HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARVEST PARK - PDP - 25-98A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFFRESPONSE: Notes will be added.
Landscaping Plan
■ All landscaping within our right-of-way will have to comply with sight distance easement
requirements.
(see plans for additional comments — additional comments may be made upon receiving of
revisions)
RESPONSE: We have provided drainage inlets for all low points in the medians.
✓ Please provide a closer detail as to how drainage is occurring at the median noses, it is
difficult to read. We have concerns with how drainage is being conveyed in relation to the
pedestrian crossings.
RESPONSE: The drawings now show where inlets are.
✓ See the included criteria for engineered subdrain systems. A licensed groundwater
hydrologist engineer should verify and provide information that this criteria is being met.
RESPONSE: Refer to attached report.
✓ Please provide details for the culvert designs on Sheet 110 (such as CDOT M&S Standard
Drawings M-601-1 — 3, M-601-20)
RESPONSE: Refer to box culvert design sheets.
✓ Manholes should not be located on gutters.
RESPONSE: Manholes have been removed from gutters.
✓ Add the Traffic Engineer to the signature block for utility plan approval and change Director
of Engineering to City Engineer.
RESPONSE: We have changed the block accordingly.
✓ Revise the General Notes accordingly and add the following notes:
➢ The Developer is responsible for all costs for the installation of traffic signing and
striping for the Development related to the Development's local street operations. In
addition, the Developer is responsible for all costs for traffic signing and striping related
to direct traffic access to and from the Development.
➢ The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for any damages or injuries sustained in
this Development as a result of groundwater seepage, whether resulting from
groundwater flooding, structural damage or other damage unless such damage or injuries
are sustained as a result of The City of Fort Collins failure to properly maintain its water,
wastewater, and/or storm drainage facilities in the department.
✓ Provide a temporary turnaround cul-de-sac with the necessary easements for County Fair
Lane east of this site.
RESPONSE: This is shown on the plan and profile.
✓ Provide a detail for the pedestrian crossings that are situated not on street corners (such as D-
12.6)
RESPONSE: Detail Provided.
✓ On all cross sections sheets please show right-of-way with in relation to the cross sections.
RESPONSE: These have been provided.
✓ How will drainage be conveyed at the low spot along County Road 9?
RESPONSE: At this point in time no inlet will be constructed flow will go to the road ditch
as before and then to the creek.
✓ Show RCP and other below ground improvements (such as the culvert underneath Corbett
Drive) on profile portions of the plan and profile sheets.
RESPONSE: These are now shown.
✓ Provide a street -striping plan.
RESPONSE: These are now provided
✓ Please show how street cross -slopes are changing/transitioning at all points where the curbs
start to neck inward/outward from the elimination of the parking lanes (such as at the
approach of the traffic circles.)
RESPONSE: We have provided an extra sheet showing detail and transitions
✓ Sheet 43 shows medians with outfall curb and gutter, shouldn't this be infall?
RESPONSE: This has been changed
✓ It appears that drainage off some of the medians along Rock Creek is sheet flowing across
the street to the edge of the roadway (assuming infall curb and gutter.) Drainage off the
medians should utilize the RCP improvements.
corner of County Fair Lane and Mill Stone Way. Sight distance easements will need to be
added within all the traffic circles. Additional sight distance easements may be noted as the
design for the traffic circles and other street issues are addressed.
RESPONSE: These have been added.
✓ All private drives and private alley -ways should use the "New Driveway Approach" Detail
D-14. Please add the detail to the plans. (Because the rear drives appear to be private, D-14
will be used rather than providing the "driveway flare" requirements for a public alley.)
RESPONSE: These have been changed.
✓ An explanation or detail should be provided on how drainage will be conveyed where the
alleys intersect at right angles and create corners. Are driveways planned for the individual
lots that may cause flow to enter the driveways?
RESPONSE: We have shown valley pans where flows cross the alleys.
✓ The design of the traffic circles will need to be coordinated with the Traffic Engineer.
RESPONSE: We have spoken to Eric Bracke and have set cross walk back and provided
signing as suggested.
✓ Numerous ditches appear to traverse the property. Ditch company approval appears to be
needed. We will require signed approval from all ditch companies on the utility and plat
maps prior to City approvals for the project.
RESPONSE: There are no ditch company interests on site. These are local irrigation
ditches.
✓ It appears that in some cases where the rear drives dead-end into lots, drainage off the rear
drives may be conveyed through the private lot. Drainage across the lot should be contained
and not allowed to sheet -flow through. Please illustrate how flow will be conveyed across
these properties or if flow will remain within the roadway network and outlet to the public
street.
RESPONSE: All Alleys discharge directly to streets and not across private lots.
RESPONSE: Signs have been removed from the right of way.
✓ What is the "special paving" noted on this Site Plan? This is not noted on the Utility Plans
and may not be allowed because of the potential additional maintenance.
RESPONSE: This has been changed to a reduced area and scored colored concrete
✓ The potential art elements within the traffic circles will not be allowed.
RESPONSE: This has been addressed see site plans
✓ Add a pedestrian crosswalk, median refuge, and access ramps across Rock Creek Drive along
the east side of Spring Harvest/Millstone Lane. (3.2.2.C.6)
RESPONSE: These have been provided
✓ Our street standards require a parkway strip and sidewalks on both sides of a public street. A
variance will be required for the neighborhood park areas along public streets that do not
have these improvements. (3.3.2.E.1)
RESPONSE: A variance will be provided.
✓ Construct sidewalk along the west side of Corbett Drive north of this site to connect with the
existing sidewalk for the school. (3.2.2.C.7)
RESPONSE: This is shown on the site plan as a note and street plan and profile.
✓ Utility Plan
• Illustrate on the utility plan that the traffic circles can accommodate single unit trucks (SU-
30).
RESPONSE: This is provided.
✓ Provide off -site grading easements.
RESPONSE: This will be provided before the hearing date.
✓ Approximate location of sight distance easements necessary based on a 300-foot sight
distance length have been noted and should be added to the utility plans for the northeast
RESPONSE: A compromise of on connection at country main has been agreed with the
city staff.
✓ Why is County Fair Lane noted as a collector east of Corbett Drive? The Traffic Study
shows the traffic generated on County Fair Lane to be less than Ruff Way. Please reduce the
width of County Fair Lane to a local width.
RESPONSE: This now a local street.
✓ Country Main is noted as a connector on the site plan, except on the street section sheet,
where it is noted as a modified collector. We do not see the need to have the street
designated as a collector.
RESPONSE: This is now a local street
✓ The placement of the rear drive along the northeast corner of Rock Creek Drive and Corbett
Drive is too close to the intersection of two collectors and should be relocated to a more
suitable location.
RESPONSE: This has been addressed and changed.
✓ Additional pedestrian access ramps are needed to the neighborhood parks (3.2.2.C)
RESPONSE: This has been addressed and changed.
✓ Any elements within the traffic circle will be subject to the same restrictions of a sight
distance easement.
RESPONSE: This has been addressed see site plans
✓ The placement and types of streetlights used in this development will need approval of the
Utilities Department. We have potential safety concerns about the placement of streetlights
in the middle of medians.
RESPONSE: The planner has met with the electric utility and this has been addressed see
site plans
✓ Signs are not allowed in right-of-way unless in conformance with City Code Sec. 24-1.
✓ Add "Notice of Other Documents" on the plat.
RESPONSE: Has been provided.
✓ As there appears to be numerous ditches on -site, vacation of interests by any ditch companies
or the retainment of easements needs to be shown on the plat.
RESPONSE: There are no ditch company interests on site. These are local irrigation
ditches.
Site Plan
✓ The northern and southern traffic circles for Country Main should be eliminated and
designed as "T" intersections. Our Traffic Engineer feels that these 3-legged connections do
not generate significant traffic volumes and as a result, vehicles will "shortcut through" the
traffic circles rather than travel around it.
RESPONSE: The northern traffic circle is now a "T" intersection and the southern traffic
circle is now a 4 way traffic circle.
✓ A variance request needs to be submitted for the use of traffic circles, as they are not in our
standards.
RESPONSE: Please see attached variance.
✓ With the addition of bike lanes for Harvest Park Lane, the 16' travel lane and 7' parking
lanes are insufficient. The travel lane for Harvest Park Lane should be increased to 22' and
the parking lanes should be increased to 8' on either side.
RESPONSE: This has been done.
✓ Shared rear drives cannot be used with Narrow Residential Local Streets if not dedicated as
right-of-way for alleys. A proposal before City Council will allow private rear drives to be
used for access, however, these cannot be used with the Narrow Residential Street Standards
— these streets would have to be widened to residential standards.
