The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDOT POUDRE RIVER REST AREA - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2007-11-294 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannine REC. D DATE: July 13, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #27-04 CDOT Poudre River Rest Area PDP — Site Plan Advisory Review All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss no later than the staff review meeting: +ern August 4, 2004 Note -PLEASE identifv vour redlines for future reference S`��tiNrr��z print) 'aG CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Project Comments Sheet CSelected Departments ity of Fort Collins Date: August 4, 2004 Project: CDOT POUDRE RIVER REST AREA PDP - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - TYPE II All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: August 04, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number: 6 Created: 8/3/2004 [8/3/04] Through documents provided by Stantec, in conjunction with analyzing additional documents with the City's Chief Surveyor, it appears that Prospect Road is within City Right - of -Way to a point approximately 410 feet east of the centerline of the frontage road intersection with Prospect. The frontage road is also City property, with an overlying access easement granted to CDOT. Since both of these roadways are City -owned, improvements to the roadways should be made to City standards. Please see the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards for the applicable regulations. The frontage road is designated as a collector street on the City's Master Street Plan, and should be improved to collector standards (without parking) along the Rest Area property frontage. Design of the Frontage Road should be provided for the property frontage, plus preliminary offsite design for 500' per LCUASS. Please note that the City understands that the cross-section for Prospect will not include curb and gutter. Please provide more detailed plan and profile sheets for these street designs, and please show CDOT ROW/easements vs. City ROW/easements very clearly on these plans. Number: 7 Created: 8/3/2004 [8/3/04] Who will build, own, and maintain the traffic lights proposed? CDOT? Number: 8 Created: 8/3/2004 [8/3/04] It appears that there is a small structure on the south side of the Rest Area with a driveway that comes in from the south through a gate in the fence. This driveway appears to cross over City property in some fashion. Please show where this driveway goes. Is there an existing easement for it? If not, this is another easement (in addition to the 50' li r , Signature g, y.i24 Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat ✓ Site Drainage Report Other / Utility ✓ Redline Utility ,/' Landscape Page 1 temporary construction easement along the northwest property line) that would need Council approval, and legals should be submitted for processing very soon. Number. 9 Created: 8/3/2004 signature blocks, etc. [8/3/04] Please provide utility plans per LCUASS specs, with a standard cover sheet, city Number: 10 Created: 8/3/2004 [8/3/04] Please see redlines for any additional comments. Page 2 Project Comments Sheet mil"° Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Date: February 24, 2005 Project: CDOT POUDRE RIVER REST AREA - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - TYPE II All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: No date Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number: 6 Created: 8/3/2004 [2/21/05] When plans are finalized, please submit utility, grading, striping, and street design sheets on 2'xT Mylar sheets for City signatures and for our files. The only format the City vault accepts plans in is 2'x3' sheets. Also, please see last sentence of previous comment below: [8/3/04] Through documents provided by Stantec, in conjunction with analyzing additional documents with the City's Chief Surveyor, it appears that Prospect Road is within City Right - of -Way to a point approximately 410 feet east of the centerline of the frontage road intersection with Prospect. The frontage road is also City property, with an overlying access easement granted to CDOT. Since both of these roadways are City -owned, improvements to the roadways should be made to City standards. Please see the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for the applicable regulations. The frontage road is designated as a collector street on the City's Master Street Plan, and should be improved to collector standards (without parking) along the Rest Area property frontage. Design of the Frontage Road should be provided for the property frontage, plus preliminary offsite design for 500' per LCUASS. Please note that the City understands that the cross-section for Prospect will not include curb and gutter. Please provide more detailed plan and profile sheets for these street designs, and please show CDOT ROW/easements vs City ROW/easements very clearly on these plans Number: 7 Created: 8/3/2004 [2/21/051— Please respond to the question below: [8/3/04] Who will �I VId, own, and maintain the traffic lights proposed? CDOT? Signature 1 " J M Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage ReportPe Other .Plat Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Number: 10 Created: 8/3/2004 (2/21/05] Repeat [8/3/04] Please see redlines for any additional comments. New comments [2121/051 a. Sheet 20 calls out a different cross-section for sta 10+40 to sta 15+05 on the frontage road, but this is not reflected in the rest of the plans. Should this detail be removed? b. Previous comments from Transportation Planning indicated that the sidewalk along the frontage road should connect to Prospect, but it is shown to stop halfway there. Please continue the sidewalk to Prospect and provide ramps at the corner. c. Striping, sheet 87 — The bike lane on the frontage road should continue to the north to connect to the bike lane on the frontage road north of Prospect, not disappear at the intersection. The bike lane/shoulder on Prospect should also continue to the east — provide room where the painted median is currently located. d. On sags on flowlines, when grades hit the minimum (0.5%), continue at a straight grade to have a 1 % grade break at the inlet at the low point of the curve. Please show the inlets on the profiles. At these locations, the centerline profile should still follow a curve. e. Who is dedicating all of the ROW shown as "proposed" on Prospect? f. Something is off between the plan and profile sheets and the cross -sections for the frontage road — the numbers do not match and some of the cross -slopes are far off of what is labeled. g. Please provide intersection spot elevations at the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection and the Frontage Road/Rest area drive intersection as called out in LCUASS Figure 7-28. Page 2