new parking lot/driveway area is proposed to
be outfall. The amount of discharge from the parking lot over the public sidewalk is limited to 500
square feet of sheettlow. It does not appear that this criterion is being met.
• With the curb and gutter section appearing to be entirely outfall curb and gutter, how would drainage
from the parking lot be able to exit out the concrete chase?
• The grading plan shows cross sections A -A, B-B, and C-C without a detail of these.
• Please add the original signatures to the signature blocks of sheet 19, 27, and 68. The City will only
initial off on the revision block on these sheets.
• Add City and District signature blocks to the new grading sheet. Use a different sheet number for
this sheet (27A) in order to fit in sequence with the plan set.
• Add a note on the pertinent original sheets referencing the new sheet for detailed grading and utilities.
• See redlines for additional comments.
Date: March 15, 2002 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
❑ flat 21 Site Rl Utility 2 Landscape ❑ Draina eport ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of FortCollins
Current Planning
DATE: January 23, 2001 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #25-98E HARVEST PARK SUBDIVISION, 2"D FILING —
REPLAT — TYPE I (LUC)
All comments must be received by Brian Grubb in Current Planning no
later than the staff review meeting:
February 21, 2001
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
� � /vo T
V/,4c+7��� EX/s; i�f �9sem�ru�s.
&bT
Lo7—
GUTS S�C� !3v' �C1mi3�2vo
/�4)r 7,
Signature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat Site __Drainage Report Other
Utility Redline Utility _Landscape
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: January 23, 2001
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98E Harvest Park Subdivision, 2nd Filing
PLANNER: Brian Grubb
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: February 21, 2001
❑ No Problems
C Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• The Plat needs to indicate that all existing easements are hereby vacated.
• A vicinity map should be provided for reference.
• Isn't "Comer Stone Lane" actually "Cornerstone Lane' (one word)?
• Lots 8-10 should be 1-3 and Tract B-1 should be "reset" to Tract A.
• See Technical Services for additional comments. It appears that the plat should be legally described
from a boundary monument.
Engineering does not see a concern with the replat proceeding to hearing provided comments are
addressed.
�
Date: February 26, 2001 Signature: �
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISION
El Plat El Site [I Utility ❑ Landscape ElDrainab Repo /NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
- REVISION
V'
COMMENT SHEET
�t
DATE: March 21, 2000
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98C Harvest Park — PDP Final Compliance
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: April 12, 2000
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
1. Comments regarding easements are forthcoming.
2. All references to County Road 9 should now be changed to "Ziegler Road" as the road name has
changed.
Plat
1. The plat will need the reception number shown for Tract S along the north boundary of the site. The
Quit Claim Deed must be recorded with the County to provide said reception number prior to
approval of the plat.
2. Because a modification was approved for this project, the Attorney's Certification needs to be
revised. Add the following after City of Fort Collins, "(except to the extent that such execution has
been waived/modified by the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services of the
City)".
3. Revise sentence two of the Tract Ownership and Maintenance Note as follows: Ownership and
maintenance responsibilities for Tract L of Block 22, Tract M of Block 24, and Tract N of Block 13
will be the City of Fort Collins.
4. Add "drainage easement" to the list of designations for Note A.
Site Plan
1. The site plan (and Landscape Plan) needs to be changed to reflect the changes regarding the sidewalk
/ p.:rkway along Cornerstone Drive at Ruff Way.
Utility Plan
1. The enhanced concrete/asphalt crosswalk details have not been revised, please update the details as
shown on the cad files I sent electronically. Note that cross-section of the crosswalk detail seems to
specify incorrect dimensions. Also note that the finish for the concrete shall be broom not smooth.
Date: May 23 2000 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISION_
0 Plat 21 Site 0 Utility 21 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
2. On Sheet 15413, please indicate that the retaining wall, temporary asphalt paving, and concrete
sidewalk are temporary and will be removed and improved to City Standards at the time of
redevelopment of the property to the east of Cornerstone Drive. Please indicate on this sheet how the
sidewalk will tie into the temporary asphalt paving. Will the sidewalk drop down to meet the asphalt,
will the asphalt be constructed to ramp up into the sidewalk? Please clarify and ensure that a grade
separation does not: occur between the sidewalk and temporary roadway.
3. The revised subdrain cleanout appears okay, the note that specifies 2" to bottom of asphalt material
should have the 2 inches removed.
4. On Sheet 11 for the combined Harvest Park/Sage Creek plan set, Harvest Park construction should be
shown as proposed right-of-way not existing. Station 167+50 shows sidewalk outside of the
proposed right-of-way, the right-of-way line appears to be incorrect.
McClleland Channel Related Improvements
1. Clarify Sheet 26A on its location (provide a Key Map).
(See plans for additional comments — additional comments may be made upon receiving of revisions.
Please include the redlined utility plan set with resubmittal.)
Development Review Comments — Page 2
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: April 26, 2000 TO: Mapping
PROJECT: #36-98C Harvest Park — Final Compliance -
Type I - LUC
All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the
staff review meeting:
Wednesday, May 17, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
i
Z NIAJ012 �IF�EKENCC F Tk1CF�7 YLA7 jr L�C�AL
I t--VC17
5 KlCeo / ,1bbi r/ci"4 i IohUme`hT �c mf �niGJi C QVCs/L 7
1gfJ STAiVc LALJ.
Date: sigmu=:_
CHFCIC
Plat Site _ Drainage Report _ other
Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape
DATE: March 21, 2000
COMMENT SHEET
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #2.5-98C Harvest Park — PDP Final Compliance
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: April 12, 2000
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
General Comments:
l . Easements were not received with this round of review and are required with Final Compliance
submittal.
2. The soils report ("Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Ruff Properties, Southwest
County Road 9 and Harmony Road, Fort Collins, Colorado" prepared by CTL/Thompson, Inc.)
indicates recommendations on underdrain sizing. The recommendations on the slope, pipe size, and
maximum number of residences does not coincide with the development proposal. As this did not
appear to be addressed with the subdrain report, please provide an addendum to the "Groundwater
Investigation and Recommendations for an Area Underdrain System: Harvest Park Residential
Subdivision Fort Collins, Colorado" provided by Ayers Associates in response to the
recommendations of the underdrain sizing in the soils report. (Note that the subdrain report
references a "Soil and Groundwater Profile Report, Harvest Park Residential Subdivision, Northwest
Comer of Latimer County Roads 9 and 36" — this report was apparently not submitted to the City, as
no copy could be found, please provide a copy of this report.)
3. The additional access to County Road 9 for the pump house now shown for the Fort Collins -
Loveland Water District was viewed as acceptable by the Transportation Coordination committee on
April 6, 2000.
4. Site, landscape, and utility plans should ensure that the median pedestrian refuge areas provide the
full 12' of crosswalk width and not narrow at the refuge area.
5. The structural calculations for the bridge designs provided need to be stamped by a registered
structural engineer.
Plat
1. Note that the labels of Poudre R-1 and the City appear to be reversed for the off -site lands north of
this site.
2. It appears that the utility easement located along Tract B on the northeast portion of the property
Date: April 13, 2000 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
Q Plat 21 Site Q Utility 21 Landscape ❑ Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
should also be delineated as an access easement because of the sidewalk connection within this tract.
3. Right-of-way along County Road 9 should be expanded to include the sidewalk portion that
meanders to the west (slightly reducing Tract B) to ensure that all sidewalk along County Road 9 is
within right-of-way.
4. The plat would be better and less confusing if the Note "A" (and Note "B") designations were
actually delineated as separate tracts for the private drives (rather than have Note "A" apply to the
private drive portion of a tract as shown in some a:cas.) There does not appear to be a way to
delineate a tract where a Note "A" applies to only a portion thererof. In addition, because of the
separate block numbers used throughout the project, duplicate tract letters can be used for different
blocks. (More than one Tract `B" can exist on the plat as long as it is in a separate block.)
5. References regarding tracts on the cover sheet of the plat (for ownership and maintenance
responsibilities) should reference the pertinent block number as well (Block X, Tract Y).
6. Ownership and maintenance note on the plat should be expanded to include the additional tracts
created with the private drives being designated as tracts currently as shown.
7. There are utility and. drainage easement lines that cross over the private drives (which are designated
as private access, utility, and drainage easements.) The utility and drainage easement lines should be
removed to avoid confusion or the potential that this prevents private access (See sheet 4 of 6 for
examples).
8. The plat appears to require a different Planning Certificate as the project was not approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board, but rather at an administrative hearing (Type I review).
9. There are private drives that appear to be missing as being platted on Sheet 5 of 6.
10. We would prefer if the developer acquires the land to the northeast, north of Tract B and include it
with the plat, as the land is currently not platted, this will also allow the meandering sidewalk to be
within right-of-way. Otherwise, an offsite easement has not been received yet for this.
11. The following is a repeat comments and may or may not be appropriate: The plat shows all the
private drives as Note "A", which is noted as a private access, emergency access, and utility
easement. The emergency access easement is not required for the majority of these drives, as most of
these lots/units can be served off the public street adjacent to them. I believe the only exception is the
multi -family at the southwest corner of County Road 9 and Rock Creek Drive, which needs
emergency access easements through the internal roadway network.. Please verify this with Poudre
Fire Authority. The private drives need to be part of a tract, the plat appears to give the impression
that these private drives are labeled only as Note "A" and stand independent of any tract. This needs
to be clarified.
12. Why is Harvest Park Lane shown with approx. 63' of right-of-way with additional right-of-way by
separate document? Shouldn't the right-of-way be 61', with the sidewalk along the north edge the
responsibility of the City's Parks Department and not needed to be platted here? The site plan
appears to reflect this agreement as I remember it. (repeat comment)
13. Add utility easements on Sheet 6 as shown across lots 1 and 3 along Rock Creek Drive. (repeat
comment)
Site Plan
1. Provide a typical cross-section of the shared rear drive (note that the utility plan shows a detail of
attached walk on one side of the roadway.)
2. What are the "boxes" shown on the site (and landscape) plans along the collector and connector
streets internal to this development?
Development Review Comments — Page 2
3. The colored concrete shown at the entrance to Rock Creek Drive off of County Road 9 is not
allowed.
4. General Note #13 indicates that the patios and courtyards may extend beyond lot lines on single
family detached units. Please remove this note or qualify that this may only apply across lot lines —
patios and courtyards cannot extend on top of dedicated easements or rights -of -way.
_Utility Plan
1. Providing a reference on the intersections for the street plan and profile sheet to the intersection
detail sheets is very much appreciated and allowed a faster review on my part.
2. Please check redlines for corrections, there are minor corrections (regarding cross references, street
names, missing Natural Resources from the utility plan approval block etc) that I have not outlined
below.
3. The pedestrian refuge detail should also specify a maximum cross slope of 1" per ft in addition to the
specified minimum requirements.
4. The shared private driveway cross-section (Sheet 150B) shows a driveover curb and gutter with an
attached sidewalk on one side of the roadway. Is this correct? The plan view of the project does not
appear to show the sidewalk as well as the private drive stormwater diversion trickle pan. Please
clarify.
5. Note the change to the enhanced crosswalk details emailed to Bill Chmelir and update accordingly.
6. The termination of Ruff Way at Cornerstone Drive should be at the property line, with asphalt paving
and curb returns installed to the property line (at minimum.) Along the east portion of Cornerstone
Drive intersecting with the termination of Ruff Way, temporary access ramps (at minimum) or the
entire access ramp on both the north and south side should shown as being installed on the plan with
this project. (Sheet 72)
7. There are two Sheet 151 s with different information on each.
8. On Sheet 96, the cross -sections appear to show 2' outfall gutter. Also note the apparent incorrect
cross slope calculation and elevation shown.
9. This was confirmed with the Development Review Engineering Manager: The subdrain profiles
must he shown on all sheets, even though they may be in the same trench with the sewer. There
appears to be some difference between the plan view of the drawings and the detail. There is a
separation between the subdrain riser on the plan, but it is shown as anchored to the manhole in the
detail. (see next continent)
10. In order to meet City of Fort Collins standards, the subdrain riser shall not be anchored to the sewer
and instead must be separated 14'-6" on centers (with subdrain riser upstream.) The subdrain riser
must also be upstream of the manhole. Note the enclosed drawing for details.
11. Sheets 105, 106, 100 are missing sewer/subdrain on the plan view.
12. Sheet 41 & 107 appears to show an unintended subdrain cleanout added (this was not shown on
previous submittals, is this meant to be added?)
13. Sheet 114 appears to show a subdrain that does not connect with the subdrain system.
14. The subdrain reportrecommends the subdrain pipe becomes solid (non -perforated) when leaving the
sewer trench and daylighting into the McClelland Channel, this is not indicated on the plan set (Sheet
124)
15. The clay barrier shown where the subdrain leaves the sewer trench and daylights into the channel
needs to be moved closer to that point where the subdrain leaves the sewer trench.
16. I can't seem to find a detail of the traffic circle curb proposed, is it just the outfall curb and gutter
detail?
Development Review Comments — Page 3
• The storm drain inlets cannot be located along the pedestrian paths/refuge islands as well as
along a curb return. Please note that the inlets are often at or too close to pedestrian paths on
many of the streets. Flow at and leading to the inlets should be directed away from the
pedestrian paths to the greatest extent possible. How would an inlet be placed in the median
pedestrian refuge area if it does not (I assume) have curb?
• Please provide a detail of the pedestrian refuge areas in the median islands.
• Provide an intersection detail of Rock Creek Drive and County Road 9.
• Show how the sidewalk proposed along Rock Creek Drive at the west edge of this site ties
into the existing, sidewalk for the Stetson Creek 3`d Filing. A transition should be provided
from the 4' to 5' width as well as the widening of the landscape strip.
