Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAGE CREEK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-06-221,'1 I � �� s � • DATE: July 7, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: 425-98B Sage Creek PDP—Type II(LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: July 17, 2000 Utility Plan Comments ♦ Please page through all sheets of the utility plans for redlined comments. Utility Plan, Sheets 17, 18, & 19 of 64. ♦ Add Note: The Homeowners' Associations for Harvest Park and Sage Creek are to jointly maintain the 01 kite suhdrain system from the point where it connects at M11-20.2 to it outlet in the McClelland Channel. Local Residential and Collector Street Comments ♦ See redlined comments. ♦ Please make all slopes in the traffic circle at 2.0% Detail Sheet: Sheets 40-45 of 64: ♦ Provide modified driveway detail. ♦ For the typical cross sections, please show the varied width for Old Mill Road and Sage Creek Road (east). Date: '— Please send copies of marked revisions Sinn & Striping Plan; Sheets 46 & 47 of 64: Signature: _Plat _Site '... _'. ? _Utility Landscape NO COMN1l:NTS — SUBMIT MYLARS MOM City of Fort Collins PROJECT ( MCM COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannin2 DATE: April 21, 1999 TO: Mapping/Drafting PROJECT: #25-98B Sage Creek, PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, May 19,1999 7Li f 13 Z" C- 1, 3 r1C1v 77� 77i4 r kl&c-ds C; L" c "i "j I C- 4 7 61J OT- -FI2"i c7- REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: May 9, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: 925-98B Sage Creek—PDP—Type II(LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 Utilitv Plan Comments ♦ Please page through all sheets of the utility plans for redlined comments. Phasing Plan & Utility Phasing Plan, Sheets 7A & - of 64. ♦ In order to phase the construction of County Road 36, the applicant shall submit a full design for review, which shall show how the phased construction will tie-in to the existing street section. The design should use appropriate transitions and should show profiles for the temporary conditions. As shown the city can not allota County Road 36 to be phased. If the applicant would like to pursue phasing ofCounty Road 36, then I (Mark MCCallum w 22_1-6605) Would like to have a meeting to discuss tile phasing design. ♦ In regard to the phasing plan shown, please address all redline comments. As a recommendation, the applicant may consider showing four phasing sheets (one for each phase). Sear -Brown did a phasing plan similar to this with Warren Farms, 3r1 piling. Utility Plan; Sheets 17 18. & 19 of 64: ♦ Add Note The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the subdrain system proposed for this site. ♦ Add Note: The Homeowners' Associations for Harvest Park and Sage Creek are to jointly maintain the otT'site subdtai❑ system from the point where it connects at MH 202 to it outlet in the McClelland Channel Date: i.: ! I hr - Signature Please send copies of marked revisions _✓ riat _Site Citility _Landscape s El NO C'ONIMI TS — SUBMIT MYLARS Citv of Fort Collins Local Residential and Collector Street Comments ♦ See redlined comments. ♦ Please see round -about comments on sheet 50. Detail Sheet: Sheets 40-45 of 64. ♦ Please choose an enhanced crosswalk (concrete or asphalt) ♦ Provide modified driveway detail. ♦ For the typical cross sections, please show the varied width for Old Mill Road and Sage Creek Road (cast). Sign & Striping Plan: Sheets 46 & 47 of 64 ♦ (Note: If new comments conflict rnith the Traffic 01mrations Department in anyway, please refer to their eontment s.) ♦ See redlined comments in regard to barricade placement and phasing. Also, in order to eliminate redundancy, please either omit the County Road 36 sienina and striping here (and add a large and legible note stating that County Road 36 sign and striping in on Sheet 61) or omit sheet 61 and show full County Road 36 signing and striping on this sheet. Intersection Details, Sheet 48 -30 of 64: ♦ Instead of going through every intersection detail comment by comment, please see redline comments for more detail. County Road 36 Plan & Profile: Sheets 51 — 54A of 64: ♦ Please label all proposed and existing right-of-way lines. ♦ I still can not tell which street is the through street and how the crown of the intersection transitions. County Road 36 Cross Sections: Sheets 35 — 60 of 64: ♦ Please check all elevations between the profile sheet and the cross sections. On sheet 55, it appears that the elevations do not correspond with the profile. ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 36 and Sage Creek. This is important to see how County Road 36 cross sections slopes will "tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creek and into the existing conditions to the south. ♦ Please label existing and proposed right-of-way, where appropriate. Offsite Sanitary Serer Plan and Profile; Sheets 62 — 64 of 64: ♦ See redlined comments. Plat Comments ♦ Please reference comments from mapping & drafting. ♦ In the Certificate of Dedication language add dedication of Tracts 1, J, & K. ♦ Add language that all tracts are to be maintained by HOA. ♦ Please see other redline comments. Easement Comments ♦ All the easements and right-of-way dedicated to the city shall have all the appropriate language and signatures (see attachments for examples) Mary of the easements need corrections (see redlined comments on all easements). -file casements dedicated as private agreements can be recorded at the County. The city will need a copy of the filed easements with a reception number from the County Clerk prior to signing the utility plans. If ou have questions give me a call at 221.6605. The follow ing is a list of the required easements and riehts-of-way: I. Spike Hoffman a) Drainage Easement dedicated to City b) Sanitary Sewer Easement —Agreement between SFCSD & Spike Hoffman c) Water Line Relocation Easement —Agreement between SFCWD & Spike Hoffman d) Right-of-way Dedication to the City for County Road 9 Writer Homes a) Drainage Easement dedicated to the City for McClei land's Channel Improvements b) 'fenporara Construction Easement— Agreement between Writer Homes and the James Company 3. Webster Property (These easements will be processed by the Harvest Park Development. This development can not get utilit} plan approval until these easements are executed.) a) Sanitary Sewer Easement-- Agreement between SFCSD & the Webster's b) Sub -drain Easement -- Aercerr_ent between Writer Homes & the Webster's c) Temporary Grading Easement dedicated to City d) Right-of-way Dedication to the: City for County Road 9 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: May 9, 2000 TO: Mapping PROJECT: #25-98C Sage Creek —Final Compliance (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs 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** LL-� T -' LC E 10l5 i 1 t nct t a rz v vt �OGtt YJ1� 0. Date: CH'CK�iERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS t Site _ Dm=ge Report _ Other _ Utility _ Redline Utility — landscape .on Services Engineering Department Citv of Port Collins October 11. 