Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJEFFERSON COMMONS PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-03-22Transpo Lion Services hi'tJnecring Department City of Port Collin" MWE December 5, 1996 Mr. Ocie Vest, P.E. Bury/Pittman, Inc. 5310 Harvest Hill Road Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75230 Dear Ocie: I have had the opportunity to review your revised design for the Plum Street cul-de-sac at the Jefferson Commons project. In addition, I have discussed the problems that have arisen due to the error in the existing topography shown on the utility plans your office prepared and that the City has of record. I have gone over the situation with the Stormwater Utility, the Building Inspection Department, the Planning Department, and the Engineering Department's Development Review Manager. This letter is intended to outline the design parameters you must meet for the cul-de-sac based on staff's recent discussions and the items which must be submitted for City review and approval prior to release of the building permit holds on Buildings 4 and 5. Plum Street cul-de-sac: • It has been agreed that the grade of the private driveway tying in to the cul-de- sac may be in excess of the previously approved 8 1/2% if it can be shown that the bumper of a standard design passenger car will not drag on the cul-de-sac asphalt. Please provide an accurate scale drawing at 1" = 2' (both horizontal and vertical) of the driveway centerline and cul-de-sac so that we can check your design on a worksheet format. The Plum Street cul-de-sac sheet showing the flowline profiles, etc. must be revised and also include a centerline profile of the driveway to show how it ties to the parking lot as well as the cul-de-sac. • The cul-de-sac design must include proposed spot elevations in the cul-de-sac as well as along the flowlines and at the back of walk. Also, the crown line must be shown as it ties into the crown on the existing roadway to the east and terminates at the high point. In general, the cul-de-sac can drain around to the north side as you are proposing, as long as there is capacity in the curb and gutter to keep the flows in the street. • Expanding on the previous comment, you must submit revised grading and drainage plans to show how the grading for the driveway ties in to the cul-de-sac, �,al A Ac,- : • 1,O )3(, 7,s(1 • FoitC(dIim (. , 1170) 221-660F • Further detail is needed on proposed striping, dimensions, turn lanes, bike lanes, ... off -site to the west to evaluate whether the transition to the west of the Jefferson Commons site as shown is workable. • With the initial review, the applicant was asked to submit proof that the owners of the parcels adjacent to the west stub of Plum Street are willing and in agreement with the proposed vacation of that street stub. The City project planner has had discussions with Brad March which indicate the owners are o.k. with the proposed vacation, but Engineering staff has nothing in writing from the applicant and adjacent land owners to verify the agreement. • Similarly, staff required the applicant to submit a letter of intent to dedicate r.o.w. from the off -site landowner to the east. The owner of Sunray Apartments must dedicate r.o.w. for a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of Plum Street as it is shown on the revised preliminary plans. If the applicant chooses to tie into Plum Street on the east side, a permanent cul- de-sac is still required either on the Sunray property or on the Jefferson Commons property. Access to the Jefferson Commons site would be via a private driveway off of the cul-de-sac. • It is possible to narrow the cross-section of Orchard Place adjacent to the Jefferson Commons site to 28 feet from flowline to flowline. This width accommodates 2 travel lanes and parking on one side. Due to the nature of the development along this portion of the street (existing development and proposed basketball ,and tennis court on the north side of Orchard Place) and the amount of off-street: parking available, it is not necessary to provide street width for parking on both sides of the street. If the excess street width is taken off of the north side, this will create additional space behind the curb to provide room for a detached sidewalk on the north side. The sidewalk could also be wider than the standard 4 feet required for residential areas to create a more inviting pedestrian and bicycle connection. JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D. May 27, 1996 Engineering Department Review Comments - 2nd Submittal of Final Utility Plans * Please see the attached memorandum regarding submittal of final mylars. This project is not ready for final mylars. Staff requests the next submittal to be revised bluelines. Upon resubmittal, the project will be reviewed and returned for any further revisions necessary 4 weeks after the date the City routes the plans for re -review. On average, projects go through 3-4 rounds of plan review (2 have been completed to date) prior to submittal of final mylars for approval. After the City requests the mylars, final mylars take 3 weeks to route for signature and preparation of all final development agreement language. Sheet 1 - Title Sheet • General Note # 4 is o.k. but please see the enclosed copy of current soils report and pavement design criteria for all public streets. The pavement design for the cul-de-sacs and, most importantly, West Elizabeth Street will have to be designed in conformance with these criteria. Please contact Keith Meyer in the Engineering Department with any questions regarding pavement design and to obtain design numbers at (970) 221-6605. • Please update the month on the title sheet to be current at the time when you are requested to submit final mylars. Sheet 2 - Site Plan • Per Brad March, the developer has been unsuccessful in negotiating with the adjacent property owners to the east and to the west of the site for the off -site r.o.w. necessary to construct any additional street improvements along those properties at this time. Please revise all plans to show the improvements as being constructed along the J.P.I. frontage only. Unless, off -site construction easements are obtained, all improvements and grading must occur within existing r.o.w. • Please show the existing r.o.w. width along West Elizabeth Street accurately. There is not 50 feet of r.o.w. east and west of the J.P.I. site. • Please remove the "striping" information from all plan sheets except the West Elizabeth striping plan. The arrows shown do not constitute a striping plan. Please use the M.U.T.C.D. and have a traffic engineer design a real striping plan. A sample is attached for your reference. • All private driveways are required to be concrete to the property line. • Remove all notes referencing gates. The City is not allowing any gates. • The Developer is required to construct a new concrete bike path 10 feet wide. Remove the existing asphalt path. It was installed as a temporary path only until this property redeveloped. • Change note on Plum Street Cul-de-sac to: "Proposed cul-de-sac r.o.w. and utility easement dedications by separate document." Sheet 3 - Site Plan • The bike path design and construction plans should be shown on the civil engineering drawings not on the landscape plan as stated in note at top of the page. • Change all notes regarding the path to state that it is a new 10 foot wide concrete bicycle and pedestrian path. Sheet 4 - Plat Sheets 1 and 2 • Need to dedicate a pedestrian and bicycle path easement for the path along the north property line. • There should be an existing easement for the existing path dedicated and recorded by separate document for both the on -site and off -site portions of the path. Please research at the County Clerk and Recorder or title search. The plat must show all easements of record. • Change wording of language regarding r.o.w. vacations to "... r.o.w. vacated by Ordinance # of the Fort Collins City Council." Plat will not be recorded until after the Ordinance has been heard by City Council and the two week appeal period for the Ordinance has passed. • All driveway areas must be dedicated as "Utility, public access, and drainage easement' areas. • Add "P.U.D." to the title of the plat • Please show the new cul-de-sac r.o.w. and utility easement being dedicated on the east side at Plum Street as being dedicated by separate document so that it is clear that the street ends in a permanent cul-de-sac. • Please verify the location and width of the existing dedicated r.o.w. for West Elizabeth Street both along the J.P.I. property and adjacent to the site to the east and west. Accurately show the existing dedicated r.o.w. and the r.o.w. being dedicated with this project. From our quarter section maps, it appears there is 30 feet of existing r.o.w. along the J.P.I. site. I'm not sure where the reference to the 20 foot roadway easement came from. Road r.o.w. and road easement are not the same thing. Sheet 5 - Grading Plan (south) �k IT IS APPARENT FROM THE GRADING AND UTILITY PLANS THAT A NUMBER OF OFF -SITE EASEMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR THIS PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS WELL AS OFF -SITE R.O.W. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLUM STREET CUL-DE-SAC. THE CITY REQUIRES THAT EXECUTED ORIGINAL DEEDS FOR ALL OFF -SITE EASEMENTS AND R.O.W. BEING DEDICATED TO THE CITY BE PROVIDED TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING. THAT DATE IS FRIDAY JUNE 7. THE DEEDS WILL BE CHECKED FOR PROPER FORMAT AND ACCURACY OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IF THE DEEDS ARE NOT RECEIVED IN PROPER ORDER BY THAT DATE, THE PROJECT WILL BE HEARD AT THE JULY PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING. JULY 5 IS THE DEADLINE FOR ALL DEEDS TO BE TURNED IN FOR THE JULY HEARING. AS FOR PRIVATE OR CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS NOT BEING DEDICATED TO THE CITY, COPIES OF EXECUTED DEEDS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE DEADLINE. It appears the following deeds are needed for this project. (There may be more for additional changes to grading and/or improvements being constructed that are not shown on the plans clearly or are shown inaccurately) In general, you need easements for all development activity occurring outside the property boundaries and outside existing dedicated public r.o.w. and easements : 1. Off -site construction and grading easement and bicycle/pedestrian path easement for the new 10 foot wide concrete path to replace the old asphalt path on the Sunray Apartments property. Path easement should already be of record - see plat comments above. 2. Off -site r.o.w. and utility easement for the cul-de-sac being constructed on the east side of the property at the end of Plum Street (Sunray Apartments property) 3. Off -site easement for the storm sewer along West Elizabeth west of the site if it is still to be constructed. Again, unless there is existing dedicated public r.o.w. or easement, you need a drainage and utility easement from the property owner (s). 4. Off -site grading easement (grading shown outside the old r.o.w.) for grading the area being vacated on west side at dead end of Plum Street. 5. Off -site grading easement from Sunray Apartments for grading the Plum Creek Channel 6. Potentially need off -site grading and construction easements to tie the arterial improvements along the J.P.I. site into the existing grading on the adjacent lots to the east and west. Otherwise, grading plan and street design sheets for West Elizabeth must show enough detail to prove that all work is occurring within existing dedicated r.o.w. or on the J.P.I. property. • Clearly show all existing topo lines tying into proposed grading • Show accurate grading for the area behind the sidewalk along West Elizabeth - cross -sections for West Elizabeth and grading plan must match. Need at least 2 feet at 2.00% behind the sidewalk and then 4:1 to existing grade. • Remove "striping" plan. Provide a real striping plan with the Elizabeth Street design sheets showing existing and proposed striping, adjacent to the site and tying to existing east and west of the site, using the M.U.T.C.D. and designed by a traffic engineer. • Modify all plans to show the actual improvements being built along West Elizabeth Street with this project and how they will tie to the existing - no off -site r.o.w. can be reasonably obtained at this time, so the improvements will terminate at the east and west ends of the J.P.I. site. Sheet 6 - Grading Plan (north) • Show construction limits for new 10 foot wide concrete path • Same comments as sheet 5 regarding off -site easements and matching topo lines to proposed grading. Sheet 7 - Drainage Area Map • Modify to match actual improvements being constructed along West Elizabeth Sheet 8 - Storm Drain Plan and Profile • See Stormwater Utility comments Sheet 9 - Plum Creek Plan and Profile • Off -site grading easement needed • See Stormwater comments Sheet 10 - Erosion Control Plan • Modify to reflect extent of improvements on West Elizabeth Street • See Stormwater comments Sheet 11 - West Elizabeth Street Plan and Profile • Modify to reflect actual extent of street improvements being done (ending at the est and west ends of J.P.I. site) • Label all actual existing grades and proposed grades to the nearest 100th on profiles • Design the ends of the improvements, and show any off -site grading, to show that they tie smoothly to the existing grades on the adjacent lots. • See previous comments regarding a striping plan. A sample plan is attached for your use. Striping must be readable and may need to be shown on a separate sheet. • Provide a Type III barricade at the ends of the street improvements but do not obstruct traffic flow or the sight distance from the existing driveways. • All private driveways must be concrete to the property line. • Accurately show the existing dedicated r.o.w. for West Elizabeth Street east and west of the site. • Need an off -site drainage and utility easement for the construction of the storm sewer in West Elizabeth if it is still to be constructed. • Label the J.P.I. property lines in the profile and the centerlines of all streets and driveways. • Clearly (hatching or shading) show the limits of asphalt removal/reconstruction/construction/overlay being done with this project. • Label future flowlines • Provide a driveway detail with radii, spot elevation, materials specification, width, etc. • Show ties to all existing conditions - grading • The existing tree in the r.o.w. is an evergreen not a cypress. • Please see the attached criteria for pavement design requirements. Sheet 12 - West Elizabeth Sections • Be sure all cross slopes are calculated to lip of gutter - not flowline. • Show the r.o.w. lines • Show the sidewalk 5 feet wide 10 feet from flowline as on the plan view • 2 feet at 2.00% is required behind the sidewalk and then 4:1 to existing grade. Please modify the sections and all grading sheets. • Define which sections are being built with this project and which are future. • Label the driveway grade How deep are the existing utilities in West Elizabeth ? Will there be adequate cover when the street gets reconstructed in the future to lower the centerline and get as close to a 2.00% cross slope on both sides of the street as possible ? Please show depth of existing utilities below pavement section. Sheet 13 - Orchard Place Plan and Profile • See attached sample plan for street stub removal and grading. Provide notes regarding grading and reseeding. Reference landscape plan. • Provide cross sections of path as noted on utility plans to show grading limits and drainage. All grading must be done within limits of old r.o.w. or obtain off - site easements. • New bike path is to be 10 feet wide and concrete. • Need all legal descriptions for the r.o.w. vacation. The area immediately beneath the path will be the only portion retained by the City for pedestrian and bicycle access purposes. The entire r.o.w. is probably needed for drainage and utility easement if that is acceptable to the adjacent owners. • Clarify how proposed curb and gutter in cul-de-sac ties to the existing curb and gutter and where the existing sidewalk is. • See attached pavement design criteria • Label existing flowline to flowline street width • Show crown line • Need to submit proof that both adjacent owners agree to the plan for the area of street stub removal. • Provide curie data • Private driveway must be concrete to property line • As noted previously, an off -site construction and grading easement is needed as well as an easement for the path if one is not existing. Sheet 14 - Plum Street Plan and Profile • Correct the plan and note to match the actual direction of drainage flow. • Provide cross -sections of the area - see attached plan • Submit proof that both adjacent neighbors agree to the plan • Show all utility work to be done including removals and patching work to be done in Ponderosa • Private driveway must be concrete to property line • Provide all curve data • The retaining wall must be entirely outside the r.o.w. and must be engineered. Please provide a detail of the wall. • Complete the profile to show a smooth tie to the existing grade Sheet 15 - Utility Plan (south) • Please show utility work that affects the construction and patching in the public streets on the street design sheets and cross reference with utility sheets. Sheet 16 - Utility Plan (north) • Label path as new 10 foot wide concrete path • Show utility work in the public streets on street design sheets, show patch limits, and cross-reference utility sheets Sheet 19 - Detail Sheet • Add arterial ramp detail (copy attached) Note where old "Hollywood" curb and gutter is to be used. Are the areas being replaced actually this old standard or are they newer driveover curb and gutter ? PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL COMMENTS BEFORE RESUBMITTING. THE MORE COMPLETELY AND ACCURATELY THE COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT A 4th ROUND OF REVIEW BEFORE MYLARS WILL BE REQUIRED. JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D. - FINAL ENGINEERING DE=PARTMENT 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 presubmittad 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 3/15196 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 3/15196, the City needs proof that the owners adjacent to this proposed construction are in parking lot, and the adjacent property. Show the area contributing to the drainage directed into the cul-de-sac. Please blend the grading behind the back of sidewalk into the existing contours to direct drainage around the west side of the existing Sunray Apartment Building as much as possible. There seems to be somewhat of a drainage path to the north on the west side of the building. Revise the parking lot grading to transition the driveway smoothly into the parking lot without creating a significant grade break or "hump". • Please label cross -slopes in the cul-de-sac and show how they tie in to one another. The plan submitted shows grade arrows at 90' to each other. Again, show the existing crown and cross -slopes you are tying in to at the existing asphalt. You may need to do some additional removal or asphalt transition to blend your cross -slopes in to the existing. Your current plan shows a 3 % cross slope across the full width of the road, but does not show what the existing roadway cross -slopes are nor how the two tie together smoothly. • The Building Inspection Department has determined that since there are other handicap accessible pedestrian routes to Elizabeth Street and to Orchard Place, the sidewalk connection to Plum Street can exceed 5%. Please feel free to fax me any information requested above prior to making final plan revisions for full staff review. The Planning Department has determined that the changes to the cul-de-sac area necessitate an Administrative Change to the P.U.D. since there are significant changes to the originally approved P.U.D. related to the grading changes. The site and landscape plans will need to be revised in addition to all affected street, utility, grading, and drainage plans. Once all revised plans are ready for City review, the Owner will need to submit 3 sets of plans to the Planning Department along with an Administrative Change application and the $168.00 application fee. The Administrative Change will be routed through the Planning Department, Building and Zoning Department, Stormwater Utility, and Engineering Department. The reviewing Departments may elect to approve, approve with conditions, deny the request, or refer the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board. There is a two week appeal period after City approval of any Administrative Change. The time required for review varies with the complexity of the request. Mike Ludwig can assist you in further explaining the Administrative Change process and the necessary changes to the site and landscape plans. Mike and I can both be reached at (970)221-6750. Finally, with respect to your inquiry regarding eliminating the proposed access to Plum Street, the Planning Department has determined that such a request would require an Amended Final P.U.D. submittal. December 23rd is the deadline for submittals for consideration at the February 24th Planning and Zoning hearing (November 25 was the deadline for January P&Z). 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 3115/96 • 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 plain 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 1118 • 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 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 haw 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 - The off -site curb and gutter to the west needs to be lowered since the south side is so law. 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 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. PROJECT - COMMENTSHEET Plannina DATE: -311C�le-4 DEPARTMENT: e+46 PROJECT: JD COti�IvbE� ",1?`'i PLANNER: MI��,✓ �uvv�;l�-, All comments must be received by: No Problems tTproblems or Concerns (see below) FER ON COMMONS P.U.D. - Preliminary -h 15, 1996 ineering Department comments ised Preliminary plans Plans show extending the arterial improvements from the K.F.C. site west along the outparcels to the west property line of the Jefferson Commons project. Nothing was submitted to substantiate that the owners of the outparcels are willing to dedicate r.o.w. and have the improvements constructed. Please submit proof that they agree to this plan. Date: AI Signature: CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PtXT COPIES OF REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I 281 NORTH COLL E P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522.0580 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (303)221-6750 • Further detail is needed on proposed striping, dimensions, turn lanes, bike lanes, ... off -site to the west to evaluate whether the transition to the west of the Jefferson Commons site as shown is workable. • With the initial review, the applicant was asked to submit proof that the owners of the parcels adjacent to the west stub of Plum Street are willing and in agreement with the proposed vacation of that street stub. The City project planner has had discussions with Brad March which indicate the owners are o.k. with the proposed vacation, but Engineering staff has nothing in writing from the applicant and adjacent land owners to verify the agreement. • Similarly, staff required the applicant to submit a letter of intent to dedicate r.o.w. from the off -site landowner to the east. The owner of Sunray Apartments must dedicate r.o.w. for a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of Plum Street as it is shown on the revised preliminary plans. • If the applicant chooses to tie into Plum Street on the east side, a permanent cul- de-sac is still required either on the Sunray property or on the Jefferson Commons property. Access to the Jefferson Commons site would be via a private driveway off of the cul-de-sac. • It is possible to narrow the cross-section of Orchard Place adjacent to the Jefferson Commons site to 28 feet from flowline to flowline. This width accommodates 2 travel lanes and parking on one side. Due to the nature of the development along this portion of the street (existing development and proposed basketball and tennis court on the north side of Orchard Place) and the amount of off-street parking available, it is not necessary to provide street width for parking on both sides of the street. If the excess street width is taken off of the north side, this will create additional space behind the curb to provide room for a detached sidewalk on the north side. The sidewalk could also be wider than the standard 4 feet required for residential areas to create a more inviting pedestrian and bicycle connection. J Q Q Q 15 9'-e• L 5' J oc ARTERIAL n ROW LINE COLLECTOR PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: 2� November 199S DEPARTMENT: ?