Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD SECOND - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-06-17(A STAFF REVIEW i.... COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current PlanninLy DATE: May 31, 2002 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #55-84L Homestead Park at Ridgewood Hills — Staff Review All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: June 19, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference NOTE: This project is a staff review only, there will be no hearing. The project is in DMS for electronic entry of comments. t Nance (please print) CHECK HFRE IF YOU WISIITO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ __Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 (page 4 of 4) • The cross pan across Woodrow should be a 12 wide pan per Section 1.02.03.12 and a crown transition is needed on both sides of the pan. A cross pan shall have a minimum x-slope of .6%, this is not being achieved in fact the detail shows a high point in the center of this pan. • The median :in the traffic circle - Based on the landscaping I am assuming that this median will have a sprinkler system. Per Section 1.02.03.10 the curb and gutter needs to be designed to capture sprinkler runoff and nuisance flows. It is not acceptable to direct this across the pavement. Adding an inlet would solve this problem. • Provide the radius for the median in the traffic circle and indicate the flowline to flowline width through this area. Need to make sure that this design accommodates normal traffic (su-30 template) and that moving van will be able to maneuver through the intersection and get onto Strasbourg Drive. • Address other comments as shown on the plans. Booster Pump Station Modifications • This should be done as a revision to the 1st filing plans. Details • The recommended pavement sections table - The pavement design needs to be in accordance with the final soils report to be submitted after grading work is done. See new Chapter 2 of the Design Criteria and Standards for streets. Transpoi m Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins June 24, 1996 Mr. Jim Allen -Morley RBD Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Jim, This letter is in response to the variance request for Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing dated June 5, 1996. The following variances requested in the above mentioned letter have been granted: 1) to construct a traffic circle at the intersection of Avondale Road and Strasburg Drive, 2) to reduce the length of the approach grade meeting 2% for Hudson Court, 3) to reduce the length of the approach grade meeting 2% for Wray Court. Thank you for providing such complete information on which to evaluate these requests. If you have any questions regarding this please call Sheri Wamhoffat 221-6750. Sincerely, ✓ ` r Sheri Wamhoff 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: April 23, 1996 DEPT: Engineering - Ping PROJECT: Rigdewood Hills PUD, 2nd Filing - Final PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments must be received by: May 3, 1996 ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 A full resubmittai of all utility plans in not necessary on revision date (unless it is required to address issues brought up by a department by revision date). Provide information to address the indicated concerns within the boxed area by revision date and a full submittal addressing the rest of the comments noted can be submitted at a later date. This is an effort to clearly identify those items and issues that need to be addressed by revision date and yet allow more time for the Engineers to address the more minor comments. The following items need to be addressed by revision date: Site Plan • Note 9 speaks of a maintenance access - Unless this is on the plat or filed separately with the County no legal easement would exist. • Note 13 provides the sight distance easement restrictions. Make sure this is clearly indicated that it applies to the landscaped median (traffic circle) at the intersection of Avondale and Strasburg. Utility Plans • A variance request is needed for the traffic circle. • Provide a drawing showing that the traffic circle accommodates turns in accordance with the SU-30 template and that a moving van will be able to get through the intersection. This can be on 8'/z x 11 paper. t f' Dat(Eontinued on next page) Signature. = - CHE IF U Wt H T RE EIVE PLAT" COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 (page 2 of 4) The following items need to be addressed by revision date(continued): • All offsite easements - for temporary turnarounds (4 ), temporary emergency access (1), and grading easements. • The retaining walls need to be shown on the site plan. The walk that drops 6 feet off the end of the retaining wall into the drainage channel and then back up on top of another retaining wall needs to be addressed, how will this work? The following items need to be addressed at the time of a full submittal: Plat • Indicate who is to own and maintain all of the tracts. • Provide Reception, book and page numbers for all existing easements. • The sight distance easement on Avondale Road appears to be in the wrong location, it is needed for the Southern portion of the access drive. It also needs to be 400 feet for a collector. • There is a small portion of Tract P that goes up between lots 60 and 61 up to the cul-de-sac. Is parks going to own this piece also? May want to make into a separate tract if not. • The sight distance easement on Sedwick Drive from Atwood