HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM SECOND - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-06-20Transport on Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
August 4, 2000
Mr. Roger A Curtiss, PE
Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
420 South Howes, Suite 202
Fort Collins, Co 80521
RE: Rigden Farm, Second Filing
Dear Bud,
This letter is in response to the variance request dated June 19, 2000 for the variance to the
2% maximum grade requirement for 50 feet from the right-of-way of the intersected street.
The variance request is granted. A grade of approximately 2.4% on Des Moines Drive at
its intersection with Rigden Parkway may be used.
This variance request does not set a precedence or change the application of our design
standards in other situations. If you have any questions, please contact Sheri Wamhoff at
221-6750.
Sincerely,
Sheri Wamhoff, PE
cc: Troy Jones
file
381 North College Avenue • P0. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6578
www.ci.fort-collins.co.us
MEMORANDUM
z
TO: Chin McNair, City Engineer
APPROVED
BY: 1, IDU VIC/ DAlE: 1-1 I q � ..
City of Fort Coilim
Engineering Department
THRU: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager .
FROM: Shea Wamhoff, CE II
DATE: .Tune 14, 2000
RE: Variance Request for Rigden Farms, 2nd Filing
Curb return radii
The following is a variance request for the use of a twenty five (25) foot curb return radii on local
streets where the neck -down is used in leu of the twenty (20) foot radii required by Section
1.02.03.09.e. of the Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets,
Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways.
Prior to the submittal of PDPs within the Ridgen Farm Overall Development Plan, the applicant
requested the permission to use neck -downs (bump -outs) at intersections. It was agreed that this
could be done provided an adequate width was provided to accommodate the travel lanes and
bike lanes at these narrowings, and that the narrowing would meet Poudre Fire Authorities (PFA)
Requirements.
The applicant request states that the twenty-five (25) foot radii are necessary in order to
accommodate PFA requirements.
I recommend approval of this variance. The variance was approved for Rigden Farm 1" Filing
and this plan is consistent with that in that the applicant has provided dual ramps at all
intersections and as such, a radii of 25 feet will not increase the length of street that the
pedestrian has to cross and will better accommodate turning vehicles. If you have any questions,
please call me at x9140.
:Attachments
May 24, 2000
Ms Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins - Engineering
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Rigden Farms Second Filing 9961.00 RIG
Variance Request for Curb Return Radii
Sheri,
On behalf of our client, Advocate Development and Construction, this letter is intended to request
an administrative variance of the 20 foot radius design criteria for curb returns along existing
Minnesota Drive, Limon Drive, and Rigden Parkway. In particular we would like to request a
variance to use a 25 foot radius along the curb returns where "neck -down" intersections are
proposed.
There was a request made by the developer of Rigden Farms First Filing, and approved by the
City for the above described variance. Their request was based on conversations with the Poudre
Fire Authority, who stated that a 25 foot radius was necessary for to accommodate turning
movements of PFA equipment for local and connector category streets. Our request would
maintain the precedent established by existing returns within the First Filing. We will also, as
designated within First Filing, install two access ramps at each return.
Please call if you should have any questions regarding this request, or if you need additional
information. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ro >er A ,urtiss P.E.
b >
Project Manager
Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
cc: Carl Glazer - Advocate Development and Construction
420 SOUTH IT OWES, SUITE 202. FORE COLLINS, COLORA00 80521, (970) 221 4158, FAX (970) 221 4159
PROJECT
(ION&ME'alCOMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Plannims,
DATE: August 22, 2000 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #56-988D Rigden Farms, LaGrange M/F — Final
Compliance (LUC)
All comments nnust be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff
review meeting:
September 6, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
Rigden farm 2n' Filing September 5, 2000
Did not receive redlines back for the plat or for the bridge and trail plans.
Plat _ .._„ o.,�r..arhinn into the(
do not encroach into the 9 foot easement behind the row. repeat
2 Update the notice of other documents.
3. The maintenance note for the private drive needs to be boxed, labeled notice and set aside from the other notes.
4. The vacation of easements note that was placed on the plat may require the City to sign as an owner in interest - I am
checking with the attorneys on this. It does not require the city to sign as owner.
5. There is an easement on lot 19 that is not labeled. What is this?
Utility Plans
I . Checking with the attorney on note 18 on your refusal to include the second sentence of the note. Okay as is.
2, 'rile plat should be included and referenced at the front of the utility plan set.
3. Need the drop structure Ac-desisn and details as well as the brid e desi n to be a part of the utility plans. Use current
signature block on the plans from Jim Sells office.
