HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM FIFTH SETTLERS GREEN PDP - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-06-20REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
14, 2001 TO: Technical Svs
SATE: February TRACT I,
PROJECT: ETTLERS GREEN PDP EN FARMS - TYPE II -
SE
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current
Planning no later an the staff review meeting: V\1,.;--�
March 7, 2001
No Comrnent
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
C-7v d G'71
n C Etc—
ANC L=
t S �
CHECK HERE IP YOU Wls.-I To RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Other
Dtainae: Rcport
Plat _ site—_Signatw'e:_ ---
D aC�:alit�----1�slE°e_Iltilin�
'_ 1City of Fn++C'nllinc
i n"r C,,
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: July 11, 2001 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #56-980 Rigden Farms, Tract I, Settlers Green -
FINAL COMPLIANCE (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning no
later than the staff review meeting:
July 25, 2001
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
Name (please print)
CI IECR HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other
Utility Redline Utility _Landscape
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: May 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Settler's Green (informal submittal to Engineering)
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
1. Please ensure in future submittals that existing and proposed improvements are clearly distinguished.
Different line weights or line types should be used to distinguish between the two so it is clearly
understood, especially with regards to the existing public improvements along Rigden Parkway and
Custer Drive.
2. Additional information is needed to describe the curves used on the road design. In addition to radius
and length, ensure delta, bearing, and chord data is also shown on a curve table.
3. Detail 15 shows a 3.69% cross slope on one side of the inverted crown section, this does not appear
correct and should be 6% (which is the variance request being requested.)
4. The variance requests were approved by the City Engineer on 6/19/01. This serves as written
notification of this approval and no ftu-ther information will be sent unless requested.
5. Please ensure that a plan view of the grate is shown.
6. Remove the indication of 6" portland concrete pavement on the plans, pavement depth will be
determined by the pavement design.
7. The road designs appear to be fine, with the next submittal after hearing please provide a complete
blueline set for review. Mylars with this submittal are fine from my perspective provided that the
previous comments have been addressed and other departments have no objection.
(See redlines for any additional comments.)
Date: June 19, 2001 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISI S _
0 Plat Q Site ID Utility 10 Landscape 13 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: February 14, 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #56-98J Rigden Farms, Tract I, Settlers Green — PDP
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: March 7, 2001
❑ No Problems
P1 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
Utility Plan Comments:
1. The street design still has issues. The cross slopes that are shown on the cross sections as 2% are
actually less than 2% (.73%) and do not meet City standards. It appears that the design calculated
cross slope as a straight line grade from the high point (street centerline) to the flowline. This is not
the case because the gutter has a different slope than the pavement. In order to more accurately
calculate cross slope along the pavement the "rise over run" needs to be relooked at. The elevation
(rise) of the flowline needs to be increased by the vertical rise in the gutter (from the flowline to the
edge of gutter) while the length (run) needs to be shortened by the horizontal distance between the
flowline and edge of gutter. My previous redlines showed these calculations.
2. From my calculations and as shown on the redlines, I have taken select cross sections of Sitting Bull
Way and calculated what the centerline elevation would be assuming 2% from the centerline to the
flowline with the higher elevation. Some of the cross sections result in a cross slope of the other side
of the street well exceeding 4%.
3. Although not required, I would suggest that the profile of Sitting Bull Way also includes a centerline
profile. This would help confirm or deny whether there are major issues with the road design or if
minor adjustments are needed to be made in order for the design to work.
4. By my calculations, in both instances where the 36' transition takes place from the intersecting public
streets, the elevation of the centerline is lower than one or both of the flowlines.
5. The flowline shown for the alley on sheet C-5 is apparently the wrong flowline. It matches the
flowline on sheet C-6 exactly.
6. Please relook at the design of the concrete inverted crown section for the alley on sheet Cl 1. By my
calculations as shown on the redlines, a cross slope of 16% will occur from the edge of the road to the
elevation of the inlet. Perhaps the inlet needs to be adjusted to ensure a less steep section (or ideally,
remove the inlet and use a standard type R inlet along the flowline of the roadway and remove the
inverted crown section altogether.
7. The rollover curb shown on the long alley needs to be transitioned to an outfall rollover curb when
located within the concrete alley section with an inverted crown, otherwise water would not be able
Date: March 14, 2001 Signature:�-
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED RFVISIO
2 Plat 2 Site 2 Utility 9 Landscape ❑Drainage eport 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
to leave the rollover curb section.
8. The cross slope on the short alley appears to be lower than calculated and is reduced to .63% or less
as it approaches Rigden Parkway.
9. There is a vertical curve that needs to be lengthened on the right profile line in order to increase the K
value to above 20 for a sag vertical curve.
10. With the submittal of variance requests that do not meet the "Design and Construction Criteria,
Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewa!ks, Alleys and Other Public Ways", the design
engineer should provide a thorough justification for the reduction of standards. A variance request
should include the following and be signed and sealed by a Licensed Professional Engineer certifying
the varied design:
• The variance request included and how it differs from the standard.
• The standard, referencing the section and page in the book.
• Why the standard cannot be met?
• What problems are created by the vaned design?
• Are public health, safety, and/or welfare problems created and how are they addressed to
correct them?
11. Each of the submit variance requests to the Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways should be revised to include the
information referenced above. The following are just comments with regards to the specific requests.
• The reduction of the utility easement from 8' to 5' along the alleys appears to be okay based
on the responses I received from the utilities.
• The variance request letter requesting two variances with regards to minimum grade has
some issues. The first request may be granted provided sufficient justification as well as the
issues with regards to the overall street design are addressed. The second variance request
appears to not be an issue with minimum cross slope as stated but maximum as noted in
comment 46.
• The variance request to reduce the garage door setback from 8' to 6' appears to be ok based
upon conversations with the developer and City Staff.
12. See plans for additional comments.
Site and Landscape Plan Comments:
• Please show the sight distance easement that is illustrated on the plat on both the site and landscape
plans.
• Relocate the tree on the landscape plan that is shown in the middle of the sidewalk connection.
Plat Comments:
• Label the sight distance easements shown, they are not sight distance triangles.
(Additional comments may be made with resubmittal.)
Development Review Comments — Page 2
t_ity of Fort Collins
Current Planning
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: October 5, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #56-98J Rigden Farms, Tract I, Settlers Green — PDP
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: November 1, 2000
❑ No Problems
Rl Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Utility/Site Plan Comments:
• How will driveway locations and grass paver parking locations be coordinated to ensure that 20' for
single loaded drive width is maintained? It appears that driveway locations might need to be
designated on the nlan.
• The General Notes have been revised since the previous comments. Revise the General Notes as
redlined on the plans and add the following notes:
The contractor shall contact the Utility ]-800-922-1987, at least 2
Notification Center of Colorado (UNCC) at
working days prior to beginning excavation or grading in the area of UNCC registered lines to have those utility
locations marked by member companies. All other utility lines are to be located by contacting the respective
representative. Utility service laterals are also to be located prior to beginning excavation or grading. It shall be the
contractor's sole responsibility for locating and protecting all utilities during construction and for coordinating with the
appropriate utility company for any utility crossings required.
No construction shall start until the Development Construction Permit (DCP) for this project is issued.
• All necessary permits for this project which may include, but are not limited to, state highway access permits,
excavation permits, and/or street cut permits must be obtained prior to commencement of construction.
• The contractor(s) shall keep a current, clean, dry set of the record drawings, the development agreement and any
amendment to it, and the development construction permit (DCP) on site at all times. Contractor(s) shall redline
actual locations and dimensions for vertical and horizontal locations or proposed construction, utilities, structures,
services and other details not shown on the original drawings. Upon completion of the work, the contractor(s) shall
submit record drawings to the Engineer.
The contractor shall hire a licensed engineer or land surveyor to survey the constructed elevations of the street
suNgrade and the gutter flowline at all intersections, inlets, and other locations requested by the City Inspector. The
engineer or surveyor must certify in a letter to the City that these elevations conform to the approved plans and
specifications. Any deviations shall be noted in the letter and then resolved with the City before installation of base
course or asphalt will be allowed on the streets.
• If a conflict exists and/or a design modification is required the contractor shall coordinate with the consulting engineer
to modify the design and obtain approval from the City prior to beginning construction.
• A variance request is needed to use the area inlet along the alley. I received the variance request to
reduce the utility easement along the alleys from 8' to 5'.
• The road designs for the site are substandard. Plan and profile views conflict. Road cross slopes do
Date: January 17.2001 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISR t
J—Nflat Site alit -
�' � Y andscape ❑ Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
not meet standard and in some cases are far from meeting standard. (To meet the minimum cross
slope of 2% on one side of Rachel Lane, it appears the other side would have a cross slope of 12.2%?
The longer alley shows cross slopes that are as low as .26%. The shorter alley shows a cross slope as
high as 9%) I would suggest the next submittal include centerline profiles of Rachel Lane to help
verify the validity of the design. Additional comments may be made with the resubmittal.
• The sidewalks on Tracts A & B on the northeast area of the site are quite steep with 9% and 15%
grades, in conjunction with Transportation Planning, please look at providing steps for the trail to
lessen the impact of the slopes. It was also brought up at staff review that the two sidewalks should
connect in near proximity to each other across the alley rather than align apart from each other.
• Show asphalt patches on the utility plan and indicate "Limits of street repair are approximate. Final
limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance
with City Street repair standards."
• Where is the flowline designated on the high side of the alley?
• Additional comments may be made with resubmittal.
Plat Comments:
• Sight distance easements may be necessary. Please ensure a stopping sight distance of 100' and a
sight distance at intersections of 310' on alleys and a stopping sight distance of 200' and a sight
distance at intersections of 310' for residential streets.
• Provide the following note for any sight distance easements:
Sight Distance Easement — The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street
intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to
react safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may
occupy a sight distance easement for level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of sight for
motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no portion
thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that
they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of
sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of visibility.
Please see plans for any additional comments.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
55
7
a I PROJECT
Left
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planninp,
DATE: October 5, 2000 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #56-98J Rigden Farms, Tract I, Settlers Green -
PDP - Type I (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
November 1, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for facture reference
iJ ts, C-
12,-,1 f' NccJS N�luy
d J
l:)L a� AoT Ld&404
TWE
� H�
%
—-
M✓si 17cT
JU
IS
sCJzi 13C�!�)
/�U �� c i
ST-2CIC 0-7 1—
(f o 7-1
Signature
Cl IECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
t/Plat site _Drainage Report _Other
Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape