The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLIND PROPERTY - FDP - 39-94C - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Gary Lopez Topic: ZONING Number: 251 Created: 7/3/2003 No Comment Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yours Truly, Bob Barkeen City Planner Page 4 3/11 /3: Repeat comment. 5/30/3: The roundabout analysis was received and accepted by Eric Brackie. However, the long range analysis is still missing from the TIS (only the short range was provided). Please provide the long range analysis in the TIS. 7/14/3: The response letter from Matt Dehlich was received and accepted by Eric Brackie in lieu of the long range analysis. This item is now closed. Topic: Underpass Number: 245 Created: 6/3/2003 See detail 1108 for City railing/parapet wall requirements for the bridge/underpass for CRl 1 and add it to the detail sheet. Also, see the city guidelines for pedestrian facilities and AASHTO for railing requirements. The wooden fencing shown does not meet any of these standards, design or safety. Topic: Utility Number: 54 Created: 11 /12/2002 See detail 7-24 for all street widening requirements. Those proposed do not meet standards. 3/11 /3: Repeat comment. Still not meeting the min PC to PCR. Show and label Rl, R2 R3, W and flowline as required by 7-24. 5/30/3: Repeat comment. Please provide a detail (per 7-24) and show/label RI-R3, W. 7/14/3: The detail has been provided as requested, however, the flowline (R2) is missing and R3 in not correct. Please show and label R2 and R3. Also, for clarity, remove the dimensioning (Rl, R2, R3, W) off the plan view (it's already shown in the detail). Number: 169 Created: 3/13/2003 Please provide some grading/spot information that I can tie into the CR52 road plans so that I can make sure that these two projects will work together. 5/30/3: As of our presubmittal meeting, you had the good suggestion of adding spot elevations at the PCs to make sure the two sets of plans line up. Unfortunately, the PCs are showing two different spot elevations - see CR52 and Forescastle for example. Number: 217 Created: 6/3/2003 ' CS131 and all others that apply - the proposed ramps and sidewalks need to show how they tie into existing ramps and sidewalks along the west side of CRl 1. Show your removals so that it is very clear what is staying and what is coming out. This will help Street Oversizing bid out and construct this road in the future. 7/14/3: Your response on the redlines states that the removals should be "intuitive". As easy as that sounds, it doesn't work that way in the real world. What is being constructed and/or removed must be clearly shown on the plan & profile and utility sheets so that when it gets built 3 to 5 years in the future, there's no question in anyone's mind what supposed to be done. If it's not on the plans, the contractors won't do it and our inspectors can't enforce it. Take the curb and gutter removal note off the striping sheet and puffing it on the plan and profile and utility sheets and clearly show what is being removed and replaced. Right now the plans are a little vague and might give the contractor the wrong impression. Number: 219 Created: 6/3/2003 CS200 - See Appendix E6 for scanability requirements (min font size, overlapping, etc). This sheet is a little difficult to read and/or reproduce. 7/14/3: Page 3 Topic: Plat Number: 16 Created: 11 /6/2002 Provide all easements and vacations by separate document as stated on the plat. 3/11/3: Repeat Comment. 5/30/3: Repeat Comment. 7/14/3: Repeat Comment. Number: 125 Created: 3/11 /2003 From Technical Services: Many bearing and distances missing. Please review before the next submittal. 5/30/3: Repeat comment. Number: 127 Created: 3/11 /2003 From Technical Services: Separate document reception number vacations need to be shown on this plat. 5/30/3: Repeat comment. Number: 203 From Technical Services - North arrow on sheet 2 is wrong. Number: 204 From Technical Services - Boundary and Legal close. Number: 205 From Technical Services - In Block 6, is it an alley or tract? Number: 206 From Technical Services - Additional ROW notes. Number: 207 From Technical Services - Show County Road 52 on sheet 3 Created: 6/2/2003 Created: 6/2/2003 Created: 6/2/2003 Created: 6/2/2003 Created: 6/2/2003 Number: 208 Created: 6/2/2003 From Technical Services - Show distances, section corner plat to Sl /4 Section 29. Number: 209 Created: 6/2/2003 From Technical Services - Solid lines, separate tracts from ROW. Number: 210 Created: 6/2/2003 From Technical Services - Curve table has incorrect info (this effects lot dimensions). Please review. Topic: Traffic Study Number: 28 Created: 11 /12/2002 Please contact Eric Bracke at 224-6062 regarding the TIS. A roundabout analysis must be provided for all arterial/arterial intersections. Additional ROW may be required to accommodate a dedicated northbound right turn lane on CR 52, to be built now or in the future. Please see LCUASS Chapter 8 for intersection requirements and Chapter 4 for TIS requirements. The TIS must be detailed enough to sufficiently address any modification and/variance requested by this development. Page 2 City of Fort Collins VIGNETTE STUDIOS TERENCE HOAGLUND 144 N. MASON ST. #2 FT. COLLINS, CO 80524 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Date: 7/16/2003 v`v Staff has reviewed your submittal for LIND PROPERTY PDP - TYPE I (LU ) AND FINAL s� G COMPLIANCE #39-94B/C, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: i`d Oar Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan I4 r �i ✓ �.��` Topic: Easements' " S Number: 46 Created: 11 /12/2002 L\`` c��%' c The plat needs to include the detention pond or provide all offsite easements (off -site grading and J� construction) that occur outside the platted boundary. Off -site grading and construction easements are G� required for any work occurring on neighboring properties. The plans currently show off -site construction occurring on all sides. 3/11 /3: Repeat comment. There is off -site grading and construction occuring outside of the platted boundary. Please extend the platted boundary limits or provide all necessary off -site easements. 5/30/3, 7/14/3: Repeat comment. Topic: General Number: 27 Created: 11 /12/2002 Approval of these plans is contingent upon the approval of the design of CRs 11 and 52. This development must be coordinated with the Gillespie development (Maple Hill) to the south. All streets at CR 52 must align with Gillespie's proposed streets. In addition, this developer is responsible for the interim design improvements to the Vine and Lemay intersection. In the event that the transportation tax is approved, the money is appropriated by the city, and the improvements are scheduled for construction, this developer will no longer be responsible for any improvements to the Vine and Lemay intersection. However, it could be years before this happens. If this development wants to go to construction before then, then the developer would need to design and construct the interim improvements to Vine and Lemay. 3/11 /3, 5/30/3, 7/14/3: Keeping this item open. Topic: Intersection Details Number: 161 Created: 3/13/2003 The midblock crossing shown on CS331 must be a minimum 12' wide. See 7.7.5 for depth requirements. Identify the transistion length from outflow to inflow curb and gutter on the crosspans and label that it is to go to outflow C&G. Perhaps the better design would be to have Sternwheeler the through street without mid - block crosspans since the stop condition is at Clipper Way. 5/30/3: Please identify the transistion length from outflow to inflow curb and gutter on the crosspans and label that it is to go to ouff low C&G. Number: 162 Created: 3/13/2003 Crown the transition in accordance with detail 7-28 from Clipper Way to Sternwheeler Drive. 5/30/3: See sheet CS331. Still have some problems with the elevations. Page I