The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK THIRTYEIGHTH OAKRIDGE SENIOR CAMPUS - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2006-11-30PROJECT cit: of I.ortol i,, COMMENT SHEET RED) IA5H DATE: February 10, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #13-82CW Oakridge Business Park 381h Filing, Senior Campus PDP, Type II All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: March 2, 2005 Note -.Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) JG Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ]r Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Current Planning REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: May 3, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #13-82CW Oakridge Business Park - Senior Campus PDP, Type II All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: May 18, 2005 Note -Please identiyour redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) I, B�'l+av�v,eY �cosES. 6/�6c-,y Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS '_rtat _Site _Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Aft City of Fort °l iJ."-Project Comments Sheet City of Fort Collins Selected Departments Date: May 17, 2005 Project: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 38TH FILING, SENIOR CAMPUS PDP, TYPE II #13-82CW All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: May 18, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: Plat Number: 63 Created: 5/17/2005 [5/17/051 The ped connection to the southwest needs to be in a public access easement and reflected as such on the plat. Thanks. o,S' Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS tS Plat 8- Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page I FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 26, 2005 TO: Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt #13-82CZ Oakridge Business Park, 38th Filing, Oakridge Senior Campus PDP - Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: October 19, 2005 Note - Please identify vour redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET Cit of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 26, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt #13-82CZ Oakridge Business Park, 38`h Filing, Oakridge Senior Campus PDP - Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: October 19, 2005 Note - ❑ No Problems [Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 8rur1w-� Cc.os6S_ 2, %Ncr ou ra-e /30axo }/t1 u t— 1-Hri /'L,4-r &u/i,, C H.4,vj cs IUC_Q.� Tb V.4c ¢rcr 76c- 7 b-mp runes, le. Z/VT�1/T%� TD W-_ 7_44'�T-A Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS L<Iat _Site _Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility —Landscape P City of F= CWHm FINAL PLAN �+� COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 26, 2005 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt #13-82CZ Oakridge Business Park, 38th Filing, Oakridge Senior Campus PDP - Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: October 19, 2005 Note - Please identify vour redlines for future reference ,Q No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Date: October 24, 2005 Project: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 38TH FILING, SENIOR CAMPUS PDP, TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: October 19, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 70 Created: 5/19/2005 110/14/051 Comment appears unresolved. [5/19/051 In checking with Stormwater, the roof drain system around the main building is a private system and as such it cannot be located within the 9' utility easement. Number: 71 Created: 5/19/2005 [10/14/05] Comment appears unresolved. [5/19/05] With Light and Power, Xcel, Comcast, & Qwest being shown on the utility plan, please provide signature blocks for these utilities (add Light and Power to the City's Approval Block). Number: 80 Created: 10/11/2005 [10/11/05] The developer may find it beneficial to specify a phasing plan on the construction drawings. With a final plan shown for the entire project and no phasing plan in the construction plans, the applicant would be required to provide a public improvement guarantee and inspection fees for the entire project. By providing a phasing plan, certain areas can be built at a time. A phasing plan would need to be evaluated for access, emergency access and utility servicing feasibility. Number: 84 Created: 10/11/2005 [10/11/05] The trail connection to the southwest should provide additional design information/detail. For instance proposed contours aren't shown across the bridge (perhaps a travel way profile should be provided). I also can't tell the extent of the retaining wall regarding t i Yto as a stn if it needs to be structurally designed. Signal Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility_ Redline Utility = Landscape Page I Number: 85 Created: 10/11/20.05 [10/11/051 Storm Sewer 6 does not have enough cover to the pavement. Number: Created: 