• Right-of-way along County Road 9 should be expanded to include the entire sidewalk along
the west half of County Road 9.
• Revise the General Notes as noted:
✓ Revise No. 16 to read: Prior to final inspection and acceptance by The City of Fort
Collins, certification of the drainage facilities, by a registered engineer, must be
submitted to and approved by the Stormwater Utility Department. Certification shall be
submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to the release of
a certificate of occupancy for single family units. For commercial properties, certification
shall be submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to the
release of additional building permits to those allowed prior to certification per the
Development Agreement.
✓ Revise No. 18 to read: All construction activities must comply with the State of
Colorado permitting process for "Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity." For information, please contact The Colorado Department of Health, Water
Quality Control Division, WQCD-PE-B2, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver,
Colorado 80222-1530. Attention: Permits and Enforcement Section. ph.: (303) 692-3590.
Identifying the need for a permit, preparing the application, and paying for the review and
submittal fees necessary to secure this permit, will be the responsibility of the contractor.
✓ Add the following note: Temporary erosion control during construction shall be
provided as shown on the Erosion Control Plan.
✓ Replace all occurrences of "Director of Engineering" to "City Engineer".
Based on the intersection details provided for the traffic circles, the cross slopes at the traffic
circles do not meet 2% in cases and exceed 4% in one other instance. This may in fact not be
the case depending on the curb detail on the inside curb of the traffic circle. I cannot find any
indication as to what curb may be used on the inside traffic circle and whether the curb is
infall or outfall, presumably infall curb and gutter is used where the storm drains are located
at but I cannot tell for sure — and the traffic circles without storm drains is presumably
outfall? In general, the cross slopes appear to vary around each traffic circle, potentially
preventing a smooth ride around the circle. Please look at providing as constant of a cross
slope around each traffic circle as possible. Again, there does not seem to be any indication
17. Provide a detail of the enhanced crosswalk across Rock Creek Drive at County Road 9 as it appears
to be different than the enhanced crosswalks used around the traffic circles.
18. Provide a detail of the concrete paving illustrated on the utility plans along Rock Creek Drive west of
County Road 9. Note that colored concrete is not allowed.
19. The utility plan set does not accurately represent the width and dimensions of the enhanced
crosswalks as specified in the detail provided and incorporated into the plan set. Please ensure that
the crosswalk appearing on the road designs, overall utility plan, etc. corresponds with the deail.
20. Provide a detail of the stamped asphalt crosswalks shown across Old Mill Road and Corbett Drive at
the southern edge of this site (the site plan calls these out as stamped asphalt.)
21. The phasing plan needs to show that streets must be constructed at the time of the adjacent lots being
developed. The mullti-family at the northeast portion of the site is showing the street adjacent to it at
the west being built with a phase later than the multi -family construction — this is not acceptable and
must be built with the initial phase.
Landscaping Plan for McClelland Channel Improvements
1. Revise planting note No. 4 (the permit may not be free.)
County Road 9 Improvements
1. Add a reference to the New Driveway Approach Detail on the curb cut for the driveway to the pump
house off of County Road 9 and provide this detail D-15 on the detail sheet for this.
McClleland Channel Related Improvements
1. It is my understanding that the existing pedestrian crossing on the west side would be upgraded, there
are no improvements indicated on the plan set. Please clarify.
(See plans for additional comments — additional comments may be made upon receiving ofrevisions.
Please include the redlined utility plan set with resubmittal.)
Development Review Comments — Page 4
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: March 21, 2000 TO: Mapping
;I, H- w�l/y
PROJECT: #25-98C Harvest Park — Final Compliance —
Type I — (LUC)
All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the
staff review meeting:
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
�,jrnrgizy £ LE s+,
E/i5C-/•fcn r� IJCc•� 7z) i3� v7-111r1 l��2AIJlA� i�1— �Z�v� cc�sS.
3 �{e TleJ(-r CI�,���� i� I�l,+w, tiloz� r�� s Ndr
cy I Rn-r 13a����t 2�c�5
Date: Signature:_
CHECK
_ Plat _ site _ Drainage Report _ Other
Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape
t Ak
a�
DATE: January 27, 2000
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98C Harvest Park — PDP Final Compliance
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: February 9, 2000
❑ No Problems
2 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
• The design of the McClelland Channel and box culvert designs should be incorporated into one
plan set, not separated. The plan set should be labeled "McClelland Channel Crossing
Improvements and Landscaping" or similar. This will allow both Harvest Park and Sage Creek to
reference this plan in their respective utility drawings/development agreements.
• The Phasing plan may require further discussion with Engineering, Traffic, and Stormwater. It is
my understanding, that based on meetings I did not attend, either Rock Creek Drive or Corbett
Drive must be built in its entirety with the first phase of development.
• A second utility coordination meeting is recommend�o be scheduled to review any potential
utility conflicts as well as provide the necessary sleeving needed for the utility companies across
the bridges.
• The concrete in the traffic circles shall not be colored. Please revise all plans to indicate that the
traffic circle tiles are to not be colored.
• The sidewalk along County Road 9 heading north of this site meanders with this submittal, why
does it meander to the degree it shows? Can this be reduced? The sidewalk does not appear to be
within the right-of-way with this design and actually appears to be in unplatted area. It would be
advantageous for the developer to acquire the unplatted land to the north for the storm drain and to
ensure the sidewalk is in right-of-way with the plat.
Plat
• The plat shows all the private drives as Note "A", which is noted as a private access, emergency
access, and utility easement. The emergency access easement is not required for the majority of these
drives, as most of these lots/units can be served off the public street adjacent to them. I believe the
only exception is the multi -family at the southwest comer of County Road 9 and Rock Creek Drive,
which needs emergency access easements through the internal roadway network.. Please verify this
with Poudre Fire Authority. The private drives need to be part of a tract, the plat appears to give the
Date: March 2, 2000 Signature: — /�-
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIOI�S�-
0 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
impression that these private drives are labeled only as Note "A" and stand independent of any tract.
This needs to be clarified.
• There are private drives that appear to be missing as being platted on Sheet 5 of 6.
• We would prefer if the developer acquires the land to the northeast, north of Tract B and include it
with the plat, as the land is currently not platted, this will also allow the meandering sidewalk to be
within right-of-way.
• Why is Harvest Park Lane shown with approx. 63' of right-of-way with additional right-of-way by
separate document? Shouldn't the right-of-way be 61', with the sidewalk along the north edge the
responsibility of the City's Parks Department and not needed to be platted here? The site plan
appears to reflect this agreement as I remember it.
• Add utility easements on Sheet 6 as shown across lots I and 3 along Rock Creek Drive.
• Does the right-of-way dedicated along County Road 9 correspond to the utility plan set for the
roadway?
Site Plan
• The traffic circle detail on sheet 49 needs to be revised (as noted on the utility comments):
• Use the enclosed detail for the concrete crosswalk. Note that the crosswalk needs to be 12' wide
with 8' of walkway, not 8' total. The walkway should be one tile band rather than two (a concern
for walking with high -heeled shoes.) The color should be changed.
