Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARVEST PARK FOURTH - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-03-160000 Project Comments Sheet 110 .=K � l Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Date: January 9, 2003 Project: HARVEST PARK MAJOR AMENDMENT AND REPLAT All comments must be received by TROY JONES in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: September 18, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 41 Revise all documents (especially the plat) to show "Country Squire" as "Country Squire Way„ [1/9] This has still not been corrected. (Some of the street names in the original Harvest were modified after the approval - all streets must have a "Drive", "Road" "Way", etc. Please add "Way" at the end of "Country Squire". Topic: Plat 45 A note should be added to the plat indicating that all tracts are to be owned and maintained by an HOA. [1/2] In consulting with the City Surveyor, adding to this note that the tracts are "for private access" appears to confuse the issue regarding the use of the tracts. This would conflict with the next sheet indicating that they are utility, access, & drainage easements dedicated to the City. It would be best to eliminate this phrase. This should perhaps be a point of further discussion... 46 Please remove all indications of "private access" from easement dedications. In consulting with the City Attorney's office, having a private access easement dedicated to the City is an apparent contradiction. Perhaps the tract maintenance note from the previous comment should be modified to indicate that "all tracts are for private access Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ ✓ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ / Redline Utility ✓Uandscape Page 1 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Ctirrvnt Plnnninu DATE: June 14, 2002 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: 425-98G Harvest Park Major Amendment and Replat — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff review meeting: July 17, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site DrainaLe Report _Other City of Furt Collins _Utility Redline Utility _Landscape �.� Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort t ollins Department: Engineering Date: Jully 24, 2002 Project: HARVEST PARK MAJOR AMENDMENT AND REPLAT All comments must be received by TROY JONES in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: July 17, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 5 Please be consistent on the name of the public street proposed. In dicsussion with PFA and Technical Services, Amber Harvest Lane should not be used because of the existing name to the south and it is not viewed as a continuation of the existing street. Also, while the origins of the phrase "Cotton Eyed Joe" is perhaps not entirely known and is open to interpretation, the phrase could perhaps be viewed as offensive to some. It is suggested that if this is the street name is being proposed, that it be changed. An update to the subdrain report by Ayres and Associates should be submitted reflecting the changes to the development. 12 Revise the utility plan description area (not part of Fairway Estates.) 16 The access ramps across Cotton Eyed Joe Lane should be directional east -west only, not leading to the corners of the intersections. 29 Coordinate access ramps, street name, and other pertinent comments on the utility plan with the site and landscape plans. 32 Light and Power has required that no sidewalk or street trees should be installed on the streets surrquren phis project in advance of this development, coordination should —27 Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF RE SIGNS ,--'Plat Site amage Report Other� �ttility _ edline Utility ' Landscape Page 1 occur regarding the construction of these surrounding streets to ensure this does not take place. Topic: Plat 9 The plat contains outdated plat language as well as incorrect Engineering and Planning Approval Blocks. Please revise. 13 The plat seems to not be a full replat of the previous based upon a sliver of land that is created behind Harvest Park Lane right-of-way, most noticeable west of Cotton Eyed Joe Lane; why is this area being created? 14 Separate Blocks need to be indicated on the east and west side of Cotton Eyed Joe Lane if the intention is to use the same lot numbers. 15 Tract C should be Tract A, assuming different block numbers are used. Topic: Street Design 18 Show the sidewalk along the public street and access ramps intersecting with Harvest Park Lane and Rock Creek Drive as proposed rather than existing in linetype. 19 Provide additional spot elevations at the intersection of the public street with Harvest Park Lane and Rock Creek Drive in accordance with 7-32A (to show that the public street ties into the existing streets.) 24 The flowline designs appear to be consistent on both sides of the street. However, based upon the elevation at the centerline for the two transition points, cross slope calculations from the crown to the eastern flowline appears to exceed 3% at both transition points. Cross slope should be between 2 and 3%. (As general notice to the design engineer: Future submittals to the City on new projects (not this project) will require centerline flowlines in addition to left and right flowlines on all public streets. Also, stationing is required to be centerline stationing, not flowline stationing.] 30 The variance request submitted on June 14th, 2002 from Sear -Brown regarding street separation requirements was granted by the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer. No further written follow up indicating this will be made unless requested. Note that all future variance requests to City engineering design standards should be signed and stamped. Topic: Utility Plan 17 Page 2 The southern most private drive leading out to Cotton Eyed Joe Lane exceeds the 500 square feet of sheet flow allowed to drain over a public sidewalk. 