10/11/2005 [10/11/05] Storm Sewer 6 is shown in an area that will have in theory been built as a street with the 37th filing. This development would then have to tear up the newly built road to put this section in. Also, the grading for the 37th filing would need to be recertified. If the intent is to continue in this manner, this plan set should specify the extent of the demo and reconstruction of the street. Topic: General Number: 38 Created: 3/2/2005 [10/10/051 A variance request was to have been submitted with this final compliance which would request a reduction in the amount of sight distance easement required and was apparently not received with this submittal. The current design configuration would require the elimination of almost all of the internal parking spaces along the drive aisle paralleling Pleasant Oak Drive. [5/17/051 The sight distance easements are shown across parking stalls which is Problematic given that vehicles create a sight distance obstruction. A variance request is required in lieu of redesigning the site to move the parking spaces outside of the easement. [3/2/05] Please provide sight distance easements for the main driveway on the inside curve leading to the main building which is shown on the construction plans. Number: 43 Created: 3/2/2005 [10/10/051 We will need a formal access easement dedication for this area prior to sign off of any construction plan mylars. [5/17/05] 1 don't recall if this item was resolved, I believe it was mentioned that the City owned this parcel, although in checking County records, Oakridge Business Association is listed as the property owner. [3/2/05] A letter of intent is required from the property owner of Parcel #8606200021 for the construction to occur on the property. Number:65 _ Created:5/17/2005 [10/14/051 The current design would seem to imply the looped driveway would only operate as a one way access and exit, with entrance off the western driveway and exit off the eastern driveway. Should this be the scenario, couldn't the driveway widths be narrowed and/or the median shaped closer to a porkchop than an oval as a way to reduce the amount of pavement/drive aisles that a pedestrian would cross? [5/17/05] The revised service area drive off Oakridge Drive to the back of the main building. has a depth of about 24' from the flowline of Oakridge (and only 14' from the back of walk). I'm concerned that service vehicles may encroach into Oakridge and at the very least, concerned that vehicles will block the sidewalk. Additional information or clarification is needed. Number: 79 Created: 10/11 /2005 [10/11/05] With the final plans of the 37th Filing, I've suggested that the sidewalk on the east side of Pleasant Oak Drive be built with this project rather than with Pleasant Oak Drive being built by the 37th Filing as it's likely that the sidewalk will be damaged during construction of this project and also may not be ideal from a utility sequence installation standpoint. It would be strongly preferred that this sidewalk is built with this project. Page 2 Number: 81 Created: 10/11/2005 110/11/051 The emergency access design seems odd to me in that the gravel is shown to the shared driveway of a duplex. Would it perhaps operate more smoothly for the residents of this duplex if the gravel started west of the sidewalk crossing to allow vehicles backing out of the driveway (to presumably head east) from backing into gravel? Perhaps the sidewalk crossing can move slightly west to give more "depth" for a vehicle backing out? The sidewalk can perhaps serve as a clear demarcation of the ending of the private drive and the start of the emergency access. Number: 88 Created: 10/14/2005 [10/14/051 A legal description should be drawn up for the access easement needed to connect the sidewalk connection on the southwest side of the to the rest of Oakridge. easement required for the sidewalk across parcel #8606200021. Signed easements will be required prior to acceptance of any mylars. This also includes an Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 72 Created: 5/19/2005 [10/14/05] Please label it to identify what is being shown. [5/19/051 Show the sight distance easements on the landscape plan. Number: 73 Created: 5/19/2005 [10/14/051 Comment appears unresolved. Sight distance easement language is not apparent and species specified within the sight distance easements exceed 24" in height. [5/19/05] Shrubs are not allowed in a sight distance easement that exceeds 24". Please specify shrubs that are limited to 24" in these areas (or eliminate). Add the standard sight distance easement language that is already on the plat to the landscape plan. Number: 83 Created: 10/11/2005 [10/11/051 It should be indicated what is to take place with the landscaping that is impacted by the sidewalk connection to the southwest. Topic: Plat Number: 66 Created: 5/19/2005 (10/14/05] Comment appears to be unresolved. [5119/051 Please rename "sight visibility triangle" to "sight distance easement". Number: 78 Created: 10/10/2005 [10/10/051 The plat needs to be coordinated with the 37th Filing regarding the dedication of Pleasant Oak Drive. The 37th Filing dedicates a portion of the roadway and a temporary turnaround. The plat will need to be revised. Number: 82 Created: 10/11/2005 [10/11/051 Transportation Planning previously noted that the trail connection to the southwest should be in an access easement. This doesn't appear to be the case. Number: 108 Created: 10/24/2005 [10/24105] Technical Services provided the following comments: - Boundary closes Page 3 - The outer boundary of this plat will change with the right-of-way of pleasant Oak with the 37th filing being recorded. - Is "Tract 5" intended to be 'Tract A,? Technical Services provided an additional comment regarding the temporary turnaround easement recorded on the 37th Filing should be vacated with this plat. In this scenario however, the vacation of the turnaround won't occur with the plat as we'll need to have it retained until the road is fully extended (physically) to McMurry. The vacation will need to occur by separate instrument after the road is extended and the plat is filed. Page 4 FINAL PLAN REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt #13-82CZ Oakridge Business Park, 38th Filing, Senior Campus PDP Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: January 4, 2006 Note -Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems Ea -Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 8VV�1' Wy I.bE5 NO7. L66Ae, /nR� 4 r7 A A 5 r nG si/ w,�, � n �•�`� c� rl.� / i This cR. . ^ a cco 1-� Ts vim o�r� 4 5 N� Name (please print) CHECK ERE IF YO WISH RRECE CO E OF�RE�VISIONS� C Vim, _ tr at _site _Drainage Report _Other r'+ _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Citot WItins I PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: February 10, 2005 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #13-82CW Oakridge Business Park 381h Filing, Senior Campus PDP, Type II All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: March 2, 2005 Note --Please idendfr your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) �A4'1 �+ticE rc'G, /�.� �rSr7f. ACC /,3c ize,EGv /�i�•tr Wr7-T �:-CC''-.v✓:oiF�,�, <-) �,.� I-��c�,�-.-T Cap.. .,'_'r �-c r o�6sZ/.`?1 /2//=,:�-�C•+-7 `� .car. TZ✓'G� � 4.� i.-''i%'.F Grp S Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other ift _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City ofCity of F� 73 � lGl2/v �oL�N°7J fc�TLcj) _ FINAL PLAN REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt #13-82CZ Oakridge Business Park, 381h Filing, Senior Campus PDP Final Plans Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: January 4, 2006 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) lvame (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Date: January 6, 2006 Project: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 38TH FILING, SENIOR CAMPUS PDP, TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: January 04, 2006 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 70 Created: 5/19/2005 [1/6/06] The revised design now appears to show that a portion of the roof drain is underneath the sidewalk along McMurry Avenue, which is of concern. [10/14/05] Comment appears unresolved. [5/19/05] In checking with Stormwater, the roof drain system around the main building is a private system and as such it cannot be located within the 9' utility easement. Number: 80 Created: 10/11/2005 [116/06] The phasing plan appears to need further fine-tuning regarding the utility sequencing. For instance there are water lines along the eastern boundary of Phase 2 that should be built with Phase 2 currently shown in Phase 3. Also, a sewer manhole for a line in Phase 3 is shown within the boundaries of Phase 2. In addition, the sewer service lines going into the buildings along the south side of Pleasant Oak Drive should perhaps show these service lines as part of Phase 1 with the construction of the road, rather than in Phase2. [10/11/05] The developer may find it beneficial to specify a phasing plan on the construction drawings. With a final plan shown for the entire project and no phasing plan in the construction plans, the applicant would be required to provide a public improvement guarantee and inspection fees for the entire project. By providing a phasing plan, certain areas can be built at a time. A phasing plan would need to be evaluated for access, emergency access and utility servicing feasibility. Number:84 __2 Created:10/11/2005 70C' l D(ue CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ 'r Utility r Redline Utility 77— Landscape Page 1 [1/6/06] The wingwall/box culvert design (shown on Sheet 15) requires additional information/clarification beyond the footing depth and structural design that's lacking: -Specify on the utility plans that the box culvert design is to comply with 