■ Provide access ramps within the pedestrian refuge areas.
• The concrete paving within the traffic circle shall be "concrete gray" (no coloring), not San Diego
Buff.
• The landscaping on sheet 8 between this development and Wildwood does not correspond with the
landscaping shown on the landscaping plan.
• The sight distance easement language needs to be modified.
• Add a note that all shared rear drives are private and to be maintained by the Harvest Park H.O.A.
• The sidewalk/trail connection running from the southwest portion of this site north is new with this
submittal. A concern is that it should not terminate at a rear drive heading north; the trail should tie
into the sidewalk system to the east. Engineering has no objection to the elimination of the path if so
desired by the developer.
• The ramps at the corners of the pocket parks should not be located across the diagonal of the street
because of the requiring of the pedestrian to walk a longer distance. The ramps should lead a
pedestrian perpendicular to a roadway, a shorter distance. A ramp in each direction (for two on each
"comer") is not necessary, though not discouraged. The ramps should be relocated in such a way that
they are not placed within inlet location. Note that the utility plans show this correctly in some
locations but they contradict the site plan which shows all access ramps on diagonals.
• Call out the type of curb and gutter used in the traffic circle.
• Signs are not allowed in our right-of-way in conformance with City Code Sec. 24-1.
• Show the sight distance easements noted on the utility plan and add the current Sight Distance
Easement Language to the notes.
• The bold dashed lines on the plan might be mistaken for construction phasing. Construction phasing
on the site plan may be worth considering.
Utility Plan
• There are discrepancies in street names left over from the previous submittal.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
Points on curves for the stationing shown on plan view isn't always shown on profile view. Please
call out all elevations on the profile view.
There are issues with the street cross sections sheets for the collectors:
■ The street cross, sections appear to show in cases where inflow curb & gutter is used in the
medians, that a crown is created along the asphalt to bring flow to the curb, this appears to be an
exaggeration/projection of the curb. Please clarify/correct.
• The details show a 1' inflow curb for the medians but is shown scaled as 2' on these sheets.
■ The cross slope: percentages shown on the cross section sheets do not add up to the calculations
I'm getting for the collector streets. Please explain how the percentages are being calculated. I
am finding cross slopes being less than noted and found at least one cross -slope below 2%. My
calculations are: noted on the plans.
■ County Road 9 plans appear to be fine with regards to the above concerns.
• Add the following note on the (combined) Box Culvert/Channel design:
After construction of all bridge structures, the developer is required to provide to the City a bridge
rating form and documentation in accordance with federal bridge inspection criteria.
• Provide structural calculations on the bridge designs by a licensed structural engineer.
• Place references on the index where other related plans (County Road 9, McClelland Channel
designs) can be found. (i.e., see "Y' for County Road 9 design)
• Provide cross-references for what sheets the street intersection details correspond to in the individual
street plan and profile details (and vice -versa).
• There are street intersection details that need to show additional spot elevations in accordance with D-
18 and D-19.
• [Sheet 91 Identify the type of crosswalks to be used throughout the development. Provide a detail of
the crosswalks used. Provide a detail of the pedestrian refuge areas. Note the sidewalk width on
Golden Wheat should be 4.5'.
• [Sheet 10] Identify the symbols shown at the Rock Creek Drive/County Road 9 entrance.
• There is a sidewalk connection on Sheet 11 that was not previously shown heading north from the
southwest corner of this site. The sidewalk should not end at the private drive. Is there a need for
providing this sidewalk to begin with?
• Note the absence of a boundary line between this development and Sage Creek on Sheet 15.
• Sheet 30 shows sidewalk culverts across the middle of the townhome sections. This appears on other
sheets as well. Are the culverts necessary? As it is, the grading does not appear to direct water into
the culverts. Engineering does not have concern about sheet flow across the sidewalk off the lawns.
A concern would be drainage off the private drives flowing across the sidewalk — which isn't the case
here.
• Please show on the plan view that the metal culvert with detached sidewalk traverses both the
sidewalk and parkway. The symbol appears to traverse the sidewalk or parkway strip, not both. A
plan view detail of the culvert to go along with the detail specified on sheet 149 should be included to
show how the culvert appears with a detached sidewalk system.
• On Sheet 32, the flow off a private drive is shown exiting off a 2' curb cut and into lawn area. The
flows off this private drive should be conveyed to exit without spilling across the sidewalk. Provide a
pan/culvert conveyance system to bring flows out to the street.
• The typical street sections sheets need to be updated to reflect the new proposed street names.
• The traffic circle detail on sheet 49 needs to be revised/needs further detail:
Development Review Comments — Page 3
Please use the enclosed detail for the concrete crosswalk. Note that the crosswalk needs to be 12'
wide with 8' of walkway, not 8' total. The walkway should be one tile band rather than two (an
apparent concern for those walking with high -heeled shoes — I wouldn't know myself.)
Provide access ramps within the pedestrian refuge areas, and/or provide a detail of the cross-
section of the pedestrian refuge area, showing transitioning and curbing used.
Call out the traffic circle detail shown on Sheet 49 in the index or better, place it in the detail
sheets.
• Call out the type of curb and gutter used in the traffic circle
• On Sheet 48, Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive show a note that all median curb and gutter is
outfall unless otherwise indicated. Where is this indicated in the plan set?
• The traffic circle for the Rock Creek/Corbett intersection still shows cross slopes with variations
around the circle. Note that the supplement submitted to Engineering did not appear to have the
proper scaling, as the length of the travel path in the supplement does not appear to coincide with the
length of travel within the traffic circle on the utility plans. Further discussion on the traffic circle
design appears to be necessary because of the cross-slope/street grade issues.
• The traffic circle for Rock Creek/Old Mill shows an elevation point (24.69) on the southwest
quadrant that doesn't appear to make sense (Sheet 50.) It appears that a high point is created that is
not intended. (Sheet 59) Note that the elevations on the north side of the roadway aren't called out in
the profile view.
• The plan view for Corbett and Rock Creek Drive on the plan and profile sheets appears to show
different gutter widths for inflow and outfall curb, however the gutter is I' in both cases, this appears
misleading.
• The Country Squire Lane/Country Squire intersection shows a spot elevation on sheet 53 that appears
to be incorrect based on the street plan and profile on sheet 70 and that the cross -slope that it creates
being over 4%.
• Sheet 74 gives incorrect dimensions for Harvest Park Lane.
• Sheet 75 shows a type R inlet located on a driveway flare. This appears to need to be relocated.
• Harvest Moon (South) has vertical curves that are too short in length, please increase the vertical
curves (to ensure a K value of at least 30.)
• An additional (blow-up type) detail should be included with the area inlet design to see how the inlets
are situated with the curb and gutter, does the curb taper down to the inlet, how flow is ensured on
reaching the inlet, etc.
• The design of the County Road 9 plans should not appear to be Harvest Park's plan, as this plan will
also reference responsibilities for Sage Creek.
• Bridge wing walls still need to flare out and not follow the box culvert.
• Will sleeving need to be provided for the utility companies along the bridge structures?
• The PCR elevations at the intersection of Rock. Creek Drive and County Road 9 do not match with
the intersection details for this.
• Add a note to the General Notes that all recommendations of the "Groundwater Investigation and
Recommendations for an Area Underdrain System Harvest Park Residential Subdivision Fort
Collins, Colorado" by Ayers Associates will be complied with.
• Show limits of existing asphalt for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive.
• Show how the sidewalk proposed along Rock Creek Drive at the west edge of this site ties into the
existing sidewalk for the Stetson Creek 3`d Filing. A transition should be provided from the 4' to 5'
width as well
Development Review Comments — Page 4
Add Natural Resources to the signature block.
Note that there are instances where the Key Map does not match with the plans, please correct.
Add a note regarding on the County Road 9 plans noting that the overhead line along County Road 9
will be undergrounded for Harvest Park and Sage Creek adjacent to each site with their respective
developments.
Landscaping Plan
• Sheet 14 is the wrong sheet, it is the duplicate of the previous.
• Correct Note 6, (the permit may not be free.)
• The visual clearance notes should have the sight distance easement language included.
• The landscaping shown between Wildwood and this development shown on the landscaping plan
appears to contradict the site plan details.
(See plans for additional comments — additional comments may be made upon receiving of revisions.
Please include the redlined utility plan set with resubmittal.)
Development Review Comments — Page 5
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: January 27, 2000 TO: Engineering Pave- ent
PROJECT: #25-98C Harvest Park - Final Compliance
All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff
review meeting:
February 9, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
,A4(t-1�5�7-4 - 111)
c 1�� G- L Y
Signature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other
City of Fort Collins
Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape +��
PROJECT
offy" 6COMMENT SHEET
a
City of Fort Collins
Current Plannine
DATE: January 27, 2000 TO: Mapping/Drafting
PROJECT: #25-98C Harvest Park - Final Compliance
All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff
review meeting:
February 9, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
i, R 0 t P Y;��t L C-.Z, S e L. k( nI)- �, V, %�,� t C- f
e,CA 114vwPS c,wd
I)et� � e.,t:c, �� 7
Cc Yt ^I vie �r� 'S 2�cu,i
3. pou.tnR�y r LEGAL CLas�•
7 � � ATT�L CUmmc �
Signature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other.
_Utility —Redline Utility _Landscape
µ .. ,
City of Fort Collins
I1i cr mo
R q
DATE: January 27, 2000
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98C Harvest Park — PDP Final Compliance
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: February 9, 2000
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
• The design of the McClelland Channel and box culvert designs should be incorporated into one
plan set, not separated. The plan set should be labeled "McClelland Channel Crossing
Improvements and Landscaping" or similar. This will allow both Harvest Park and Sage Creek to
reference this plan in their respective utility drawings/development agreements.
Response: The McClelland Channel set, the Box Culvert set, and the County Road 9 set have all been
put into one set together.
• The Phasing plan may require further discussion with Engineering, Traffic, and Stormwater. It is
my understanding that based on meetings I did not attend, either Rock Creek Drive or Corbett
Drive must be built in its entirety with the first phase of development.
Response: Rock Creek Drive will be built in its entirety as part of phase 1 of Harvest Park. Corbett
Drive will be built in its entirety as part of phase 2.
A second utility coordination meeting is recommend to be scheduled to review any potential
utility conflicts as well as provide the necessary sleeving needed for the utility companies across
the bridges.
Response: Utility Conduit corridors are specified in the box culvert horizontal plans.
The concrete in the traffic circles shall not be colored. Please revise all plans to indicate that the
traffic circle tiles are to not be colored.
Response: Concrete in traffic circles will not be colored. Plans have been revised.
Date: March 17, 2000 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
G1 Plat 21 Site 2 Utility 21 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
as to what type of curb and gutter detail is used at the traffic circles — the detail sheet shows
multiple types, but the type specific to a traffic circle median is not called out in the plan and
profile details. Are the traffic circle medians using a straight line grade around the entire
circle or are there grade breaks/changes? Provide additional spot elevations around the
traffic circles at 10' intervals along with invert elevations.
• In general, there are numerous cases where the elevations on the intersection details shown
on Sheets 50 to 53 do not match the plan and profiles. I have outlined some of these cases
but have not reviewed them all. Please double check the intersection details and be sure they
correspond with the plan and profile drawings in future submittals.
• In general there are numerous cases where the elevations shown on the profile for one street
on one sheet does not match the profile on the intersecting street on another street. I have
outlined some cases below, but not all. The intersection details, plan and profile for each
intersecting street — they should all match.
• The minimum flowline grade for a cross -pan is .6%. The following streets do not meet this
minimum: Rock, Creek Drive across Mill Stone Lane and Spring Harvest Lane (Sheet 57),
Country Main across Amber Waves and Purple Mountain Circle (Sheet 64), Country Main
across Autumn Harvest Way on both sides of the street (Sheet 65) {note an elevation appears
to be incorrect}, Harvest Park Way across Golden Wheat (Sheet 67), Country Squire across
Country Squire Lane and Amber Harvest Lane (Sheet 70)
• The stationing shown on Sheet 55 on the plan view does not correspond with the stationing
shown on the profile. This may perhaps explain why the elevations shown do not match the
intersection details?
• Elevations/stationing on the profile for PRC and PCC is missing at locations throughout the
plan set (i.e., Sheet 55 along the traffic circle as well as with Corbett Drive between Amber
Waves and Ruff Way — Sheet 56 along the southern half of the traffic circle.) Please ensure
that they are provided to double check with the intersection details as well as between plan
and profile sheets.
• On Sheet 55, the median directly north of the traffic circle on Corbett Drive shows a low spot
at the middle of the median (flowline profile). The plan shows an inlet to carry the water on
the west side of the median but does not call it out on the profile. On the east side there does
not appear to be an inlet based on the plan. Also, subsequent pages seem to indicate this as
infall curb and ,gutter. How will the water leave the median on the east side at the low point?
A sag curve is required as the difference in grade exceeds .4%.
• The intersection detail for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive on Sheet 50 shows elevations
that do not match the elevations given in the plan and profile (Sheets 56 & 57) (as well as
cross section) sheets.
• Sheet 51 (Ruff Way and Corbett Drive) shows a cross slope in the opposite direction
(towards the median.)
• On Sheet 50, the cross slope along the Rock Creek Drive median where it intersects with
Corbett Drive does not appear to maintain the minimum 2% and shows 1.5%. (However, on
• The sidewalk along County Road 9 heading north of this site meanders with this submittal, why
does it meander to the degree it shows? Can this be reduced? The sidewalk does not appear to be
within the right-of-way with this design and actually appears to be in unplatted area. It would be
advantageous for the developer to acquire the unplatted land to the north for the storm drain and to
ensure the sidewalk is in right-of-way with the plat.