�Vq PROJECT: #50-q5 $P_ 7e '" 66mc' s BUD -�relimic�rY PLANNER: ,Ake. I u;i,i All comments must be received by: TRIO `4 ❑ No Problems \ Q Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Plat / Site Plan- - Make sure building envelopes are large enough to accommodate minor shifts in building location, stairwells, patios, decks, ... On similar projects we often have to go through an easement vacation and/or replat when the developer decides to make minor modifications or when construction problems arise. The potential need to have do this can be minimized by platting larger building envelopes than are necessary for the actual structure and appurtenances. Utility Plans, - At final, we will need detailed design of the ties to existing streets (i.e. the connection of Orchard Place) and the transition of street width flowline to flowline, right-of-way width, and easements adjacent to the right-of-way. Vacations and/or dedications of rights -of -way and easements, on -site and/or off - site, may be: necessary to transition smoothly between proposed improvements and existing improvements. Date: 12 -7 /,::1 �� Signature: L� t✓1 E r1 K CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE 0 UTILITY r - Need some preliminary information by revision date on the proposed improvements to Elizabeth Street. The traffic study makes some recommendations including widening and striping for a westbound right turn lane into the site and a center left turn lane. We need information to evaluate how these improvements will fit with the existing improvements and striping to the east and to the west on both sides of Elizabeth Street. Widening was done adjacent to the K.F.0 site and is being done to the west on the south side of Elizabeth with the Overland Ridge P.U.D. (Manatta property). For example, depending on the impacts to the intervening properties, we may want to consider completing the widening off -site between this project and K.F.C. - At final, we: will need a striping plan and off -site information for West Elizabeth Street. Be aware that West Elizabeth Street is proposed to be downgraded from an arterial to a minor arterial under the new Master Street Plan. The transition from arterial width to the minor arterial width as Elizabeth gets built out to the west needs to be coordinated between the new projects proposed as well as transitioned smoothly with the existing improvements. - The site plan notes that the west dead-end of Plum Street is proposed to be vacated. If nc adjacent properties take access off that portion of Plum, the street stub may be proposed for vacation. Right-cf-Nay vacation requires a City Council Ordinance (2 readings). The Developer is obligated for the removal of the street stub, including grading, reseeding, and utility work, and reconstruction of curb and gutter along Ponderosa Drive to complete a finished street frontage. The area will likely have to be retained as a utility and drainage easement. State statutes determine to whom the land ownership reverts. (Typically, it is divided equally between the two adjacent properties.) The right-ef-way vacation must be taken to City Council for First Reading prior to final approval of the P.U.D. Second Reading will occur upon completion of the removal of the street stub and reconstruction along Ponderosa. To begin the vacation process, the Developer should submit a written request and justification for the vacation, along with a sketch of the area proposed for vacation, with the final P.U.D. submittal. - Since Plum Street is being extended onto the property, the Developer is required to construct a permanent dead-end to the public street. That is, a permanent cul-de-sac must be built to City standards either on the property or on the adjacent property. To build it on the adjacent property, the Developer is required to obtain the permanent right-of-way and easements necessary to build to City standards prior to final approval. The City must receive a letter of intent to cedicate from the adjacent owner prior to preliminary approval. - At final, Elizabeth Street design must include flowline profiles (existing and proposed for both sides of the street, centerline profile (existing and proposed), limits of construction, off -site design to the east and west to show how .. I improvements tie into existing, signing and striping plan, and cross -sections every 50 to 100 feet (depending on how much profiles fluctuate), and a cross section at the driveway into the site. New construction of arterial streets