HomeMy WebLinkAboutBIG HORN RIDGE - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-05-28iftCO U N TY REFERRAL
NEMS COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
COMMENTS TO: Rob Helmick FROM: ENGINEERING
TYPE OF MEETING: Larimer County Planning Commission
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge SR
THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department
PLANNER: Brian Grubb
City comments must be received in Current Planning
Department by: June 13, 2001
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• Pease provide an additional 27.5' Right of Way on County Road 32 from the section line
• County Road 32' must be desgned 1000' both Fit and West of the property line
• Private Streets are to be built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards
• The site inventory Map and the preliminary site plan are not consistent with each other. Which
one is the more current design?
• Please coordinate the western future road connection with Autumn Creek Subdivision. What is
shown is not consistent with their latest submittal.
• County Road 32 is to be designed and constructed with this development. Development is
responsible for the portion along the property line. The remainder will be city costs. You may
wish to coordinate this with Autumn Creek as well. Please contact Matt Baker at 221-6605 if
you have any further questions
• The private street across from Greenstone connection is too wide.
• Plea;e show the Rail Road Right of Way width on the site plan.
Date: June 7, 2001
I& COUNTY REFERRAL
REVISION SHEET
City of Fort Collins
ENGINEERING
DATE: 12.13.02
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge
PLANNER: Katie Moore
TO: TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
City comments must be received in Engineering Department by:
January 3, 2002
❑ No Problems
'd Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:"
Date: Signature: _
Check here if you wish to receive copies of revisions:
❑ Plat ❑ Site ❑ Drainage Repo rt/' ! ❑ Other
❑ Utility 0 Redline Utility ❑Landsca
Big Horn Ridge / Carpenter Road Comments
1. The ultimate design of both Greenstone Trail intersections at Carpenter Road needs to
be designed to the LCUASS. Please pull the medians further into the intersection to
align the access ramps and the pedestrian refuge with appropriate crosswalk markings.
2. Include on the designs the future pedestrian refuge required on the west side of the
Timberline Road and Carpenter Rd. intersection.
3. Clean up the Greenstone Trail / Carpenter Rd. intersection by removing the raised
median on the south side of the Greenstone Trail street (see redlines).
4. Smooth the sidewalk transition on the SE corner of the Greenstone Trail and Carpenter
Rd. intersection since this will also serve as the regional trail connection between
Loveland and Fort Collins (see redlines).
5. In order to accommodate pedestrians north of the development, access ramps and
sidewalk connections will need to be installed at the Greenstone Trail / Carpenter Rd.
intersection (interim and ultimate see redlines) with the recommended appropriate
crosswalk markings.
6. Identify the locations of proper bike lane signage on the signing and striping plan that
also includes the wording 'No Parking' on the sign to prevent on -street parking during
sporting events.
Provide a more detailed drawing of the interim improvements that includes the bike lane
striping and signage, and appropriate crosswalk markings for Carpenter Road.
DATE: 1.07.03
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — County Referral
PLANNER: Bob Barkeen
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: 1.7.03
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
Comments:
• General:
• REPEAT REPEAT: For the design of the development's private street intersection with
Carpenter Road, the turning movements must be shown to work.
• Pedestrian refuges in the medians on Carpenter need to align with the pedestrian ramps on the
street corners, and the opening width in the median must be at least 6' wide. See Drawing 1601 B
of the October 02 standards for additional requirements.
• City signature blocks must be located in the lower right-hand comer of the sheet
• REPEAT: Interim improvements preliminary to the completion of Carpenter as a City project
must be shown. At a minimum, these interim improvements include both left turn lanes on
Carpenter and the permanent sidewalk in the ultimate location with temporary ramps to the
interim pavement section.
• A striping plan is insufficient information for the construction of these improvements. Plan
and profile designs as well as cross sections are required. The new improvements should be
designed to coincide with the ultimate improvements, meaning that in the future, the grades
built in the interim can simply be extended to the future flowline as opposed to rebuilding
what was built in the interim.
• REPEAT: The Site and Landscape plans show different ROW alignments than the Plat and
Utility Plans.
• I was not routed the site and landscape plans again, and so cannot check that this has been
corrected. Please include the current site and landscape plans with the next submittal.
• Please show the outlines of the offsite easements.
• A soils report will be required prior to pavement design.
• Plat: The plat was not included with the plan set for this round of review, so I could not verify that
the following concerns had been addressed:
Date: January 7, 2003 Signature�l�� /( may
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
L1 Plat 11 Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
• The City Limits line shown is incorrect. Please see attachment.
• The additional ROW to be dedicated with this plat won't be within the City Limits until it is
annexed to the City. This procedure should be started as soon as possible
Utility Plans
• Please provide an additional bench mark since 2 are required and only one has been provided to
date.
• Please provide a reference to the updated or current soils report on the cover sheet.
• Please provide PE statement I.J. from the utility plan checklist on the cover sheet.
• Please revise and resubmit the utility plan checklist (attached).
• REPEAT: How will interim grading work? It is difficult to see with the ultimate road
configuration superimposed instead of the interim road configuration, so please show just the
interim road configuration on the interim grading plans. The 2' of flat area adjacent to the
sidewalks needs to be addressed in the interim as well as the ultimate designs and on both sides of
the sidewalk.
• Grading: There are a number of locations where the proposed grading does not appear to tie into
the existing grades or to coincide with what is shown as the plan view.
• Should sheet 5a be titled the Overall interim grading plan, and should sheet 6a be titled the
Interim grading plan?
• REPEAT REPEAT: On sheet 10, please label the ROW.
• Grading shown does not appear to accommodate sidewalks on both sides that will connect to
Timberline sidewalks. Please reconfigure.
• REPEAT: Some grey lines on the utility plans are too light to be reproducible. Please alter the
lines so that they can be reproduced.
• Some lines are still a bit too light.
• Carpenter road design: sheets 27-29, 31-37:
• REPEAT REPEAT: Please clearly show what will be built in the interim for this project vs.
what is the ultimate design. Interim improvements need to stand alone. (plan, profile and
cross -sections needed)
• REPEAT: Please show any needed transitions for the interim improvements.
• REPEAT REPEAT: Please show all widths, radii, etc for medians and right turn lane.
• REPEAT REPEAT: Please show all utility crossings under Carpenter. (Water line, Sewer
line)
• REPEAT REPEAT: Please keep the centerline profile, since it is to be needed for the interim
design, but also provide the flowline (profiles) information for each side of the median for the
ultimate design. Please use outfall curb and gutter for the medians.
• In response to the engineer's comment that the median flowlines are not expressly
required in the Standards, the City does reserve the right to require such information as it
deems necessary to verify correct design and enable correct construction of the streets. In
this case, the median flowlines are required.
• REPEAT: the sag curves shown are too short. LCUASS figure 7-18 calls for a minimum
sag vertical curve length of approximately 150'.
• Please note for future reference that, because I did not clarify the above statement to say
that the curve lengths will increase with the algebraic difference increases and the figure
should be used to determine the correct minimum length, I will not be requiring those
Development Review Comments — Page 2
curves to be brought up to those lengths longer than 150' on these plans. However, any
crest or sag curves added to the plans from this point forward do need to meet the
requirements of figures 7-17 and 7-18.
• Why can't the median noses at the Railroad crossing be brought up to standards?
• REPEAT: Medians must be designed with curves and not angle points. The required radius
is a minimum of 100' per drawing 8-06.
• There are several locations where these curves are still missing.
• REPEAT: Sheet 27: The design of Carpenter road needs to tie into the design provided by
Greenstone PUD Phase 1. What is shown is only a station equation, and does not adequately
address how this design transitions into the PUD design. One example of this is that the
centerline elevations are not equal at the end of this project's offsite design. The vertical
curves also need to be taken into consideration.
• The proposed and existing grades still do not match at sta 10+00.
• Also, because the curve designed at Sta 12+50 is only 200' long, and the original
design for this location calls for a curve approximately 500' long, the breaking up of
this curve results in a curve beyond Sta 10+00 that is shorter than required by the
standards. The design proposed now needs to take this into consideration and work
with the existing design to meet the standards.
• At the low point near station 44+00 the centerline must follow a vertical curve even though
the flowlines do not. The flowlines are allowed the grade break in order to maintain
minimum grade into the inlets.
• REPEAT: Cross -sections: please label interim grading, sidewalks, slope of ground within
ROW, etc. as required by LCUASS.
• The cross -sections and grading shown should provide for standard sidewalk placement
(both sides of the road) along the entire stretch of Carpenter.
• REPEAT: Retaining walls would be required where slopes are steeper than 4:1 within the
ROW. Please label slope values within the ROW.