4. 'file parking area on lot 20 is now being shown without the adjacent walkway or curbing. This differs from what is
shown on the site plan. These plans need to match and the sidewalk needs to be placed along the boundary of the
parking.
5. "fhe cut lines on the pedestrian ramp details need to be rotated 90 degrees from shown.
6. "rile driveover curb in the driveover curb, gutter and detached sidewalk daetail needds t match threspce lcu b init for B. operati
maintenanc_and reconstruction of the private drives e,
ic in g_ Where the sidewalk is adjacent to the retaining wall, I am recommending the use of a railing. See plan for locations.
See ,.,.,,u mcras_o1l_tf - hri t =email sheet.
Signature f -
CHECh HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEI COPIES OF REVISIONS
_'SPlat =Sitc _Drainage Report _Other
Stlity RcdlineUtility-_Landscape l ryofPorteouina
' ' PROJECT
irofte COMMENT SHEET
City of Fo><4 Collins
Current Plannine
DATE: August 22, 2000 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #56-988D Rigden Farms, LaGrange M/F — Final
Compliance (LUC)
A11 comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff
review meeting:
September 6, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
N G 4 rt_
�e- �� u �uq1;�y a�
I p-� 11 11 e5
jex�' SizeS� dari�'17esS I
3, miss, �G c"_ o„` �_ �ouvtdcir� o lo+ ly-
y. wl1a� is %e II;� e jQ
Signature
CI IECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other
Utility Redlinc Utility _Landscape
City of Fort Collins
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: 456-98D Rigden Farms, La Grange M/F housing - PDP
(LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff review meeting
Wednesday, July 5, 2000
Rigden Farm, Second tiling July It, 2060
Plat
1. Have a note on the second page that states that all existing easement are to be vacated with this plat. That is not
what the dedication statement on the cover sheet says. Need to modify that statement so that they agree.
2. In accordance with LUC Section 3.6.2.(L)(4) need to provide text on the plat and the site plan regarding the
maintenance, repair, reconstruction of the private drives. Please do so.
3. In several locations the building envelopes are encroaching into the easements, modify the building envelopes so
they do not encroach into the 9 foot easement behind the row.
4. You only show one of the easements to be vacated on the plat. Why show one when you have not shown the
others. Would prefer that you show all of them.
5. Why are the sign easements, just off of Custer Drive within the driveways? Will have a hard time putting a sign
in the middle of the drive.
Utility Plans
6. Modify note 18 as shown and add the additional sentence attached.
7. Need the drop structure design and details as well as the bridge design to be a part of the utility plans.
8. The sidewalk overflow at the southeast comer of the project. The back of walk elevation for Custer Drive should
be 18.79 based on the given flowline elevation of 18.00, this means that this point is higher than the overflow - how
is the water to get to the streeU
9. Variance request is under review for you not meeting the max 2% grade for a distance of 50 feet from the row of
the intersected street.
10. Details -See comments on the street intersection detail and make changes. Indicate that the outfall vertical curb
and gutter detail is for on -site use only. Need to provide a detail for the detached sidewalk and the vertical curb and
gutter that is to be used on the local streets. Provide a copy of the notes from the other sidewalk ramps with the
private drive approach detail.
11. Need to provide a copy of the covenants, declarations and 'or by-laws that defines the responsibility for the
operation, maintenance and reconstruction of the private drives, etc in accordance with Section 3.6.2.(L)(4) of the
LUC.
12. Trail layout plan - the; trail doesn't meet our standard 60 foot min radius requirement for meandering sidewalks.
13. Is there railing on any of the retaining walls for the walls adjacent to the sidewalks? The detail indicates that the
wall height above the sidewalk to vary. Ok by how much and what is the min height above the walla?
Date: /%-/�h Signature:%�iC%
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS: j
Plat �)( Site Drainage Report _ Other
Utility r Redline Utility (----,,.Landscape
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: June N, 2000 TO: Mapping
PROJECT: #56-98D Ridgden Farms, LaGrange M/F
Housing - PDP (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
Wednesday, July 5, 2000
No Comment
0 Problerns or Concerns (see below or attached)
****PLEASE ()IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**
SS
Ct C �1C�
1 77
k�c cJ
`) �o!! '-TH�r S ��-)2 Ts �c D 11 c /v,Q l�A Di i 7
Date: Signature:_
CHEF Cuff YDO WISH f(1
Pat _Site _ Drainage Report _ Other
Utility Redline Utility — Landscape
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: Mapping
PROJECT: #56-98D Rigden Farms, LaGrange M/F — PDP -
Type II - LUC
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
PLAT c L65c; 6�lc
1 �z�T.3 PAD jjS 4i
T(!� 2.�uJ lNT�2S�� T�o1-F5�
�fF� 17 in�� X!� / ihlC (�� S�N%�NTS
% ti,)T-( I.