1999 Mr. Eldon Ward. President Cityscape urban Design. Inc. 3555 Stanford Road. Suite 105 Fort Collins. CO 80525 Re: Sage Creek Local Street Design Requirements Dear Eldon: In a meeting between the Citv Current Planning & Engineering Departments on Tuesday, October 5, 1999, the applicant requested that the Engineering Department revisit the street connectivity and street width requirements (the requirements in question were in the Lngincering Departments comment letter dated September 15, 1999). Since October 5. 1999, City Staff has revisited the issues in our Staff Review and I ransportation Coordination meetings. Those meetings resulted in the following requirements: An addendum to the traffic studv will be required to account for the new connections into this site as well as to ensure that surrounding potential land development and redevelopment are being taken into consideration. Please contact Ward Stanford and Kathleen Reavis for information in regard to this addendum. Fhe aforementioned addendum showing future traffic volumes will be used by the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer to make a determination regarding widening Sage Creek Drive between Corbett Drive and the western property line io connector standards (36-foot cross section). Finallv, if the traffic stud: indicates that other streets exceed the Local Residential traffic volumes. then those streets should be desiened to Connector Local standards, as well. 3. City Staff collectively debated and agreed that Old Mill Road and Gristmill Road should be connected to provide a second direct connection to the north to serve the future City park and Preston Junior High as required per Land Use Code Section 3.0.3(13). 281 North CoIIer Avenuo • PC), Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 8052.2-0580 • (970) 221-6605 3. City Staff has determined that Sage Creek Road between County Road 9 and Corbett Drive shall be designed and built to Connector Local standards. Please see detail D-2-a. In the past, the City has experienced problems in residential projects with this density using the full street to park adjacent to the project (even though the parking internal to the site was approved to code requirements). In order for the city's local residential street, which has a 16-foot shared vehicle travel lane, to function properly it has to provide parking gaps. The purpose of the parking gaps is to provide vehicles a "yield and pause on the parking lane area until there is sufficient width to pass" (AASTHO 1990, page 436). The limited number of parking gaps adjacent to this type of housing density makes it necessary for the street to provide two travel lanes to accommodate opposing traffic (_AASI TO 1990. page 436). The city's local street that provides for two opposing travel lanes is the Connector Local. Transportation Planning would like additional street width to accommodate bike traffic on Sage Creek Drive between County Road 9 and Corbett Dive. The issue between City Staff is still open for debate. The city can require an additional 6 feet of pavement to accommodate bike lanes, but the question is whether the city will require 6 feet or some decreased amount. I apologize for City Staffs failure to resolve this issue_ I hope to have a final answer by Friday, October I5, 1999. 4. Old Mill Road shall be designed with a 34-foot cross section to accommodate bike traffic, accessing the park and the school. Please see Detail D-2-b(Bike Lanes) in the city's street design manual. I hope the requirements in this letter are clear. I recommend that the applicant revise the traffic impact study and submit it for review prior to the resubmitting the entire project. If thcre any question, call ]Nark McCallum at 221-6605 (ext. 7656). Sincerely, Cam Mc: air City Engineer Cc: Dave Stringe`�W� Mark McCallum Ron Fuchs Les Crawford Kathleen Reavis Ward Standford REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: August 25, 1999 TO: Mapping/Drafting PROJECT: #25-98B Sage Creek — PDP - Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 ElNo Comment M Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) .� A � � I �t 1.. 4-r_C �-1t CJ_l.�- �✓rrl�_r._Y. J /. l/-l% LiSAC,er or— A—L 12i}C-ry (�Il)�i 13 SIk��1� Date: Signature: CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ site _ Drainage Report _ Other Utility _ Redline Utility _ Imdsape City of Fort Collins PROJECT i:. COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins. Current Planning DATE: March 15. 2000 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #25-98C Sage Creek — Final Compliance (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: March 29, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference Signature CI IFCK HERF IF YOU WISI I TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _ Plat _ Site DndnageRepoit other -Utility __Redline Utility __Landscape city of Fort cou9ns ♦ Please omit the 1'CI easement line along County Road 36. The easement should be as shown on the Plat as a 15-foot utility easement. Drainage Erasion Control Plan, Grading Plan, 8, Overlot Grading Plan; Sheets 8 —16 of 02. ♦ "the phasing on these plans should be corrected to reflect the phasing shown on the overall utility plan, there is inconsistency on these plans in particular to the phasing of the bridge structures and McClelland Channel (Please show offsite construction and phasing). ♦ Please provide a cross section of the trail as redlined. In addition, please verify that trail meets all ADA requirements. Utility Plan, Sheets 17, 18. & 19 of 62. ♦ The water line channel crossing and box culverts for Corbett Drive shall be done with phase 2. Please correct. ♦ Please show phase 2 to extend offsite to incorporate the full McClelland Channel improvements. ♦ The two bicycle/ ped. paths shall be constructed with phase 2. ♦ "ihe sidewalk adjacent to the County Road 9 that connects to the bicycle/ ped. path shall be 8 feet in Wide (see redlines). ♦ The underdrain system shall require a groundwater study and a complete design on these plans. Contact ntc (Mark McCallum) at 221.6605 to discuss the underdrain design. Local Residential and Collector Street Comments ♦ Please review all plan & profile sheets. ♦ Please show all curb return profiles. Also, add page numbers to the notes. ♦ Please check all stationing. ♦ Please provide offsite construction easements for the construction of all bridges. Rahhn Creek Road Plan & Profile, Sheet 20 of 62. ♦ A vertical curve should be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac (see redlines). Old 11111 Road Plan & Profile; Sheet 21 of 62. ♦ The cross pan near PV I STA 12+09.75 should follow the vertical curve. If that is the intent than show that the cross pan follows the vertical curve. Otherwise, another option should be considered, such as eliminating the cross pan. ♦ The Iimits of construction should be shown on the plan & profile. ♦ A temporary turn around or a harricade at the end of Phase 3 should be installed where Old Mill Road extends north of Saddle Creek Drivc (see redlines). ♦ Pleasc clarify the County Road 36 signing and striping (i.e. reference the ultimate design and all interim design sheets). intersection Details; Sheet 48 -50 of 64, ♦ Instead of going through every intersection detail comment by comment, please see redline comments for more detail. County Road 36 Comments: ♦ Please label existing and proposed right-of-way, where appropriate (on cross sections). ♦ Sheet 54C: File lemporm patch for the 15:1 transition is adequate as shown on there plans; I lowccr. please add note that states the temporary asphalt shall be removed with the construction of Phase 3the remaining portion of Count} Road 3,6. Also, show all proposed phase I construction. I particular, all curb and gutter, the full pavement section for County Road ,6 with a temporary Transition on the south side of the roadway the portion of County Road 36 east of County Road 9. For the cross sections east of Cornerstone Drive, please add note that provided location of the cross sections. ♦ Sheet 541): "file temporary transitions are adequate. Please show that the temporary patch shall be removed at the time County Road 36 is constructed. Plat Comments ♦ Plat comments will be provided separate. Corbett Drive Plan & Profile; Sheet 22 of 62. ♦ A temporary turn around or a barricade should be installedjust north of Saddle Creek Drive (see redlines). ♦ please provide the curve data for the traffic circle here or on the intersection detail sheet. ♦ GRADE BREAKS .AT ROUNDABOUT??? Cornerstone Drive Plan & Profile: Sheet 23 of 62: ♦ The vertical curve near STA 11+00 does not have an adequate k-value (or vertical curve). The minimum k-value for crest curve with a 30-mph design speed is 30. Please correct the vertical cul,ves. ♦ The flowline elevations for left and right profile at the intersection with Sage Creek Road are identical. Please make sure that this is correct and that it corresponds with the intersection detail on Sheet 48. ♦ Please provide at least one midblock as ramp as redlined, and stripped crosswalk at that location. ,Sage Creek Road, Sheet 2.5, 25A & 26 of 62: ♦ On Sheet 25 and 25A at STA 10+00, please provide a match line. ♦ The grade break at approximately at STA 23+50 exceeds 0.4%. Please provide a vertical curve. ♦ The oil 'site vertical curve on Sheet 25A should have a Kmin. Value of 40. ♦ GRADI? BREAK ; AT ROUNDABOUT'?'? Detail Sheet: Sheets 40-45 of'62. ♦ Please provide a drive over curb & gutter detail with a detached sidewalk (see attached detail). ♦ Please include "Street Intersection Gutter Detail for Vertical Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk" with a 12-foot cross pan (Detail D-17; "SDW). ♦ Please show the design for the "Mid -block Access Ramp Detail" per the standard Detail, D-12.7 ("SDM"). ♦ Please include a detail for the enhanced crosswalks (see attachment) ♦ Please provide a modified driveway access detail. The detail should show a driveway access with cm-h returns and provide all pertinent protiles and notes customary with the typical driveway detail (see attachment). ♦ I:or the undcrdrain system add the manhole detail with a clean out (see attachment). ♦ 1 or the typical cross sections, add a note to the local residential street in regard to the varying street width of Old Mill Road and Sa-e Creek Road. Sign & Striping Plan: Sheets 46 & 47 of 62. ♦ (Noie. lfmv comments conflict with the Traffic Operations Department in anyway, please refer to their (omments.) ♦ Please show and label the barricade locations. In addition, to showing the locations of the barricades indicate the phase associated with the barricade. Please provide additional barricades as redlined (see plan and profile comments as necessary). ♦ Please show the County Road 36 signing and stripping here. ♦ Please provide a shared bike/ -parking lane for Sage Creek Drive between Corbett Drive and County Road 9. Intersection Details, Sheet 48 & 49 of 62. ♦ Instead of going through every intersection detail comment by comment, please see redline comments for more detail. County Road 36 Plan & Profile; Sheets 51 — 54 of 62. ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 36 and Sage Creek. This is important to see how CountRoad 36 will "tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creek and into the existing conditions to the south. ♦ Please provide curve data tables (on all sheets), and curb returns on the profile.. ♦ Please label (or shade) the temporary pavement section of County Road 36 on the plan view. The temporary pavement will need to be extended on the north side of County Road 36, east of County Road 9 to provide the transition from proposed to existing street width. Also, I need to see the existing right-of-way lines for this offAte area and any grading that is required to "tie- in" the street with the existing conditions. ♦ Please verify ;in([ correct the right -of -wary on the south side of Comity Road 36. It appears that the plan shows the tUtUrC right-of-way. ♦ the traffic impact at the intersection with County Road 9 makes it necessary to provide a northbound left turn lane. Therefore, the pavement width will increase along County Road 36 for the beginning of the transition to the intersection with County Road 9. Therefore, County Road 36 should be widened east of County Road 9 to "line-up" with the width to the west of CR 9. ♦ Please provide more information through the County Road 36/ County Road 9 intersection. Show the tlowline profile through the intersection on the north side of County Road 36 and show all curb returns for County Road Q. Finally, decide which County Road will be the through street. Logically. Count- Road 36 'could be since Comity Road 9's classification is downgraded south of County Road 16. ♦ fEMP.IMPROVEMENTS EASI`OFCR9??? ♦ LEET TURN LANES AT CORBETT AND CR9?99 County Road 36 Cross .Sections; Sheets 55 — 60 of 62. ♦ (Z'he previnn.r suhmittul had all the required irjornudiat. Pleuse provide the infarvtation shou,n on the previous subiniaal (see attachment on Sheet 55)). ♦ if more or less pavement is needed in any given area for transitions than the cross sections should reflect the pavement width that is being constructed. ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 36 and Sage Creek. This is important to see how County Road 36 cross sections slopes will "tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creek and into the existing conditions to the south. ♦ Please show existing and proposed right-of-way, where appropriate. ♦ Please label all slopes. ♦ Please show the intersection cross section to the flowline of County Road 9 (s"rA 47+00 & S FA 47 P)Oj. "Ellis shall include the full width of pavement. ♦ for the cinss sections between SEA 48+00 and 53+00, please show the pavement width on the plaN and profile, and apply that width to these cross sections. Also, properly label the existing right-of- way. This important to determining if grading easements are needed for construction. Cotouy Road 9 Street Plan for Sage Creek and Harvest Park. ♦ Note #24: This plan is a cooperative design effort for County Road 9 for the Sage Creek PDP and the Harvest Park PDP. Both projects stand alone with respect to their obligations for construction of County Road 9. Phis plan delineates construction obligations with notes throughout, but please review the development agreements for both projects for more information with regard to construction obligations for County Road 9. ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 9, Sage Creek and Harvest Park. This is important to sec how County Road 9 will `tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creek & Harvest Park, and into the existing conditions to the east. ♦ Please shoe- the design of the hridge detail in this plan set. Also, label it on the Plan and Profile. ♦ Please label where all pavement transitions begin and cud. ♦ Please provide a vortical curve for EVE S'rA 172+64.15. ♦ Please submit construction or grading easements for any work done outside the existing right-of-way. In particular, a construction easement is needed for the County Road 9 bridge and grading/ CtlnSn'uCtiO❑ easements for the slopes that extend heyond the existing right-of-wav as redlined on the cross scctions. ♦ The County Road 9/ County Road 36 intersection detail needs to be redesigned. Please see rcdlined comments made on that sheet. ♦ Please label all slopes on the cross sections ♦ Plcase provide the correct right-of-way adjacent to Harvest Park. The right-of-way should be at the back of the sidewalk. Also, correct the plat for Harvest Park to show the correct right-of-way. ♦ Please show the intersection cross section to the flowline of County Road 36 for the County Road 9 crow sections. This shall include the full width of pavement. ♦ Please verify that County Road 9 has been COnStrnCled south of County Road 36, and provide a few cross sections to show the constructed cross sections. ♦ Please show, how the offsite County Road 9 improvements for Sage Creek will "tie-in" to the existing conditions adjacent to harvest Park. REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 1, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: 1425-98B Sage Creek PDP—Type It(LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 General Comments ♦ Sec red Iined continents on all sheets of the utility plan, site & landscape plan, and plat. More specific comments will be, mentioned below. All boldfaced comments are previous comments that have not been addressed. Also, when I refer to the " SDM- (Street Design Manual), I am referring tothe city's "Ur.si,nn & ('onsN action ('riteria Standards A- S/)ecifications fir Streets. Sidewalks, Alleys, K Other Public f-Vohs" ♦ In general. the Engineering Department is disappointed with this submittal due the lack of response to many of our previous comments and failure to maintain consistency from one submittal to the next. In our opinion this subminal is less complete than the previous. The one highlight that we would like u, see incorporated into the rest of the submittal was the design of County Road 9. In any event, please contact me (Mark McCallum) at 221-6605 ext. 7657 to go over the comments listed below. My Hope is to increase the dialogue between the city and the applicant's engineer. At the time of the next submittal, the Engineering Department will make a quick glance review to dCtCl'III inC if this submittal is complete. If a majority of the comments have not been addressed, the Engineering Department will send the plan set back. Date:Signature: Please send copies of marked revisions _Plat Site _Utility _Landscape ❑ NO COMMENTS - SUBMIT MYLARS � City of Fort Collins ♦ Please see sheets IL 12, and 13 for phasing corrections. The phasing corrections are based on a meeting that occurred on November 30, 1999 with attendees being Les Crawford, Scott Holmes, Basil I lamdan, Matt Bakcr.. Marc Virata, and myself. Listed below are the phasing requirements agreed upon at that meeting: I. Phase I --- (Sce the highlighted area shown on the sheet 13.) With Phase 1, the developer shall improve all public improvements within the highlighted area, County Road 9 and County Road 36 to the width shown with this design adjacent to the property and offsite to the improved arlcriaL I`his will include the County Road 9 bridge structure and the sanitary sewer offsite outlall. 2. Phase 2 --- (See highlighted area shown on sheets 11. 12, and 13.) With Phase 2, the developer shall improve all public improvements within the highlighted area, the full width of the Me( 'lelland s Channel- the eastern bike/ ped. path and bridge, and construct the full length of the Corbett Drive hridgc. Also, County Road 36 adjacent to the phase. 3. Phase 3 --- (See highlighted area shown on sheets I I and 12.) With Phase 3, the developer shall improve all puhlic improvements within the shaded area and construct County Road 36 adjacent to the phase. 4. Phase 4 -- (See highlighted area shown on sheets 11 and 12.) With Phase 4, the developer shal improve all puhlic improvements within the highlighted are, construct the full length ofthe Old Mill Road bridge, the western bike/ peal. path and bridge and County Road 36 adjacent to the phase. Please add all notes that I have provided on sheets 11, 12, and 13 to the plan set. I recommend that applicant provide an overall phasing plan so that there is no confusion out in the field as this is being constructed. On t hat plan, please provide the location of all barricades and any other devices that are needed to maintain safety and access throughout construction. ♦ The hollowing are all the plans and documents included with this comment letter: L Utility Plan 2. A new version of the city's required "Plat Language" 3. `Notice of Other Documents" that should be added to the Plat 4. "Drive Over Curb & Gutter Detail w/ Detached Sidewalk" Utility Plan Comments Cover Sheel. Sheet I of N• yi 1 ♦ 1 Please include the County Road 36 Plan & profile and Cross Sections, the McClelland's Channel — improvements, and the Sanitary Sewer Outfall as part of this plan. The County Road 9 Utility Plan can be included in this plan set for reference onh. Horizonlal Control Moo, Sheels 6 & 7 of ??: 4- The private driveway width at the access for all the multi -family driveways shall not exceed 25 feet per Detail D-15 in the "SD�1" 4- Please provide a signature block on sheet 7. Utility Plan, Sheets 1" 18, & 19 of ??. ♦ The sanitary sewer connection to the outfall for the entire project will have to be built with this project or by the project that necessitates the need for the connection. Of course the District has the final aulhority. ♦ Please label the width of the bicycle/ ped. paths and label to be built with concrete.