• Please provide data regarding, and show the location of, the crown of the road between the
noses of the medians.
• Due to the lateness of this comment, the following is a request rather than a requirement:
Since it appears that manholes are proposed in the bicycle lane and are not allowed either in
vehicle wheelpaths or anywhere in bicycle lanes, could these manholes be moved at all to
meet this standard?
• Street Details:
• REPEAT: Please remove any pavement design notes for Carpenter Road. Pavement
design will be reviewed by the City at a later date.
• Because details from both the '01 and '02 LCUASS are used, please call out on each
detail which standards it comes from to avoid confusion.
• The ADA has new requirements for pedestrian ramps that are effective immediately.
Please see the handout enclosed regarding these requirements and details needed.
Please call out any necessary street cuts and add the note: Limits of street cut are
approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector.
All repairs are to be in accordance with City street repair standards.
On sheet 22, it appears that the construction line has been misplaced in one or both of the plan
and profile views.
Development Review Comments — Page 3
• On sheet 19, what is shown for ST-313 does not look right. It is unclear what will be
constructed during the final phase, and how the interim condition will work. Is it proposed
that the pipe just empty into the ditch with no erosion control?
• Please assemble the plan sheets in the correct order.
• There are several locations where the minimum k-values for vertical curves are not being
met. Please see redlines and Table 7-3.
• Should there be a cross -pan on the north leg of the Greenstone Trail intersection?
• Road design at the railroad crossing:
• The spot elevations shown do not match the spreadsheet information/cross-sections/plan
and profile and do not seem to work. Please provide further information for this area
including:
• Accurate spot elevations
• Show the location of the storm pipe running under Carpenter.
• Show that where the curb and gutter will end on each side of the railroad crossing.
• Show the locations of the inlets needed due to the atypical roadway cross -sections in
this area (and how they will tie into the storm pipe). General areas have been pointed
out on the redlines.
• The proposed elevation of the road needs to match the existing elevation of the
railroad tracks where they cross. The railroad will not be changing the elevation of
their tracks, so the road needs to conform to the tracks.
Striping plan:
• Final plan: The lane widths don't always add up to the true width of the street.
• Interim plan: This plan is difficult to decipher. Please call out the different types of
striping. It appears that skip stripes will be painted along the centerline even through the
turn lanes.
Please label the transition and stacking lengths.
Please provide temporary pedestrian ramps across Carpenter.
Please note that street trees are to be installed in the ultimate location at the time of
construction of the interim improvements, and refer to the sheet showing the tree
locations.
• Cross -sections:
• Median widths at a number of stations do not match the median widths shown on the plan
views.
• The grading on the north side of the road needs to accommodate and show a sidewalk,
with the grading within the ROW draining at a min. 2% slope to the road.
• There are several locations where the ROW dimensions do not match what is shown on
the plan views.
At stations 41+00 and 44+22, the maximum (0.4%) grade break is being exceeded.
The vertical curve centered on Sta 45+50 is too short. It must be a minimum of 150' long.
Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments, and please note that any
changes to the plans may generate new comments.
Also, comments will continue to be repeated until resolved.
Development Review Comments — Page 4
From: "Roxann Hayes" <rhayes@larimer.org>
To: FC1.GWIA("rdvorak@TSTINC.COM")
Date: 1/23/03 10:22AM
Subject: Big Horn Ridge - Meandering Bike Path along Carpenter Road
Rich,
Katie Moore with the City left me a voice message about the above
issue. Basically, the City will allow this "meandering bike path" with
the following conditions:
1) The path should be no closer than 10' from the road at all times (as
the LCUASS 2-lane Arterial cross-section requires a 10' parkway).
2) This path does not need to be in the public right-of-way at all
times. It may enter into a public access easement. Since you need to
dedicate a 15' utility easement anyway, you could simply make this a 15'
utility and public access easement. Therefore, no additional
right-of-way will need to be dedicated by this project.
3) The path should meet the requirements for curves, grades, etc. as
found in the LCUASS.
Could you please go ahead and design a bike path that meets these
requirements in your interim construction plans for Carpenter Road?
Thanks so much for your cooperation. I think we've almost come to a
conclusion on the storm drainage issue as well.
Roxann
CC: "Charles Gindler" <cgindler@larimer.org>, "Rob Helmick" <rhelmick@larimer.org>
I& COUNTY REFERRAL
REVISION SHEET
City of Fort Collins
ENGINEERING
DATE: 1.27.03 TO: -Fray -4- Iff Trli��S
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge ' J? jar?117113;
PLANNER: Katie Moore
City comments must be received in En eering Department by:
February 2003
Please note that I plan on returning comments to the aplicant on Feb. 4,
so please get your comments to me no later than the 4t if possible. This
review is for the interim condition only, hence the short review time.
�No Problems '_ Vr LC
u Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
Comments:
Date:
1 -. J 1 __
) signature:
Check here if you wish to receive copies of revisions:
❑ Plat ❑ Site ❑ Drainage Report ❑other
13 Utility 0 Redline Utility ❑Landscape
0 COUNTY REFERRAL
REVISION SHEET
gbr off Fort Collins
ENGINEERING_
DATE: 1.27.03 TO: Er f C- ac C
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge �� G
PLANNER: Katie Moore
City comments must be received in Engineering Department by:
February 4, 2003
Please note that I plan on returning comments to the applicant on Feb. 4,
so please get your comments to me no later than the 4 if possible. This
review is for the interim condition only, hence the short review time.
❑ No Problems
,Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
Comments:
2! -
Date: 1- Z / 9!53 Signature: _
Check here if you wish to receive copies of revisions:
❑ Plat ❑ Site ❑ Drainage Report
13 Utility 0 Redline Utility ❑Landscape
❑ Other
DATE: 2.03.03
PROJECT
SHEET
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge - County Referral
PLANNER: Bob Barkeen
ENGINEER: Katie Moore `x
All comments must be received by: 2.5.03
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
Comments:
This development will be required to escrow money with the City of Fort Collins for their local
street portion of the ultimate improvements to Carpenter Road.
o Please contact Eric Bracke with the City's Traffic Operations department regarding traffic
issues and the possible need for interim improvements on Carpenter to accommodate this
development.
o Please design the access point onto Carpenter to the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (radii, flowlines, spot elevations, etc.).
o Please show the meandering sidewalk, street trees, etc. along Carpenter to match the
utility plans.
o The ROW shown for Carpenter Road does not match what is shown on the plat.
Since this development's storm water drains onto City of Fort Collins property (northwest corner
of Carpenter and Timberline), the development will be required to contribute for the costs of
acquiring that easement.
Any new grading shown along Carpenter should be shown to match the grading for the ultimate
construction of Carpenter.
Please include all redlines (both sheets 1 and 2) with the next submittal.
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
Current Planning
Date: 6.21.02 DEPT: Engineering
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — County Referral
Also: Christian High School Site Plan and Redeemer Lutheran Church SP
PLANNER: Cameron Gloss
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: 7.3.02
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• General:
• The design of the development's private street intersection with Carpenter Road is too wide.
The lanes do not align with Greenstone Trail across the street, and the median is not allowed
within ROW. Please reconfigure.
• The Site and Landscape plans show different ROW alignments than the Plat and Utility
Plans.
• There are no street trees in the Parkway on Carpenter.
• Offsite work will require offsite easements. These easements must be completed and copies
submitted to the City prior to final plan approval.
• This development will be required to build its half of Carpenter Road and the needed
transitions from the existing roadway to the new. Coordination with Autumn Creek to the
west is encouraged.
• Please reference the Greenstone PUD Phase 1 county road 32 plans. The design shown in
the Big Horn Ridge plans should tie into the Greenstone Plans (to the west). On the Big
Horn plans, please note the Greenstone station where the design ties into Greenstone plans.
• Please provide a soils report.
• Plat:
• Please add the Fort Collins City Limits to the vicinity map.
• A north arrow would help, too.
Date: July 3, 2002 _ Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
0 Plat 0 Site ❑ Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
DATE: 2.05.03
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — Carpenter Rd. interim
improvemctlts
PLANNER: Bob Barkeen
ENGINEFR: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: 2.5.03
❑ No Problems
0 Pru, „ ns or Concems (see below or attached)
Comments:
• Plat:
0 1 .. asc provide the additional triangle of ROW as previously discussed (and as shown in
I _( I I ASS) at the southeast corner of Greenstone and Carpenter.
o :'! u e label the narrowest width of the additional ROW dedicated due to the above-
si 111dard sidewalk width.
• UtilityPLins
o Ucncral:
• Please provide a note stating that the Developer shall be responsible for the
maintenance of landscaping in the parkway along Carpenter.