Court is not shown correctly. The point of beginning should be 15 feet back from the edge of pavement of the intersection street and be measured to a point within the appropriate 'travel lane' for the intersecting road. A small portion of a sight distance easement may also be needed from Timpas Drive onto Sedwick Drive. Utility Plan Cover Sheets • Add the following to the end of general note 7: In streets where more than one cut is made, an overlay of the entire street width, including the patched area, may be required. The determination of the need for a complete overlay shall be made by the Director of Engineering. • Add the phone number for the Engineering department to general note 9. • Modify general note 11 to read as follows: All damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be repaired prior to acceptance of completed improvements. (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 (page 3 of 4) • Add the following note to the general notes: THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR THE INITIAL INSTILLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT LOCAL STREET OPERATIONS. IN ADDITION THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING RELATED TO DIRECTING TRAFFIC ACCESS TO AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT (E G. ALL SIGNING AND STRIPING FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE). Grading Plans • Is the temporary emergency access road needed for the first phase? If so need to show how this will connect up with the first phase. • The phase line needs to go perpendicularly across the streets, since this is the way the improvements will need to be built • A sidewalk is shown that drops 6 feet off the end of a retaining wall into the drainage channel and then back up on top of another retaining wall. I don't think this will work. If a sidewalk does go across here it appears that a sidewalk chase is needed. Overall Utility Plan • It appears as if lots 53 and 68 take service off of utilities that appear to be a part of phase 11, if this is the case why include them in phase I. • Need to show what phasing is to be done with the utilities. • Show barricades across the streets along the phase lines. • Show the sight distance easement lines that go across lots 82, 83 and 84. • Make sure the handicap ramps line up across the streets. • To obtain building permits for lots 53, 68, 69, 82, 90 and 99 all streets improvements adjacent to the lots will need to be completed and access will have to be taken off of Sedwick Drive. The only way access would be allowed off of the cul-de-sacs is for the improvements( the cul-de-sac) to be completed or for a temporary turnaround to be provided at the end of the street stub. • To obtain building permits for lots 121 and 152 all streets improvements adjacent to the lots will need to be completed and access will have to be taken off of Strasburg Drive. The only way access would be allowed off of Woodrow Drive is for a temporary turnaround to be provided at the street stub or for the improvements as shown to be completed (including the turn around at the end). • Show the sight distance easement across lot 108 and Tract P. Street Plan and Profiles • Show how the grading will be done to meet existing between phases. • Show the phase lines and barricades on the plan views. • The slope at the intersection of a street with another shall not exceed 2% for 50 feet from the ROW of the intersecting street. See 1.02.03.05 This effects Hudson Court and Wray Court. (Continued on !next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 (page 4 of 4) • The cross pan across Woodrow should be a 12 wide pan per Section 1.02.03.12 and a crown transition is needed on both sides of the pan. A cross pan shall have a minimum x-slope of _6'%, this is not being achieved in fact the detail shows a high point in the center of this pan_ • The median in the traffic circle - Based on the landscaping I am assuming that this median will have a sprinkler system. Per Section 1.02.03.10 the curb and gutter needs to be designed to capture sprinkler runoff and nuisance flows. It is not acceptable to direct this across the pavement. Adding an inlet would solve this problem. • Provide the radius for the median in the traffic circle and indicate the flowline to nowline width through this area. Need to make sure that this design accommodates normal traffic (su-30 template) and that moving van will be able to maneuver through the intersection and get onto Strasbourg Drive. • Address other comments as shown on the plans. Booster Pump Station Modifications • This should be done as a revision to the 1 st filing plans. Details • The recommended pavement sections table - The pavement design needs to be in accordance with the final soils report to be submitted after grading work is done. See new Chapter 2 of the Design Criteria and Standards for streets_ PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Citv of Fort Collins Current Plannini DATE: 2G lec 199 S PROJECT #55-auF Rdae -cc& PLANNER: 6ip, o�-', DEPARTMENT: SNCi ]4i o-s --puz)l 2A 71i1`1�— -f�eliminaIY All comments must be received by: KIVIY� 5 aru.aI� 199r. ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) RIDGEWOOD HIL_S PUD. 2ND FILING - PRELIM SUBMITTAL JANUARY 1 1, 1995 SITE PLAN • NEED A SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STRASBOURG DRIVE • SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENTS ARE NEEDED ALONG AVONDALE ROAD AND SEDGWICK DRIVE • A VARIANCE REQUEST IS NEEDED FOR THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE • WE NEED TO LOOK Al THE LANDSCAPING IN THE ISLAND OF THE TURN AROUND. WE DON'7 WANT ANYTHING TO LIMIT THE VISIBILITY ACROSS THIS • EASEMENTS ARE NEEDED FOR THE EMERGENCY ACCESSES_ • A TE MPORAR" PUBLIC TURNAROUND IS NEEDED AT THE END OF AVONDALE ROAD. • TEMPORARY TURNAROUNDS ARE NEEDED AT THE ENDS OF WOODROW DRIVE AND SEDC'AICK DRIVE, UNLESS A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FROM THE P&Z BOARD AND IS GHANTED. A VARIANCE FOR AVONDALE WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED PLAT • THE TRACTS (NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED AS TO WHAT THEY ARE AND WHO IS TO OWN AND MAINTAIN THEM. (CONTINU__D ON THE NEXT PAGE) Date: (f Signatures CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT J COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD, 2ND FILING - PRELIM SUBMITTAL JANUARY 1 1, 1 995 (PAGE 2 OF 2) • UTILITY EASEMENTS NEED TO BE CARRIED ACROSS THE TRACTS SO THAT THE UTILITIES CAN BE CAR: ZIED FROM LOT TO LOT. • PLACE STREET NAMES ON THE PLAT. • SHOW SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENTS AND ADD SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS: SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS THE AREA WITHIN SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENTS 15 RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING: I ) FF LACES SHALL NOT EXCEED 4211 IN HEIGHT AND SHALL BE OF OPEN DESIGN. IF FENCES EXCEED 32 IN HEIGHT, THEY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF SPLIT RAIL WITH A MINIMi.)M DIMENSION OF 1 211 BETWEEN HORIZONTAL MEMBERS. 2) BF_FIMS, HEDGES, AND SHRUBS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3211 IN HEIGHT. 3) TRLE PLANTING SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO DECIDUOUS TREES ONLY, THE LOWEST BRANCH OF ANY TREE SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 42� FROM GRADE. UTILITY PLANS • A TEMPORARY PUBLIC TURNAROUND IS NEEDED AT THE END OF AVONDALE ROAD. • TEMPORARY TURNAROUNDS ARE NEEDED AT THE ENDS OF WOODROW DRIVE AND SEDGbYICK DRIVE. UNLESS A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FROM THE PSS BOARD AND IS GRANTED. L. VARIANCE FOR AVONDALE WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED • SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENTS ARE NEEDED ALONG AVONDALE ROAD AND SEDGWICK DRIVE • A VARIANCE REQUEST IS NEEDED FOR THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE. • DE A'.LS OF IHE TRAFFIC CIRCLE WILL BE NEEDED. PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE PLAN VIEW, X-SEC'iONS. LANDSCAPING AND HOW IT IS TO BE IRRIGATED. SEE SECTION 1 .0? 03. O OF THE DESIGN CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR STREETS, THIS SECTION TALKS OF MEDIANS AND SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED. Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Ciip of Fort (nl:iIts . �. Department: Engineering Date: August 22, 2002 Project: HOMESTEAD PARK AT RIDGEWOOD HILLS All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: June 19, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Topic: Utility Plans 11 The 4 foot walk addition to the walk on Avondale, need to show and indicate how this will taper to the existing width at the property line on the north. At the south property line place a type III barricade at the end of the walk addition. It does not need to taper at the south end as the school when it develops will also widen out the sidewalk. 12 Correct the sheet listings 8/20/02 - make the schedule of drawings list correspond to the actual page numbering. 15 The stamp and signature of a licensed Civil Engineer registered in the State of Colorado will be required on the final signed prints that we receive back after approval by the City. 39 1 have indicated on the plans which general notes are not applicable to this project and are not needed. It probably doesn't hurt if they are left on the page, so the choices are leave as is, remove the notes that are not needed, or cross out the notes that are not applicable. 40 General Note #19 - insert in the name of the drainage study and what engineering firm prepared it. General Note #40 - insert in the bench mark information. 41 Need the signature block on all sheets or room for me to stamp it on there. 42 Need to have district signature on the mylars before they will be accepted by signature by the City. Signature 4f e - 4r Dare CHECK. HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page I City of Fort Collins Plannin PROJECT -_. COMMENT SH EET DATE: PROJECT: DEPARTMENT: i ':A,.1 dgewood Hills, 2nd filing - plan review November 14, 1996 1 signed orf-site easements will be needed at the time mylars are submitted. requires all new plats to be tied to a primary (section/quarter corner) control corner e law requires monuments no greater than 1400 feet apart - regards to Strassburg Drive and its cross section and connection into Shenandoah property. re ODP for Ridgewood Hills shows this connection to be a collector street out to College Ave. ie Amended ODP approved in August still shows this connection as a collector street but it is )w showing it dropping down south and then connecting with College Ave. Therefore both DP's do show Strassburg as being a collector street and consequentially Ridgewood Hills is not conformance with the ODP discussions with Mike Herzig and Eric Bracke it has been determined that the City would :ept Strassburg designed and built as a connector (new standard) with 57 feet of ROW and 36 t of pavement IF a connector is also provided to the south from Shenadoahs Triangle