�+n �Votc i T/iv[, /[/ S Sru-- -J D 1 %H 1 PL4T
Date: Signature:_
CHECK M-U-YUU1 sfp IU
✓ Plat _ site _ Drainage Report _ Other
Utility _ Redline Utility _ Iandsrape
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: Mapping
PROJECT: #56-98D Rigden Farms, LaGrange M/F — PDP -
Type 11- LUC
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
C ; u, PA L) A
.
ti'% G
L x, ti
AJCC0)
--
Date: Signature:
CHECK
Plat _ site Drainage Report Other
_ Utility _ Redline Uttity _ Landscape — `�
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #56-98D Rigden Farms, LaGrange M/F — PDP -
Type II - LUC
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
No Comment
roblems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
Rigden Farm, Second filing page 1 of 2
June 1, 2000
Site and Landscape Plan
I . Show the sidewalk on Minnesota Drive and Limon Drive as being constructed with this site. It is not a part of the
first filing. There is nothing that distinguishes this sidewalk from the sidewalk on Rigden and Custer that should be
in before this site is completed.
2. Remove the phasing; from the site plan. The phasing shown only applies to the landscaping and not the actual
construction of the site. Eliminate the by others in the green belt area. If you wish to build and you have an
agreement that someone else is responsible for this and it is not done you can not build until it is done. It doesn't
matter who does it, it has to be done in order for you to construct.
3_ Site plan note I I - patios and courtyards are okay beyond the lot lines as long as there are no walls or decks that
require a building permit. All area beyond the lots are easements and structures are not allowed.
4. In accordance with LUC Section 3.6.2.(L)(3) need to provide text on the plat and the site plan regarding the
maintenance, repair, reconstruction of the private streets and private drives. Please do so.
5. Landscape plans notes 7 and 17 need to be modified as shown.
6_ the landscaping shown in the green belt as separate phases needs to be done with the adjacent lots. See plans for
an example.
(continued on next page)
Date: - ----- Signature
CHECK
Plat site _ Drainage Retort _ Other
Utility _'Redline Utility Landscape
Rigden Farm, Second filing page 2 of 2 June 1, 2000
Plat
7. There are existing easements on this site that are not being shown. Do you plan on vacating them with this plat? If
not they need to be shown. If you do wish to vacate these need to note such.
8. In accordance with L.UC Section 3.6.2.(L)(4) need to provide text on the plat and the site plan regarding the
maintenance, repair, reconstruction of the private drives. Please do so.
9. Add emergency access easements for the private drives that need it. Those for which the lots will be served by the
private drives.
10. Who is to own and maintain Tract A. Place note on the plat to this regard.
11. Need to show the 9 foot utility easement that is to be provided adjacent to every street. It does not appear that you
have 9 feet in all locations with the building envelopes shown.
12. Provide radius row x.. street intersections.
13. Tract A also needs to be an access easement as the trail goes through this lot.
Utility Plans
14. The phasing on the utility plans differ from the phasing shown on the landscape plans.
15. Provide designs for the pedestrian bridges. Comment indicated that they are part of the first filing. The first filing
has not provided any plans for these bridge crossings. They are still needed.
16. The improvements that you are showing by others - indicate that these improvements are per the first filing. I am
assuming that the design of this is part of the first filing. All improvements necessary for the development of this
site have to be completed with this development. We do not care how the financial responsibility is divided, but it
all must be done. I herefore you can not indicate that it is to be done by others, cause if they don't do it you still
have to if you want building permits.
17- Many of the utilities shown on this plan as existing are not shown on the approved plans for the first filing.
Changes/ revisions to the first filing plans need to be made or the work needs to be shown on these plans.
18. Provide information on the private drives such as: Corner radius, widths, and typical sections. Provided some
provide additional as noted.
19. There is a type III barricade shown going across the temporary fire access. When this access is needed the
han icade can not be there and when it is not needed (i.e. the second phase is built) it should also not be needed as
the area will be landscaped therefor preventing cut thru traffic. 1 just don't imagine that you want a barricade there
with the buildout of the project. Note that the other barricade shown is with Phase I only.
