Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD THIRD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-06-20NEW CENTURY ENERG/ESsm PROJECT NAME: =k dptt vood Hills 3`d PLANNING AGENCY: City of Fort Collins Current Planning ATTN: Sheri Wamhoff Public Service Company of Colorado has the following comments in regard to the above - named project recently sent to us for review by the above -named agency: No Problems XX Problems, concerns, requirements as follows: l) Any reroute of existing PSC facilities caused by this development will beat developer's expense. 2) Easements appear to be adequate. 3) No other utilities are to be installed in 50-foot wide PSC easement along the south project line without express written permission from PSC and without contacting PSC in advance of construction. REVIEWED BY: JIM SLAGLE TITLE: DESIGN ENGINEER PHONE: 970-225-7843 CC: DATE: 04/03/2000 FAX: 970-225-7833 EMAIL: jslagle@psco.com Ridgewood Hills PUD, Filing 3 Sheet 2 of 6 October 14, 1999 • A temporary emergency access easement needs to be dedicated across lot 194 if this is to be an emergency access easement. Need to discus this with PFA, they say that this emergency access point has not been discussed with them. • See additional minor comments on the plat. Utility Plans • Make corrections to the General notes as follows: Note 4 delete "negligent' from the statement. Note 5 add "and/or the City Inspector at the time the cuts are made." to the end of the note. Note 14 put in the name of the storm drainage report. The reports are not always named the same as the project title. • As was discussed after the submittal of this plan set Avondale road off -site should be shown aligning with CR32 and then as it heads west making a 90 degree turn and then sweeping up to meet Avondale at the boundary of this project. This alignment will avoid the high pressure gas facility and keep the road out of the wetland. Sheet 13 - Ron Gonzales of PFA has indicated that the proposed emergency access for Phase 3 has not been discussed with them_ You will need to speak with him to verify that this proposal is acceptable to PFA. The easement will need to go across any lot that will serve as temporary access. • When does the grading in phase 9 and 10 need to be done? It would appear that Phase 10 will need to be done with phase 3 as the drainage from Avondale road goes through the site. Since there is no development proposed on these phases - the phasing indication only applies to when the improvements as shown on this plan are to be built (i.e. the grading). Sheet 14 and 15 • Need to indicate what grading and or other work needs to be done to provide for the emergency access across the school site. • Still showing grading that requires off -site easements. • Per conversations with the Thompson School district - the school district will need to sign the grading and utility plans showing the school site. In this way we know that the design is to there approval and that the utilities are located correctly. Sheet 17 and 21 b • A curb cut is being shown where the proposed Temporary emergency access is shown. No curb cut is needed here or should be provided. For the temp condition the emergency vehicles can drive over the curb. • Need to indicate what is to be done to provide for the emergency access - grading, gravel road base a min of 20 feet wide, and signage as necessary. Sheet 20a and 21 a • Show the emergency access. • Per conversations with the Thompson School district - the school district will need to sign the grading and utility plans showing the school site. In this way we know that the design is to there approval and that the utilities are located correctly. Sheet 21 c • Show the emergency access treatment for lot 194. (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, Filing 3 Sheet 3 of 6 Sheet 22a October 14, 1999 Curb inlet box and grate detail - This is a new detail, where are these to be used? This grate has a greater rise than the standard vertical curb (2 Y2 " vs 2"). Engineering may have a concern about these in the street system. Sheet 23 • Per conversations with the Thompson School district - the school district will need to sign the grading and utility plans showing the school site. In this way we know that the design is to there approval and that the utilities are located correctly. There is no water service shown to the school site. Sheet 29 • need to provide ramps as shown and label enhanced crosswalks. • two locations where the min K value is not being met. Note: As per AASHTO - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 1994 (p.283): the minimum length for a vertical curve is L = .6V, where L is in meters and V is in Kilometers/hr, in english measure this roughly translates to L = 3 V where L is in feet and V is in mph. Therefore for a 30mph design a minimum 90 foot vertical curve is required and for a 40 mph design a minimum 120 foot vertical curve is required. This will not be applied to this project as it was not caught by city staff that this was not being met in the previous submittals, but note that it will be applied to all future projects. Also note that as per the General Controls for Vertical Alignment (p 293) "broken -back gradeline (two vertical curves in the same direction separated by short section of tangent grade) generally should be avoided". There are several locations in which a broken back curve is now being utilized. These should be eliminated. The determination of the values on a vertical curve are based on the length of the vertical curve and the slopes being tied into at each end of the curve. This does not appear to be how several of the vertical curves being used are designed. It