Plat
• The plat shows all the private drives as Note "A", which is noted as a private access, emergency
access, and utility easement. The emergency access easement is not required for the majority of these
drives, as most of these lots/units can be served off the public street adjacent to them. I believe the
only exception is the multi -family at the southwest comer of County Road 9 and Rock Creek Drive,
which needs emergency access easements through the internal roadway network.. Please verify this
with Poudre Fire Authority. The private drives need to be part of a tract, the plat appears to give the
impression that these private drives are labeled only as Note "A" and stand independent of any tract.
This needs to be clarified.
• There are private drives that appear to be missing as being platted on Sheet 5 of 6.
• We would prefer if the developer acquires the land to the northeast, north of Tract B and include it
with the plat, as the land is currently not platted, this will also allow the meandering sidewalk to be
within right-of-way.
• Why is Harvest Park Lane shown with approx. 63' of right-of-way with additional right-of-way by
separate document? Shouldn't the right-of-way be 61', with the sidewalk along the north edge the
responsibility of the City's Parks Department and not needed to be platted here? The site plan
appears to reflect this agreement as I remember it.
• Add utility easements on Sheet 6 as shown across lots 1 and 3 along Rock Creek Drive.
• Does the right-of-way dedicated along County Road 9 correspond to the utility plan set for the
roadway?
Site Plan
• The traffic circle detail on sheet 49 needs to be revised (as noted on the utility comments):
• Use the enclosed detail for the concrete crosswalk. Note that the crosswalk needs to be 12' wide
with 8' of walkway, not 8' total. The walkway should be one tile band rather than two (a concern
for walking with high -heeled shoes.) The color should be changed.
• Provide access ramps within the pedestrian refuge areas.
• The concrete paving within the traffic circle shall be "concrete gray" (no coloring), not San Diego
Buff.
• The landscaping on sheet 8 between this development and Wildwood does not correspond with the
landscaping shown on the landscaping plan.
• The sight distance easement language needs to be modified.
• Add a note that all shared rear drives are private and to be maintained by the Harvest Park H.O.A.
• The sidewalk/trail connection running from the southwest portion of this site north is new with this
submittal. A concern is that it should not terminate at a rear drive heading north; the trail should tie
into the sidewalk system to the east. Engineering has no objection to the elimination of the path if so
desired by the developer.
• The ramps at the comers of the pocket parks should not be located across the diagonal of the street
because of the requiring of the pedestrian to walk a longer distance. The ramps should lead a
pedestrian perpendicular to a roadway, a shorter distance. A ramp in each direction (for two on each
Development Review Comments — Page 2
"comer") is not necessary, though not discouraged. The ramps should be relocated in such a way that
they are not placed within inlet location. Note that the utility plans show this correctly in some
locations but they contradict the site plan which shows all access ramps on diagonals.
• Call out the type of curb and gutter used in the traffic circle.
• Signs are not allowed in our right-of-way in conformance with City Code Sec. 24-1.
• Show the sight distance easements noted on the utility plan and add the current Sight Distance
Easement Language to the notes.
• The bold dashed lines on the plan might be mistaken for construction phasing. Construction phasing
on the site plan may be worth considering.
Utility Plan
• There are discrepancies in street names left over from the previous submittal.
• Response: Corrected.
• Points on curves for the stationing shown on plan view isn't always shown on profile view. Please
call out all elevations on the profile view.
• Response: Marc, I believe you and Jim Allen -Morley decided that this is not necessary.
• There are issues with the street cross sections sheets for the collectors:
• The street cross -sections appear to show in cases where inflow curb & gutter is used in the
medians, that a crown is created along the asphalt to bring flow to the curb, this appears to be an
exaggeration/projection of the curb. Please clarify/correct.
• Response: Median inflow C & G `s are 2 feet from the flow line to the lip. This was shown
incorrectly before but is now correct.
• The details show a 1' inflow curb for the medians but is shown scaled as 2' on these sheets.
• Response: 2' inflow curb detail is now provided on sheet 149.
• The cross slope percentages shown on the cross section sheets do not add up to the calculations
I'm getting for the collector streets. Please explain how the percentages are being calculated. I
am finding cross slopes being less than noted and found at least one cross -slope below 2%. My
calculations are noted on the plans.
• Response: Because the lip of the curb was shown incorrectly, we mistakenly calculated the cross
slopes with the medians having 1' lips instead of having 2' lips. This was only the case on sheet
95. The sheet now correctly shows the lip of curbs being 2 feet from the flow lines.
• County Road 9 plans appear to be fine with regards to the above concerns.
• Response: We concur.
• Add the following note on the (combined) Box Culvert/Channel design:
After construction of all bridge structures, the developer is required to provide to the City a bridge
rating Corm and documentation in accordance with federal bridge inspection criteria.
Response: Added to the box culvert general notes.
• Provide structural calculations on the bridge designs by a licensed structural engineer.
• Response: Note added to general notes on sheet 24 of the channel set to specify HS-20 load rating
requirements.
• Place references on the index where other related plans (County Road 9, McClelland Channel
designs) can be found. (i.e., see "X" for County Road 9 design)
• Response: Note "***" have been added to the cover sheet to address this comment.
• Provide cross-references for what sheets the street intersection details correspond to in the individual
street plan and profile details (and vice -versa).
Development Review Comments — Page 3
• Response: Intersection details are now referenced on street plan and profile sheets.
• There are street intersection details that need to show additional spot elevations in accordance with D-
18 and D-19.
• Response: Now shown.
• [Sheet 9] Identify the type of crosswalks to be used throughout the development. Provide a detail of
the crosswalks used. Provide a detail of the pedestrian refuge areas. Note the sidewalk width on
Golden Wheal should be 4.5'.
• Response: Detail provided for crosswalks and for pedestrian refuge. Golden Wheat sidewalk is now
4.5'.
• [Sheet 10] Identify the symbols shown at the Rock Creek Drive/County Road 9 entrance.
• Response: These have been removed.
• There is a sidewalk connection on Sheet 11 that was not previously shown heading north from the
southwest corner of this site. The sidewalk should not end at the private drive. is there a need for
providing this sidewalk to begin with?
• Response: Removed.
• Note the absence of a boundary line between this development and Sage Creek on Sheet 15.
• Response: Provided.
• Sheet 30 shows sidewalk culverts across the middle of the townhome sections. This appears on other
sheets as well. Are the culverts necessary? As it is, the grading does not appear to direct water into
the culverts. Engineering does not have concern about sheet flow across the sidewalk off the lawns.
A concern would be drainage off the private drives flowing across the sidewalk — which isn't the case
here.
• Response: Culverts have been removed to allow sheet flow across sidewalks.
• Please show on the plan view that the metal culvert with detached sidewalk traverses both the
sidewalk and parkway. The symbol appears to traverse the sidewalk or parkway strip, not both. A
plan view detail of the culvert to go along with the detail specified on sheet 149 should be included to
show how the culvert appears with a detached sidewalk system.