11.5 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. - Provide wingwall information details (angle, thickness, etc.) in a manner similar to or in conformance with CDOT's M-601-20 detail. - Detail should be provided regarding bedding information and compaction requirements in order to know how the culvert will be seated. Will the existing soils be adequate to support the load of the structure? At the time of the soils report, the culvert was probably not anticipated, but the soil condition around the culvert is unknown at this point. - There is no profile information showing the sanitary sewer and the culvert in relation to each other. - Will some sort of protection (rip -rap?) be needed to reduce/prevent scouring in the area? - The handrail information can show in the structural engineer's designs however it cannot be "by others". The design for the handrails must specify being in conformance of 11.3.3 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards with the material being specified and including Figure 11-3. - Depending upon the information provided by the structural engineer for the structure(s) and geotech for the bedding, more comments may be forthcoming. [10/11/051 The trail connection to the southwest should provide additional design information/detail. For instance proposed contours aren't shown across the bridge (perhaps a travel way profile should be provided). I also can't tell the extent of the retaining wall regarding height to ascertain if it needs to be structurally designed. Topic: General Number: 38 Created: 3/2/2005 [1/6106] The variance request received has been reviewed more thoroughly following staff review. While again, we've noted that we're inclined to support a reduction in the amount of sight distance, the justification included in the variance we're somewhat uncomfortable with. The request submitted is to allow parking within the sight distance easement rather than reduce the size of the easement. While we could allow for the size of the sight distance easement to remain as is and allow parking in it, the analysis of the request should then concentrate on the safety for the sight distance easement area remaining that is not part of the parking lot and whether or not this remaining area is appropriate. Previous conversations suggested approaching the request from analyzing the requirement from the (lesser) stopping sight distance requirement rather than a corner sight distance requirement and justifying the stopping sight distance. It seems awkward to present the argument that the parking stalls affected are lesser used because of their proximity and counting on whether or not the parking gets used as justification. [10110/05] A variance request was to have been submitted with this final compliance which would request a reduction in the amount of sight distance easement required and was apparently not received with this submittal. The current design configuration would require Page 2 the elimination of almost all of the internal parking spaces along the drive aisle paralleling Pleasant Oak Drive. [5/17/05] The sight distance easements are shown across parking stalls which is problematic given that vehicles create a sight distance obstruction. A variance request is required in lieu of redesigning the site to move the parking spaces outside of the easement. [3/2/05] Please provide sight distance easements for the main driveway on the inside curve leading to the main building which is shown on the construction plans. Number: 43 Created: 3/2/2005 [1/6/06] The access easement legal description is combined with a temporary construction easement in the exhibit, if this temporary construction easement is not intended to be dedicated to the City, it should be removed from the exhibit. Both easements will need to be signed prior to accepting mylars for signature. We should also review the language of the temporary construction easement for acccr`zt;! y prior to its submittal. [10/10/051 We will need a formal access easement dedication for this area prior to sign off of any construction plan mylars. [5/17/05] 1 don't recall if this item was resolved, I believe it was mentioned that the City owned this parcel, although in checking County records, Oakridge Business Association is listed as the property owner. [3/2/05] A letter of intent is required from the property owner of Parcel #8606200021 for the construction to occur on the property. Number: 88 Created: 10/14/2005 [1/6/06] With the developer now owning the property, the plat needs to have access easement dedicated for the area in which the sidewalk is located. [10/14/05] A legal description should be drawn up for the access easement needed to connect the sidewalk connection on the southwest side of site to the rest of Oakridge. Signed easements will be required prior to acceptance of any mylars. This also includes an easement required for the sidewalk across parcel #8606200021. Number: 128 Created: 