20. On the grading plan. You have now shown the sidewalk culverts for the drainage, but you have not modified your
grades so that the water will go through these and not across the driveway. Need to provide a highpoint at the
property line and/ or provide a sump condition at the throat of the sidewalk culvert.
21. The road as shown on the plans does not seem to follow the curve shown on the plat. It appears as if an angle point
is being used on the utility and site plans. Need to use acceptable curves an angle point is not allowed.
22. Not meeting the max 2% grade for a distance of 50 feet from the row of the intersected street. Need to request a
variance to this if don't wish to or can't change this.
23. Not meeting minimum vertical curve design values. Min k�30 for a local street crest curve. And a couple of
locations where grealer than allowed grade breaks are being used.
24. Eliminate the street intersection approach detail for an intersection without a crosspan. Do not have any of these
intersections.
25. The minimum crown transition per the standards is 30 feet. The 24 feet shown will not be acceptable.
26. The curb return radii for Des Moines and Rockford Drive can not be the 37.5-foot as shown. Must be in
accordance with standards (20-11) or the 25-ft requested, if approved.
27. Details — See comments on the sidewalk chase detail and the sidewalk chase, pan and curb opening detail. See
comments on the street intersection detail. Where is the curb taper detail to be used? Indicate that the outfall
vertical curb and gun.er detail is for on -site use only. You have provided a detail for a driveway cut for vertical
curb - since the modification was granted this is not needed, but do need to provide this detail for driveover curb as
you do still have driveways off of that. Also need to attach the driveway detail that was approved by the
modification. I have attached a copy with my comments. Need to provide a detail for the detached sidewalk and
the vertical curb and gutter that is to be used on the local streets. Also provide detail D-25.
28. Need to provide a copy of the covenants, declarations and /or by-laws that defines the responsibility for the
operation, maintenance and reconstruction of the private drives, etc in accordance with Section 3.62.(L.)(4) of the
LUC.
City of Fort Collinis
MEMORANDUM
A?PROVED
BY. 1 DATE: �! At,
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
TO: Caml Nair, City Engineer
TIIRU: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager
FROM: Sheri Wamhoff, CE II
DATE: August 1, 2000
RE: Variance Request for Rigden Farms, 2nd Filing
For approach grades on Des Moines
In accordance with section 1.02.03.05 of the Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways the maximum grade of any
street intersecting another street shall not exceed 2% for a distance of 50 feet from the right-of-
way of the intersected street (for a local street).
The applicant has submitted a variance request for this standard, as they desire to utilize a grade
greater than 2% on Des Moines Drive at its intersection with Rigden Parkway. In accordance
with the applicants letter the grade at the row is approximately 2.4%.
I recommend approval of this variance. If you have any questions, please call me at x7140.
:Attachments
April 27, 2000
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
From: Sheri W amhoff, Development Review Engineer
Re: Modification of standards request for Rigden Farm, 2"d filing
Attached is the modification request for Rigden Farm, 2❑d filing. Can you
please review this and let me know by Monday if you feel this is in
accordance with what was discussed and verify that the staff position is to
support the modification to the curb cut as shown and to not support the
request for drainage across the sidewalk.
Things 1 noticed - there was talk about access F (as shown on his plan)
needing to be a drive cut, is it okay to have the radius as proposed? The
ramps on Drawing B may need to be revised to more closely match those
that mike has shown on his drawings. As shown the flare for the sidewalk
extends onto the private property. Without an easement for this we
technically could not go in and repair that area in the future. As per mikes
drawing the entire sidewalk ramp would be within the row.
Thanks Sheri
,L
MODIFICATIONI REQUEST DRWG A
SCALEt 1-= 100'-0"
'---
T . T 1.
NORTH
-1 LET le,
CROSS SLOPE
6' TRANSITION
PROPERTY LINE -
DETACHED STREET R.O.V. --- ----
WALK
RAMP SLOPE= - --- --
- - -- --
1' PER FOOT
LANDSCAPED WARPED APRON_
PARKWAY
FLOVLINE RADIUS EQUAL TO
PARKWAY WIDTH
MODIFICATION REQUEST DRWG B
6' TRANSITION
RAMP SLOPE=
1" PER FOOT
DETACH
WAU
LANDSCAPED
PARKWAY
STREETS WITH HIGHBACK CURB
U
M
4' IN. COLORED__`-:
MAX. LOPE
I -/FT
-r
:�:7C0NCREli=t�_
I
III I
F-
2.
F-
cn
HIGHBACK CURB
Li
Lu
V))
PLAN
VIEW
FLOWUNE--�_
UP OF GUTTER
�---
A OS TYP.
