Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJEFFERSON COMMONS PUD - FINAL - 50-95A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (4)existing grade. • Show r.o.w. line and limits of grading/slope easements necessary for the construction. • No cross -slope in new construction can exceed 4.00% or be less than 2.00% • Balance the difference in existing and proposed cross -slopes between the north and south sides. In other words, create a north flowline profile that makes it possible to reconstruct the roadway in the future with as close to 2.00% cross - slopes on both sides as possible. When the existing cross -slope on the south side is steep, the north side needs to be lowered so ultimately the crown can be lowered and/or the south side raised and still have a 2.00% to 4.00% cross -slope on the north side without reconstructing the curb and gutter on the north side. • Modify to include westbound right turn lane Sheet 13/18 & 14/18: • Revise to match comments made on previous sheets Sheet 15/18 • See Water Utility's comments Sheet 16, 17, 18/18 • Use all applicable current City of Fort Collins standard details. It is necessary to create details specific to this site for driveway construction. • Identify where the various details apply - i.e. reference details on plan sheets EXPECT ADDITIONAL DETAILED COMMENTS ONCE THE PLANS ARE REVISED TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MADE WITH THIS INITIAL SUBMITTAL AND ONCE REVISIONS ARE MADE TO REFLECT THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ON THE PRELIMINARY. THE COMMENTS PROVIDED HERE ARE BASED. ONLY ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND AMOUNT OF DETAIL PROVIDED AT THIS TIME ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. On average, utility plans go through 3 to 4 rounds of review before plans are ready for final City approval. The City will return comments 4 weeks from the date of submittal of revised plans with each round of review. To reduce the rounds of review, make sure all comments are thoroughly addressed. 1 - The off -site curb and gutter to the west needs to be lowered'since the south side is so low. In general, the City tries to plan curb and gutter locations to accommodate as close to a 2.00% cross -slope on both sides of the road as possible. The curb and gutter needs to be located so that future reconstruction can adjust the centerline to bring both sides as close to a 2.00% cross -slope as possible. Minor arterials can have up to a 4.00% cross -slope where existing conditions prohibit less, but try to stay as close to 2.00% as possible. Please adjust the flowline profiles and the cross -sections to try to allow a future 2.00% cross -slope to be feasible. Nothing less than a 2.00% cross slope is allowed on new construction - it may be necessary to reconstruct to centerline in some locations to achieve this. No signing or striping plan was included as previously requested. The striping must show enough off -site information to show how it ties to the existing roadway striping at both ends of the project. Sheet 10/18: • This plan sheet will change with the proposed narrowing of Orchard Place. Will review design again when revised. (P & Z BOARD ELIMINATED ORCHARD PLACE CONNECTION 4/8/96 - this area needs to be redesigned per the Board's recommendation for the bike/ped connection only) • Detail the driveway (radii, width, spot elevations, concrete to property line, ...) • Label true lengths in horizontal curves • R.o.w. must transition smoothly at both ends of Orchard Place. (BASED ON P & Z BOARD'S DECISION, STAFF NEEDS TO EVALUATE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THE WEST STREET STUB OF ORCHARD PLACE AND THE DEDICATED R.O.W. FOR ORCHARD PLACE) • No portion of the detention pond is allowed within the r.o.w. including freeboard. Need 2' at 2.00% behind the walk and then a maximum of a 4:1 slope into the pond is allowed. Sheet 11/18: • Plan is very incomplete. Need complete and detailed construction information. These are the plans to be used in the field for construction and City inspection - they must include detailed information on the removal and reconstruction to be done including grading, limits of construction, driveway design, drainage information,... • Design the Plum Street cul-de-sac including flowline profiles, curve data, grading, limits of reconstruction and removal, all the information necessary for construction. • Need permanent r.o.w. dedication for the cul-de-sac and a 9' utility easement dedication around the cul-de-sac. Sheet 12/18: • See comments for Sheet 9 regarding cross -slopes on West Elizabeth Street. • Must provide 2' at 2.00% behind the sidewalk and a maximum of a 4:1 slope to (. help calm traffic. --The r.o.w. should transition smoothly from the existing r.o.w. to the new r.o.w. On the north side, the r.o.w. should follow the back of sidewalk (P & Z BOARD ELIMINATED THE STREET CONNECTION OF ORCHARD PLACE 4/8/96) Sheet 3/18 • Plan is incomplete - will review in more detail and have more specific comments when plans are completed and revised. Existing topo lines are not clear. It is not clear how proposed grading affects adjacent parcels. - Show all grading adjacent to the site, not just within the site boundary, how does proposed grading tie to existing? Is off -site grading necessary ? - How is existing grading on adjacent parcels tying in to the proposed off -site improvements along Elizabeth street? What regrading and reconstruction is necessary for the driveways along Elizabeth Street adjacent to the off -site improvements ? Are the property owners willing to dedicate r.o.w./easements necessary for the construction of the improvements ? - What grading is necessary for the construction of the cul-de-sac on Plum and the removal and reconstruction of the street stub of Plum on the west side ? Need off -site grading easements to do this work. Sheet 4/18 • Same comments as above for sheet 3/18 Sheet 5/18 - 8/18 • See Stormwater comments Sheet 9/18 • O.K. for a preliminary design, but plan is incomplete for final design. Sample plans were sent out by the City at preliminary to show the level of detail needed for final design. Please review them. More specific comments will be made when the plans are revised and the design information provided is complete. - As noted previously, why isn't the westbound right turn lane recommended in the traffic study shown ? Please re -design the improvements to include a westbound right turn lane. - Detail the driveway entrance (spot elevations, radii, concrete to property line,:..) - Show detailed information on the existing improvements such as driveways on Elizabeth and how they will be reconstructed and graded to match the improvements proposed. Are the property owners willing to dedicate r.o.w. and easements for the off -site construction shown? What are the limits of those easements/limits of construction? - Clearly define the limits of asphalt construction/reconstruction - Use the new standard for the sidewalk along Elizabeth Street - Show driveways/crosspans in profile i favor of the work, and as noted above, executed deeds are required for any r.o.w. and easements needed to do the work. See attached comments from 3/15/96 Need to design a connection through the site suitable for buses - turn radii, pavement section, drive aisle width - to utilize the connection to Plum Street since the Orchard Place connection was eliminated by the P & Z Board. Drainage Report: Detailed comments are provided by the City's Stormwater Utility. However, there is a concern about the existing ditch lateral along Elizabeth Street. The report states that the lateral is overgrown and appears unused. What happens to the water that used to flow down the ditch and are upstream users affected by or opposed to the termination of the lateral with this project ? The ditch lateral representative(s) must sign off on the final plat and plans since they are parties in interest to the property. Utility Plans: Title sheet • Title the plan set as "Utility Plans" to match City Code and Development agreement references • Renumber the sheet as sheet 1 of the set • Include a reference copy of the plat but do not number the sheets as part of the utility plan set • Vicinity map should show Orchard Place and Ponderosa • Benchmark must be noted and be part of the City's "Black Bolt" system • Need City approval block on all sheets except the plat Sheet 1/18 • Sidewalk on Elizabeth Street - same comment as on site plan • Same comments with respect to Elizabeth Street improvements and r.o.w. as made above under site plan comments. • Need deed of dedication for a 9' utility easement around the proposed Plum Street cul-de-sac and a deed for the permanent r.o.w. for the cul-de-sac as described previously • Need a 15' utility easement along Elizabeth Street r.o.w. • Same comments as described above regarding Elizabeth Street off -site improvements - need r.o.w., easements, and full design (grading, driveway reconstruction, ...) Sheet 2/18 - - • As explained in the comments of 3/15/96, the City would support narrowing Orchard Place adjacent to the site to 28' flowline to flowline. This would create room on the north side to detach the sidewalk and plant street trees as well as JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D. - FINAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 4/1/96 and 4/9/96 Site Plan: • Why is there a "Proposed r.o.w. line" shown at 60' from the Section line? Is it to accommodate the westbound right -turn lane recommended in the traffic study ? The turn lane is not shown on the plans. 10 feet of additional r.o.w. (Turn lanes are typically 12 feet wide) is proposed and it extends all the way to the west property line. Please clarify what is shown. Standard arterial r.o.w. width is 50' from section line plus a 15' utility easement beyond the r.o.w. (Plus any additional r.o.w. needed for turn lanes). • As noted on the review of the preliminary, the traffic study recommends a westbound right turn lane on Elizabeth into the site. Why don't the site and utility plans show it? It is necessary particularly if buses will be pulling into or stopping at the site. • Sidewalk on Elizabeth must be detached to back of r.o.w. - use the current City standard (copy attached) for arterial sidewalk - sidewalk 9' from back of curb, 5' foot wide walk with back of walk on the r.o.w. line. Additional r.o.w. will be required along the right turn lane to accommodate the walk and maintain the parkway width along the turn lane. • Provide dimensions for sidewalk and parkway width on Elizabeth. • Distinguish between existing and proposed improvements on W. Elizabeth Street • Prior to final approval, the City will need executed original deeds of dedication for all off -site r.o.w. and off -site easements necessary for street construction, including grading, utilities, and drainage. • No request for r.o.w. vacation was submitted for the west end of Plum Street at Ponderosa and any excess r.o.w. on Orchard Place. As was discussed in presubmittal meetings, the developer is required to put together, a written request for the r.o.w. vacation including: letters of agreement from the owners of the adjacent properties, legal descriptions of the area(s) to be vacated, and legal descriptions of the area(s) necessary to retain for utility and drainage easement(s). The r.o.w. vacation cannot be scheduled for City Council until the project has final P & Z approval and until these items are received. The r.o.w. vacation. Ordinance must be heard by City Council on First Reading before the street removal and reconstruction can begin. Second Reading will follow when the work is completed. • See comments dated 3/15/96 with regard to the narrowing of Orchard Place adjacent to the site. (P & Z Board eliminated the connection 4/8/96) • The plans show off -site improvements to Elizabeth Street, but no documentation or detail about r.o.w. or easements - which are likely to be needed for the construction - have been provided. As noted in the comments dated 3/15/96, the City needs proof that the owners adjacent to this proposed construction are in