appears that the applicant is trying to tie the vertical curve into a tangent that is not the slope that the curve ties into. This is not acceptable. Sheet 29a • There should be no curb cut identified into the future development area. • need to clearly identify where the pavement ends and where the property line is. If the street is not being fully constructed to the property line then money will need to be escrowed for the remaining improvements. Sheet 30 • The elevation at the intersection of the two flowline of a street at a corner (if they were extended in the street and not taken around the curb return) needs to be a minimum of. 12 Feet above the elevation on the center of the curb return. (.12 is the height of the gutter pan rise and if the elevation change is not greater then this a dip or low point will exist behind the gutter. The stationing on this sheet (bottom) does not match the profiles. (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, Filing 3 Sheet 4 of 6 October 14, 1999 • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a local street is 30, this is not being met. • Show the pedestrian trail and ramp location. • Show the emergency access drive. Sheet 31 • The elevations shown in the Agate court and Sedwick drive intersection do not match those shown on Agate court sheet. • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D- 18. • the elevations shown in the Prichett Court and Sedwick Drive intersection differ than those shown on sheet 37. • The elevations shown in the intersection of Matheson Drive and Jansen drive differ than those shown on sheet 35. • Provide the slopes between vertical curves so that the curves can be checked. Sheet 32 • Some of the elevations in the intersection of Jansen Drive and Kersey court differ from those shown on sheet 44. • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Will the handicap ramp and the trail conflict with the fire hydrant location? The ramp location is limited by the inlet location. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D- 18. Sheet 33 • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • The minimum k value for a sag vertical curve on a local street is 40, this is not being met. • Provide the slopes between vertical curves so that the curves can be checked. Sheet 34 • Triangle road between Peyton Drive and Matheson Drive is a 36 foot drive section not a 30 foot side section as labeled. • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • Indicate where the transition from the 36 foot to the 30 foot section occurs and how much it transitions. • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a local street is 30, this is not being met. Sheet 35 • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • The slope in Triangle Drive cul-de-sac measures approx 5.6% max slope is 4%. • Some of the elevations in the intersection of Peyton Drive and Matheson Drive are different from those shown on sheet 37. • Some of the elevations in the intersection of Matheson Drive and Jansen Drive differ from those shown on sheet 31. (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, Filing 3 Sheet 5 of 6 October 14, 1999 • The elevation at the intersection of the two flowline of a street at a corner (if they were extended in the street and not taken around the curb return) needs to be a minimum of .12 feet above the elevation on the center of the curb return. (.12 is the height of the gutter pan rise and if the elevation change is not greater then this a dip or low point will exist behind the gutter. • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a local street is 30, this is not being met. Sheet 36 • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Not meeting the 2% minimum requirement at the intersection. • The minimum k value for a sag vertical curve on a local street is 40, this is not being met. Sheet 37 • Some of the elevation in the intersection of Jansen Drive and Fort Morgan Drive differ from that shown on sheet 31. • The minium x-slope on a cross pan is .6%, this is not being met crossing Matheson drive. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • The minimum k value for a sag vertical curve on a Local street is 40, this is not being met. Sheet 38 • The elevation at the intersection of the two flowline of a street at a corner (if they were extended in the street and not taken around the curb return) needs to be a minimum of. 12 feet above the elevation on the center of the curb return. (.12 is the height of the gutter pan rise and if the elevation change is not greater then this a dip or low point will exist behind the gutter. • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a local street is 30, this is not being met. • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. Sheet 39 • Some of the elevations in the intersection of Matheson drive and Peyton Drive do not match those shown on sheet 37 • The minium x-slope on a cross pan is .6%, this is not being met crossing Matheson drive. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a local street is 30, this is not being met. • The minimum k value for a sag vertical curve on a local street is 40, this is not being met. Sheet 40 • Provide the high point elevation in Peyton Drive cul-de-sac. • some of the elevations in the intersection of Jensen Drive and Prichett Court differ from those shown on sheet 31. but are the same as those sheet 37 and some differ from those shown on sheet 37, but are the same as those on sheet 31. • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a Local street is 30, this is not being met. • The minimum k value for a sag vertical curve on a local street is 40, this is not being met. • The x-slope in bulb of Prichett Court is not meeting the min 1 % requirement_ (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, Filing 3 Sheet 6 of 6 October 14, 1999 • Provide the slopes between vertical curves so that the curves can be checked. • Need to better label the station points at the end of the cul-de-sacs that match. Sheet 41 • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • Provide the slopes between vertical curves so that the curves can be checked. Sheet 42 • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a Local street is 30, this is not being met. Sheet 43 • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • Che minimum k value for a sag vertical curve on a local street is 40, this is not being met. • No grades are provided at the end of Hillrose Court, so can not determine what the x-slope is. Sheet 44 • Show the handicap ramps and pedestrian trails as noted. Label the enhanced x-walks. • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-19 or D-18 • The x-slope grades in the bulb of Kersey Court, New Raymer Court and Walsh Court cul-de- sac are to great- max x-slope is 4% • The x-slope grades in the bulb of Walsh Court and Last Chance Court cul-de-sac are not meeting the minimum requirement of 1 % ( I get a negative slope in last chance court) • The minimum k value for a crest curve on a local street is 30, this is not being met. Sheet 73 • The drive -over curb needs to have a thickened back edge (see detail attached to plans) • Since the transition length to remove the crown is not identified on the plan/profile sheets, provide details D-19 and D-18 and indicate the transition length. If transition length is not standard it needs to be identified on each intersection. • Need an enhanced x-walk detail. 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 thev 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. REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: July 8, 1999 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #55-84K Ridgewood Hills P.U.D., 3rd Filing — Final (LDGS) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 No Comment V"roblerns or Concerns (see below or attached) Ridgewood Hills PUD, Third Filing (Page 1 of 3) July 21, 1999 • A water tank and pump station are shown on the site plan, but are not shown anywhere on the utility plans. If this is to be built at some point in time it needs to be shown on the utility plans. If this is no longer needed please remove from the site plan. Site Plan • Indicate that the garage door setback is 20 feet. • Use the current sight distance easement restriction requirements (attached to the plan). • Indicate within the general notes that the landscaping within the traffic circle is to be maintained by the homeowners association. • The phasing shown on the plans does not work. Prior comments are still applicable. Agate Court in Phase 1 - only a portion of the building permits in this cul-de-sac will be issued until Phase 2 is constructed. Half of the cul-de-sac will be beyond 660 feet from a single point of access. A temporary turnaround will be needed in order to build on any of these lots in this area until phase 2 is constructed. (Continued on next page) i Date: Signature._- r— CHECK HERE IF YOU W)SH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS LP12f LSlk Drainage Report _ Other EX66y 7Rfdm Utility a aQe Citv of Fort Collins Ridgewood Hills PUD, Third Filing (sheet 2 of 3) July 21, 1999 • Phase 3 - only the lots on Triangle Drive and maybe a couple of lots on Peyton Drive will be allowed building permits, provided a temporary turnaround is in place. This would be the situation until Phase 4 is constructed. At the time Phase 4 is constructed additional building permits in Phase 3 will be allowed with the installation of two (different than before) temporary turnarounds. This will not be all the lots in Phase 3 - all the lots in Phase 3 can not be built upon until completion of the streets in Phase 6. Note both of these conditions are with the current phasing. • See plan for a couple of changes needed in phasing lines that are necessary to construction on adjacent lots. Plat • Need to indicate who is to own and maintain the "dedicated school site". • Need to provide a access easement across the "dedicated school site" for the sidewalk on the south side of the parcel. • Need to identify the "dedicated school site" as a parcel or tract. Who owns this? If the district does than they will need to sign the plat. • Label all the sight distance easements. • If the open space.. access, drainage and utility easement on Tract F is intended to extend into the existing Public Service Co easement than the Public Service Co will need to sign the plat accepting this. • The site plan shows a water tank and pump station at the southwestern corner of the property. Need to create non easement spaces for the construction of these structures. Also need an easement between lots 282 and 283 for the waterline connection. • A 9 foot utility easement is needed on the "dedicated school site" property adjacent to Avondale Road. • A parcel of land at the northwest corner of Avondale Road and Jansen Drive needs a tract label. • Identify a building envelope on the plat for the swimming pool and building. If don't provide a non easement area an easement vacation will need to be processed prior to construction of the amenity. Utility Plans • Need to show the tank and pump station. • The phasing shown on the plans does not work. Prior comments are still applicable. Agate Court in Phase I - only a portion of the building permits in this cul-de-sac will be issued until Phase 2 is constructed. Half of the cul-de-sac willl be beyond 660 feet