TOOL JOINT
6' CENTERS
RAMP WnH PARTIALLY COLORED CONCR
SECTION A -A
N.T.S.
F- RAAP'""' 2'VU BE M)K]6 rt MUD TM 4 LES/ = Dkvm NO. 1117 (TIE RFD) PCLENE
OR AWROIS E0E11L DM aW 9WM OR kT"o E0 X 9YLL 2151 EE A'PLED ON ALL
C0 nM MNWZ SLWA=,
2 COILZD POFMM OF DE RAP S iKL BE F'OIRFD S[pARADLY HID DoWaL D Ito AUACDC
C0ECJE7E M A ImmIEL a 6 =411 EPA=. id Na 14 OE Vaa BARS MR LN E HOES
L26M
1 D OMIX ARE M BE =ED PEF6+Jo=M M Mra O6 E=al rN S 1/4 NCH aEP Man
6 HOES CN MW AS SHOW
1. W .I0M AFE aMM 61 DE nD"E = NCH 19E an OR a= "Ir HAT BE
MaM MO
OW D(W 6 NOES MW FLOW LIC AS %M
S- 16MML COmi DK*M 6 6 N]EI
L "IT PATTM M BE A=Fn6C D) 1llE=M a7n DEW (OEIFL 6-I6 m! D-7>) OR AS
DOvion ST DE CM Boar
7. SERCED V= RW FM91 6 WMED MM DITK MWACE OF RW ko 7RkgipK
:I- A 6 N01 rZE CpS Wy BE POAn Ai 7FE &fX OF DE RAP AS 2M F I.EMX� F an 6
03a (f SRVL 6M TIC CM kit O = MU a z2zw CUS kO p;Ti
CURB
MAX. FL
PEDESTRIAN RAMP DETAIL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION STANDARD
AND ALTERATIONS
D-1
CITY OF FORT COLL-INS, COLORADO
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'
APPROVED I z-�9
msition
Control
Joint
,L--Drivewcy
width A
1
Slope = 1/4"
per ft.
Slope = ["per ft.
M aximum
. Warped
section
Property Line
(Concrete Limit)
NOTE: EMPMSON JOINT To BE
PROVIDED AT BACK OF
WALK.
JO • '`
Joint
4'
Warped —__—_— WALK
section g r —
A".
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
ExPAHSYJN JOINT__
Transition
NOTE
Ranvfd DHw Aypmachn shot
Match E-4dmg Cowh om
f
A 6"
SEC�A-A-A
MT S
6 IVEWAY WIDTH
Minimum 10 FL
Muff. family
18 2 Family Res., Max. 25 Ft
Res-, Max. 20 Ft
- Business, Max. 35 Ft.
NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH DETAILS
VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
ENGINEERING DIVISION REVISED 1-8
REVISED 11-85
V REVISED 4-86
D-15
z
5
PROJECT
i.... COMMENT SHEET
'M
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: February 10, 2000 TO: Mapping/Drafting
PROJECT: #56-98D LaGrange Multi -Family Housing @
Rigden Farm PDP — Type I (LUC)
AI I comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
March 8, 2000 zi-GDr_uz
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
�; 1JLSc�ca r3Gr��
It 7 1 l Y 8 vTS 2c �T
�J � ,� /v -S
(� �i�cMTin 6 C K!J"j iiv� L4r Nr
r�lS �) _a i
JT4TC/3 d11� STI2 �T1
i{r-c t ,rzT v: Cc t 7 fa.7,Jt
c
S[gnature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
14, site Drainage Report Other
Utility __Redline Utility _Landscape
C';ti _ jam- ^ituco
( 0AFT - 1
=�!iqw Mki 0
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
(06ME COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Plannina
DATE: February 10, 2000 TO: Street Oversizing
PROJECT: #56-98D LaGrange Multi -Family Housing @
Rigden Farm PDP — Type I (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
March 8, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
.Si[ ,nature
CHECK IIERE IF YOu WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat —_Site Drainage Report Other
Utility — Redline Utility Landscape
PROJECT
iAZ COMMENT SHEET
City of Font Collins
Current Planning.