• Response: Addressed.
• On Sheet 32, the flow off a private drive is shown exiting off a 2' curb cut and into lawn area. The
flows off this private drive should be conveyed to exit without spilling across the sidewalk. Provide a
pan/culvert conveyance system to bring flows out to the street.
• Response: Pan and culvert have been provided.
• The typical street sections sheets need to be updated to reflect the new proposed street names.
• Response: Updated.
• The traffic circle detail on sheet 49 needs to be revised/needs further detail:
• Please use the enclosed detail for the concrete crosswalk. Note that the crosswalk needs to be 12'
wide with 8' of walkway, not 8' total. The walkway should be one tile band rather than two (an
apparent concern for those walking with high -heeled shoes — I wouldn't know myself.)
• Response: Detail provided by you has been added to our details.
• Provide access ramps within the pedestrian refuge areas, and/or provide a detail of the cross-
section of the pedestrian refuge area, showing transitioning and curbing used.
• Response: Detail provided for pedestrian refuge with a cross section detail.
• Call out the traffic circle detail shown on Sheet 49 in the index or better, place it in the detail
sheets.
• Response: Called out.
Development Review Comments — Page 4
• Call out the type of curb and gutter used in the traffic circle
• Response: A legend is now provided showing which are inflow and out fall curb and gutter.
• On Sheet 48, Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive show a note that all median curb and gutter is
outfall unless otherwise indicated. Where is this indicated in the plan set?
• Response: Out fall and inflow are now indicated on this sheet.
• The traffic circle for the Rock Creek/Corbett intersection still shows cross slopes with variations
around the circle. Note that the supplement submitted to Engineering did not appear to have the
proper scaling, as the length of the travel path in the supplement does not appear to coincide with the
length of travel within the traffic circle on the utility plans. Further discussion on the traffic circle
design appears to be necessary because of the cross-slope/street grade issues.
• Response: The cross slopes have been reduced to provide a better ride through the traffic circle.
• The traffic circle fer Rock Creek/Old Mill shows an elevation point (24.69) on the southwest
quadrant that doesn't appear to make sense (Sheet 50.) It appears that a high point is created that is
not intended. (Sheet 59) Note that the elevations on the north side of the roadway aren't called out in
the profile view.
• Response: 24.69 is incorrect and has been corrected. Stations and elevations on the north side of the
roadway have been added to the profile on sheet 59.
• The plan view for Corbett and Rock Creek Drive on the plan and profile sheets appears to show
different gutter widths for inflow and outfall curb, however the gutter is 1' in both cases, this appears
misleading.
• Response: Inflow is 1', out fall are 2'.
• The Country Squire Lane/Country Squire intersection shows a spot elevation on sheet 53 that appears
to be incorrect based on the street plan and profile on sheet 70 and that the cross -slope that it creates
being over 4%.
• Responses Spot elevation was incorrect. It has been corrected.
• Sheet 74 gives incorrect dimensions for Harvest Park Lane.
• Response: Corrected.
• Sheet 75 shows a type R inlet located on a driveway flare. This appears to need to be relocated.
• Response: Type R inlet has been relocated.
• Harvest Moon (South) has vertical curves that are too short in length, please increase the vertical
curves (to ensure a K value of at least 30.)
• Response: Corrected.
• An additional (blow-up type) detail should be included with the area inlet design to see how the inlets
are situated with the curb and gutter, does the curb taper down to the inlet, how flow is ensured on
reaching the inlet, etc.
• Response: Detail provided on sheet 9150B.
• The design of the County Road 9 plans should not appear to be Harvest Park's plan, as this plan will
also reference responsibilities for Sage Creek.
• Response: County Road 9 is located along with the box culvert and McClellands channel set.
• Bridge wing walls still need to flare out and not follow the box culvert.
• Response: The current configuration of the wing walls has been found to be acceptable according to
Jim Allen -Morley.
• Will sleeving need to be provided for the utility companies along the bridge structures?
• Response: Utility Conduit corridors are specified in the box culvert horizontal plans.
Development Review Comments — Page 5
• The PCR elevations at the intersection of Rock Creek Drive and County Road 9 do not match with
the intersection details for this.
• Response: County Road 9 has been changed which has made this correct.
• Add a note to the General Notes that all reconunendations of the "Groundwater Investigation and
Recommendations for an Area Underdrain System Harvest Park Residential Subdivision Fort
Collins, Colorado" by Ayers Associates will be complied with.
• Response: Added.
• Show limits of existing asphalt for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive.
• Response: Limits of existing asphalt are now called out on the street plan and profile sheets.
• Show how the sidewalk proposed along Rock Creek Drive at the west edge of this site ties into the
existing sidewalk for the Stetson Creek 3r' Filing. A transition should be provided from the 4' to 5'
width as well
• Response: Jim Allen -Morley said that you and he spoke about this and that the two of you had
decided that what we have provided is sufficient.
• Add Natural Resources to the signature block.
• Response: Added.
• Note that there are instances where the Key Map does not match with the plans, please correct.
• Response. Corrected.
• Add a note regarding on the County Road 9 plans noting that the overhead line along County Road 9
will be undergrounded for Harvest Park and Sage Creek adjacent to each site with their respective
developments.
• Response: A note has been added to sheets 3, 4 and 5 of the Channel/Box Culverts/CR 9 set.
Landscaping Plan
• Sheet 14 is the wrong sheet, it is the duplicate of the previous.
• Correct Note 6, (the permit may not be free.)
• The visual clearance notes should have the sight distance easement language included.
• The landscaping shown between Wildwood and this development shown on the landscaping plan
appears to contradict the site plan details.
(See plans for additional comments —additional comments may be made upon receiving of revisions.
Please include the redlined utility plan set with resubmittaL.)
Development Review Comments — Page 6
DATE: December 23, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park — PDP (LUC)
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: Thursday, December 30, 1999
0 No Problems
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
Development Review Engineering has no objection for this project proceeding to a hearing. The letters
of intent for offsite easements received from the Developer are sufficient. It is understood that at least
one round of formal review is required after a hearing for this project.
(The. following comments are made as a brief overview of the site plan and plat, given the short time of
review and the understanding that an actual formal review will take place after the hearing. Additional
comments may be made at that time.)
Plat:
Please note that the Planning Certificate signature block approval for the Plat is incorrect as the Director
of Planning does not sign off on the plat.
Site Plan:
Please note that "San Diego Buff' colored concrete noted for the traffic circles on the site plan is not
allowed, as noted on previous submittals. Concrete in the traffic circles should not be colored.
Date: January 4 2000 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
❑ Plat 0 Site ❑ Utility 0 Landscape 11 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
the plan and profile (Sheet 57), the elevations given do not match those on Sheet 50. Please
clarify.)
• Golden Wheat is not labeled on the horizontal control plan (Sheet No. 9). The street shows
4.5' sidewalk on the south side, 5' on the north side. Please correct. Also note that the
typical street section (Sheet No. 49) for this road does not show sidewalk on one side.
• Distinguish between Golden Harvest Way and Golden Harvest Lane on the typical street
section details (Sheet 48 & 49).
• The intersection of Rock Creek Drive and Mill Stone Lane has a trickle pan shown along the
south side of Rock Creek Drive that has a low spot in the middle of the pan. This is not
allowed and flow should be taken to one side of the street. (Sheet 51, 57, 75)
• Provide an additional fire hydrant in the multi -family portion on the northeast edge of this
site. A fire hydrant is required every 600' in multi -family potions and 800' in single-family
portions per PFA.
• Show the bridge structures for Country Main, Corbett Drive, and County Road 9 on the
profile views.
• What is the pattern shown around the traffic circles and along the entrance to Rock Creek
Drive off County Road 9? More information/detail is needed.
• There appears to be an enhanced crosswalk across Rock Creek Drive at Country Road 9. It is
too close to C.R. 9 and needs to be moved back (west) in line with the pedestrian ramps.
Provide a detail of this crosswalk.
• Offsite drainage easements are potentially required for the grading work done on County
Road 9. The plan set should show the right-of-way to be dedicated from Sage Creek, which
may negate the need for offsite drainage easements.
• The horizontal control plan shows three different sidewalk widths for County Fair Lane.
• Harvest Park Place is not labeled on the horizontal control plan (Sheet No. 14). No sidewalk
width is called out. Please correct. Also note that the typical street section detail sheets do
not show this roadway.
• On much of the private drives with spot elevations on both sides of the drive, the elevation
difference is .5', which with a 12' private drive gives a slope of 4.17% -- in excess of the 2 to
4% noted in the typical cross section. Please clarify.
• Please provide additional spot elevations as indicated on the utility plan (Sheet No. 25) for
the private drive that comes out to Mill Stone Lane.
• The private drive from the multi -family out to Golden Wheat shows a slope of 8.78% (Sheet
No. 30). This :is quite excessive and we do not feel is safe. Please reduce this.
• On Sheets 32 and 34, there are instances where the dead-end of a private drive is at the low
point of the drive and no detail is given as to how flows leave the drive. What type of curb
(if any) is used at the end of these private drives? Will a pan convey water off the drives?
Please provide more detail.
• Provide more detail of the Harvest Park Place cul-de-sac (Sheet 81) (high -point, cross slopes,
etc.)
• The south side of Rock Creek Drive on Sheet 58 shows a pan of some sort on the profile
view, but is not called out in plan view. At this point, the elevation at the intersection of
Rock Creek Drive and Harvest Park Way does not match on the southeast corner (Sheet 58
shows an elevation of 18.60 and Sheet 67 shows an elevation of 18.82.)
• Please note the intersection of Country Squire and Rock Creek Drive show conflicting
elevations between different sheets. This occurs in other intersections as well.
• Note the curb and gutter type used on the medians for Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive
in the plan and profile sheets, the only labeling of curb and gutter types was found on cross -
sections.
• The grades for each plan and profile of Purple Mountain Lane and Country Main at the
intersection do not match. PI elevations on one sheet are shown as PRC elevations on
another.
• Please show the profile of the temporary cul-de-sac on Sheet 60.
• The stationing shown for the cross -sections of Corbett Drive on Sheet 95 does not correspond
with the stationing used in the plan and profile set for the road.
• Please show the elevations at the median and curb flowlines for the cross sections on Corbett
Drive, Rock Creek Drive and County Road 9.
• Provide PI and PRC elevations and stationing for both Rock Creek Drive and County Road 9
at this intersection.
• Provide a sample of the stone veneer proposed for the bridges to the Engineering
Department.
• Spacious Skies Drive shows a grade break exceeding .40%, please correct. (Sheet 80)
• The New Driveway Approach detail incorrectly shows sidewalk at 4' of width.
• The patterned concrete shown on the utility plans may not be colored. Provide additional
detail of the pattern — expansion joints should be used at some point in conjunction with the
scoring. See the note on the plan regarding the maximum area of each concrete block.
• On some of the streets in the plan and profile sections, the index elevations are not correct.
• The details and specifications for the subdrain system on Sheet 152 should meet or exceed
the recommendations of the Groundwater Investigation and Recommendations for an
Area Underdrain System provided by Ayres and Associates (ie, note the different
alternatives for utility cross -sections, increase the subdrain cleanout to 8" in diameter.)
Please revise the utility plan details accordingly.
• The sewer plan and profile sheets have a note stating that the subdrain shall be installed
horizontally and vertically as shown on Sheet 152. This sheet shows the vertical installation
as being determined on the plan and profile sheets. How will the subdrains be installed?
Why isn't the subdrain profile included on the sheets? The recommendations of the Ayres
report on 5.1 and 5.3 should be also included as additional notes tie., the minimum slope
shall be .4 %)
• Splash blocks should be provided along the medians, have this noted on the detail. Contact
Matt Baker for the specifications of this design.
• Provide a detail for the pedestrian crossings that are situated not on street corners.
(Incorporate the detail submitted separately.)
• Provide signed and stamped structural calculations for bridge loadings.
• Note that there are instances where the Key Map does not match with the drawing.
Landscaping Plan
• Much of the landscaping shown along the northeastern edge of this site, buffering Harvest
Park with Wildwood Farms is located over an existing 8" City water line. Separation
requirements for the landscaping as noted by Water/Wastewater apply.
• Show the sight distance easements noted on the utility plan and add the current Sight
Distance Easement Language to the notes.
The potential water feature and stone wall in the traffic circles will need to comply with the
Sight Distance Easement Language. As the traffic circle medians are in right-of-way, the
City has final authority over the placement of objects within the circle.
(See plans for additional comments — additional comments may be made upon receiving of
revisions. Please include the redlined utility plan set with resubmittal.)
lam
REVISION S
COMMENT SHE
DATE: October 6, 1999 TO: Trans Planning
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park - Project Devepment
Plan - LUC
All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the
staff review meeting:
Wednesday, October 27,1999
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Sheet 3, Corbett Drive shows sidewalk width of 4.5'. Should be 5'. Is this a typo?
See redline for location.
Q: Add one more bike rack on Block 8 area?
• Sheet 4, County Fair Lane described as a Collector w/ 5t' ROW. Collector ROW is
66' (without parking). Street intended to be a Local Residential'? Just change label.
Add bike parking facility to Park Tract J.
6' walk from south trail leading north to Amber Waves should be 8' to accommodate
bicycles and pedestrians LUC 3.2.2 (C.1. b)
Sheet 8, Harvest Park Lane (Modified Local) cross-section shows only 5' bike lanes.
Bike lanes need to be 6'
Date: (O / Z Z /-I `i Signature: mao. - —
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat 4)!�, Site _ Drainage Report _ Other
_ Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape
Citv of Fort Coll