from a single point of access. A temporary turnaround will be needed in order to build on any of these lots in this area until phase 2 is constructed. • Phase 3 - only the lots on Triangle Drive and maybe a couple of lots on Peyton Drive will be allowed building permits, provided a temporary turnaround is in place. This would be the situation until Phase 4 is constructed. At the time Phase 4 is constructed additional building permits in Phase 3 will be allowed with the installation of two (different than before) temporary turnarounds. This will not be all the lots in Phase 3 - all the lots in Phase 3 can not be built upon until completion of the streets in Phase 6. Note both of these conditions are with the current phasing. (Continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, Third Filing (sheet 3 of 3) July 21, 1999 • See plan for a couple of changes needed in phasing lines that are necessary to construction on adjacent lots. • It appears an off site easement is needed on lot 135 of the Second filing. • The crosswalks need to be 20 feet from the flowline of the traffic circle. Two don't appear to be meeting that. • Where are the profiles for the areas within the traffic circle? Plan view shows that the grade changes, but a profile has not been provided to show how and where. What is the slope across the x-pan? Needs to be a min of .6%. • It appears that there is one location within the traffic circle in which the cross slope is greater than 4.0%. • In some of the cul-de-sac need to provide the location of the provided high point elevation. • Per section 1.02.0S_06 b of the street standards need to provide design of Avondale for 500 feet beyond the end of construction. • Some of the vertical curve information appears to be incorrect based on the curb return grades that are shown and being tied into by the vertical curves. • Need to meet minimum standards for slope on a x-pan. • Around curb returns if there is a high or a low spot identify the location and elevation of this transition point. • in some cases where you go from one vertical curve to another - need to provide the slope at this intersection. • Coordinates for the high point in the cul-de-sac will work if coordinates are provided elsewhere so the location can be found relative to other items (i.e. curb and gutter around the cul-de-sac). • Need a detail for mid block x-pan and for detached midblock ramp. See plans for additional comments - not all comments have been typed up. PROJECT 6 COMMENT SHEET Citv of Fort Collins Current Planninfy DATE: April. 30, 1999 TO: Mapping/Drafting PROJECT: #55-84K Ridgewood Hills P.U.D., 3rd Filing — Final P.U.D. (LDGS) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 OVA 52iee4- LAcy, tv,4 p IS .Z . S�I& e � Vt q b &:J L? e v 46 � F G 67 @ !_ 1 �15 l L. itir. I T, } i L 73J. mot., ��: �. � •,.1 — oil ! P4' L� i 4 �1�� Q 1 L i F LL �-771 ��=-mot 1. �r�Q;� 1`'"Lu �a v, ,1 CSN i � tic i � ✓C'r� � !G'i! ��Iv J _ '+'ffiw-- /4c �'}� %lIC x;�;N�iti� 5�' l.� C. 7-0 P—j1llr�1i�0 CHUCK HERE IF YOU WITH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVIS[ONS t-Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility _Redline Utility __Landscape City of Fort Collins a d PROJECT 116 COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPT: Mapping/Drafting PROJECT: Ridgewood Hills PUD, 3`d Filing All comments must be received by Sheri Wamhoff no later than: Friday, April 7, 2000 Data Signature: CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS: _ Plat _ Site Drainage Report _ Other _Utility Redline Utility _Landscape DATE: December 9, 1998 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #55-841 Ridgewood Hills P.U.D., Third Filing - Preliminary (LDGS) All comments must be received by Steve Olt nQ l,iier than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 ❑ No Comment Problems or Concerns (see belokv or attached) Ridgewood I lills PUD, 3rd fling January 12, 1994 Site Plan • Will need to show sight distance easements on the site plan. Utility Plans • Correct general notes as shown. • Provide a variance request for the traffic circle • Show the sight distance easements needed • for the preliminary off -site design of Avondale - show this connection as it would be meeting standards_ This will take it through the wetlands and possibly through he meter station. That is okay for now. We recognize that this may not be the way the road is eventually built. And modifications or variance to the standards will be reviewed at that time. Plat • The district will need to sign the plat to accept the easements being dedicated to them. • Use the current attorney certification language. Identify who is to own and maintain all the tracts. • Defiue what an open space casement is. • Show the sight distance casements that are needed. • On tract f you need to define a building envelope or an area that is not within the easements for the construction of the water tank. Date: _ _ '/� _ Signature:,_ -- CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _flat Site _ kmage Report _ Ottie< _,Utility -_Redline Utility Landscape City of Port Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 29, 1999 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #55-84K Ridgewood Hills PUD, 3`d Filing, — Final (LDGS) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE" �1 re tv Date: �" �l signature - (,'HECK Plat _ site _ Drainage Report _ Mer — Utility _ Redline Utility _ landscape PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Mapping/Drafting PROJECT: #55-84I Ridgewood Hills P.U.D. - 3rd Filing, Preliminary P.U.D. All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, September 30,1998 IVFed Gow.Vl-� Guvu-e--/.,�, 4c�I� '�r 4t� CLLrVeS Cc4tkj 6NgYlvj5 �CII5 1C�IcP) Z. fC rJtfC.