1/6/2006 [1/6/06] Please ensure every document has the correct street name of "McMurry Avenue". Number: 129 Created: 1/6/2006 [116/06] As a heads up there will be language in the development agreement stating that no building permits will be allowed on the units that are closest to the bike/ped bridge until the bridge is in place. Number: 131 Created: 1/6/2006 [1/6/06] A paper set for review will be required; we are not ready for mylar signatures at this time. At the time of mylar signatures, please ensure that Xcel, Comcast, and Qwest have signed off on the mylars before submission to the City. In addition, ensure that all offsite easement have also been submitted prior to or with the mylars. Number: 132 Created: 1/6/2006 [1/6/06] Coordinate the title of the project between all documents. The site and landscape plans use "Oakridge Senior Campus" while the construction drawing uses "Senior Care Campus". The plat can remain as "Oakridge Business Park 38th Filing" but the site, landscape, and construction drawings should coordinate on using "Senior Care Campus" or "Oakridge Senior Campus". Page 3 Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 130 Created: 1/6/2006 [1/6/06] Russian Sage is shown in planting areas that are within the sight distance easement and should be changed to a different plant type consistent with the sight distance easement restrictions language. Topic: Plat Number: 108 Created: 10/24/2005 [1/6/06] Technical Services provided the following comments: - Legal closes, boundary does not. Legal and boundary do not match. - Title is wrong, needs "and a portion of the northwest 1/4 section 6..." - Correct spelling and suffix of McMurry Avenue. - Every lot must be shown in its entirety on a sheet, if this cannot be accomplished a match line is needed and a key map. - Add a note for the temporary turnaround easement indicating that this is to be vacated upon the construction of the extension Pleasant Oak Drive to McMurry Avenue. [10/24/05] Technical Services provided the following comments: - Boundary closes - The outer boundary of this plat will change with the right-of-way of Pleasant Oak with the 37th filing being recorded. - Is 'Tract 5" intended to be 'Tract A"? -Technical Services provided an additional comment regarding the temporary turnaround easement recorded on the 37th Filing should be vacated with this plat. In this scenario however, the vacation of the turnaround won't occur with the plat as we'll need to have it retained until the road is fully extended (physically) to McMurry. The vacation will need to occur by separate instrument after the road is extended and the plat is filed. Page 4 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning REC, D DATE: February 10, 2005 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #13-82CW Oakridge Business Park 38th Filing, Senior Campus PDP, Type II All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: March 2, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape 3,36 Project Comments Sheet �''' Selected Departments Citti of Fort Cnllin, Department: Transportation Planning Date: March 1, 2005 Project: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK- SENIOR CAMPUS PDP, TYPE II All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: March 2, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: Utility Plan Number: 5 Created: 2/28/2005 [2/28/05] All walkways that are adjacent to head -in parking must be 6' in width unless wheelstops are to be utilised. There are several locations where this needs to be addressed. Please see reclined utility plans for clarification. Number: 6 Created: 2/28/2005 [2/28/05] Please call out all sidewalk dimensions, internal and external to the site. Thanks. Number: 7 Created: 2/28/2005 [2/28/051 Oakridge and McMurray are both shown as collectors on the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Collector level facilities require the inclusion of a 5' wide sidewalk. The utility plans are showing 4'6" sidewalks. Please correct this and place sidewalk dimensions on the plans. Thanks. Number: 8 Created: 2/28/2005 [2/28/05] There are a couple places internal to the site where sidewalk ramps aren't quite aligned correctly across drive aisles/private drives. Please fix these offsets so that street crossings are as straight as possible. See redlined utitly plans for clarification on the locations that I have in mind. Thanks. Number: 9 Created: 2/28/2005 [2/28/05] 1 saw in the notes to the neighborhood meeting that the applicant is "not proposing a prallel path on the north side of the ditch". That makes sense to me, but it is not clear whether or not this project is making the required connection to the existing path on the south of the ditch. I believe this is what Tom Reiff meant by his commment at the conceptual review of 4/19/2004. Please clarify. Thanks. Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat < Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility 4 Landscape Page I Number: 10 Created: 2/28/2005 [2/28/051 Walkways that are adjacent to parallel parking need to be 6' in width to maintain adequate clearspace between passing pedestrians and open car doors. There are several locations on site where this applies. Please see redlined utility plans for clarification. Thanks. Number: 11 Created: 2/28/2005 [2/28/05] Bicycle racks need to be located in secure, well -lit locations that are proximate to main building entrances. Understanding that bicycle parking with this use would most likely be used by employees (projected to be approx. 100) it might make sense to provide bicycle racks near employee entrances as well, if there are any apart from the main building entrance. Thanks. Page 2 Project Comments Sheet i7222 ' Selected Departments City of Fort ColFinS p Department: Date: March 4, 2005 Project: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK- SENIOR CAMPUS PDP, TYPE II Issue Contact: Marc virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 31 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] Show concrete to be constructed to the property line for all driveways out to public streets. Number: 33 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] Show curve data for the flowlines along the Pleasant Oak Drive plan view, which will also verify that 15' radii are proposed on all driveways. Number: 35 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] There appears to be multiple instances where the private drives direct drainage over the sidewalk in excess of LCUASS, some of which could utilize nearby storm sewers for inlets to rapture flows. Please provide more information as to how drainage over the sidewalk is to be mitigated as well as high point elevations to discern the extent of drainage. Number: 37 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] Is the applicant intending to provide basements for the units? With the soils report indicating high groundwater, I'd like to verify the applicant's intentions as a groundwater report may be required should basements be proposed. Number: 41 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] The typical cross section for McMurry on sheet 13 is not accurate showing attached walks; the cross section for Oakridge appears accurate. However, the plans (site and construction plans) do not appear to show the sidewalk widths for these two collectors correctly, they are required to be 5'. Topic: General Number: 32 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] A variance request is required for the distance between high volume driveways standard in LCUASS. Ideally, the driveways proposed should line-up from the the driveways of the hotel property across the street. A variance request also appears needed for the separation between the high volume driveway and Innovation Drive along McMurry Drive (a collector). j Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS 1' Plat = Site Drainage Report Other_ f Utility Redline Utility — Landscape Page 1 r Number: 36 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] The median on Pleasant Oak Drive may be acceptable. Transportation staff questions the design of the median as it does not extend to the intersection, which may be of confusion to drivers turning into this street off McMurry Avenue as well as confusion to drivers approaching McMurry on this street looking to head north. Will there be a striping plan to compliment the median, which may resolve some concerns. In general, the median appears to be removed too far from the intersection. The City will not allow any identification signs to be placed within the median and it appears too small to provide landscaping such that it can only be hardscaped (splash block will be required). In general, the City will not maintain the median in either a hardscape or landscape scenario. Number: 42 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] 9' of utility easement is required behind the right-of-way of all public streets which is reflected on the plat, however the site plan specifies different easement widths on Oakridge Drive and McMurry Avenue. Number: 43 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] A letter of intent is required from the property owner of Parcel #8606200021 for the construction to occur on the property. Number: 44 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] As a utility coordination meeting was previously held, one may not be needed with this formal submittal, however if the applicant and/or utilities are concerned about the layout, I can coordinate such a meeting. Number: 48 Created: 3/4/2005 [3/4/05] The plans need to show existing access points for surrounding properties, including those across the street from the site. Topic: Plat Number: 38 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] Please provide sight distance easements for the main driveway on the inside curve leading to the