Please provide more detailed design of the sidewalk; the design should meet
LCUASS standards for a bike path, such as cross -slopes and radii.
o t . ,.ling:
• It is not apparent that the interim and ultimate grading of the sidewalk is
consistent. Please clarify.
• It appears that extra layers of proposed contours have been left on in certain
locations, resulting in multiple parallel lines for the same contour value.
The grading in the ditch on the southwest comer of Greenstone and Carpenter,
and on the south side of Carpenter east of the railroad tracks, is too steep. The
maximum cross -slope within the ROW is 4:1.
• There is at least one location where the sidewalk is too steep to meet ADA
requirements.
On sheet 10, it is almost impossible to see the grading of the sidewalk.
D - ClUlI Utility Plan
• Please add delineations of all street cuts, adding the note:
,7,5, v3
M
IN
• Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in
the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs are to be in
accordance with City street repair standards.
Please show the outline of the existing utility easement referenced on the
Greenstone Subdivision.
S i oi ni Sewer ST-1 should have a minimum of 2' of cover to the bottom of scarified
su bprade as opposed to the top of the pavement.
Greenstone Trail design (sheet 21)
Please show how the flowlines connect to the Carpenter flowlines. (Continue the
profiles farther).
C: i pcnter design
• flan and profile, Sheet 26
• Please use the same numerical stationing as the ultimate plans, and use
centerline stationing for both the flowlines.
• Please show all utility crossings on the plan and profile views, as well as
the cross sections, as needed.
• Please label all grade breaks/vertical curves on the flowline profiles, and
try to smooth out the grade breaks.
• The elevations shown for the centerline profile don't always match up
with the location of the profile on the grid.
• The stations/elevations don't always match from plan to profile.
• Additional spot elevations are needed at the intersection with Greenstone
per LCUASS.
• Carpenter Rd. will need to be cut into to ensure an adequate quality edge
of pavement to be added to, and to gain the minimum width needed for
adding in asphalt at the taper ends. Please show these street cuts.
Signing and striping plan:
• Please label transition and stacking lengths.
• Added pavement should result in driving lanes that meet curve
requirements (ie-min R for curves=1075', tangent length is 200' min.) not
angle point transitions.
Cross -sections:
• Please provide additional information as required by LCUASS.
• Please label the existing cross -slopes.
• Please dimension the existing edges of asphalt.
• Please provide a minimum of 2' from either edge of the sidewalk before
the grade drops off.
• Added pavement cannot have a cross -slope less than the existing cross -
slope (LCUASS 7.4.2C).
Details:
• Please add the ADA truncated dome detail. I have copies if you need
them.
• Please correct drawing 708 — the crosspan depths for the local and arterial
are switched (this is incorrect in the standards). Also, is this detail needed
for the interim condition? I cannot see that it is.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
Please see red] i nes and the utility plan checklist for any additional comments.
Please return al I redlines with the next subrnittal.
Development Review Comments — Page 3
From: Katie Moore
To: "rhayes@ladmer.org".GWIA60.FC1
Date: 2/18/03 4:55PM
Subject: Re: Big Horn Ridge resubmittal
Roxann,
The following is a comment from Tom Reiff, Transportation Planning:
'This is a repeat comment regarding the roadway design for Carpenter Road:
1. The signing and striping plan needs to include the proposed lane striping, including turn arrows, bike
lanes, with stencils, and the appropriate location of roadway signs. The location of the City of Fort Collins
bike lane signs need to be included in the proposed signage. If there are questions please contact Tom
Reiff at 416-2040.'
I've attached my comments, and I'm still waiting for any other comments. They're supposed to be in my
office by noon tomorrow.
Did you have a good weekend?:)
-Katie
COUNTY REFERRAL
REVISION SHEET
C� of Fort Collins
Date: 2.11.03 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — Carpenter Rd. interim
improvements
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
• Plat:
o Please provide the additional triangle of ROW as previously discussed (and as shown
in LCUASS) at the southeast comer of Greenstone and Carpenter.
■ Repeat 2.19.03 — The ROW shown at the corner is a bit improved, but the
curve should continue around the corner to eliminate the right angles.
• Utility Plans
o General:
• Please provide a note stating that the Developer shall be responsible for the
maintenance of landscaping in the parkway along Carpenter.
• Repeat 2.19.03 — The City will not be a party to the DA, so please add
the note to the plans.
• Please provide more detailed design of the sidewalk; the design should meet
LCUASS standards for a bike path, such as cross -slopes and radii.
• 2.19.03 - It appears that the layer labeling the radii and lengths of the
curves was turned off. The radii are adequate; they just need to be
labeled.
o Grading:
• It appears that the existing contours layer was turned off, please include this
again.
• The grading in the ditch on the southwest comer of Greenstone and
Carpenter, and on the south side of Carpenter east of the railroad tracks, is too
steep. The maximum cross -slope within the ROW is 4:1.
• 2.19.03-There are still portions in these areas that are steeper than 4:1.
• The type III barricades at the ends of the sidewalk should be labeled as such
and should probably be shown to be just a few feet wider than the sidewalk.
Greenstone Trail design (sheet 21)
Please show how the flowlines connect to the Carpenter flowlines. (Continue
the profiles farther).
• 2.19.03 — These still aren't shown. The spot elevations are helpful,
but still don't clearly show how the street edges will tie in. The PCRs
shown on Greenstone to the south of Carpenter do not match what is
shown on the plans for Greenstone/Carpenter on sheet 26.
Carpenter design
Plan and profile, Sheet 26
• Please label all grade breaks/vertical curves on the flowline profiles,
and try to smooth out the grade breaks.
o 2.19.03-It appears that there are several locations where the
grade breaks could be decreased while not compromising the
cross -slopes. Please decrease these breaks.
• The elevations shown for the centerline profile don't always match up
with the location of the profile on the grid.
o Repeat 2.19.03
• There are still locations where spot elevations do not match other
sheets or the profiles.
• Please include the curb return profiles onto Greenstone again.
• Carpenter Rd. will need to be cut into to ensure an adequate quality
edge of pavement to be added to, and to gain the minimum width
needed for adding in asphalt at the taper ends. Please show these street
cuts.
o 2.19.03-The 2' now shown is too narrow. Please show that the
street will be cut to a lane line or the middle of a lane, or note
it as such.
Signing and striping plan:
• Added pavement should result in driving lanes that meet curve
requirements (i.e.-min R for curves=1075', tangent length is 200'
min.) not angle point transitions.
o 2.19.03 — While the values of the radii are labeled, the
beginnings and endings of curves are not labeled, nor are the
arc lengths given. Shouldn't there also be curves where the
lane transitions back to existing? Also, since the deflection of
the lane is less than 5-degrees, the minimum arc length for the
curve applies (LCUASS 2001 Table 7-5).
Cross -sections:
A number of centerline elevations shown on the cross -sections do not
match the corresponding centerline elevations on the profile.
The numbers do not appear to add up for the cross -slopes. Checking
the existing and proposed slopes, the numbers don't match, either
with the assumption of an existing 36' street width, or using the
existing cross -slope to deduct the existing width, then using the
Development Review Comments — Page 2
remainder to calculate the proposed slopes. What's going on here?
• Please dimension the existing edges of asphalt.
o Repeat 2,19.03
• Added pavement cannot have a cross -slope less than the existing cross -
slope (LCUASS 7.4.2C).
o 2.19.03 -In checking the new cross -slopes, it does not appear
that this requirement is being met.
Details:
• Please add the ADA truncated dome detail. I have copies if you need
them.
o Repeat 2.19.03
• Please correct drawing 708 — the cross -pan depths for the local and
arterial are switched (this is incorrect in the standards). Also, is this
detail needed for the interim condition? I cannot see that it is.
o Repeat 2.19.03
Sheet 15 — Sanitary sewer —please note that the sidewalk on the north side of
Carpenter will need to be removed and replaced.
Please see redlines and the utility plan checklist for any additional comments.
Please return redlines with the next submittal.
Development Review Comments — Page 3
COUNTY REFERRAL
REVISION SHEET
City of Fort Collins
DATE: 2.26.03 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — Carpenter Rd. INTERIM improvements
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Utility Plans
o General:
■ Please provide a note stating that the Developer shall be responsible for the
maintenance of landscaping in the parkway along Carpenter.
• Repeat 2.19.03 — The City will not be a party to the DA, so please add
the note to the plans.
• Repeat 2.26.03
design Carpenter den
■ Plan and profile, Sheet 26
• Carpenter Rd. will need to be cut into to ensure an adequate quality edge
of pavement to be added to, and to gain the minimum width needed for
adding in asphalt at the taper ends. Please show these street cuts.
o 2.26.03-The note shown on sheet 26 should be altered as redlined.