Drive o Ridgewood Hills that would provide another connection to Avondale Currently a inectlon is shown on the Shenandoah plans, but it is not accounted for on the shadowed ifiguration currently being shown for future Ridgewood Hills filings Therefor we want some -I of verification from the developers that this configuration would work with future filing )posals. Ifthis is not provided than Strassburg needs to be designed as a collector (old ndard of 68 feet ROW and 50 feet of pavement) in accordance with the ODP. Date• -i(Signatu DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TBA NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 PLANNING DEPARTMENT P03)221-6750 City of Fort: Collins n PROJECT COMMENTSHEET DATE: go At op j,- 4 9(/� II �, PROJECT:1G�'� PLANNER: DEPARTMENT. � xr) All comments must be received by: No Problems ! Problems or Concerns (see below) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing August 29, 1996 Site/ Landscape Plan • Some of the Pedestrian/ bike paths are not shown in the same place as they are on the utility plans. • The multifamily area is configured slightly differently on this plan than it is on the utility plan. • Show the retaining walls in the detention area. • Show all the sight distance easements. Plat • Indicate who is to own and maintain all of the Tracts. (Continued on next page) Q Date- ` ?�% Signature: CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ LANDS ❑ UTILITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (303)221-6750 Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing (page 2 of 3) August 29, 1996 • Put the sight distance easement restrictions onto the plat. (Make sure to be consistent if you are using 'sightline', change the wording in the restriction text.) SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS THE AREA WITHIN SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENTS IS RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING: FENCES SHALL NOT EXCEED 42" IN HEIGHT AND SHALL BE OF OPEN DESIGN, IF FENCES EXCEED 32" IN HEIGHT, THEY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF SPLIT RAIL WITH A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 12° BETWEEN HORIZONTAL MEMBERS. 2. BERMS, HEDGES, AND SHRUBS SHALL NOT EXCEED 32" IN HEIGHT. 3. TREE PLANTING SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO DECIDUOUS TREES ONLY. THE LOWEST BRANCH OF ANY TREE SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 42" FROM GRADE • Provide reception numbers for existing easements shown. • Please define what an open space easement is What is allowed here and/or what is not allowed. What does it mean? • A sight distance easement(it appears) is also needed at the intersection of Avondale and Strasburg since the traffic circle will place the cars so far from the intersecting streets ROW. • The sight distance easement for lots 108, 107 and 106 needs to be a 400 foot sightline. That is what is used for collectors. • See additional comments on the plans. Utility Plans • Add the following to the beginning of General note 20: The Developer is responsible... Drainage and F'.rosion Control Plan, sheet 6 • The cross pan is shown in the wrong location at Wray Court. • f am concerned about the Swale that goes across the emergency access (near the end of Stoneham Court) and the Swale that goes between lots 60 and 61 conflicting with the emergency access road. 1 have not had a chance to discuss this with Roger Frasco. I will do this and let you know if there are any concerns. Grading plans, sheets 8, 9 and 10 • On sheet 10 there is a line the same line weight and pattern as the ROW line that is running threugh the lots- What does this indicate? • Off site grading and/or drainage easements are needed. (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing (page 3 of 3) August 29, 1996 Overall Utility ]Plans • Sight distance easements need to be shown. Not showing easements on Avondale Road A sight distance easement is needed at the traffic circle location since the traffic circle requires the vehicles to stop so far from the intersection row. Woodrow Drive, Wray Court and Tiffin Court, sheet 16 • The cross pan at Wray Court needs to be labeled as being a 12 foot cross pan. A detail for this needs to be provided- The minimum slope across a cross -pan is .60% The proper elevation points are not provided so this can not be checked Please provide elevations on the flowline at each end of the pan. The intersection detail shows a 30 foot crown transition, is that what is being used. • The grade breaks along the curb returns at the intersection of Woodrow and Strasburg arc a bit extreme. These need to be smoothed out a bit. Details • The minimum cross slope on the street sections needs to be labeled as 2.0% • A 12 foot cross pan detail is needed. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: April 23, 1996 DEPT: Engineering - Ping PROJECT: Rigdewood Hills PUD, 2nd Filing - Final PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments must be received by: May 3, 1996 ❑/No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 A full resubmittal of all utility plans in not necessary on revision date (unless it is required to address issues brought up by a department by revision date). Provide information to address the indicated concerns within the boxed area by revision date and a full submittal addressing the rest of the comments noted can be submitted at a later date. This is an effort to clearly identify those items and issues that need to be addressed by revision date and yet allow more time for the Engineers, to address the more minor comments. The following items need to be addressed by revision date: Site Plan • Note 9 speaks of a maintenance access - Unless this is on the plat or filed separately with the County no legal easement would exist. • Note 13 provides the sight distance easement restrictions. Make sure this is clearly indicated that it applies to the landscaped median (traffic circle) at the intersection of Avondale and Strasburg. Utility Plans • A variance request is needed for the traffic circle. • Provide a drawing showing that the traffic circle accommodates turns in accordance with the SU-30 template and that a moving van will be able to get through the: intersection. This can be on 8'/ x 11 aper. DatiContinued on next page) Signature: C E F U WISH T RE FIVE PL COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE 7 ❑ UTILITY Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 (page 2 of 4) The following items need to be addressed by revision date(continued): • All offsite easements - for temporary turnarounds (4 ), temporary emergency access (1), and grading easements. • The retaining walls need to be shown on the site plan. The walk that drops 6 feet off the end of the retaining wall into the drainage channel and then back up on top of another retaining wall needs to be addressed, how will this work? The following items need to be addressed at the time of a full submittal: Plat • Indicate who is to own and maintain all of the tracts. • Provide Reception, book and page numbers for all existing easements. • The sight distance easement on Avondale Road appears to be in the wrong location, it is needed for the Southern portion of the access drive. It also needs to be 400 feet for a collector. • There is a small portion of Tract P that goes up between lots 60 and 61 up to the cul-de-sac. Is parks going to own this piece also? May want to make into a separate tract if not. • The sight distance easement on Sedwick Drive from Atwood Court is not shown correctly. The point of beginning should be 15 feet back from the edge of pavement of the intersection street and be measured to a point within the appropriate 'travel lane' for the intersecting road. A small portion of a sight distance easement may also be needed from Timpas Drive onto Sedwick Drive. Utility Plan Cover Sheets; • Add the following to the end of general note 7: In streets where more than one cut is made, an overlay of the entire street width, including the patched area, may be required. The determination of the need for a complete overlay shall be made by the Director of Engineering. • Add the phone number for the Engineering department to general note 9. • Modify general note 11 to read as follows: All damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be repaired prior to acceptance of completed improvements. (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 2nd filing May 16, 1996 (page 3 of 4) • Add the following note to the general notes. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR THE INITIAL INSTILLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT LOCAL STREET OPERATIONS. IN ADDITION THE: DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING RELATED TO DIRECTING TRAFFIC ACCESS TO AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT (E.G. ALL SIGNING AND STRIPING FOR A RIGHT TURN LONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE). Grading Plans • Is the temporary emergency access road needed for the first phase? If so need to show how this will connect up with the first phase. • The phase line needs to go perpendicularly across the streets, since this is the way the improvements will need to be built. • A sidewalk is shown that drops 6 feet off the end of a retaining wall into the drainage channel and then back up on top of another retaining wall. I don't think this will work. If a sidewalk does go across here it appears that a sidewalk chase is needed. Overall Utility Plan • It appears as if lots 53 and 68 take service off of utilities that appear to be a part of phase 1I, if this is the case why include them in phase I. • Need to show what phasing is to be done with the utilities. • Show barricades across the streets along the phase lines. • Show the sight distance easement lines that go across lots 82, 83 and 84. • Make sure the handicap ramps line up across the streets. • To obtain building permits for lots 53, 68, 69, 82, 90 and 99 all streets improvements adjacent to the lots will need to be completed and access will have to be taken off of Sedwick Drive. The only way access would be allowed off of the cul-de-sacs is for the improvements( the cul-de-sac) to be completed or for a temporary turnaround to be provided at the end of the street stub. • To obtain building permits for lots 121 and 152 all streets improvements adjacent to the lots will need to be completed and access will have to be taken off of Strasburg Drive. The only way access would be allowed off of Woodrow Drive is for a temporary turnaround to be provided at the street stub or for the improvements as shown to be completed (including the turn around at the end). • Show the sight distance easement across lot 108 and Tract P. Street Plan and Profiles • Show how the grading will be done to meet existing between phases. • Show the phase lines and barricades on the plan views. • The slope at the intersection of a street with another shall not exceed 2% for 50 feet from the ROW of the intersecting street See 1.02.03.05 This effects Hudson Court and Wray Court. (Continued on next page)