- ♦ II is my nndcrstanding that the bike and pedestrian path is not extending to County Road 9. If it is then the bike pedestrian path will have to go under County Road 9. With that in mind, County Road 9 would have to be redesigned to show the bike and pedestrian path going under County Road 9. Local Residential and Collector Street Comments s< ♦ Please provide flowline profiles! _,o, : Sze Q- i<= .J ♦ Please show all curb return profiles, storm sewers on the plan and profile, profiles to the centerline of the intersected street, cross -pans on the profile, point -of -curvature stationing, street intersection sheet numbers for reference, and type of curb and gutter (for the latter two and the intersection details include as notes that reference the appropriate Detail Sheet). Please include a curve data table on each profile sheet! Plcasc do not provide phase lines on the Plan and Profile sheets. ♦ Please provide oftsite construction casements for the construction of all bridges. Rahhit Creek Road Plan & Prrofrle; Sheet _10 of ??: ♦ Show the highpoint within the cul-de-sac, a 1-% minimum slope to the cross -pan, and a cul-de- sac minimum radius of 40 feet per Detail D-5 in the "SDM". Please include the detail of the cul- de-sac on the intersection detail sheet. Also, show more detail of the cul-de-sac, similar to what is shown on Detail D-23 in the "SDNP'. ♦ Provide an access ramp for the bicycle/ Pedestrian path. A cross -pan should be constructed at the intersection of Rabbit Creek Drive & Saddle Creek Drive. See redlined comments. ♦ Please label the point of transition for the widening of Rabbit Creek Drive at the County Road 36 intersection. Please label the different street widths. ♦ Plcasc show the lull cur -de -sac profile. OU IN/ Road Mon & Profile; Sheet 21 of ??. ♦ Please label the point of transition for the widening of Old Mill Road at the County Road 36 intersection. Please label the different street widths. ♦ Provide vertical curves at PVI STA 11+25. PVI STA 17+06.50, and PVI STA 18+05.09. The minimum K-value for a crest curve and sag curve at 30-rnph is 30 & 40, respectively. ♦ Please provide the vertical alignment i00 feet beyond the proposed construction to the north (See Section 1.02.03.06.b; "SDM"). ♦ Please show the cub ert/ bridge structure on the plan and profile, and add a note stating the detail location within this plan set. .:r Corbett Drive Plan &Profile; Sheet 22 of??� 4 Please show a complete design of the roundabout. This would include curve data and a cross section of the roundabout. This would include a cross section. r�l The sight distance for the traffic circle is based on being able to sec to the right crosswalk. J Please sec redline comments. Note: The sight distance is based on crosswalks that are pulled i; back 20 feet from the flowlinc. ♦ This development is responsible for their local portion of the bridge structure. Both the f_ llarvest Park and the Sage Creek plans shall show the design of the bridge structure. The - construction of the brid,,,e shall occur at such time that one of these developments proceeds with the phase of their project that necessitates the need for the bridge crossing. Each development is "= financially responsible for''/a their local portion of the bridge, while the citv's Street Oversizing < (Engineering) Department will reimburse for the oversized portion of the bridge (contact Matt Baker with Street Oversizing at 221-6605 if you have any questions). Consequently, the limits ofconstruction for Sage Creek shall include the full span of the bridge. Please show the bridge structure on the plan and profile, and add a note that state the location of the detail within this plan set. The access ramps at the roundabout should all be pulled back 20 feet from the flowline. ♦ Please show the profile design of Corbett Drive for 500 feet passed the limits of construction (Section 1.02.03.06(b); "SDM"). Cornerstone Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 23 of ??: ♦ The vertical curve PVI STA 11+00 does not have an adequate k-value (or vertical curve). The minimum k-value for crest curve with a 30-mph design speed is 30. Please correct the vertical curves. ♦ The approach grade for Cornerstone Drive at its intersection with Sage Creek Road should not exceed 2-"G, from the right -of way of Sage Creek Road (Section 1.02.03.O5.c; "SDM"). In this case Sage Creek is the through street. ♦ Please provide a vertical curve at PVI STA 13+03.45 (Kmin = 30). ♦ Please lahel the point of transition for the widening of Cornerstone Drive at the County Road 36 intersection. Pleasc label the different street widths. ,Saddle ('reek Drive Plan & Profile; Sheet 24 of ??: ♦ (,See typical comnien1v) Sage Creek Road. Sheet 25 & 26 of P ♦ Please show the profile design of Sage Creek Drive for 500 feet passed the limits of construction _ to the west (Section 1.02.03.06(b); "SDM"). tom? I'hc approach pride for the stubbed portion of Sage Creek Drive at Rabbit Creek should not exceed 2- '% from the right -of -sway of Rabbit Creek Drive (Section 1.02.03.05.c; "SIDM"). In this case Rabbit Creek Drive is the through street. ♦ The access ramps at the roundabout should all be pulled back 30 feet from the flowline. ♦ The profile through the roundabout should follow the flowline. Since the centerline is only shown. I can not determine how the Corbett Drive/ Sage Creek Drive intersection will drain. Also, no intersection detail was provided Please show a full design for the round -about. Brush Creek Drive Plan & Profile, .Sheet 2? of??: ♦ (See typical convnents.) Minor Arterial Street Comments ♦ (,-k was stated above, the County Road 9 street improvement plans have dratnatically unproved since the /a,vt submittal. Mayo incorporate the design aspects o1 Uoun1v Road 9 into the design of Counh� Road 30.) County Road 36 Plan & Profile, Sheets ?? of ??. ♦ The County Road 36 plan is not its own plan. The design should be included in the Sage Creek Utility Plans. ♦ Please correct the profile stationing. ♦ Please label all proposed construction more clearly. On sheet 2, an index of "proposed roadway construction" and "temporary asphalt" are provided, but not incorporated on the plan view. Please shade the roadway that is to be improved (as was provided on the County Road 9 plans). + ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 36 and Sage Creek. This is important to r see how County Road 36 will "tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creek and into the i existing conditions to the south. ♦ Please provide curve data tables, show cross -pans and curb returns on the profile, include notes as I have reclined on the utility plans, and PCR stationing. —i Please label (or shade) the temporary pavement section of County Road 36 on the plan view. The temporary pavement will need to be extended on the north side of County Road 36, cast of Count%y Road 9 to provide the transition from proposed to existing street width. Also, I need to see the existing right-of-way lines for this offsite area and any grading that is required to "tie- in" the street with the existing conditions. ♦ Please veritb and correct the right-of-way on the south side of County Road 36. It appears that the plan shows the future right-of-way. ♦ The tral7ic impact at the intersection with County Road 9 makes it necessary to provide a northbound tell turn lance T herefore. the pavement sa-idth will increase along- County Road 36 for the beginnine of the transition to the intersection with County Road 9. 'Therefore. County Road 36 should be Widened cast of County Road 9 to "line-up" with the width to the west of CR 9. Please provide more information through the County Road 36/ County Road 9 intersection. Show the Ilowline profile through the intersection on the north side of( ounty Road 36 and show all curb rCurus for Coumv Road 9. Also, show the pavement width and how this construction will "tie-in" Mill tile n e construction for fossil Lakes, which is complete on the south flow line. Finally, decide ss-hich ('omrh- Road will be the through street. Logically, County Road'(6 would be since County Road 9's classification is downgraded south of County Road 36. County Road 36 Cross Sections, Sheets ?? of ??. ♦ If more or less pavement is needed in any given area for transitions than the cross sections should reflect the pavement width that is being constructed. ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 36 and Sage Creek. This is important to see how County Road 36 cross sections slopes will "tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creek and into the existing conditions to the south. ♦ Please show existing and proposed right-of-way, where appropriate. ♦ Please label all ;dopes. ♦ Please correct the profile stationing and apply the corrections to the profile. ♦ Please show the intersection Cross section to the flowline of County Road 9 (STA 47+00 & STA L17 �50). Phis shall include the full width of pavement. ♦ For the cross sections bemeen ST.A 48-, 00 and 53400, please show the pavement width on the play and prol ile, and apply that width to these cross sections. Also, properly label the existing right-of- va ax. This important to determining if grading easements are needed for construction. Countti Road 9 Street Plan for Sage Creek and Harvest Park. ♦ Note P24: 'Phis plan is a cooperative design effort for County Road 9 for the Sage Creek PDP and the I lar%cst Park PPP. Both projects stand alone with respect to their obligations for construction of County Road 9. Phis plan delineates construction ohligations with notes throughout, but please review the development agreements for both projects for more information with regard to construction obligations for County Road 9. ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 9, Sage Creek and Harvest Park. This is important to see how, County Road 9 will "tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creek & Harvest Park, and into the existing conditions to the east. ♦ Plcasc show the design of the bridge detail in this plan set. Also, label it on the Plan and Profile. ♦ Plcasc label where all pavement transitions begin and end. ♦ Please provide a vertical curve for PVI STA 172 164.15. ♦ Plcasc submit construction or grading easements for any work done outside the existing right-of-way. In part icular, a construction easement is needed for the County Road 9 bridge and grading/ construction casements for the slopes that extend beyond the existing right-of-way as redlined on the cross sections. ♦ The County Road 9/ County Road 36 intersection detail needs to be redesigned. Please see redlined continents made on that sheet. ♦ Please label all :lopes on the cross sections ♦ Please provide the correct right-of-way adjacent to Harvest Park. The right-of-way should be at the back of the sidewalk. Also, correct the plat for Harvest Park to show the correct right-ot=way. ♦ Please show the intersection cross section to the flowline of County Road 36 for the County Road 9 cross sections l hiS shall include the full width of pavement. ♦ Please verify that County Road 9 has been constructed South of County Road 36, and provide a few cross sections to show the constructed cross sections. ♦ Please ;how hop" the offsite County Road 9 improvements for Sage Creek will "tie-in" to the existing conditions adjacent to Harvest Park. Detail Sheet; Sheery 40-45 of ??. tr ♦ For the "driveway Approach" detail, please include a note that states the maximum driveway width for a multi -family residential complex is 25 feet. Also, change the 2-inch flowline lip to %- inch, which is the requirement for drive over curb & gutter (vertical curb & gutter it is 2- inches). Please include the dummy joints for sidewalk detail as shown on Detail D-I1 in the "SDM". ice♦ Please provide a drive over curb &gutter detail with a detached sidewalk (sec attached detail). ♦ Please include "Street Intersection Gutter Detail for Drive Over Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk" (De(ail D-16: "SDM"), _i -. Please show the design for the "Mid -block Access Ramp Detail" per the standard Detail, D-12.6 ("SDM"). the modiled version as redlined is acceptable. i Please include a detail for the enhanced crosswalks at the intersection of Corbett Drive & Sage Creel: Road. t-T.z" :.a :_; r;k.,,, c- ♦ This plan should include the design of the culvert crossings (or bridges) for all three street bridge structures (County Road 9, Corbett Drive & Gristmill Road). 7 o:a _ ♦ This plan should include the deli n for the two- pedesttian/ bic de brid es. �(i' 1 fi I y' fi X- r .• -1 _°3� Please provide a modified driveway access detail. The detail should show a driveway access with curb returns and provide all pertinent profiles and notes customary with the typical driveway detail. ♦ Typical Sections County Road 9 and County Road 36 Sections: I. The design sections should have a minimum cross section of 36 feet with two 12-foot travel lanes and two, (-foot bike lanes (an 8-foot bike lane is alright with the city). 2. For the ultimate improvements, please label sections as 1 have redlined on the utility plans (Sheet 45). 3. Please show the County Road 9 typical cross sections on the Sage Creek Plan similar to the sections provided on the County Road 9 Plan (only adjacent to Sage Creek and offsite). 4. Please dhow County Road 36 as it will be constructed. 5. Please include all rotes for the ultimate design as shown on Detail D-1-c ("SDM"). 6. Please label a 15-foot utility, casement at the back of the right-of-way. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: April 21, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #25-98B Sage Creek, PDP-Type 1 (LUC) PLANNER: Ron Fuchs ENGINEER„ Mark McCallum All comments must be received by: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 ❑ No Problems M Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments The project utility plans are in need of major redesign. I foresee a few rounds of review before this pro.jer_t will be ready for hearing. See redlined comments on all sheets of the utility, site. and landscape plans. More specific comments will be mentioned below. i f you have any questions please call me (Mark McCallum) at 221-6605. All plans and documents included: 1. Utility Plan 2. Site Plan R Landscape Plan 3. Plat 4. City of Fort Collins Criteria for Engineered Subdrain System - Handout (Comments continued on following pages) Date: ` ' �'; `f signature:._--- PLEASIi SEND COPIES rY PLAT OP NIARKPD REVISIONS: � SITE Ej UTILITY ❑ NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS © LANDSCAPE Corbett Drive Section: 1. Per Detail D-1-E ("SDM"), curb & gutter shall be vertical. 2. Please label section as 1 have redlined on the utility plans (Sheet 45). 3. Please include all notes for the ultimate design as shown on Detail D-1-E ("SDM"). 4. Please label a 9-foot utility easement at the back of the right-of-way. Local Residential Sections: 1. Please include all notes for the ultimate design as shown on Detail D-1-E ("SDM"). 2. Please label a 9-toot utility easement at the back of the right-of-way. Sign & Striping Plan; Sheets 46 & 47 of ??: ♦ (Note: Ij my comments conflict with the Traffic Operations Department in onyn,ay, please refer to their comments-i ♦ Please show and label the barricade locations. ♦ Please label ;ill transitions. ♦ Please show more detail for Countv Road 16, including any transitions cast of the intersection with Countv Road 9_ Also. the traffic impact at the intersection with County Road 9 makes it necessary to provide a northbound lelt turn lane. Therefore, the pavement width will increase along County Road 36 for the beginning ofthe transition to the intersection with County Road 9. The increased width should be accommodated on the plan and profile sheets and cross section sheets. ♦ Please provide a shared bike/ -parking lane for Sage Creek Drive between Corbett Drive and County Road 9. ♦ Please show the County Road 9 signing and striping plan here, as well. It is important to see the full signing and striping at the County Road 9/ County Road 36 intersection. Intersection Details; Sheet 48 & 49 of ??: ♦ Instead of going through every intersection detail comment by comment. I will generalize certain comments below. Please sec redline comments for more detail. (Please provide all elevations. Some of the intersection details could not be reviewed due to a lack of information.) 1. The approach grade at all intersections should not should not exceed 2-% (Section 1.02.03.05.11; "SUM"). 2. Cho Old Mill Road/ Saddle Creek Drive intersection cross -pan slope does not meet the minimum slope requirement olA6% (Section I.02.03.12.c; "SDM"). 3. Please show the round -about intersection detail. 4. Please sec redline comments that describe crown elevations and spot elevations that need to be show-n on each intersection detail. �. Plcase include an intersection detail for County Road 9 & County Road 36 with the Sage Creek Plan set. Plat Comments a�,?,c It ;c-< /V,6,.' .: ♦ Please reference comments from mapping & drafting. ♦ I he plat does not have enough information to do as thorough review. Please provide all information that is typical with any plat. ♦ The utility casement along County Road 36 should be 15 feet. _ ♦ The roundabout needs to be dedicated as right-of-way. z� ♦ Please include note that the maintenance of all tracts is the responsibility of the H.O.A. ♦ Please include all language that l have described on the plat and use the information l have provided with the attachments. ♦ Please label all tracts. ♦ Please label the channel correctly. In other words, what tract is it in? ♦ In a few bridge locations (Ped. /bike path or street) and water main & sewer connections, the applicant will need to receive from the adjacent property owner, a temporary construction casements and/ or utility casements. Site & Landscape Plan Comments ♦ Please see comments under the UtilittvPlall Comments in regard to phasing of this project. Plcase label all casements on the site and landscape plans. Plcase make sure that the Utility Plans and the Site and Landscape plans have the identical inlorniation with regard to layout. "t • s r 1`er DATE: March 15, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: 925-98B Sage Creek PDP—Type II(LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 General Comments See redlined comments on all sheets of the utility plan, site & landscape plan, and plat. More specific coin [lien is will be mentioned below. All boldfaced comments are previous comments that have not been addressed. Also. when I refer to the "SDM" (Street Design Manual), I am referring to the city's Design & Consiraction Criteria Stundrn ds & Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks. Alleys, & Other Puhlic Wuys., Please note that the City did not receive the required easements to complete construction. Please submit signed copies of all required easements. Note that City will not except another submittal without those casements. lit addition, note that the utility plans for Sage Creek can not he signed until the Harvest Park utility plans are signed. Utility' Plan Comments Horizontal Control Plan: Sheets 6 & 7 of 62: ♦ Please provide a legend for a lines on the Horizontal Control Plan (typical). ♦ On sheet 6c, please show an offsite phase line for the McClelland Channel improvements (as part of Phase 2). ♦ please omit the TCl easement line along Count}r Road 16. The easement should be as shown on the Plat as a 15-toot utility easement. Date: _ Signature: — Please send copies of marked revisions o�[itility Landscape ❑ rio COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS =24ft City of Fort Collins Drainage Erosion Control Plan, Grading Plan, & Overlot Grading Plan; Sheets 8 —16 of 62. ♦ The phasing on these plans should be corrected to reflect the phasing shown on the overall utility plan. 'I here is inconsistency on these plans in particular to the phasing of the bridge structures and McClelland Channel (Please show offsite construction and phasing). ♦ Please provide a cross section of the trail as redlined. In addition, please verify that trail meets all ADA requirements. Utility Plan; Sheets 17. 18, & 19 of 62: ♦ The water I ine channel crossing and box culverts for Corbett Drive shall be done with phase 2_ Please correct. ♦ Please show phase: 2 to extend oftsite to incorporate the full McClelland Channel improvements. ♦ The two bicycle/ ped. paths shall be constructed with phase 2. ♦ "Hie sidewalk adjacent to the County Road 9 that connects to the bicycle/ peal. path shall be 9 feet in wide (see redlines). ♦ "I he underdrain system shall require a groundwater study and a complete design on these plans. Contact me (Marl: McCallum) at 221.6605 to discuss the tmderdrain design. Local Residential and Collector Street Comments ♦ Please review all plan & profile sheets_ ♦ Please show all curb return profiles. Also, add page numbers to the notes. ♦ please check all stationing. ♦ Please provide offsite construction easements for the construction of all bridges. Rabbit Creek Road Plan & Profile; Sheet 20 of 62: ♦ A vertical curve should be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac (see redlines). Old Nlill Road Plan & Profile; Sheet 21 of 62: ♦ The cross pan near PVI STA 124.09.75 should follow the vertical curve. If that is the intent than show that the cross pan follows the vertical curve. Otherwise, another option should be considered, such as climinatine the cross pan. ♦ The limits of construction should he shown on the plan & profile. ♦ A temporary turn around or a barricade at the end of Phase 3 should be installed where Old Mill Road extends north of Saddle Creck Drive (see redlines). Corbett Drive Plan & Profile; Sheet 22 of 62. ♦ A temporary turn around or a barricade should be installed just north of Saddle Creek Drive (see redlines). ♦ Please provide the curve data for the traffic circle here or on the intersection detail sheet_ ♦ Please correct the grade breaks around the round -about Grade breaks shall not exceed 0.4%. Cornerstone Drive Plan & Profile; Sheet 23 of 62: ♦ The vertical curve near STA 11+00 does not have an adequate k-value (or vertical curve). The minimum k-value for crest curve with a 30-mph design speed is 30. Please correct the