�7-13c.6 T�� �rhr,� c�;c �jC���11iv,✓inl �N T .� CGfITlZu� CUI2NG�J NCSL � iv �� L � l cis 2 � 7-0 :� �L � � u o ; s G„j (� '/G, � 6UTv M1' I jQv' :4,tr j't.JNUrn G-ti TS s 1�10 l�ic„vIzy M/ yap. 1 la . I�VG T rz,,r /--t�4S ..4- TyPa rk� t2l U �-J Tri e-/zc A g e- �4 Ls o \1A AZI aJl T-YPOIIJ TIVC- 1�60 I 9e7--,---. 7 Cc-osg-� ✓ Lcl�/.af /5 T-19- v�+($C EiL oG Tri6 T2L1c7S � F y ca��ri Dr. iS C� co lklc�or. o .SC�4J IGk p Seca i I Date: _Signature: ca ( w c CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Ply Site t — — Dz��* Ode — — UdV _ — Rein Ugly pRq — Lmdsw City of Fort Collins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #55-84I Ridgewood Hills P.U.D. - 3rd Filing, Preliminary P.U.D. All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Ridgewood Hills, 3rd FiliWednesday, September 3011998 September 30, 1998 The following are needed prior to consideration or preliminary approval: Site/Landscape Plans • Elbows need to be provided at the 90 degree turns. Move the flowline and Row out 8-10 feet. (I have examples of this - please let me know if you would like a copy) • Show all the .sight distance easements needed for the property. • Provide a variance request for the traffic circle. Need to show that SU-30 vehicle can negotiate the circle. • Limon Lane is Triangle Drive. • Woodrow Drive needs to be shown tapering from the 36 foot width in the 2nd Filing to the 30 foot width being shown in the 3rd filing. • You are showing the drive through the multi -family area to be a straight shot. I had mentioned this before that this is not a good idea. As shown there will probably be a tot of cut through traffic. • The extension of Avaondale Road - this needs to be shown. Need to get more detail on the proposed median before it will be allowed. Also need to see what the alignment will be. Make sure that it will meet requirements. • It appears that a portion of the multi -family site improvements go off the property boundaries. • Need to show the water tank and the pump station that is shown on the utility plans in the southwestern comer of the site. How is access to this site achieved''. (Continued on next page) Date: CHEa ISE IF YOU WISH TO REMVE COPIES OF REVISIONS PHt u_Sk Rep —0d' Utility _��c Utility xtan&* Ridgewood Hills, 3rd Filing (page 2 of 2) September 30, 1998 • Add handicap ramps where shown. Move paths over to better accommodate connections and safe ped movements and crossings. • The traffic bump on Fort Morgan Drive will not be allowed. Utility Plans • Provide the standard City General notes. • Show the sight distance easements. • Elbows need to be provided at the 90 degree turns. Move the flowline and Row out 8-10 feet. • Provide a variance request for the traffic circle. Need to show that SU-30 vehicle can negotiate the circle. • Limon Lane is Triangle Drive. • Woodrow Drive needs to be shown tampering from the 36 foot width in the 2nd Filing to the 30 foot width being shown in the 3rd filing. • The extension of Avaondale Road - this needs to be shown. Need to get more detail on the proposed median before it will be allowed. Also need to see what the alignment will be. Make sure that it will meet requirements. • Add handicap ramps where shown. Move paths over to better accommodate connections and safe ped movements and crossings. • The traffic bump on Fort Morgan Drive will not be allowed. • Show the paths on the utility plans. • How do you propose to access the water tank and the pump station`? • Move the storm inlets over where they will conflict with the ramps for the paths. • The Connector street has vertical curb and detached sidewalk. The local street can have vertical curb or driveover curb, but always has detached sidewalk. PLAT • Show the sight distance easements • Need to identify who is to own and maintain the tracts. Also need to know what the tracts are to be (i.e. are they blanket easements, if so what kind). • Why do some of the streets have 12 foot easements adjacent to them? Is there some sort of constraints that require larger than normal easements? It is okay if you wish to provide more than required, just wondered if there is a reason. • Elbows need to be provided at the 90 degree turns. Move the flowline and Row out 8-10 feet. As a point of note - Trilby road extension to the west is no longer being shown on the City of Fort Collins master Street Plan, but the City of Loveland and Larimer County are looking at this extension for a northern bypass for Loveland. So this extension still could be a possibility. If sc this could effect the lots along the southern boundary. Also if this road is to occur a connection from this development to Trilby should be made. Comments provided are preliminary only. Additional comments will be made when additional information and design is provided for review. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: March 19, 1999 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Ridgewood Hills, 3rd Filing Off -site drainage improvements ENGINEER: Sheri L. Wamhoff All comments must be received by: April 9, 1999 ❑ No Problems ❑-Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Please review the attached plans — They are wanting to do improvements to accommodate the future drainage for Ridgewood Hills PUD, 3rtl Filing and the remaining portions of Shenandoah. They desire to do the improvements in the County in Conjunction with the Shrader Store that is currently under construction at the corner of SH287 and CR32. All improvements within the City (other than the State Row) must be done in combination with an approved Development project, so those improvements will be done at a later date. Date: Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES ❑ PLAT OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY NO COMMENTS - SUBMIT MYLARS 0 LANDSCAPE PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: PLANNER: ENGINEER: Sheri Wamhoff El ,-No Problems LT Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 3rd filing (sheet 1 of 5) May 9, 2000 Site Plan - was not received, unable to determine if the following changes were made. • 4hou, ramp locations that are not currently labeled on the site plan. • 7'he site plan shows a different location for the enhanced x-walk at the school site. The site plan shows the ramps at the same location as the inlets. This will not work. • "There is an enhanced x-walk that is shown on the utility plans and not here. Plat ❑ Need to indicate who is to own and maintain Tracts N, T and U. These tracts do not have an owner identified. o Need to provide an 80 foot temporary turnaround at the end of Fountain Drive for the phasing shown. u Use current sight distance easement language. Li Utility Plans • Make corrections to the General notes as follows. Note 4 delete 'S2egligent "from the statement. Note 5 add `fnid/or the City Inspector at the time the cuts are made. "to the end of the note. Note 14 put in the nume of the storm drainage report. The reports are not always named the same as the project title. Sheet 13 — • When does the grading in phase 9 and 10 need to be done? It would appear that Phase 10 will need tr be done with phase 3 as the drainage from Avondale road goes through the site. Since there is no development proposed on these phases - the phasing indication only applies to when the improvements .shown on this plan are to be built (i.e. the grading). • 'File phasing lines were changed since the last review. (continued) Date: Signature:" PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: PLAt SITE UTILITY /r/1 LANDSCAPE Ridgewood hills PUD, 3rd filing (sheet 2 of 5) May 9, 2000 • If you want to build on lot 101 in Phase 3 will need to build Matheson Drive adjacent to this lot in Phase Phase 8 is not labeled. If you want to build on lot 242 in Phase 4 will need to build Triangle Court adjacent to this lot in Phase 4. If you want to build on lot 174 in Phase 3, or at all, will need to build Avondale Road adjacent to this lot. The emergency access drive was approved by PEA with the understanding that Avondale would be built. If you are not planning to build Avondale then you will need work out the emergency access situation with the PFA. 1n addition the proposed asphalt berm and earth berm would not accommodate the emergency access drive required for Phase 3. • The proposed temporary asphalt berm will not be allowed at least at the location indicated. Streets are not accepted by the city until they are complete and the traffic circle would not be considered complete with the berm as proposed. 'Elie berm to direct water would cause deterioration of the pavement prematurely, greater maintenance costs and potential future problems. A temporary situation could be 10 or 20 yrs the city will not accept the proposed solution and lot 174 can not be built upon until the portion of Avondale adjacent to the lot is built. The city would accept a berm at the end of the street in this location, as an escrow of money would be required for any portion of the road not to be built and could include enough money to replace any portion of the road here as needed upon the extension of the road. Such work would not impact the traffic circle and the guarantee and warranty of such. Stormwater had suggested that you place a temporary curb and gutter across Avondale in place of the temporary berm. This would probably be acceptable, but note with this solution lot 174 could not be built upon. The water would then be running in concrete curb and gutter solving many of our concerns. • Need to indicate the emergency access requirements as per the letter of agreement with PEA. Sheet 14 and 15 • Need to indicate what grading and or other work needs to be done to provide for the emergency access across the school site. Note width and surface treatment. Sheet 17 • Need to indicate what is to be done to provide for the emergency access - grading, gravel road base a min of 20 feet wide, and signage as necessary. • Note indicates that a retaining wall is located on the pool site. Where exactly is it and how tall? Sheet 18, 21 b and 21 c • Need to indicate what is to be done to provide for the emergency access - grading, gravel road bare a min of 20 feet wide, and signage as necessary. Sheet 20a and 21 a • Show the emergency access. • Per conversations with the Thompson School district - the school district will need to sign the grading and utility plans showing the school site. /n this way we know that the design is to their approval and that the utilities are located correctly. Sheet 21 d • What needs to be done on this sheet with Phase 3? • Provide school district signature on this sheet. Sheet 21 e • See comments under sheet 13 for temp berm. Sheet 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 • What are the bubbles on these sheets for? No revisions have been made yet, as the sheets haven't been approved. • For all street plan and profile sheets • Need to provide transition elevations. The centerline elevation at the beginning of the transition. If these are not provided how will they know in the field which is the major street that should go through and which ones should transition to the intersection. (continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 3rd filing (sheet 3 of 5) May 9, 2000 • Where Jensen Drive intersects Triangle Drive the crown of the