25 District Signature Blocks are needed on pertinent sheets in addition to the cover sheet, (utility plan, detail sheets, utility plan & profile, etc.) 26 The Development Agreement for the overall Harvest Park may need to be amended with the project. This will be looked at in further detail as questions arising phasing of this with the overall Harvest Park development are resolved. 27 Revisions were submitted for Harvest Park, reflecting the changes proposed by this project. Overall, the revisions appear fine with the following comments: The area within this. project on the Harvest Park revisions should appear faded in order to demonstrate that: the approved design of this area for construction is with Harvest Park 4th, not this revision. It would appear to be more beneficial if the Harvest Park revisions showed utility stubs from the four public streets surrounding this site as well as the curb returns for the public street (at Rock Creek Drive and Harvest Park Lane) as not faded and to be designed and constructed with these revisions. Otherwise, the revisions would allow for construction of these roads without the necessary utility and street stubs; if these perimeter streets were constructed out of sequence without these in place, street cuts and street cut penalty fees would be levied. This would then require showing the street and utility stubs on the 4th filing as previously approved. Coordination and timing -wise, these revisions would be ideally signed off on at the same time as the 4th Filing mylars are signed off on. Perhaps this should all be a topic of further discussion. 28 A revision to the phasing plan for Harvest Park, and/or a phasing plan for this project should be submitted in order to understand how access is envisioned to this site and which road network of streets will be in place with the project. Page 3 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: Juhy 23, 2002 Project: HARVEST PARK MAJOR AMENDMENT AND REPLAT All comments must be received by TROY JONES in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: July 17, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 5 Please be consistent on the name of the public street proposed. In dicsussion with PFA and Technical Services, Amber Harvest Lane should not be used because of the existing name to the south and it is not viewed as a continuation of the existing street. Also, while the origins of the phrase "Cotton Eyed Joe" is perhaps not entirely known and is open to interpretation, the phrase could perhaps be viewed as offensive to some. It is suggested that if this is the street name is being proposed, that it be changed. 6 An update to the subdrain report by Ayres and Associates should be submitted reflecting the changes to the development. 12 Revise the utility plan description area (not part of Fairway Estates.) 16 The access ramps across Cotton Eyed Joe Lane should be directional east -west only, not leading to the corners of the intersections. 29 Coordinate access ramps, street name, and other pertinent comments on the utility plan with the site and landscape plans. Topic: Plat 9 Signature j Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ ✓ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 The plat contains outdated plat language as well as incorrect Engineering and Planning Approval Blocks. Please revise. 13 The plat seems to not be a full replat of the previous based upon a sliver of land that is created behind Harvest Park Lane right-of-way, most noticeable west of Cotton Eyed Joe Lane; why is this area being created? 14 Separate Blocks need to be indicated on the east and west side of Cotton Eyed Joe Lane if the intention is to use the same lot numbers. 15 Tract C should be Tract A, assuming different block numbers are used. Topic: Street Design 18 Show the sidewalk along the public street and access ramps intersecting with Harvest Park Lane and Rock Creek Drive as proposed rather than existing in linetype. 19 Provide additional :spot elevations at the intersection of the public street with Harvest Park Lane and Rock Creek Drive in accordance with 7-32A (to show that the public street ties into the existing streets.) 24 The flowline designs appear to be consistent on both sides of the street. However, based upon the elevation at the centerline for the two transition points, cross slope calculations from the crown to the eastern flowline appears to exceed 3% at both transition points. Cross slope should be between 2 and 3%. [As general notice to the design engineer: Future submittals to the City on new projects (not this project) will require centerline flowlines in addition to left and right flowlines on all public streets. Also, stationing is required to be centerline stationing, not flowline stationing.] 30 The variance request submitted on June 14th, 2002 from Sear -Brown regarding street separation requirements was granted by the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer. No further written follow up indicating this will be made unless requested. Note that all future variance requests to City engineering design standards should be signed and stamped. Topic: Utility Plan 17 The southern most private drive leading out to Cotton Eyed Joe Lane exceeds the 500 square feet of sheet flow allowed to drain over a public sidewalk. 25 District Signature Blocks are needed on pertinent sheets in addition to the cover sheet, (utility plan, detail sheets, utility plan & profile, etc.) Page 2 26 The Development Agreement for the overall Harvest Park may need to be amended with the project. This will be looked at in further detail as questions arising phasing of this with the overall Harvest Park development are resolved. 27 Revisions were submitted for Harvest Park, reflecting the changes proposed by this project. Overall, the revisions appear fine with the following comments: The area within this project on the Harvest Park revisions should appear faded in order to demonstrate that the approved design of this area for construction is with Harvest Park 4th, not this revision. It would appear to be more beneficial if the Harvest Park revisions showed utility stubs from the four public streets surrounding this site as well as the curb returns for the public street (at Rock Creek Drive and Harvest Park Lane) as not faded and to be designed and constructed with these revisions. Otherwise, the revisions would allow for construction of these roads without the necessary utility and street stubs; if these perimeter streets were constructed out of sequence without these in place, street cuts and street cut penalty fees would be levied. This would then require showing the street and utility stubs on the 4th filing as previously approved. Coordination and timing -wise, these revisions would be ideally signed off on at the same time as the 4th Filing mylars are signed off on. Perhaps this should all be a topic of further discussion. 28 A revision to the phasing plan for Harvest Park, and/or a phasing plan for this project should be submitted in order to understand how access is envisioned to this site and which road network of streets will be in place with the project. Page 3 ,t PROJECT 41 COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannime - DATE: June 14, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #25-98G Harvest Park Major Amendment and Replat - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff review meeting: July 17, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference f3ou�vaHer �Go�F,�, l i i f7 ij � L d Ott Sift/ L1,o ;Care FIri /61z �� A b r.�� ins �U C_CiC.%C /tiwt (3�lLf Ynr3[ /Z cJ. �L�T � l N Lori � 7-P zoF T UmeNTs No !� Sc2cOsO � ���c� Tl7—LL c," 7zV3 a� F�c7 (Cf f� Vas FOUATt-/� �J L���A7 L K� a , �/�SC✓v! �n T� , Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS /Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort and are to be owned and maintained by the HOA." The notation of "private access" on the original Harvest Park plat can remain for the time being. [1/7] The plat incorrectly removed access, leaving "private". A "private utility & drainage easement" dedicated to the City doesn't make sense. Page 2 6aProject Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: September 25, 2002 Project: HARVEST PARK MAJOR AMENDMENT AND REPLAT All comments must be received by TROY JONES in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: September 18, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 6 An update to the subdrain report by Ayres and Associates should be submitted reflecting the changes to the development. [9/18] This comment appears to remain unresolved. The response letter indicates that this will be provided with Final Compliance. This is not acceptable as this type of information is required before hearing. While it is doubtful that the subdrain report update states an issue with the change from single to multi family, this information is still nonetheless required prior to hearing. t�"S �t•Coordinate access ramps, street name, and other pertinent comments on the utility plan with the site and landscape plans. (f rf � / .L} VKS I �aut. Leek. Camr4e4 . "�,U• Revise all documents (especially the plat) to show "Country Squire" as "Country Squire Way„ t�Y p � S'�rt;Gi' Nswies ha.ut. (pteK c�.ecKe� �Cerrte�td. jfit- Ensure the new street name is shown consistently on all documents. The site plan, plat, and some pages of the utility plans shows "Fruited Plains Lane". The response letter and some pages of the utility plan set shows "Fruited Plain Lane". (The utility plans also show "Cotton -Eyed Joe Street" in some sections.) r ra deal P�w.hs haw[ .� �rfe� 54 Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ Redline Utility /Uandscape Page I Xcel Energy has commented with concerns regarding utility placement and that additional utility easement width may be needed. The applicant should ensure coordination with all the utilities; a utility coordination meeting can be arranged through Engineering if desired. t Topic: Plat- 13 The plat seems to not be a full replat of the previous based upon a sliver of land that is created behind Harvest Park Lane right-of-way, most noticeable west of Cotton Eyed Joe Lane; why is this area being created? [ ] appears to remain unresolved and the response from the respons� 9/18 This comment letter is unclear. i 45 A note should be added to the plat indicating that all tracts are to be owned and maintained by an HOA. -, 46 Please remove all indications of "private access" from easement dedications. In consulting with the City Attorney's office, having a private access easement dedicated to the City is an apparent contradiction. Perhaps the tract maintenance note from the previous comment should be modified to indicate that "all tracts are for private access and are to be owned and maintained by the HOA." The notation of "private access" on the original Harvest Park plat can remain for the time being. Topic: Street Design �br Show the sidewalk along the public street and access ramps intersecting with Harvest Park Lane and Rock Creek Drive as proposed rather than existing in linetype/Iineweight. 4 ,x%4,� I Papwed 14twe--�kfs dare beeN L,+,I. zeA. �s- d9/18] This comment appears to be unresolved. s � p� e Provide additional spot elevations at the intersection of the public street with Harvest G. Park Lane and Rock Creek Drive in accordance with 7-32A (to show that the public street ties into the existing streets.) S�ef t�Wa{i�++i� ��Y, preJlltd ptr 9'32A p 118] The spot elevations on Harvest Park Lane and Rock Creek Drive should assumably be shown in an existing Iineweight. ,^, /� &Vle- . pert- The flowline designs appear to be consistent on both sides of the street. However, �j G• based upon the elevation at the centerline for the two transition points, cross slope calculations from the crown to the eastern flowline appears to exceed 3% at both transition points. Cross slope should be between 2 and 3%. [As general notice to the design engineer: Future submittals to the City on new projects (not this project) will require centerline flowlines in addition to left and right flowlines on all public streets. Also, stationing is required to be centerline stationing, not flowline stationing.] Loves . Page 2 DV /18] This issue appears to be unresolved; cross slopes at the transitions do not meet standards. Crass sbPf e. -fMots-tom ar+r h1w 2.0 -1.0 ?o Topic: Utility Plan j�'The access ramps across Cotton Eyed Joe Lane should be directional east -west only, not leading to the corners of the intersections. �04 �Wf8] Ensure that the correct I_etail is provided on the utility plan details sheet. s U( - []e-4b i (�'tww�d 1Ta-fi1S ._ 26 .The Development Agreement for the overall Harvest Park may need to be amended with the project. This will be looked at in further detail as questions arising phasing of this with the overall Harvest Park development are resolved. 27 Revisions were submitted for Harvest Park, reflecting the changes proposed by this project. Overall, the revisions appear fine with the following comments: The area within this project on the Harvest Park revisions should appear faded in order to demonstrate that the approved design of this area for construction is with Harvest Park 4th, not this revision. J It would appear to be more beneficial if the Harvest Park revisions showed utility stubs from the four public streets surrounding this site as well as the curb returns for the public street (at Rock Creek Drive and Harvest Park Lane) as not faded and to be designed and constructed with these revisions. Otherwise, the revisions would allow for construction of these roads without the necessary utility and street stubs; if these perimeter streets were constructed out of sequence without these in place, street cuts and street cut penalty fees would be levied. This would then require showing the street and utility stubs on the 4th filing as previously approved. Coordination and timing -wise, these revisions would be ideally signed off on at the same time as the 4th Filing mylars are signed off on. Perhaps this should all be a topic of further discussion. 8] This appears to be unaddressed. The revisions appear difficult to discern on D�� /1whether they reflect construction of the utility and street stubs pertaining to the 4th filing with the revisions. Fading out the 4th Filing (with the exception of street and utility stubs to serve the 4th Filing) would clarify this. A revision to the phasing plan for Harvest Park, and/or a phasing plan for this project A be submitted in order to understand how access is envisioned to this site and tMwhich road network of streets will be in place with the project. [9/18] Preliminary illustrations of this were received with direction given to the applicant. Final revised phasing plan sheets have not been received at this time. We will need to Page 3 have this revised phasing plan signed off on prior to a hearing in order to establish how this will develop in conjunction with the overall Harvest Park development. 42 Provide FCLWD/SFCSD Signature Blocks on all pertinent sheets of the plan set for the 4th Filing and the revisions to original Harvest Park. be Jett 06-K pl•ws .re aeuPftj dtftj WC su.6w:f wears . Please provide detail 16-41D (directional ramp detail) in the details sheet. n&#\f. Page 4 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: August 28, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #25-98G Harvest Park Major Amendment and Replat - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff review meeting: September 18, 2002 r vI V" No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** t, p G L A 2 -3 Cu 7 E 1z ���� A tzy HL, lv U m C- tj Ts -P� ���)�c.9T-(fQ(, A� J Ncwn/ . > MCK HERE, IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE, COPIES OF REVISIOWignature:_ Plat _ Site Drainage Report _ Other Unity _ Redline Utility — landscape 3� L�aurn A� L XISTIAG C SC Mt r) � r REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: August 28, 2002 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #25-98G Harvest Park Major Amendment and Replat - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff review meeting: September 18, 2002 No Comment ElProblems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE" Ian a HERE IF YOU WISH TO RI Plat _ Site li ility Redline Utility Drainage Report _ Other Landscape RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Marc Virata General 5 Cotton Eyed Joe Lane has been changed to Fruited Plain Lane. 6 This will. be provided with the FCP. 12 We have revised the description. 16 We have changed the Access Ramps. 29 See Site Plan comment responses. 32 Comment is noted. Plat 9 We have revised the language. 13 We have indicated separate Blocks. 14 Tract C is correct. we have changed the line type to make this clear. Street Design is 19 We have Provided additional Spot Elevations. 24 We have provided the additional spots and lengthened the transition so cross slopes are with in code. Utility Plan 17 We have regraded this to meet the 500 sq. ft. requirement. 25 We have added the District Signature Blocks. 26 We have shaded the 4`s filing on the revised plan to make in more clear. 27 This can be discussed.