• As written on the checklist on a previous round, please provide plan and
profile information for 150' beyond the limits of construction.
o Repeat 2.26.03 — There is still no information given beyond the
limits of construction.
Signing and striping plan:
• Added pavement should result in driving lanes that meet curve
requirements (i.e.-min R for curves=1075', tangent length is 200' min.)
not angle point transitions.
o 2.19.03 —since the deflection of the lane is less than 10-degrees,
the minimum arc length for the curve applies (LCUASS 2001
Table 7-5).
■ Repeat 2.26.03 — The arc lengths provided are each
approximately 300' too short and the City would not
support a variance to this degree. If adequate lane design
cannot be achieved within the existing width of pavement
offsite, then offsite improvements will be needed.
• Details:
Please add the ADA truncated dome detail. I have copies if you need
them.
Repeat 2.19.03
Repeat 2.26.03 — The CDOT detail is not the detail the City is
accepting currently. Please use the Greeley detail (attached
again).
Please see redlines for any additional comments.
Please return needed redlines with the next submittal. c
4 Last- red lielej4riK40-I tideytU "
Development Review Comments — Page 2
From: Katie Moore
To: CANDKP@aol.com
Date: 4/7/03 4:59PM
Subject: Re: Big Horn Village
Chuck,
The history behind the conditions for the drainage easement is a long one, ultimately resulting in a
compromise put forth by Roxann Hayes with the County's engineering department.
given regarding the easement: Two alternatives were
1.Acquire the easement later (when ultimate improvements are done) with the retention pond built to a
2x100 year event.
or
2. Acquire the easement before CofO on the church, with the retention pond built to a 1x100 year event.
(This is quoted from an email from Roxann dated Jan. 22, 03)
The plans as approved provide a retention pond built to thx100 year event, resulting in the requirement
to obtain the easement prior to CofO. e 1
After discussing this with Rob Helmick, it was decided that this condition is still appropriate and needs to
be addressed in this agreement. According to Doug Moore of the City's Natural Resources department,
obtaining this easement will probably take on the order of 3-4 months, which should work in fine with your
construction schedule.
I've attached another revision of the letter for your use.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions,
Sincerely,
Katie Moore
»> <CANDKP@aol.com> 04/04/03 01:38PM >>>
Katy, since we last talked on the phone, I have been advised that the
changes you made are not completely in agreement with the understandings
among the parties. I have attached a rewrite which we believe adheres to
what was agreed to.
Specifically, the comments on each bullet are
1st: We agree with the change..
2nd: As we discussed, the ultimate storm water infrastructure improvements
YOU were referencing here is specifically the drain along Carpenter Rd.
changes we have made specifically point that out. The
3rd: We believe that there is no way we can guarantee that we can accomplish
obtaining the easement in a certain amount of time due to the nature of the
process. We also believe that the City has as great an interest in obtaining
this easement as Carpenter Road will eventually be improved whether or not
our property is developed. We believe in the long run that it will be to our
benefit if an easement is granted but we don't believe that it should be the
basis for delaying occupancy of our church since there is sufficient storage
capacity on site. Also, since the maintenance is an ongoing cost, unless we
negotiate a lump sum, we will not be able to make a deposit to cover it at
the time the easement would be obtained.
4th: We have made some editorial changes and clarified that the deposit for
drainage applies only to the drain line on the south side of Carpenter. Note
that reference to the collateral for the interim improvements on Carpenter
have been replaced by what was added in the first bullet.
We appreciate the attention you have given to our project during this week
and look forward to your response.
• The utility plans show both 115' total ROW and 119' total ROW for Carpenter, but the plat
shows only to the 115' measurement. Please coordinate.
• The existing 60' of ROW for Carpenter is within City Limits, but the additional ROW to be
dedicated with this plat wouldn't be. The additional ROW needs to be Annexed to the City.
• Please provide any slope or construction easements needed for Carpenter Rd.
Utility Plans
• Please use revised general notes attached. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like them
emailed to you.
• A number of notes are repeated from the cover sheet to the 2', sheet. Consolidate?
• There are a number of sheets where it appears that the roadway will be re -graded over the
railroad tracks. Please revise to show that the railroad tracks will not be altered.
• Please show that 1-2 feet of leeway from the back of sidewalk on Carpenter Road will be
provided before the slope drops off to the south.
• Please reduce the median of the private street so that it does not encroach on the ROW.
• On sheet 10, please show the ROW, label existing contours, and label roads/driveways/etc.
as such.
• Some grey lines on the utility plans are too light to be reproducible. Please alter the lines so
that they can be reproduced.
• Sheet 11: please clearly label what is existing and what is proposed. Will an easement be
needed for the sanitary line jutting off to the north or is there an existing easement?
• At the private street — Carpenter Road intersection, please use 90-degree directional ramps.
• Sheet 21: please show how proposed flowlines will tie into proposed Carpenter Road
flowlines.
• Sheet 21: please label the size of the crosspan (width and depth).
• Carpenter road design: sheets 23-31
• Please clearly show what will be built in the interim for this project vs. what is the
ultimate design. Interim improvements need to stand alone.
• Please show limits of construction and transitions from existing to proposed.
• Please show all widths, radii, transition lengths, stacking lengths, etc for medians and
right turn lane.
• Please show all radii at intersections and driveways.
• Please provide spot elevations at all intersections as shown in the Latimer County Urban
Area Street Standards drawings 7-32 A and B.
• Please show all utility crossings under Carpenter.
• Please keep the centerline profile, since it seems to be needed for the interim design, but
also provide the flowline information for each side of the median for the ultimate design.
• Sheet 23: the sag curve shown is too short. LCUASS figure 7-18 calls for a minimum
sag vertical curve length of approximately 150'.
• Improvements to Carpenter when crossing the Railway need to be approved by the RR.
The median appears to continue straight across the tracks, and the proposed grades
appear to raise the tracks.
• Sheet 26: Please show an interim striping plan.
• Cross -sections: please label flowline (outer and median) elevations, all cross slopes that
Development Review Comments — Page 2
Regards,
Chuck Pieper
Redeemer Lutheran Church
In a message dated 4/3/2003 9:08:31 AM Mountain Standard Time,
kamooreCcafcgov com writes:
> Mr. Pieper,
> After reading over the proposed agreement letter for Big Horn Ridge
> (Redeemer Lutheran Church), a few items were found to be in need of
> revisions. Please see the attached file for suggested revisions of the
> second page of the letter, and feel free to contact me at 221-6605 with
> any questions or concerns.
> Thank you,
> Katie Moore
> Development Review Engineer
> City of Fort Collins
CC:"rhelmick@larimer.org".GWIA60.FC1;"tdowns@larimer.org".GWIA60.FC1; Cam
McNair; Dave Stringer
The Developer is required to construct the Interim Improvements to County Road 32 and will
proceed with construction of the Interim Improvements for County Road 32 upon final
approval of the plans by the City and upon receipt, by the City, of collateral for the Interim
Improvements to County Road 32;
Concurrently with execution of the Development Agreement, the Developer will: (i) deposit
collateral with the County for all on -site work; and (ii) deposit with the City the Developer's
share of the ultimate County Road 32 improvements (construction cost of one-half of the local
street portion adjacent to the project and associated construction cost for the storm water drain
along the south side of Carpenter Road);
The Development Agreement will require the developer to (i) complete the design for the
ultimate improvements to County Road 32, including the associated storm drainage
improvements through the Natural area, including approved and signed mylars, prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the church, and (ii) obtain a drainage easement on
the City's Natural Area prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the church, and (iii)
deposit with the City the Developer's share of the cost of storm drainage improvements
associated with this easement, and the cost of maintaining this easement, prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the church, and;
Provided that ,by June 1, 2003, the Development Agreement is executed, collateral for the on -
site improvements is deposited with the County, the construction cost of one-half of the local
street portion of Carpenter Road adjacent to the property is deposited with the City, and the
associated construction cost for the storm water drain along the south side of Carpenter Road
is also deposited with the City, the preliminary permit will be converted to a full Development
Construction Permit and the Developer will be permitted to complete the project under the
terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. If these conditions are not met by June
1, 2003, all work on the project under the preliminary permit and the building permit will be
halted until such conditions are satisfied.
By its signature below, each of the affected parties has indicated its approval of the proposed
schedule. We thank you for your cooperation and look forward to the successful completion of
this project.
REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
FORT COLLINS, a Colorado nonprofit
Corporation,
By:
Mike Weigand, Chairman
Building Committee
LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT,
Witty of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: 11.21.03
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — County Referral
PLANNER: Bob Barkeen
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: November W
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• General:
• REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT: For the design of the development's private street intersectio with Carpenter Road, n
the turning movements must be shown to work.
• 11.19.03 In an in-between review of this intersection, the medians were designed to be
quite close to what was needed to make the turning movements work, but this round of
review has changed those and brought the noses too close into the intersection. Median
noses should be designed for each intersection as needed to work with each turning
movement. The pointy noses shown don't appear to work for any of the locations they're
proposed in, and the median noses that are squared off are too blunt. Where there is a
pedestrian refuge, the median should be at least 6' wide. The nose of the median should
also be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. Please see LCUASS Chapter 7 for median
nose design guidelines, and please provide documentation showing that the turning
movements will work. Emailing a file worked previously for showing turning
movements.
REPEAT: Pedestrian refuges in the medians on Carpenter need to align with the pedestrian
ramps on the street comers, and the opening width in the median must be at least 6' wide to
match the sidewalks on either side of the road. See Drawing 1608 of the October 02 standards
for additional requirements.
• REPEAT: Plat: The plat was not included with the plan set for this round of review, so I could not
verify that the following concerns had been addressed:
• The City Limits line shown is incorrect. Please see attachment.
• The additional ROW to be dedicated with this plat won't be within the City Limits until it is
annexed to the City. This procedure should be started as soon as possible
• Utility Plans
Date: November 21 2003 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
0 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 1 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMF,NTS-SUBMIT MYLARS
REPEAT: Please revise and resubmit the utility plan checklist (attached).
REPEAT REPEAT: The 2' of flat area adjacent to the sidewalks needs to be addressed in the
interim as well as the ultimate designs and on both sides of the sidewalk.
• 11.19.03 — This 2' area has not been provided on the grading plans or the cross -sections.
Carpenter road design:
• REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT: Please show all widths, radii, etc for medians and right turn
lane.
• The curves for the transition for the right turn lane are still not being labeled and
dimensioned. Please provide all pc's, etc for this design.
• REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT: Please show all utility crossings under Carpenter. (Water line,
Sewer line)
• REPEAT REPEAT: the sag curves shown are too short. LCUASS figure 7-18 calls for a
minimum sag vertical curve length of approximately 150'.
• Please note for future reference that, because I did not clarify the above statement to say
that the curve lengths will increase with the algebraic difference increases and the figure
should be used to determine the correct minimum length, I will not be requiring those
curves to be brought up to those lengths longer than 150' on these plans. However, any
crest or sag curves added to the plans from this point forward do need to meet the
requirements of figures 7-17 and 7-18.
• 11.19.03 — This round of review brought many new curves, all of which need to meet
standards, and very few of them do. Please read #4 on pg. 7-10 of LCUASS. The
flowlines of the medians do need to meet all the same standards as centerlines and
outer flowline profiles. Why didn't the median profiles use the design used on the
centerline?
• REPEAT Why can't the median noses at the Railroad crossing be brought up to standards?
• 11.19.03 —These median noses need to be designed to accommodate the RR gates.
Please see redlines for further details.
• REPEAT REPEAT: The design of Carpenter road needs to tie into the design provided by
Greenstone PUD Phase 1. In previous rounds, a station equation was provided, but now that
is absent. Please provide a station equation and ensure that the design presented in these
plans will work with the design in Greenstone PUD Phase 1.
• REPEAT: At the low point on a vertical curve the centerline must follow a vertical curve
even though the flowlines do not. The flowlines are allowed a 1 % grade break in order to
maintain minimum grade of 0.5% into the inlets. The flowline grades should never be less
than the minimum of 0.5%.
• REPEAT REPEAT: Cross -sections: please label interim grading, sidewalks, slope of ground
within ROW, etc. as required by LCUASS.
• REPEAT: Retaining walls would be required where slopes are steeper than 4:1 within the
ROW. Please label slope values within the ROW.
• REPEAT: Please provide data regarding, and show the location of, the crown of the road
between the noses of the medians.
• A spot elevation at the center of each intersection was provided, but this is not adequate.
Where will the crown be? Show as a line, and provide additional spot elevations.
• Please provide the station of each PC on the medians.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
• All pedestrian ramps should be shown as directional. The ramp shown on the plans now is
no longer an option for new construction.
• It would be helpful to have the plan view stations align with the profile stations below.
• Please label the slopes on all curb returns and ensure that the maximum grade break of 3% on
curb returns is being met.
• It appears that curve data for the medians is missing.
• The stationing on the medians does not appear to match either of the flowlines or the
centerline. Please provide station equations tying the median stationing to the other stations.
Cross -slopes cannot accurately be checked without station equations.
• On cross -sections, it appears that centerline stations were the stations used. Please clarify.
• No information is provided at the ends of the median profiles. Please label the station and
elevation of these endpoints.
• On the striping plan, the second through lane heading east is dropped. Why? This is planed
to be a 4-lane road all the way to I-25.
• Street Details:
• The ADA details previously provided are now only being used on state highways, so
Please remove them.
• REPEAT: There is at least one location where the minimum k-values for vertical curves are
not being met. Please see redlines and Table 7-3.
• All cross -pans parallel to arterials should be a minimum width of 10' to match the detail.
More than one is shown as 8' wide.
• Road design at the railroad crossing:
• REPEAT: Please provide further information for this area including:
• Show the location of the storm pipe naming under Carpenter.
• Show that where the curb and gutter will end on each side of the railroad crossing.
(stations)
• The transition of cross -slopes for the crossing needs to take place within a shorter length
of roadway. The south flowline might be lowered to achieve this. Please see redlines for
the suggested extents of the transition area.
Striping plan:
• The scale seems to be a bit off on one sheet.
Cross -sections:
• REPEAT: The grading on the north side of the road needs to accommodate and show a
sidewalk, with the grading within the ROW draining at a min. 2% slope to the road.
• REPEAT: There are several locations where the ROW dimensions do not match what is
shown on the plan views.
• Minimum cross -slope is 2%. There are several locations where this is not being met.
Storm sewer ST-3 and ST-3A: Not enough cover is provided from the top of pipe to scarified
subgrade. The minimum for this is 2', and the plans show approximately 260' of pipe where
this is not being met on ST-3. For ST-3A, the only location where enough cover is provided
is at the center of the street.
Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments.
Also, comments will continue to be repeated until resolved.
Development Review Comments — Page 3
The intersection of Carpenter Road at Greenstone Lane/Vantage View Place
needs to be shown to the City standards for the ultimate design. This includes
directional access ramps in all directions, raised medians with pedestrian
refuges, and bike lane stencils on the roadway. The design needs to include all
elements that the Greenstone Trail and Carpenter Road intersection shows.
2. Please show the possible future Power Trail crossing on the west side of the
Carpenter Road and Eagle Prairie Drive intersection. See red lines.
3. The skip striping for the bike lane as it approaches the Greenstone Trail
intersection should not begin until the right turn lane is more defined. Please
see red lines for the edits.
4. According to the Larimer County Parks Dept. the ten foot regional trail on the
south side of Carpenter Road will continue all the way to the Timberline
intersection. Please continue the trail width to the Timberline intersection. It
should also be labeled on the plans as a regional trail.
5. The trail and the sidewalk on the north side of the road need to cross the
railroad tracks at a 90 degree angle. Please see red lines and make the
corrections on the plans. There will also need to be a sign warning cyclists
that a railroad crossing is approaching.
6. What happens to the second travel lane for eastbound traffic as it approaches
the Timberline intersection? According to the City's Master Street Plan the
street is classified as a 4-lane arterial to the interstate.
The bike lane will need to be skipped striped when it transitions between the
right turn lane and the travel lane at Timberline.
8. The west side of the intersection at Timberline needs to be shown to City
standards. This includes directional access ramps, and a raised median with a
pedestrian refuge.
Transportation Planning
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 11, 2003
DEPT: Stormwater
PROJECT: Carpenter Road Ultimate Road Design
(Associated with the Big Horn Ridge County Referral submittal)
Comments must be returned to Katie Moore no later than the staff review meeting
date of 11/05/03
1. Please note that a drainage easement from Natural Resources for the discharge of
stormwater on Natural Area lands will be required prior to plan approval.
2. A railroad crossing agreement for the proposed storm sewer across the railroad tracks will
also be required prior to plan approval.
3. There seems to be a significant amount of carryover flow on the south side of carpenter
which is necessitating the construction of 2 20-foot inlets since these inlets are on -grade,
please consider the use of a combination inlet or inlets with veined grates in order to
minimize the size of these inlet structures.
4. Storm line ST-3 does not have the 2-foot minimum cover requirements at the end of its
run. May need to use elliptical pipe for the last portion of that pipe in order to maintain
cover.
5. ST-3B is crossing an existing high-pressure gas line, how will this crossing be handled,
will the contractor bore under that existing gas line?
6. Please provide a signed, stamped and bounded copy of the addendum to the original Big
Horn Ridge drainage report so that it can easily be found. Currently loose sheets and
calculations were submitted.
Date:— Signature: 141-7
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS `R"' -0
Plat _ Site _✓Drainage Report _Other
✓7/ Utility Redline Utility Landscape
ON of Fort Collins
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: 2.20.04 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — County Referral
PLANNER: Bob Barkeen
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: 2.20.2004
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• General:
REPEAT (x4): For the design of the development's private street intersection with Carpenter
Road, the turning movements must be shown to work.
• 11.19.03 In an in-between review of this intersection, the medians were designed to be
quite close to what was needed to make the turning movements work, but this round of
review has changed those and brought the noses too close into the intersection. Median
noses should be designed for each intersection as needed to work with each turning
movement. The pointy noses shown don't appear to work for any of the locations they're
proposed in, and the median noses that are squared off are too blunt. Please see LCUASS
Chapter 7 for median nose design guidelines, and please provide documentation showing
that the turning movements will work. Emailing a file worked previously for showing
turning movements.
2.20.04 — Several in-between reviews took place looking in detail at the intersections of
Timberline, the railroad tracks, and Eagle Prairie, and those intersections look fine. The
in-between reviews did not look at the Vantage View or Greenstone Trail intersections
with Carpenter. Please email files as previously done so we can see that all turning
movements work on these intersections. I'm particularly concerned with the Greenstone
Trail intersection — the median noses are still quite close together. Also, as discussed in
previous meetings, median noses smaller in size than 100 s.f require a variance.
Plat: After recordation, please provide a copy of the recorded plat to the City so that we may
begin the annexation procedures.
• Utility Plans
• REPEAT: Please label the slopes on all curb returns and ensure that the maximum grade
break of 3% on curb returns is being m jt , There is t east one location where the grade break
Date: February 23. 2004 Signatun S r �
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
0 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape 13 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
around a curb return is greater than 3%.
• While the station equations provided at each end of the medians is helpful, station equations
should be provided at each pc/pt on the medians.
• Road design at the railroad crossing:
• It appears that an inlet on the south median flowline near the tip of the median will be
needed to catch flows.
• Cross -sections:
• REPEAT: Minimum cross -slope is 2%. There are several locations where this is not
being met. (STA 19+00 and 19+50) While this is an intersection area, the street that
should be modified/flattened to meet the grades of the other should be the minor street,
not Carpenter. Please provide standard cross_ -slopes in this area.
• Variance Request:
• Please revise the variance request exhibit to omit the curve at 33+57 (this curve meets
standards) and to add the curve at 41+85.04 on the south flowline, since it does not meet
standards. Variance requests should also always address whether the public health,
safety, and welfare will be affected. Please add this to your request. Once this
information is received, the variance will be approved, and should be added to the general
notes as an approved variance.
• REPEAT: Please show all utilities on the road plan and profile.
• 2.20.04 — Show the storm sewer lines proposed, as well as the high and low-pressure gas
lines and the fiber optic line and their elevations on the plans and profiles. Please show
any other utilities existing or proposed that are still not shown on the plans.
Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional continents.
Also, comments will continue to be repeated until resolved.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
Katie Moore - Re: Bi Horri Ride Pa e 1
From: "Roxann Hayes" <rhayes@larimer.org>
To: <kamoore@fcgov.com>
Date: 2/2/04 2:OOPM
Subject: Re: Big Horn Ridge
Katie,
I'll let Rob send you the DA.
Just to keep you up to date: yes. There are negotiations with Big Horn
Ridge regarding the retention pond.
Basically, according to Chuck Pieper, they have currently constructed a
retention pond that will take the 2x100 year event for their existing
improvements (Lot 2 - Church). This pond will not handle any new run-off
from the development of Lot 1 (high school) or Lot 3 (single-family
residential).
I have tentatively said "yes" to allowing the CofO be allowed on the
church with this detention/retention in place, as long as they can
effectively say there will be no change to the historic drainage with
this development. To get the CofO, I have also said they need to sign
the DA, provide appropriate collateral, etc.
Basically, they'll have two choices: provide retention for the 2x100
year event, or acquire an easement from the City. I have also said they
need to somehow collateralize the changes to the retention pond. I'd
also like the CofO on the building permit for Lot 1 tied to this.
Of course, this information needs to be updated by their Engineer.
Hope this helps.
Roxann
>>> "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com> 02/02/04 10:45AM >>>
Hello,
I was just in a meeting with Gary Kounkel and Chuck Pieper of Redeemer
Lutheran Church, and they were relaying to me that the County was
renegotiating terms for the DA, specifically regarding the retention
pond and timing of the easement. I have some concerns about this,
especially if what is being agreed to is not the same as what was
agreed
to in a letter signed by Chuck, the City and the County last spring.
Could you please send me a copy of the latest draft of the DA so I can
make sure the City is fine with it?
Thanks,
Katie
CC: "Rob Helmick" <rhelmick@larimer.org>
are not 2%, interim grading, sidewalks, slope of ground within ROW, etc. as required by
LCUASS.
• As Carpenter approaches Timberline, could the north side of the road be lowered to
reduce the amount of fill required? A retaining wall would be required where slopes are
not at least 4:1.
• Street Details: please use details from LCUASS including the directional ramp detail,
median details, sidewalk culvert detail, etc. These files are available online or on CD-
ROM at the City Engineering counter.
Please see redlines for any additional comments, and please note that any changes to the plans may
generate new comments.
Development Review Comments — Page 3
From:
Mark Sears
To:
Katie Moore
Date:
3/22/04 2:03PM
Subject:
Re: Big Horn Ridge Offsite Drainage Easement
Thanks,
Mark
>>> Katie Moore 03/22/04 01:22PM >>>
I left a message with Rich Dvorak of TST this morning, and will be seeing Chuck Pieper this afternoon and
will let him know as well.
-Katie
>>> Mark Sears 03/22/04 12:29PM >>>
Thanks Katie for clearing this up, please let the Big Horn Ridge folks know
Mark
>>> Katie Moore 03/22/04 11:57AM >>>
Mark,
In speaking with Matt Baker this morning, he understands he'll have to go through the Easement process
with the end result being a filing of notice(s) instead of easements. I wanted to let you (and the others on
the list) know that he will not be participating in that process at this time, but plans on doing it closer to
time of construction for Carpenter Rd in the future. So, the Big Horn Ridge folks should continue their
easement process without him.
-Katie
>>> Mark Sears 03/16/04 07:07PM >>>
I'm sure I followed Doug's thoughts. But. I want to be sure to clarify Transportation is not expempt from the
Natural Areas Easement Process. They would have to go through the process just like a Developer.
Mark
>>> Doug Moore 03/16/04 12:36PM >>>
Hi Katie,
That should be necessary since Matt's program is as I understand exempt for the easement process. I
think it's related to the City not being able to grant easements to it's self. I'm not sure what process needs
to follow, Carrie Daggett will know.
Thanks,
Doug
>>> Katie Moore 3116/04 10:49:38 AM >>>
Hello,
I've gotten a copy of the letter from Rich Dvorak, and am passing it on to Matt Baker. He would be the
one to determine whether the Engineering Department would like to be a part of the easement process
(getting the easement for ultimate Carpenter Road improvements) at this time, or whether we'd like to hold
off and wait until a time closer to construction.
-Katie
>>> Rick Bachand 02/20/04 04:11 PM >>>
Cam,
Last week Wally and I met with Rich Dvorak of TST and his client Chuck Piper of the Redeemer Lutheran
Church. They are requesting a drainage easement from Natural Areas for their development and we
reviewed with them the process and timeline. However, they are unclear whether this development will
require them to make ultimate improvements on Carpenter Rd. as that could modify their plans
(Wally... please add if I've missed anything). Prior to making the application for easement they desire a
determination on this.
I'm sending a copy of a letter I received to you via interoffice mail which shows the area (I'm sure your
already familiar) and states the question.
Perhaps the next step if for you folks to speak with them?
Thanks for your help,
Rick
Rick Bachand, Senior Environmental Planner
Natural Areas Program - City of Fort Collins
1745 Hoffman Mill Road
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Phone: (970) 416-2183
Fax: (970) 224-6177
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: 3.24.04 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — County Referral
PLANNER: Bob Barkeen
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: 3.24.2004
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• General:
Plat: After its recordation, please provide a copy of the recorded plat to the City so that we
may begin the annexation procedures for Carpenter Road ROW.