street on Triangle Drive should be carried thru the intersection. The point along the extended flowline should not be higher than the centerline of the street. We do not want what happens on Mulberry to occur here that is why the lesser street transition to the major street x-section. • Revise the note regarding the street transition to read " all points locating the beginning of the transition of the crown from the minor street to the grade of the major street shall be..." • Need to indicate the driveway locations for all streets with vertical curbs. The city will not allow new streets to be cut, so all driveways need to be installed at the time that the curb and gutter is installed. It is very expensive to cut a new street if allowed and will probably require overlay of the entire street, therefor the driveways need to be located at the time of construction. Sheet 29 • Two locations where the min K value is not being met. • In the traffic circle not meeting the 2% min cross slope where the streets are coming in. Adjust elevations as necessary to get a 2% slope around the entire circle. • Where Jensen Drive intersects Triangle Drive the crown of the street on Triangle Drive should be carried thru the intersection. The point along the extended flowline should not be higher than the centerline of the street. We do not want what happens on Mulberry to occur here that is why the lesser street transition to the major street x-section. • Need to provide transition elevations. • Show the existing elevation of.8% being tied into. Sheet 29a • See prior comments regarding the asphalt berm. Sheet 30 • Show the emergency access drive or provide a note ofsuch. • Need to provide transition elevations. • The k value for one of the curves is not as shown, correct value is still acceptable just provide correct into. • The low point, inlet location, elevation is higher than the match point elevation given. If the inlet low point elevation is correct than the cul-de-sac high point elevation is okay. If the match point elevation is correct than the slopes don't meet standards. Sheet 31 • Need to indicate the driveway locations. • Existing grade being tied into is 3.85% per second filing plans the grade break on the east side of the road is too great. Provide the existing grade on the plans. • Need to provide transition elevations and correct some elevations in the intersections - some are too high. • Indicate that where tie into the 2nd filing that need to transition curb and gutter from driveover to vertical curb. • Three vertical curves do not meet standards - min k=40 for sag curves. Sheet 32 • Need to indicate the driveway locations. • If you are not providing elevations in the intersection on this sheet indicate what sheets) they can be found on. • Indicate the existing grade of 2.00% being tied into. Sheet33 • Need to indicate the driveway locations. Can incorporate the handicap street ramp into the driveway if you can meet ADA requirements and still provide the colored square and cut ins. A detail would be needed for this if you wish to do so. (continued on next page) Ridgewood Hilts PUD, 3rd filing (sheet 3 of 5) May 9, 2000 • Need to provide transition elevations. • Need to indicate that need to transition to vertical curve where tying into Shenandoah PUD. • Have some differing elevations. • The cross -pan at Kim Drive does not meet the min .6% slope requirement. It is about .0046%. The point grade breaks approaching the intersection of Payton Drive do not meet the vertical curve criteria over the length that the changes are being made. Sheet 34 • Indicate where the transition from the 36foot to the 30footsection occurs and how much it transitions. • You don't have the dimension layers on and have the fault lines turned on, on this sheet. • Need to indicate the driveway locations. • Need to provide transition elevations. Sheet 35 • The elevation in the center of Triangle Drive cul-de-sac is too high. Exceeding the maximum slope of 4% at the inlet. • The stations at the end of the cul-de-sac that tie things together do not correspond with what is shown. • Need to indicate the driveway locations. • Need to provide transition elevations and have the major streets cross section rule. Sheet 36 • Need to indicate the driveway locations. • Need to provide transition elevations and make sure the major street cross section is carried through. Sheet37 • The minimum k value for a sag vertical curve on a local street is 40, this is not being met. Sheet 38 • Need to provide transition elevations. • The ramps at the T intersections need to line up with the ramp across the street. Sheet 39 • Provide elevations in the intersections in accordance with the appropriate detail D-I9 or D-I 8 • Missing some station labels and one of the vertical curves has an incorrect k value listed. • Need to provide transition elevations. Sheet 40 • Payton Court - I don't think you can meet the min/max slope requirements in, this cul-de-sac with the high point at the center. Need to move it back and identify the elevation and location. • Prichett Court — slope at the side of the cul-de-sac is less than 2%. The center elevation needs to be higher. • You have two curves at the entry into Prichett Court that have grade breaks just on each side of the curves. "These should really be incorporated into the curves, i.e. making the curves longer and tying into the grades beyond that break. In both cases the k values are acceptable for this. Sheet 41 • Need to provide transition elevations. • On your cross -pan detail - you need to indicate where the transition from inflow curb and gutter to out (low curb and gutter is to occur. Provide an elevation at the lip of