DATE: Febrtlaly 10, 2000 TO: Engineering Pavement
PROJECT: #56-98D LaGrange Multi -Family Housing (�
Rigden Farm PDP Type I (LUC)
All comments n-ILIst be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
March 8, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
Si, reunrrc
CHECK IIERE IF YOC WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat Site __Drainage Report Other
Utility Redline tkility _Landscape
(�Aq_ - I
M�kllm
City of Port Collins
01
/Arqm
PROJECT
1090"COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: February 10, 2000 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #56-98D LaGrange Multi -Family Housing @
Rigden Farm PDP — Type I (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
March 8, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for fidure reference
a
Rigden Farm, Second filing page l of 2 March 11, 2000
Site and Landscape Plan
L Show the sidewalk on Minnesota Drive and Limon Drive as being constructed with this site. It is not apart of the first
filing.
2 All driveways are to be driveway cuts per the LUC. Not radius entries.
3. The private drive in the northwest corner of the site exceeds 150 feet in length. Per the code the maximum dead end
length of a private drive is 150 feet.
4. The Phase I you have shown on the landscape plan will not work without a second point of access. It is possible to use
a temporary access out to Rigden. Also need to show the phasing of the utilities and the grading on the utility plans.
5. Eliminate the enhanced crosswalks at the driveways. Doing so will keep the project consistent with the first fill
iving.
6. 1n accordance with LUC Sections 3.6.2.(K1v) and 3.62.(L)(3) need to provide text on the plat and the site plan
regarding the maintenance, repair, reconstruction of the private streets and private drives. Please do so.
Plat
7. There are existing easements on this site that are not being shown. Do you plan on vacating them with this plat? If not
they need to be shown.
8. In accordance with LL1C Sections 3.6.2 (K)(5) and 3.6.2.(L)(4) need to provide text on the plat and the site plan
regarding the maintenance, repair, reconstruction of the private streets and private drives. Please do so.
9. Des Moines Drive needs to be shown as right-of-way. This can not be a private street.
10. Add emergency access to the easements listed for the private drives.
1 1. Need to define the private street as a utility, access, drainage, and emergency access easement.
12 Showing an area on lots 10, 14, 15 and 16 that look like an easement area, but is not described as anything. Clarify.
t3. who is to own and maintain Tract A. Place note on the plat to this regard.
Utility Plans
14. Correct the general notes as shown.
15, Need to show the phasing on the utility plans.
(Continued on next page) ,
Signature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
C< Plat _Site Drainage Report _Other_
kUtility redline Utility /,Landscape eiyof Fort cotHns
Rigden Farm, Second filing page 2 of 2 March 11, 2000
16. Eliminate the enhanced crosswalks at the driveways. Doing so will keep the project consistent with the first filling.
IT If you desire to keep Rockford Drive as a private street then you need to provide the following in accordance with the
LUC Section 3.62.(K)(i). Submit copies of covenants, declarations and/ or bylaws which defines the responsibilities
for the operation, maintenance, and reconstruction of the private street. Must provide for maintenance, reconstruction,
drainage, lighting, landscaping, traffic control devices and any other special conditions.
18. 1he information above must also be provided for private drives in accordance with Section 3.62.(L)(4) of the LUC.
19. Show the sidewalk on Minnesota Drive and Limon Drive that is to be put in with this project.
20. Many of the utilities shown on this plan as existing are not shown on the approved plans for the first tiling. Changes/
revisions to the first filing plans need to be made or the work needs to be shown on these plans.
21. Provide designs for the pedestrian bridges.
22. Provide information on the private drives such as: Corner radius, widths, and typical sections.
23. Per the LUC Section 3.6.2.(L)(2)(f) - if drainage from it private drive is channeled or directed to a public street the
water shall not be directed over the public sidewalk. The public sidewalk goes across the driveway, therefore not
allowed to do what you are showing. Need to use a sidewalk culvert/ chase to take the water to the street or put it into
an inlet and connect directly with the stormwater system.
24. The private drive in the northwest corner of the site exceeds 150 feet in length. Per the code the maximum dead end
length of a private drive is 150 feet. LUC Section 3.6 2.(L)(c).
2s. Des Moines Drive has to be a public street. Private streets are not permitted if in the judgement of the City engineer
the street will attract "through traffic". It is the judgement that this street will attract through traffic, therefore it has to
be a public street.
26. As per Section 3.6.2_(L)(2)(e) of the LUC a private drive connection with a public street shall be made with a driveway
cut (detail D-15). All driveway cuts need to be shown as such and not with the radius entries as shown.
27. Also need to show concrete to property line at all driveway accesses.
28. On the design for Des Moines Drive — the design needs to accommodate the neck in without a drop in the centerline
occurring and keeping the 20,. cross slope. There may be adequate slope to do this without the use of inlets on the
west side of the intersection with Rockford Drive. Please contact me if you do not understand this comment.