requires a 1%2.00 cross -slope. - A detail of the driveway design specific to this project must be included on the final utility plans. Include radii, spot elevations, and proposed surfacing. The driveway must be concrete to the property line and no colored or stamped concrete or special pavers are allowed in the right-of-way. - Show how the existing bike path will tie in to the proposed improvements to Orchard Place and that it fits in with the proposed tennis court area. - There is an existing irrigation ditch lateral along Elizabeth Street adjacent to the property. What is being done with this lateral ? Does it serve upstream and/or downstream users ? - These are the preliminary comments at this time. Additional comments are made at final when more engineering design detail is available. - It is suggested that some preliminary design with aerial photos and other sources of information on the existing street improvements, and those proposed with the Overland Ridge P.U.D. , be submitted for review by the City Engineering and Transportation staff prior to final submittal of the P.U.D. Please call me with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kerrie As beck Civil Engineer - Development Review cc: File Mike Ludwig, Project Planner Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Utility PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: Z► �lovember 1995 DEPARTMENT: ?tVq PROJECT:*50-95 $qe=�"'^O�S BUD—�re\iminen� PLANNER: Xke. Wu)i� All comments must be received by:1L�`(���C�ML3�� 1> 19g5 ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) ❖ Plat / Site Plan: - Make sure building envelopes are large enough to accommodate minor shifts in building location, stairwells, patios, decks, ... On similar projects we often have to go through an easement vacation and/or replat when the developer decides to make minor modifications or when construction problems arise. The potential need to have do this can be minimized by platting larger building envelopes than are necessary for the actual structure and appurtenances. •3 Utility Plans: - At final, we will need detailed design of the ties to existing streets (i.ethe connection of Orchard Place) and the transition of street width flowline to flowline, right-of-way width, and easements adjacent to the right-of-way. Vacations and/or dedications of rights -of -way and easements, on -site and/or off - site, may be necessary to transition smoothly between proposed improvements and existing improvements. Date: .1 -, / 'j� , I Signature: 6 t� CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF ]REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY - Need some preliminary information by revision date on the proposed improvements to Elizabeth Street. The traffic study makes some recommendations including widening and striping for a westbound right turn lane into the site and a center left turn lane. We need information to evaluate how these improvements will fit with the existing improvements and striping to the east and to the west on both sides of Elizabeth Street. Widening was done adjacent to the K.F.C. site and is being done to the west on the south side of Elizabeth with the Overland Ridge P.U.D. (Manatta property). For example, depending on the impacts to the intervening properties, we may want to consider completing the widening off -site between this project and K.F.C. - �t final, we will need a striping plan and off -site information for West Elizabeth Street. Be aware that West Elizabeth Street is proposed to be downgraded from an arterial to a minor arterial under the new Master Street Plan. The transition from arterial width to the minor arterial width as Elizabeth gets built out to the west needs, to be coordinated between the new projects proposed as well as transitioned smoothly with the existing improvements. - The site plan notes that the west dead-end of Plum Street is proposed to be vacated. If no adjacent properties take access off that portion of Plum, the street stub may be proposed for vacation. Right-of-way vacation requires a City Council Ordinance (2 readings). The Developer is obligated for the removal of the street stub, including grading, reseeding, and utility work, and reconstruction of curb and gutter along Ponderosa Drive to complete a finished street frontage. The area will likely have to be retained as a utility and drainage easement. State statutes determine to whom the land ownership reverts. (Typically, it is divided equally between the two adjacent properties.) The right-of-way vacation must be taken to City Council for First Reading prior to final approval of the P.U.D. Second Reading will occur upon completion of the removal of the street stub and reconstruction along Ponderosa. To begin the vacation process, the Developer should submit a written request and justification for the vacation, along with a sketch of the area proposed for vacation, with the final-P.U.D. submittal. - Since Plum Street is being extended onto the property, the Developer is required to construct a permanent dead-end to the public street. That is, a permanent cul-de-sac must be built to City standards either on the property or on the adjacent property. To build it on the adjacent property, the Developer is required to obtain the permanent right-of-way and easements necessary to build to City standards prior to final approval The City must receive a letter of intent to dedicate from the adjacent owner prior to preliminary approval. - At final. Elizabeth Street design must include flowline profiles (existing and proposed for both sides of the street, centerline profile (existing and proposed), limits of construction. off -site design to the east and west to show how improvements tie into existing, signing and striping plan, and cross -sections every 50 to 100 feet (depending on how much profiles fluctuate), and a cross section at the driveway into the site. New construction of arterial streets requires a %2.00 cross -slope. - A detail of the driveway desigr. specific to this project must be included on the final utility plans. Include radii, spot elevations, and proposed surfacing. The driveway must be concrete to the property line and no colored or stamped concrete or special pavers are allowed in the right-of-way. - Show how the existing bike path will tie in to the proposed improvements to Orchard Place and that it fits in with the proposed tennis court area. - There is an existing irrigation ditch lateral along Elizabeth Street adjacent to the property. What is being done with this lateral ? Does it serve upstream and/or downstream users ? - These are the preliminary comments at this time. Additional comments are made at final when more engineering design detail is available. - It is suggested that some preliminary design with aerial photos and other sources of information on the existing street improvements, and those proposed with the Overland Ridge P.U.D. , be submitted for review by the City Engineering and Transportation staff prior to final _submittaI.4.f_IheP U D PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: March 19, 1996 DEPT: Engineering - Ping PROJECT: #50-95A Jefferson Commons PUD - Final PLANNER: Mike Ludwig All comments must be received by: March 29,1996 ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D. - FINAL Site Plan: • Why is there a "Proposed r.o.w. line" shown at 60' from the Section line? Standard arterial r.o.w. width is 50' from section line plus a 15' utility easement beyond the r.o.w. • 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 • 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. Date: � / 4 / e1(„ Signature: �)' 1 1— CRECEIVE SLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS SITE LANDSCAPE �- UTILITY 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. 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. As noted in the comments dated 3/15/96, the City needs proof that the owners adjacent to this proposed construction are in 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 3115/96 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 cn Elizabeth Street - same comment as on site plan • Why 60' of r.o.w. ? • 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 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 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 f'or 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. - 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 - 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. 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 • 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 Z at 2.00% behind the sidewalk and a maximum of a 4:1 slope to 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. Sheet 13/18 & 14/18: • Revise to match comments made on previous sheets Sheet 15118 • 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 round of review. The comments provided here are based only on the information and amount of detail provided at this time. 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. City of Forst Collins Planning DATE: PROJECT -. COMMENT SH EET r DEPARTMENT: PROJECT: JI'— � F, 0-A CC)ti�I� I�Y� - i:�l,l1-A PLANNER: VH' C- - LUY?VN;I<!�' All comments must be received by: ❑ No Problems roblems or Concerns (see below) R ON COMMONS P.U.D. - Preliminary 1 15, 1996 eering Department comments ed Preliminary plans Plans show extending the arterial improvements from the K.F.C. site west along the outparc:els to the west property line of the Jefferson Commons project. Nothing was submitted to substantiate that the owners of the outparcels are willing to dedicate r.o.w. and have the improvements constructed. Please submit proof that they agree to this plan. Date_ Signature: 2 CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PY.AT COPIES OF REVISIONS: ❑ SITE LANDSCAPE UTILITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (303)221-6750