main building which is shown on the construction plans. Number: 39 Created: 3/2/2005 [3/2/05] It appears that "emergency access" needs to also be specified for the internal road network of the duplexes. Number: 40 Created: 3/2/2005 [312/05] Oakridge 37th Filing will need to be completed and recorded prior to this project/plat because of the legal description on this project referencing the 37th Filing. Page 2 10 -% Project Comments Sheet EMENChUffind City of Fort Collins Selected Departments Department: Date: May 19, 2005 Project: OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK, 38TH FILING, SENIOR CAMPUS PDP, TYPE II #13-82CW Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Plans Number: 41 Created: 3/2/2005 [5/17/051 The cross section for McMurry on the construction plan sheet specifies a 7.5' parkway instead of the standard 8' parkway. Why aren't 8' parkways being provided? (The site plan does appear to scale at 75) [3/2/05] The typical cross section for McMurry on sheet 13 is not accurate showing attached walks; the cross section for Oakridge appears accurate. However, the plans (site and construction plans) do not appear to show the sidewalk widths for these two collectors correctly, they are required to be 5'. Number: 70 Created: 5/19/2005 (5119/051 In checking with Stormwater, the roof drain system around the main building is a private system and as such it cannot be located within the 9' utility easement. Number: 71 Created: 5/19/2005 [5/19/05] With Light and Power, Xcel, Comcast, & Qwest being shown on the utility plan, please provide signature blocks for these utilities (add Light and Power to the City's Approval Block). Topic: General Number: 43 Created: 3/2/2005 [5/17/051 1 don't recall if this item was resolved, I believe it was mentioned that the City owned this parcel, although in checking County records, Oakridge Business Association is listed as the property owner. [3/2/05] A letter of intent is required from the property owner of Parcel #8606200021 for the construction to occur on the property. Number: 64 Created: 5/17/2005 [5/17/051 The access to the west to the existing Residences at Oakridge needs to be clarified as to whether this will be full movement or limited (and if so, how?) Number: 65 Created: 5/17/2005 5-1t9 6S Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other i— Utility r Redline Utility 4-- Landscape Page I [5/171051 The revised service area drive off Oakridge Drive to the back of the main building has a depth of about 24' from the flowline of Oakridge (and only 14' from the back of walk). I'm concerned that service vehicles may encroach into Oakridge and at the very least, concerned that vehicles will block the sidewalk. Additional information or clarification is needed. Number: 67 Created: 5/19/2005 [5/19/051 The grading plan shows that grading and construction of a trail connection is taking place outside of the property boundary onto land owned by the Oakridge Village 9th Homeowners Association of which no easement exists. It is of importance that a letter of intent acceptable to the grading and trail connection is received from the HOA prior to a hearing for the project. Engineering will not be in support of scheduling the hearing until verification from Oakridge Village 9th on the acceptability of the proposed design. Number: 69 Created: 5/19/2005 [5/19/051 The construction of the sidewalk heading west into the Oakridge 34th Filing is not located within an existing access easement and therefore a letter of intent is required from the property owner consenting to the construction of the sidewalk on their property with the agreement in principle to grant an access easement for this sidewalk. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 72 Created: 5/19/2005 (5119/051 Show the sight distance easements on the landscape plan. Number: 73 Created: 5/19/2005 [5/19/051 Shrubs are not allowed in a sight distance easement that exceeds 24". Please specify shrubs that are limited to 24" in these areas (or eliminate). Add the standard sight distance easement language that is already on the plat to the landscape plan. Topic: Plat Number: 38 Created: 3/2/2005 [5/17/05] The sight distance easements are shown across parking stalls which is problematic given that vehicles create a sight distance obstruction. A variance request is required in lieu of redesigning the site to move the parking spaces outside of the easement. [3/2/05] Please provide sight distance easements for the main driveway on the inside curve leading to the main building which is shown on the construction plans. Number: 40 Created: 3/2/2005 [5/10/051 Left as unresolved for reference. (312/05] Oakridge 37th Filing will need to be completed and recorded prior to this project/plat because of the legal description on this project referencing the 37th Filing. Number: 66 Created: 5/19/2005 [5/19/05] Please rename sight visibility triangle" to "sight distance easement". Page 2