29. The road as shown on the plans does not seem to follow the curve shown on the plat. It appears as if an angle point is
being used on the utiliiy and site plans.
30. Provide the radius dimension that is being used at street intersections. In accordance with the standards the radius is to
be 20 feet. Rigden Farm first filing did request a variance to this for their filling to allow a 25-foot radius. If you wish
to use the 25-foot radius you will need to request a variance also.
31. Provide elevations at the intersections in accordance with detail D-19 and as shown on the plans. Also need to identify
the crown transition location and elevation.
32. Provide a detail of the neckdown. Provide I5-foot radii and not angle points. This will allow for a street cleaner to get
in. Min neck down width allowed is 22 feet for a residential street.
33. On the profiles -- showing larger than allowed grade breaks, missing some slope labels, need to identify the beginning
and ending of the vertical curves, need to provide curb return grades and the grade of the existing street being tied into.
14. Not meeting the max 24% grade for a distance of 50 feet from the row of the intersected street.
35. Details — Eliminate the drive intersection detail shown, as per above need to use driveway cut detail D-15. Make
changes to the pedestrian ramp detail as shown. Provide typical x-sections for streets and drives. At the full width and
at the narrowing. For Minnesota Drive and Limon Drive show the sidewalk (width ) and parkway width to be built
with this project. Provide intersection detail D-17 and provide detail N4. Provide detail D-25. Provide detached
sidewalk detail and make changes to the rollover curb as shown.
See additional comments on the plans.
June 19, 2000
Ms Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins - Engineering
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Rigden Farms Second Filing 9961.00 RIG
Variance Request for Approach grades of Des Moines
Sheri,
On behalf of our client, Advocate Development and Construction, this letter is intended to request
an administrative variance of the current design criteria for a 2% maximum fro approach grades
for intersecting streets. In particular we would like to request a variance to use a 2.4% approach
grade along Des Moines Drive where it intersects Rigden Parkway.
The geometry of the site is such that the grades for the driveway approach west of this
intersection needs to be at the elevations shown. We held these elevations and provided a straight
grad to Rigden Parkway, resulting in an approach grade of 2.4%. In our opinion, this would
provide a smoother driving condition situation than creating a grade break in this area to meet the
2% criteria, while still providing a relatively flat grade into the intersection. It is also my
understanding that the City is currently researching changing this 2% minimum criteria.
Please call if you should have any questions regarding this request, or if you need additional
information. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
cerely,
Roger A Curtiss, P.E.
Project Manager
Nor -them Engineering; Services, Inc.
cc: Carl Glazer - Advocate Development and Construction
420 SOUTH HOWES SUITE 202, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521, (970) 221-4158, FAX (970) 221 4159
July 30, 2001
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College
A_4411�k Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
I N C 0 R P o R R T E o Re: LaGrange Condominiums at Rigden Farm
DEVEL PMENT
CONSTMCTION
..v rr,¢�nn k�r;nMrnrer Dear .Sheri:
I am submitting a current Development Construction Permit application and an updated
Infrastructure construction and Inspection Costs with this letter. It is my understanding
from our recent conversation that I shall not be re -assessed the $300.00 application fee
which I paid with my 10/4/00 application. It is also my understanding that the
construction coordination meeting which was conducted for this project shall not need to
be repeated.
My listed sub -contractors have not changed, and - except for asphalt - they are holding
their prices.
In addition, the signed mylar utility and grading plans have been submitted with six sets
of stamped blueline drawings. The plat and development agreement have also been
submitted with all required non -City signatures.
Very truly yours,
Carl J. Glaser, President
ADVOCATE INCORPORATED
215 JEFFERSON
FORT COLLINS. CO
80524,2412
Ph 970.493.1104
Fax 970.493.3033
January 12, 2001
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
INCORPORATED
DEVELQgPMENT Re: LaGrange Condominiums at Rigden Farm
CONSTRUCTION
aN etiwi,vennl cnmrws Dear Sheri:
I am finally responding to a note you had on a 10/24/01 transmittal that accompanied
our original mylars. I am enclosing a copy of the transmittal to refresh your memory.
Your note was a second comment from you regarding the need for railings at retaining
walls along or in the Rigden Farm Second Filing (LaGrange) drainage -way. I am also
enclosing a 9/28/00 memo to Rick Lee of the City Building Department and his 9/29/00
response, along with the applicable portion of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
As you can see, code does not require a barrier if the height of the wall is less than 30"
and - as Rick amended my sketch - the ground does not drop lower than the 30"
limitation within 5 feet of the grade drop.