Utility Plans
• Road design at the railroad crossing:
• The response letter indicated that the following item was looked at and not needed, but no
justification was given. Please either show an inlet or provide justification that it is not
needed.
• It appears that an inlet on the south median flowline near the tip of the median will be
needed to catch flows.
• Cross -sections:
While the response letter for the following item indicated that the problem was fixed,
nothing was changed in the plans. Prior to submitting mylars, please resubmit the
appropriate sheets (paper copies), showing that this has been remedied.
• REPEAT REPEAT: Minimum cross -slope is 2%. There are several locations where
this is not being met. (STA 19+00 and 19+50) While this is an intersection area, the
street that should be modified/flattened to meet the grades of the other should be the
minor street, not Carpenter. Please provide standard cross -slopes in this area.
Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments.
Reminder: As discussed in a number of meetings and previous comments, either the easement on
Natural Resources property will need to be completed, or Big Horn Ridge will need to provide security
for the easement, prior to City signoff of these mylars. /,
Date: March 29, 2004 Signature: /1// w Q
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
21 Plat 0 Site 21 Utility 13 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
From:
Katie Moore
To:
"rhayes@larimer.org".GWIA60.FC1
Date:
3/29/04 3:30PM
Subject:
Big Horn Ridge latest comments
Roxann,
I thought you might like to see my latest (and hopefully last) comments regarding the ultimate Carpenter
Road design for Big Horn Ridge.
They've started the easement process for Natural Resources, but as far as I know, they're not very far
along.
What I've heard from the Big Horn Ridge folks is that their DA with the County will say that there might be
some design of their pond they can do to get out of getting an easement from the City. Please have
whoever's writing the DA keep in mind that the easement on Natural Resources property is not only for
their site flows, but also for their local street portion of flows off of Carpenter (which will not be held in their
pond), and an easement (or $ in lieu of an easement) is needed no matter what they do onsite.
Hope you're doing well,
Katie
Katie Moore
Development Review Engineer (EI)
City of Fort Collins
(970)221-6605
CC: Basil Hamdan; Doug Moore
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
Current Plan
Date: 3.24.04 DEPT: Engineering
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — County Referral
PLANNER: Bob Barkeen
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: 3.24.2004
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• General:
Plat: After its recordation, please provide a copy of the recorded plat to the City so that
we may begin the annexation procedures for Carpenter Road ROW.
• Utility Plans
• Road design at the railroad crossing:
• The response letter indicated that the following item was looked at and not needed,
but no justification was given. Please either show an inlet or provide justification
that it is not needed.
• It appears that an inlet on the south median flowline near the tip of the median
will be needed to catch flows.
• Cross -sections:
While the response letter for the following item indicated that the problem was fixed,
nothing was changed in the plans. Prior to submitting mylars, please resubmit the
appropriate sheets (paper copies), showing that this has been remedied.
• REPEAT REPEAT: Minimum cross -slope is 2%. There are several locations
where this is not being met. (STA 19+00 and 19+50) While this is an
intersection area, the street that should be modified/flattened to meet the grades
of the other should be the minor street, not Carpenter. Please provide standard
cross -slopes in this area.
Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments.
Date: March 29, 2004 _ Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
I3 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
Reminder: As discussed in a number of meetings and previous comments, either the easement on
Natural Resources property will need to be completed, or Big Horn Ridge will need to provide
security for the easement, prior to City signoff of these mylars.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
Katie Moore - Re Fwd: FW: Big'Horn Ride -Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: CANDKP@aol.com
Date: 4/28/04 12:03PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: Big Horn Ridge
I need to add a qualifier to this message, sent earlier this morning. It has come to my attention that the
interim Carpenter Road improvements have not adequately addressed drainage issues at the intersection
with your church entry. Some photos are attached that describe this situation, showing irrigation water
ponding against the edge of the asphalt pavement. If this is not corrected, the pavement will deteriorate
prematurely. Please have TST and the contractor correct this, revise the as-builts accordingly, and we will
then release those.
Thank you.
Cam McNair
»»»»»»»»»»»
Dear Mr. Pieper:
I have discussed your request with Katie, and I think we can compromise on our position somewhat. Here
(below) is what I think is an appropriate decision at this point, to keep things moving forward with your
project. Please let me know if you agree.
According to an agreement signed by Mike Weigand, Chairman of the Building Committee of Redeemer
Lutheran Church, Rob Helmick of Larimer County Planning, and myself, dated April 8, 2003, the easement
you are now about to apply for was supposed to have been completed prior to a certificate of occupancy
being issued for the Church. The Developer was also required to "deposit with the City the Developer's
share of the cost of storm drainage improvements associated with this easement and come to an
agreement acceptable to both the City and the Developer regarding payment [of] the Developer's share of
the cost to maintain this easement, prior to a certificate of occupancy for the church." This agreement
was re -stated in a letter dated December 19. 2003, and addressed to Mr. Clayton A. Schwerin of Alliance
Construction.
The December letter also reiterated a second option regarding the easement needed on Natural
Resources property: if the pond was designed and constructed to retain the "2x100-year" amount, the
development would "not be required to obtain the drainage easement at this time, but would work with the
City... to determine the development's share of the future cost for obtaining and maintaining the drainage
easement on City property, and this payment would be due concurrently with the execution of the
Development Agreement."
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City is willing to release the "as-builts" for the interim improvements to
Carpenter Road now, knowing that the County will release a certificate of occupancy for the church upon
receipt of copies of these "as-builts." The City will not be able to release the signed mylars for the ultimate
improvements to Carpenter Road until the easement on Natural Resources property is obtained or the
alternative option is completed, as stated above and in previous agreements. The City's Street Oversizing
fund will also reimburse the Developer for a portion of the engineering design costs for the ultimate
improvements to Carpenter Road after the obligations for the easement are fulfilled and processing of the
mylars has been completed.
You mentioned that the County is holding collateral to guarantee completion of the easement. According
to the Development Agreement, this collateral is intended to guarantee that further modifications could be
made to the existing ponds as outlined in paragraphs 13(A) and (B). I do not believe that this collateral is
also sufficient for, nor could it also be applied to, the City's requirements for the easement. Please
understand that, while the Developer and County may have come to a compromise regarding the drainage
improvements and timing of the easement, the compromise reached does not meet the City's Land Use
Code (LUC) requirements. Under our LUC, any easements needed for a project must be completed
concurrently with the development plans and development agreement, and final plan approval cannot be
given until the easements are complete.
I understand that you will be applying to begin the easement process shortly, and that this process will
take some time to be processed by staff and scheduled for Natural Resources Advisory Board and City
Council hearings. As mentioned above, we will release the interim "as -built" mylars to you now, but will
hold the ultimate Carpenter Road mylars and, consequently, reimbursement for a portion of the
engineering design, until the easement obligation is fulfilled.
I hope this arrangement is satisfactory to you. I look forward to your completion of the easement
acquisition process with our Natural Resources Department so that we can finalize the approval of the
Carpenter Road design and reimburse you for that effort.
Sincerely,
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Phone: 970-221-6605
Fax: 970-221-6378
E-mail: cmcnair(&fcoov.com
>>> <CANDKPCrAaol.com> 04/26/04 06:09PM >>>
Dear Cam,
I am writing this e-mail to request that you review Katie's stand on the
issue addressed in the forwarded message below. We have submitted drawing mylars
for both the ultimate Carpenter Road design which may be built sometime in the
future and the as -built design for the interim improvements (turning lanes)
to the City for signature. Katie has told us that the drawings can be signed
but they cannot be released until we have acquired an easement or paid
additional escrow money to the City.
Redeemer Lutheran is pursuing the obtaining of an easement for runoff from
our development plus our local portion of the ultimate Carpenter Road. We have
already deposited collateral with the County to guarantee completion of this
work. We believe that the City should consider accepting the County's interest
in our completing this work as an acceptable approach for the City as far as
approving the plans for ultimate Carpenter Road is concerned.
We strongly believe that holding the interim plans until this easement is
obtained is not correct. The work is done and being used. The City has accepted
it in all respects including accepting the warranty collateral and it doesn't
have any direct relationship to the easement. The actual conditions
currently at the site result in less runoff on to City land than previously. In
addition we were just informed today that this condition was being imposed on the
release of these drawings.
I am asking that you reconsider the refusal to release the signed as-builts
for the interim Carpenter Road improvements. I am willing to meet with you to
further discuss this matter if you desire or you can call meat 204-4245. 1
look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Chuck Pieper
Redeemer Lutheran Church
CC: Dave Stringer; Katie Moore; Lance Newlin; rdvorak@TSTINC.COM
Citv of Fort Collins
Current
DATE: 9.24.02
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Big Horn Ridge — County Referral
PLANNER: Cameron Gloss
ENGINEER: Katie Moore
All comments must be received by: not specified
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Comments:
• General:
• REPEAT: The design of the development's private street intersection with Carpenter Road is too
wide. The lanes do not align with Greenstone Trail across the street, and the median is not
allowed within ROW. Please reconfigure.
• The median on the south leg of the intersection must be removed and the turning movements
must be shown to work.
ti • Pedestrian refuges are required in the medians on Carpenter.
• A roundabout study at Lemay and Carpenter may be required of this developer, and/or
participation in improvements at that intersection (per Traffic Ops.).
J • City signature blocks must be provided on all applicable sheets.
• Interim improvements preliminary to the completion of Carpenter as a City project must be
shown. At a minimum, these interim improvements include both left turn lanes on Carpenter and
the permanent sidewalk in the ultimate location with temporary ramps to the interim pavement
section.
�• REPEAT: The Site and Landscape plans show different ROW alignments than the Plat and
Utility Plans.
• I was not routed the site and landscape plans again, and so cannot check that this has been
corrected.
�• REPEAT: There are no street trees in the Parkway on Carpenter and these are required to be
planted in the ultimate location with the interim improvements.
• REPEAT: Offsite work will require offsite easements. These easements must be completed and
copies submitted to the City prior to final plan approval.
• Please provide a soils report.
Date: October 4, 2002 Signatur'e•� r( f ft-LE%
PLEAS END COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
P1.Plat P Site Utility J, Landscape 11 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
Plat:
• The City Limits line shown is incorrect. Please see attachment.
• The additional ROW to be dedicated with this plat won't be within the City Limits until it is
annexed to the City. This procedure should be started as soon as possible
• Slope/construction easements will not be needed for Carpenter Rd. due to the requirement for
constructing the ultimate sidewalk with the interim improvements.
• Utility Plans
Z �� • REPEAT: Please use revised general notes attached. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like
them emailed to you.
�N • Please complete and submit a utility plan checklist (attached).
�h • How will interim grading work?
a REPEAT: Please show that 2 feet of leeway (basically flat slope) from the back of sidewalk on
\ Carpenter Road will be provided before the slope drops off.
• REPEAT: On sheet 10, please show the ROW, and label roads/driveways/etc. assuch.
• Grading shown does not appear to accommodate sidewalks on either side. Please
reconfigure.
\�^ REPEAT: Some grey lines on the utility plans are too light to be reproducible. Please alter the
lines so that they can be reproduced.
�\4 FV1 Sheet 15, 21, 22: Top of pipe needs to be a minimum of 2' below scarified subgrade of
Carpenter.
�'X • Sheet 23: curb retum/flowline data for the intersection of the new Greenstone with Carpenter do
,not match from plan to profile and do not match sheet 28.
Carpenter road design: sheets 27-29, 31-37:
\,• REPEAT: Please clearly show what will be built in the interim for this project vs. what is the
ultimate design. Interim improvements need to stand alone. (plan and profile needed)
• Please show any needed tranitions for the interim improvements.
��• REPEAT: Please show all widths, radii, etc for medians and right turn lane. hlo�ao-SC�
• REPEAT: Please show all utility crossings under Carpenter.
• REPEAT: Please keep the centerline profile, since it is to be needed for the interim design,
ti but also provide the flowline (profiles) information for each side of the median for the
ultimate design. Please use outfall curb and gutter for the medians. There seem to be several
locations (where median narrows for turn lanes) where the cross-section should be straight
from the edge of median gutter to the flowline gutter, but the crown is placed such that
drainage will be a problem. (see redlines)
�,.j • REPEAT: the sag curves shown are too short. LCUASS figure 7-18 calls for a minimum
v sag vertical curve length of approximately 150'. My /l,1 IS-' AV E,
2,� • Crest curve minimum length is also 150'. Please redesign.
• See Drawing 8-05 for required median nose geometry.
Lc • Please label all cross-streets/driveways on all plans.
2p. Please show all curb returns connecting to Carpenter.
Lam. Medians must be designed with curves and not angle points. The required radius is a
minimum of 100' per drawing 8-06.
It is unclear whether the centerline stationing is identical to the flowline stationing.
Centerline stationing is the required stationing for City road designs.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
• The crosspan at Greenstone must be a minimum of 10' wide and 1.5" deep per LCUASS
drawing 7-30.
�0 • The ROW should always be shown and dimensioned on Carpenter Rd. plans. Existing ROW
is different than shown. There is 60' of ROW north of the section line between the railroad
tracks and Lemay.
• Notes 1 and 2 on Carpenter plan/profile sheets should be removed.
�� • Sheet 27: The design of Carpenter road needs to tie into the design provided by Greenstone
PUD Phase 1. What is shown is only a station equation, and does not adequately address
how this design transitions into the PUD design. One example of this is that the centerline
elevations are not equal at the end of this project's offsite design. The vertical curves also
need to be taken into consideration.
�� • Sheet 29: The maximum allowed grade break is 0.4%. Vertical curves are needed.
�a • It does not appear that there is an inlet at the low point near station 44+00. How will this area
drain? For areas with inlets, please provide a 1 % grade break at the inlet.
• REPEAT: Cross -sections: please label flowline (outer and median) elevations, all cross
�j slopes that are not 2%, interim grading, sidewalks, slope of ground within ROW, etc. as
required by LCUASS.
• It is not adequate to refer to the plan and profile sheets for this information. The note
referencing other sheets must be removed.
• The cross -sections and grading shown should provide for standard sidewalk placement
ong the entire stretch of 11*rline. CA pep t p, y-
��p • Retaining wall would be required where slopes are not at least 4:1 within the ROW.
• Street Details:
x • Please remove any pavement design notes. Pavement design will be reviewed at a later
date.
Please see redlines for any additional comments, and please note that any changes to the plans may
generate new comments.
Also, comments will continue to be repeated until resolved.
Development Review Comments — Page 3
Big Horn Ridge / Carpenter Road Comments
1. The ultimate design of both Greenstone Trail intersections at Carpenter Road needs to
be designed to the LCUASS. These intersections need to include pedestrian refuges
within the medians, access ramps on all legs, and appropriate crosswalk markings.
2. The center median on the south side of Greenstone Trail at Carpenter Rd. needs to
include a pedestrian refuge as drawn (see red lines). The width of the street exceeds
the allowable standard width for a street without a pedestrian refuge, or remove the
median.
3. It is recommended that the internal streets have parallel sidewalks their entire lengths
with ADA accessible ramps in order to provide students a safe place to walk to school.
This is recommended for all streets within Lots 1, 2, and 3.
4. Please identify on the plans the location of the future regional trail crossing of Carpenter
Rd. along with any necessary 'public trail easements.' The design of the trail crossing
will occur with construction of the trail.
5. In order to accommodate pedestrians north of the development, access ramps will need
to be installed at the Greenstone Trail / Carpenter Rd. intersection (interim and ultimate)
that connect to the existing 7' sidewalk that runs along the north side of Carpenter Road.
Appropriate crosswalk markings is recommended for the interim and ultimate design.
6. Please include the locations of proper bike lane signage on the signing and striping
plan. Also please add bike lane stencils and signage for the interim improvements. No
parking signs for Carpenter Road may also be necessary to prevent on -street parking
during sporting events.
7. Please label the new 10-foot sidewalk along Carpenter Road on all plan sets.
6. Please correct the discrepancies between the private road details on page 39 with the
detail shown on page 24.
From: Eric Bracke
To: Dave Stringer; Katie Moore; Matt Baker
Date: 10/3/02 11:27AM
Subject: Big Horn
I have reviewed the revised TIS for the Big Horn Project dated October 1, 2002 prepared by Mr. Delich.
am in agreement with the findings of the revised TIS. The Big Horn project is now being submitted as
"just" the Church and the other uses will come in at a later date. The impacts of the other phases should
be considered cumulative and ther future improvements will be necessary. However, for this particular
submittal, the following improvments should be made:
1. provision of east and westbound left turn lanes on Carpenter.
2. When the other uses come in for review, it is likely that the eastbound right turn lane will be warranted.
"Likely to be warranted" is based on Figure 8-04 of the LUCASS.
Improvements in the near future, not the responsibility of this particular developer, will be improvements to
Carpenter/Lemay. If improvements are not made in the short term, we will have APF issues with growth in
this part of the City. This is an outstanding location for a roundabout and the City should pursue this
course of action in planning and design. I do not have the desire to install a traffic signal at this location.
Kind Regards,
Eric L. Bracke, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
(970)224-6062
ebracke@fcgov.com
CC: Mark Jackson; mdelich@frii.com; Tom Reiff