the outflow gutter. Not having that elevation the slope from the middle of the x-pan to the east edge is .58% what is it from lip of gutter to lip of gutter'? • Need to indicate where the flowline profiles for Stonington Lane tie together. • In between two vertical curves have two grades listed. Which is correct? Since there is about 1% difference between the two grades I know that they both can't be there. (continued on next page) Ridgewood Hills PUD, 3rd filing (sheet 3 of 5) May 9, 2000 Sheet42 • Need to provide transition elevations. • Elevations differ from other sheets. • Not meeting the 2% max grade for 50 feet at the intersection of Fountain Drive and Triangle Drive. I Ins this been addressed? • Have a vertical curve in which the k value is listed incorrectly. Sheet 43 • Need to provide transition elevations. • Have a vertical curve in which the k value is listed incorrectly. • Hillrose Court - you are unable to meet the min/ max slope requirements in the bulb of the cul-de-sac. • I lillrose Court what is the matching station? The ends of the vertical curves show different elevations. Sheet 44 • Need to provide transition elevations. • Not meeting min/ max slope requirements in the Kersey Court cul-de-sac need to move the high point back. • On the Last chance cul-de-sac profile the vertical scale labels are off. Sheets 46 —62 • Need to provide city signature blocks. Sheet 73 • Pedestrian ramps — need to make sure that the slope of the ramp across the colored area is at a '/2 inch per foot. The ADA standards were revised, but not all of the details where modified. This means that a landscape curb is needed for the detached midblock ramps, as the ramps will only drop 4 '/4 inches. Revise the details as needed. • The cul-de-sac detail — a 40-foot radius bulb is required for driveover curb - please change detail. • "Typical street sections — Woodrow drive maybe 36 feet for a portion, but does not need to have vertical curb. Please change or note. All others shown have vertical curb per the street standards. • Where are you planning on using the driveway approach for drive over curb and gutter? Need to show these locations on the plans. Will not be allowed to cut the streets later to install these. • Vertical curb and gutter driveway approach. Make changes noted on the drawing. The transition is 6 foot, it does not matter if the sidewalk is detached or not. The expansion joint is to be at the back of the walk. Remove reference to 'A inch per ft slope this only applies to area behind the walk and since the walk is at the row line there is not drive at this slope. Remove the 3 ft 3 in label, I don't know what that is for. Min patch is not 2 feet - that is no longer allowed the patch has to be in the center of the wheel path or on the lane Tine. A street less than 5 years old typically can not be cut and if allowed the fee is very expensive and may require an overlay of the street rather than a patch. All the driveway cuts need to be placed before the street is paved, therefor they need to be identified on the plans. Sheet 74 • Now showing subdrain details — use of subdrains requires the submission of a hydrologic study. Please provide this. Not showing the subdrain system on the plans. Need to see the design and placement of the subdrains. Where do they drain to? How have they been sized? No ADS pipe is allowed in the row for subdrains. The cleanouts can not be strapped to the manholes this is not allowed. Sec criteria attached. If the subdrains are for perimeter drains the criteria still applies and cut off walls will be needed at each lot to prevent water from flowing in the trench into the street. Sheet 75 and 76 • All the inlets are shown with vertical curb or only working with a 2-foot gutter pan. How will they work with drive over curb and gutter? There is only a 14-inch pan and the curb height is still 6 inches? Sheet 76 • Need to provide an enhanced x-walk detail. See attached for detail. >z ¢z E— E + T a�i C: o 'a . 0 v°, a° my,,a� o 3�Ctic o GN .. Sao y y 0 ��� � xIc V O 0 �� UO co K�dm U LV � y U7 w � 0 U Q cc) U 0 A ti m q O n ry O O U z w (� ~ ly Z Q J W J o O o U z REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: September 15, 1999 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #55-84K Ridgewood Hills PUD, 3rd Filing - Final - LDGS All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, October 6, 1999 No Comment RidgewoodProblelD orFill Concerns sebelow or attached) ffis f 6 Need to provide the following to the City prior to being scheduled for a hearing: October 14, 1999 A letter from Schrader A letter from the County - indicating they have reviewed the plans. A copy of the Public Service agreement. A copy of the Ditch Company agreement Signed easement dedication documents for the Shenandoah site Site Plan • Show ramp locations that are not currently labeled on the site plan. • The site plan shows a different location fro the enhanced x-walk at the school site. The site plan show the ramps at the same location as the inlets. This will not work. • there is an enhanced x-walk that is shown on the utility plans and not here. Plat • Us the current plat language attached. • I would suggest calling the school site "future school site" orjust "school site" rather than "dedicated school site" it confuses when it becomes property of the school. • At the south end of the project you have several tracts labeled, but no boundaries between the trac ts. • Public Service needs to sign the plat - provide a signature line. (Continued on the next page) 1 Date: �� C Signature: R CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS DPiat to - Drainage Report _ Other UtiGhi ate Utility Landscape