The Rigden LLC is responsible for the construction of all of the retaining walls, however I
have elected to have the walls extended to a seating height of approximately 18" where
any of the walls that are in close proximity to my units because I see the grade drop as a
hazard bud I would rather not have a guardrail. I am not sure what the intent of the
Rigden LL.0 would be for the retaining walls that are not under my control.
My question to Rick was if the seat -wall required the guardrail because the distance from
the grade to the top of the wall was more than the 30" limitation. His response was that
the guardrail would only be required if the distance from the walking surface to the grade
at a point five feet from the wall exceeded 30". Please let me know if there are other
regulations that I have not considered.
215 JEFFERSON
FORT COLLINS, CO
80524.2412
Ph 970.493.1104
Fax 970.493.3033
I have fine-tuned the composite utility plan with all of the utility entities. This required
making some adjustments in the water/wastewater plans and we also made some minor
grade adjustments on a drainage plan. I re -submitted the revised mylars to Roger
Buffington on 1 /9/01. Basil Harridan will review the mylars after Roger is done.
Very truly yours,
Carl J. Glaser, President
ADVOCATE INCORPORATED
cc: Scott Griffin
Vaughn Furness
October 3, 2000
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College
A-q441kIii, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
INCORPORATED
DEVELQPMENT Re: LaGrange Condominiums at Rigden Farm
CONSTRUCTION
IN FauNminat cnMvnmv Dear .Sheri:
The LaGrange project has received PDP approval. With this letter I request a construction
coordination meeting be scheduled for the LaGrange project in preparation for the
issuance of a Development Construction Permit.
In accordance with the printed requirements, the following is submitted with this letter:
8 1 /2'k11" copy of the approved site plan.
Proposed project schedule.
Project quantities and cost estimate for all public improvements to be constructed,
as well as, all private improvements that are required to be inspected by the City.
Permit Fee of $300.
In addition, this submittal is accompanied by:
Mylar utility plans ready for signatures.
Final plat ready for signatures.
It is my understanding that you have prepared a first draft of the development agreement.
I request the construction coordination meeting be scheduled for the earliest possible
date. Please be advised that this project has already been reviewed for all utilities in a
joint utility review meeting and locations of utility equipment and service have been
coordinated.
Very truly yours,
Carl J. Glaser, President
ADVOCATE INCORPORATED
215 JEFFERSON
FORT COLLINS, CO
80524,2412
Ph 970.493.1104
Fax 970.493.3033
Transpot .ion Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
August 1, 2000
Mr. Roger A Curtiss, PE
Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
420 South Howes, Suite 202
Fort Collins, Co 80521
RE: Rigden Farm, Second Filing
Dear Bud,
This letter is in response to the variance request dated May 24, 2000 for the use of twenty
five (25) foot curb return radii on local streets where the neck -down is used.
The variance request is granted. Twenty-five (25) foot curb return radii may be used on
the local street intersections where a neck -down of the street is being utilized.
This variance request does not set a precedence or change the application of our design
standards in other situations. If you have any questions, please contact Sheri Wamhoff at
221-6750.
Sincerely,
Sheri Wamhoff, PE
cc: Troy Jones
file
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
www.ci.tort-colIins.co.us
June 19, 2000
Ms Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins - Engineering
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Rigden Farms Second Filing 9961.00 RIG
Variance Rerluest for Approach grades of Des Moines
Sheri,
On behalf of our client, Advocate Development and Construction, this letter is intended to request
an administrative variance of the current design criteria for a 2% maximum fro approach grades
for intersecting streets- In particular we would like to request a variance to use a 2.4% approach
grade along Des Moines Drive where it intersects Rigden Parkway.
The geometry of the; site is such that the grades for the driveway approach west of this
intersection needs to be at the elevations shown. We held these elevations and provided a straight
grad to Rigden Parkway, resulting in an approach grade of 2.4%. In our opinion, this would
Provide a smoother driving condition situation than creating a grade break in this area to meet the
2% criteria, while still providing a relatively flat grade into the intersection. It is also my
understanding that the City is currently researching changing this 2% minimum criteria.
Please call if you should have any questions regarding this request, or if you need additional
information. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
incerely,
Roger A Curtiss, P.E.
Project Manager
Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
cc: Carl Glazer - Advocate Development and Construction
420 SOUTH HOMES, SUITc 702 FORT COLLINS, COLOR.ADO 80521, ( 9 7 0 ) 721-4158. FAX (970) 221 4159