RESPONSE: There are no narrow local streets any more.
✓ Local connections are required to be made with adjacent parcels at distances no longer than
660'. Possible multiple connections to the Sage Creek development will have to be made.
(3.6.3.D)
✓ The plat should illustrate existing rights -of -way and the amount of right-of-way being
dedicated to the City.
RESPONSE: These are generally shown already. We will be specific about county Road 9
and surrounding streets such as existing Corbett Drive and existing Rock Creek Drive.
✓ Dedicated right-of-way for County Fair Lane should be reduced to a non -collector width.
RESPONSE: This has been narrowed.
✓ Dedicated right-of-way for Harvest Park Lane should be increased to 75'.
RESPONSE: This has been worked out. We are showing the increased road width but are
not showing the full 75 feet right of way width. We are providing 72.5 feet to the back of
walk. This is shown as an attached walk but it is our understanding that the walk will be
detached and designed by the Parks Department.
✓ Square corners for rights -of -way are not allowed. Right-of-way dedication shall be rounded
to match with the edge of the proposed public street improvements.
RESPONSE: Right of Way has been changed.
✓ The dedication of traffic circles on the northern and southern traffic circles for Country Main
should be revised as dedications for standard "T" intersections.
RESPONSE: The northern traffic circle is now a "T" intersection and the southern traffic
circle is now a 4 way traffic circle.
✓ Evidence of the noted "right-of-way by separate document" will have to be provided prior to
a hearing for this project.
RESPONSE: We will provide legal at PDP level and have recorded easement for mylar
signing.
✓ Language on the plat needs to clearly demonstrate who maintains the private drives, medians,
traffic circles, tracts, parks, etc.
RESPONSE: "Ownership and Maintenance responsibility of all tracts is the responsibility
of the Harvest Park Homeowners Association.": Also see previous notes
✓ Add a note on the plat showing that ownership and maintenance responsibilities of medians
along Rock Creek Drive and Corbett Drive as well as the area inside the traffic circles shall
be assigned to a Homeowners Association.
RESPONSE: Added Note: Maintenance of the central medians within the right-of-way of Rock
Creek Drive and Corbett Drive and the medians within the traffic circle will be the responsibility
of the Harvest Park Homeowners Association
✓ Add a note on the plat showing that all tracts are easements with ownership and maintenance
responsibilities assigned to a Homeowners Association.
RESPONSE: Added Note: "Ownership and Maintenance responsibility of all tracts is the
responsibility of the Harvest Park Homeowners Association."
✓ Add a note on the plat that no lots shall take access off Corbett Drive or Rock Creek Drive.
RESPONSE: Added Note: "No lots shall construct direct access to Corbett Drive or Rock
Creek Drive.,,
✓ Sight distance easements and a note regarding sight distance easement restrictions need to be
added to the plat.
RESPONSE: We have shown site easements for The Traffic Circles and other bends and
have included the site distance language on the plat.
✓ Emergency access easements are required for the internal roadways within the private access,
utility and drainage easements. (3.6.6.K)
RESPONSE: These are provided on the plat.
✓ Add a note regarding the width of utility easements for the front and rear yards. 8' is needed
along the rear drives, 9' along public streets. Please label the easement widths in various
locations within the plat map itself.
RESPONSE: We will add dimensions. Easements vary by street and I prefer not to make
a general note, as it will not apply in all cases.
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: April 21, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #25-98A Harvest Park, PDP — Type 1 (LUC)
PLANNER: Ron Fuchs
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: May 19, 1999
❑ No Problems
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Plat
✓ The plat implies that the "alleys" are dedicated public alleys. However, the Site Plan notes
these areas as "rear drives". The Project Development Plan also notes that all alleys are
private.
If these areas are private:
■ They should be labeled on the plat as an easement or tract, not as an alley.
■ Private drives cannot be used in conjunction with the Narrow Residential Street width.
■ City Council approval of the Land Use Code change to allow private drives to serve more
than four lots is needed.
RESPONSE: The alleys are shared drives not public. They are not being used with
narrow residential streets.
If these areas are public dedicated alleys:
■ The alleys are not allowed to dead end into private property, easements or tracts.
■ The dead end portions should connect to allow connectivity with a public street or
become private.
■ Uneven alley widths are not allowed.
Date:
Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES ❑
PLAT
OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑
SITE
❑
UTILITY
[ENO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS
0
LANDSCAPE
,,
RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS