Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK SECOND - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-08-02PROJECT i.« COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins REC.D Current Planning DATE: October 6, 2004 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: 949-98B Storybook, 2nd Filing PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 27, 2004 Note - P;GEAsE identify your redlines for future reference Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape rMA91*1� City of Fort Collins 9*4 Number: 90 Created: 2/18/2005 12/18/05] Please label and show all PC's and PT's on the plan view as well as the profile view. (see utility plan checklist for other items) Number: 91 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] A segment of Deep Woods lane shows the flowlines above the centerline of the road. Number: 92 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] The flowline values on the cross -sections for Mountain Vista do not match the flowline values on the plan and profile sheets. It appears that the values on the cross - sections work to attain the appropriate cross -slopes, so perhaps the plan and profile sheets should be changed to match the cross-section numbers. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 25 Created: 10/26/2004 [2/16/051 [10/26/04] Please provide additional information regarding the pond along Mountain Vista. Will the sidewalks be graded toward or away from the street along this pond? If they're graded toward the pond, please show how they will transition to join walks that are graded toward the street at the ends of the pond. Number: 32 Created: 10/27/2004 [2/16/05] [10/27/041 When locating utilities in the street, please remember the cover requirement: at least 2' of cover between the top of pipe and scarified subgrade (approx 3' to the top of asphalt for the road). Number: 82 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] Please call out all driveway locations on the utility plans - this needs to be done to make sure there are no conflicts with the utilities. Currently there are a number of conflicts. Page 4 FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: April 6, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #49-98C Storybook 2nd Filing PDP, Final Plans All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: May 4, 20055' Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference R No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Name ( lease print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ,-Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility Redline Utility _Landscape Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: May 6, 2005 Project: STORYBOOK, 2ND FILING PDP AND FINAL PLANS All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting. May 04, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number: 12 Created: 10/21 /2004 [5/3/05] [2/16/05] (10/21/041 Please review the scanability requirements for all plans found in Appendix E of LCUASS. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to the City accepting them for filing. Number: 65 Created: 10/29/2004 [5/3/05] [2/16/05] [10/29/041 Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments. Number: 86 Created: 2/18/2005 [5/3/05] These revisions need to take place now; 2nd filing plans will not be approved without them. t2/18/05] For grading revisions to the park, and revisions to the segment of Chesapeake previously approved with the 1 st filing, please provide revisions to the 1 st filing utility plan set (bubble out, number, and note changes for revisions). Topic: Plat Number: 83 Created: 2/18/2005 [5/3/05] This applies to the street corners along Little John as well as the rest of the project. Please revise. (2/18/05] Please curve the utility easements to parallel the ROW at street corners. Number: 99 Created: 5/6/2005 a—Ly— Iq 5. (o . 05 Signature Date CHECK ]HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS X Plat _ --,C Site Drainage Report � Other r l - U� Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 [5/6/05] Please show the existing easement for the stormwater pond along Mountain Vista and show which portions of the easement are needing to be vacated by this plat. Please list the reception number for the easement as well. Number: 100 Created: 5/6/2005 [516/05] Please shove the existing ROW for Mountain Vista, and note how it was originally dedicated (rec. # or bk and pg). The edge of the plat should be at this existing ROW, not to the section line. Issue Contact: Rick Richter Topic: Soils Number: 24 Created: 10/26/2004 (5/3/05] (10/26/04] High swell soils will need mitigation. Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Street Design Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004 [5/3/05] 12/16/05] In some areas, the cross -slope min/max are not being met. Please revise. [10/27/04] Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between 2-4%. Number: 55 Created: 10/29/2004 [5/3/05] [2/16/051 [10/29/04] Certain vertical curve lengths do not meet the minimums required in Figures 7-17 and 7-18. Please revise. Number: 58 Created: 10/29/2004 [5/3/05] Please provide revisions to original Storybook utility plans now for redesign of Little John intersections. These revisions must take place concurrently with review of Storybook 2nd plans, and cannot take place after Storybook 2nd is approved. The revisions to existing utility plans for grading in the park must also be completed now. [2/161051 At all the intersections with Little John, the north flowlines at the PC are about 6" higher than was approved for the first filing. What happened? Were the streets not built as originally planned? If so, we should have received as-builts and approved of the changes. (10/29/041 At the intersection of Friar Tuck and Little John, the shown grades do not match the original plans and are off by almost a foot in spots. What is going on? Number: 59 Created: 10/29/2004 [5/3/05] [2/16/05] Show how the proposed Chesapeake design ties into what is already built. [10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive design does not match the approved design - why not? Isn't part of Chesapeake already built? Number: 61 Created: 10/29/2004 Page 2 [5/3/051 [2/16/05] Please provide additional spot elevations at intersections as required per LCUASS figure 7-27. [10/29/04] When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest Lane (SFL), they should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL. With the current design, a vehicle traveling south on SFL would bump up and down at each intersection, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. SFL should have normal cross -slopes for its full length. Please see redlines for more information. Number: 62 Created: 10/29/2004 [5/3/05] [2/18/05] Please show sidewalks, and label that for 2' from the back of walk, the grade shall remain shallow (2%) before dropping off, and that the 4:1 shown is a maximum slope. [10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive cross -sections. Number: 80 Created: 2/18/2005 [5/3/05] [2118/051 The spot elevations required at intersections are not all shown at all intersections, and spot elevations should be shown where the transitions to begin the flattening of the crown begin. Original comment 61 has disappeared, so here it is again: When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest lane (SFL), they should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL. [resolved part of comment omitted] Please see redlines for more information. Number: 81 Created: 2/18/2005 [5/3/051 Please show details of all ramps to show that they meet ADA requirements (show dimensions and spot elevations). Please provide these details for the southmost driveway on Deep Woods as well, since that driveway is a substitute for a ramp and needs to meet ADA requirements. [2/18/05] The ADA ramp detail works when the curb return radius is 20' and the ROW radius is 15'. At the knuckles where the curb return radius is 26.5', please either show how the ramps will work, and possibly dedicate additional ROW to accommodate them, or change the radius to 20'. Number: 88 Created: 2/18/2005 [5/3/05] [2/18/05] Provide station equations where plans from the 2nd filing tie to plans from the 1st filing, and where the different street designs within the 2nd filing connect. Number: 101 Created: 5/6/2005 [5/6/05] For flowline profiles around corners, please label the true length of the flowlines - they are shown the same as the centerline, but will be either shorter or longer than the centerline profile. This might change the slopes shown for the flowlines. Number: 102 Created: 5/6/2005 [5/6/05] Maximum grade break allowed = 0.4%, please revise. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 25 Created: 10/26/2004 Page 3 [5/3/05] Please provide additional spot elevations to show transitions, and provide a detail to ensure that min. 2' beyond back of walk, grades will be kept at approx 2%. [2/16105] [10/26/041 Please provide additional information regarding the pond along Mountain Vista. Will the sidewalks be graded toward or away from the street along this pond? If they're graded toward the pond, please show how they will transition to join walks that are graded toward the street at the ends of the pond. Number: 32 Created: 10/27/2004 [5/3/05] [2/16/05] There's still a location where cover over a pipe is a concern. Please revise. [10/27/041 When locating utilities in the street, please remember the cover requirement: at least 2' of cover between the top of pipe and scarified subgrade (approx 3' to the top of asphalt for the road). Number: 103 Created: 5/6/2005 [5/6/05]The utility plan checklist is getting a bit crazy - please submit a fresh one with your next submittal. Page 4 r Project Comments Sheet pity ®I_ Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: October 29, 2004 Project: STORYBOOK, 2ND FILING PDP - TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: October 27, 2004 (Vote - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Drainage Number: 53 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/04] For under -walk drains, please use detail D-10 from the stormwater manual. Topic: General Number: 9 Created: 10/21/2004 [10/21/04] The street layout for the project does not meet connectivity standards required in the Land Use Code. Public streets must be stubbed to adjacent properties at least every 660'. Sherwood Forest Lane should be continued to the north property line and south to Mountain Vista Drive. Friar Tuck and/or Chesapeake should be continued to the east property line. If access is taken off of these street stubs, then temporary turnarounds 100' in diameter must be provided at the ends of the stubs. If no access is taken off of the stubs, then Type III barricades need to be provided across the stub and adjacent walks. Design for these stubbed streets should extend 500' beyond the property line per LCUASS. Number: 10 Created: 10/21/2004 [10/21/04] Mountain Vista Drive appears as a 2-lane arterial on the Master Street Plan, requiring a total ROW of 84'. This amount, plus 12' of ROW for a right turn lane from Mountain Vista to Little John (if a RTL is needed), is the amount that should be dedicated on the plat. Number: 11 Created: 10/21/2004 [10/21/04] The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards should be used to design the public improvements for this project. LCUASS calls out that, when drive -over curb and gutter is used on a residential local street, 53' of ROW is required on those streets to accommodate the additional width of the drive -over curb and gutter over vertical curb and gutter. Please reviise the plans accordingly. Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _ j_ Plat t/� .- Site Drainage Report 0ther_vv! hSfi __,Z_ Utility _ Redline Utility _� Landscape Page 1 Number: 12 Created: 10/21 /2004 [10/21/04] Please review the scanability requirements for all plans found in Appendix E of LCLASS. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to the City accepting them for filing. Number: 22 Created: 10/26/2004 [10/26/04] Reminder: Storybook is responsible for maintaining its frontage improvements (parkways, walks, etc) and stormwater ponds and needs to do this now. Also, since the development of Storybook 1 st is done, all landscaping and street trees should be installed now. Topic: Phasing Number: 63 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/04] Lot 70 needs to be in either Phase One or Phase Two, not split down the middle. Number: 64 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/041 Please provide a temporary turnaround on Sherwood Forest Lane for Phase 1. Number: 65 Created: 10/29/2004 (10/29/04] Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments. Issue Contact: Rick Richter Topic: Soils Number: 24 Created: 10/26/2004 [10126/04] High swell soils will need mitigation. Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Street Design Number: 54 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/04] The minimum flowline grade on any street is 0.5%. Number: 55 Created: 10/29/2004 110/29/04] Certain vertical curve lengths do not meet the minimums required in Figures 7-17 and 7-18. Please revise. Number: 56 Created: 10129/2004 [10/29/04] For grade changes less than 1 %, gutter flowlines should not have vertical curves, but should use: grade breaks. Number: 57 [10/29/041 Minimum allowable grade around grade is 1%. Please revise where possible. Created: 10/29/2004 curb returns is 0.5%, but minimum desirable Number: 58 Created: 10/29/2004 Page 2 [10/29/04] At the intersection of Friar Tuck and Little John, the shown grades do not match the original plans and are off by almost a foot in spots. What is going on? Number: 59 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive design does not match the approved design - why not? Isn't part of Chesapeake already built? Number: 60 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/041 Chesapeake Drive has a temporary turnaround at the end - please note that the easement for this will have to be vacated in Phase 2. Number: 61 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/041 When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest Lane (SFL), they should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL. With the current design, a vehicle traveling south on SFL would bump up and down at each intersection, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. SFL should have normal cross -slopes for its full length. Please see: redlines for more information. Number: 62 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive cross -sections. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 13 [10/21/04] Centerline stationing should stationing on plan views. Created: 10/21 /2004 be used on all street designs. Please show Number: 25 Created: 10/26/2004 [10/26/04] Please provide additional information regarding the pond along Mountain Vista. Will the sidewalks be graded toward or away from the street along this pond? If they're graded toward the pond, please show how they will transition to join walks that are graded toward the street at the ends of the pond. Number: 32 Created: 10/27/2004 [10/27/04] When locating utilities in the street, please remember the cover requirement: at least 2' of cover between the top of pipe and scarified subgrade (approx 3' to the top of asphalt for the road). Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004 [10/27/041 Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between 2-4%. Number: 52 Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/04] Grade breaks at curb returns can be allowed up to 3%, but only for extreme circumstances (these are not extreme circumstances). Please revise. Page 3 { PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins REC.D Current Plannine DATE: October 6, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: 949-98B Storybook, 2nd Filing PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 27, 2004 � o Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference I,u.✓•7A�/GfGRL C105£. q g r]aT 5iae�r N v.nN. n 1 �'=1 A)or 2ur Zcv Lf5 c:,N= [�. c✓\/T12L- A /}�-r'�,�- 4 F,, p L. t 7- 6)!-tXX`: ti'251v ,,)`au - Name (please print) /CK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS �/ Pi Site Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort � 9.45 REVISION COMMENT SHEET Curren* PIanninq m rr� iY�,vl 'n�i f;h DATE: February 2, 2005 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #49-98B Storybook PDP, 2nd Filing All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: February 16, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 1, rj�ru.✓�i9,�'Y 5 LEGRG CGo:ES. �. —HU C,e,; C,-�, � J J 314uLL-.e '1. `7 � /� a O i ua . �^ GC J C. /5 / 2 'Z / l 5 /G Name CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS '-�Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape 0 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: February 18, 2005 Project: STORYBOOK, 2ND FILING PDP - TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: February 16, 2005 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number: 10 Created: 10/21 /2004 [2/16/051 It will be fine to dedicate the ROW for a 4-lane arterial on Mountain Vista, and leave the street design also for a 4-lane arterial along the property frontage as shown. 110/21/04] Mountain Vista Drive appears as a 2-1ane arterial on the Master Street Plan, requiring a total ROW of 84'. This amount, plus 12' of ROW for a right turn lane from Mountain Vista to Little John (if a RTL is needed), is the amount that should be dedicated on the plat. Number: 12 Created: 10/21 /2004 [2/16/051 [10/21/04) Please review the scanability requirements for all plans found in Appendix E of LCLIASS. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to the City accepting them for filing. Number: 65 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/16/05] [10/29/04] Please ;see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments. Number: 85 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] Please show the potential future street connection (and sidewalks) of Chesapeake from Deep Woods to the property line. Number: 86 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] For grading revisions to the park, and revisions to the segment of Chesapeake previously approved with the 1 st filing, please provide revisions to the 1 st filing utility plan set (bubble out, number, and note changes for revisions). Z . le'. 0 Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report ✓ Other (LlnackJU'S+- =Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Topic: Phasing Number: 64 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/16/05] Same cornment as below, except Sherwood Forest Lane is now Deep Woods. [10/29/04] Please provide a temporary turnaround on Sherwood Forest Lane for Phase 1. Number: 93 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] The phase line between lots 70 and 69 - how will that work with a shared driveway being split down the middle? Number: 94 Created: 2/18/2005 12/18/051 Please show both of the temporary turnaround easements needed for the phases on the phasing plan and dedicate the easements on the plat. Topic: Plat Number: 83 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] Please curve the utility easements to parallel the ROW at street corners. Number: 84 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] Please clarify who will own the private access easements. Topic: Street Design Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004 [2/16/05] In some areas, the cross -slope min/max are not being met. Please revise. [10/27/04] Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between 2-4%. Number: 54 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/16/051 [10/29/04] The minimum flowline grade on any street is 0.5%. Number: 55 12/16/05] Created: 10/29/2004 [10/29/04] Certain vertical curve lengths do not meet the minimums required in Figures 7-17 and 7-18. Please revise. Number: 56 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/16/05] At low points on flowlines, when the grades hit 0.5%, they should continue at that grade straight into the inlet, with a 1 % grade break at the inlet. [10/29/04] For grade changes less than 1%, gutter flowlines should not have vertical curves, but should use [a series of]grade breaks. Number: 57 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/16/051 [10/29/041 Minimum allowable grade around curb returns is 0.5%, but minimum desirable grade is 1%. Please revise where possible. Number: 58 Created: 10/29/2004 (2/16/05] At all the intersections with Little John, the north flowlines at the PC are about 6" higher than was approved for the first filing. What happened? Were the streets not built as originally planned? If so, we should have received as-builts and approved of the changes. Page 2 [10/29/041 At the in'.ersection of Friar Tuck and Little John, the shown grades do not match the original plans and are off by almost a foot in spots. What is going on? Number: 59 Created: 10/29/2004 12/16/05] Show how the proposed Chesapeake design ties into what is already built. [10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive design does not match the approved design - why not? Isn't part of Chesapeake already built? Number: 60 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/16/05] [10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive has a temporary turnaround at the end - please note that the easement for this will have to be vacated in Phase 2. Number: 61 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/16/05] [10/29/041 When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest Lane (SFL), they should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL. With the current design, a vehicle traveling south on SFL would bump up and down at each intersection, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. SFL should have normal cross -slopes for its full length. Please see redlines for more information. Number: 62 Created: 10/29/2004 [2/18/05] Please show sidewalks, and label that for 2' from the back of walk, the grade shall remain shallow (2%) before dropping off, and that the 4:1 shown is a maximum slope. [10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive cross -sections. Number: 80 Created: 2/18/2005 12/18/05] The spot elevations required at intersections are not all shown at all intersections, and spot elevations should be shown where the transitions to begin the flattening of the crown begin. Original comment 61 has disappeared, so here it is again: When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest lane (SFL), they should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL. [resolved part of comment omitted] Please see redlines for more information. Number: 81 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/051 The ADA ramp detail works when the curb return radius is 20' and the ROW radius is 15'. At the! knuckles where the curb return radius is 26.5, please either show how the ramps will work, and possibly dedicate additional ROW to accommodate them, or change the radius to 20'. Number: 87 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] With the current design of Deep Woods, cross pans at Chesapeake and Friar Tuck will be required due to the bypass flows that will not be caught by the inlets because the inlets are not installed at low points in the road. Number: 88 Created: 2/18/2005 [2/18/05] Provide station equations where plans from the 2nd filing tie to plans from the 1 st filing, and where the different street designs within the 2nd filing connect. Page 3