vertical curves. ♦ The flowline elevations for left and right profile at the intersection with Sage Creek Road are identical. Please snake sure that this is correct and that it corresponds with the intersection detail on Sheet 48. ♦ Please provide at least one midblock as ramp as redlined, and stripped crosswalk at that location. Sage Creek Road; Sheet 25, 25A & 26 of 62. ♦ On Sheet 25 and 25A at STA 10+00, please provide a match line. ♦ The grade break at approximately at STA 23+50 exceeds 0.4%. Please provide a vertical curve. ♦ The offsite vertical curve on Sheet 25A should have a Kmin. Value of 40. ♦ Please correct the grade breaks around the round -about. Grade breaks shall not exceed 0.4%. Detail Sheet; Sheets 40-45 of 62. ♦ Please provide a drive over curb & gutter detail with a detached sidewalk (see attached detail). ♦ Please include "Street Intersection Gutter Detail for Vertical Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk" with a 12-foot cross pan (Detail D-17; "SDM"). ♦ Please show the design for the "Mid -block Access Ramp Detail" per the standard Detail, D-12.7 ("SDM"). ♦ Please include a detail for the enhanced crosswalks (see attachment) ♦ Please provide a modified driveway access detail. The detail should show a driveway access with curb returns and provide all pertinent profiles and notes customary with the typical driveway detail (see attachment). ♦ For the underdrain system add the manhole detail with a clean out (see attachment). ♦ For the typical cross sections. add a note to the local residential street in regard to the varying street width of Old Mill Road and Sage Creek Road. Sign & Striping Plan; Sheets 46 & 47 of 62: ♦ (Note If trty comments conflict with the Traqic Operations Department in anyway, please refer to their comments.) ♦ Please show and label the barricade locations. In addition, to showing the locations of the barricades indicate the phase associated with the barricade. Please provide additional barricades as redlined (see plan and profile comments as necessary). ♦ Please show the County Road 36 signing and shipping here. ♦ Please provide a shared bike/ -parking lane for Sage Creek Drive between Corbett Drive and County Road 9. Intersection Details; Sheet 48 & 49 of 62: ♦ Instead of going through every intersection detail comment by comment, please see redline comments for more detail. County Road 36 Plan. & Profile; ,Sheets 51 — 54 of 62. ♦ The temporary pavement will need to be extended on the north side of County Road 36, east of County Road 9 to provide the transition from proposed to existing street width. Also, I need to see the existing right-of-way lines for this offsite area and any grading that is required to "tie - it)" the street with the existing conditions. ♦ Please show all proposed and existing right-of-way lines. ♦ The traffic impact at the intersection with County Road 9 makes it necessary to provide a northbound left turn lane. Therefore, the pavement width will increase along County Road 36 for the beginning of the transition to the intersection with County Road 9. Therefore, County Road 36 should he widened cast of County Road 9 to "line -tip Al with the width to the west of CR 9. ♦ Please provide more information through the County Road 36/ County Road 9 intersection. Show the flowline profile through the intersection on the north side of County Road 36 and show all curb returns for County Road Q. Finally. decide which County Road will be the through street. logically. County Road 36 would be since County Road 9's classification is downgraded south of County Road 36. ♦ Please contact me (Mark n9eCallum to discuss the offsite County Road 36 design (east of County Road 9) County Road 36 Cross Sections; Sheets» — 60 of 62. ♦ (171e previous suhrn ual had all the required information. Please provide the information shown on the previous suhnutial (see attachment on Sheet »)). ♦ If more or less pavement is needed in any given area for transitions than the cross sections should reflect the pavement width that is being constructed. ♦ Please provide the proposed grading for County Road 36 and Sage Creek. This is important to see how County Road 36 cross sections slopes will "tie-in" to the proposed grading for Sage Creck and into the existing conditions to the south. ♦ Please show existing and proposed right-of-way, where appropriate. ♦ Please label all slopes. ♦ Please show the intersection cross section to the flowline of County Road 9 (STA 47+00 & STA 47+50). "rhis shall include the full width of pavement. ♦ For the cross sections between STA 48+00 and 53+00, please show the pavement width on the plan and profile, and apply that width to these cross sections. Also, properly Zabel the existing right-of-way. This important to determining if grading easements are needed for construction. County Road 9 Street Plan for Sage Creek and Harvest Parka ♦ See Marc Virata's redline comments for flarvest Park Plat Comments ♦ Please reference comments from mapping & drafting. Please include new plat language, sight distance language, and the "Notice of Other Documents Statement' (see attachments). ♦ Please see redline comments in regard to the "Dedication of Tracts" language. Contact me (Mark McCallum) at 221 .605 to discuss those comments. ♦ Please see other redline comments. Site & Landscape Plan Comments Please include city sight distance easement langauge lsee attachment). Soil Report Comments ♦ A groundwater analysis shall be done for the underdrain system. In addition, the recommendation for the underdrain systems design shall be incorporated in the utility design. The Citv will not except another submittal without the groundwater analysis. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: April 21, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #25-98B Sage Creek, PDP-Type 1 (LUC) PLANNER: Ron Fuchs ENGINEER: Mark McCallum All comments must be received by: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments The projC t utility plans are in need of major redesign. I foresee a few rounds of review before this project will be ready for hearing. See redlined comments on all sheets of the utilitc, site, and landscape plans. More specific comments will be mentioned below. If you have any questions please call me (Mark McCallum) at 221-6605. All plans and documents included: I . Utility Plan. 2. Site Plan & Landscape Plan 3. Plat 4. City of Fort Collins Criteria for Engineered Subdrain System — Handout (Comments continued on following pages) Date:/ G Signature: PLEASF�PIES ' PLAT OF MARKED REVISIONS: 2 SITE U11I.ITY ❑ NO COMMENTS — SIiBMIT MYLARS LANDSCAPE Utility Plan Comments ♦ The Site Plan is showing that the project is intended to be phased. The Utility Plans should show all phasing. Cover Sheet; Sheet l of 5? ♦ Revise the Vicinity Map. ♦ Revise the General Notes. ♦ Provide the Legal Description under the Title. ♦ In regard to the Detail Sheets, please include all pertinent engineering details (i.e. drivewa%. access ramp, street intersection, typical cross sections. curb & gutter; etc. ♦ Please include signing and striping plans as necessary for review. Horizontal Control Plan; Sheets 6 & - o/ 5?: ♦ Che private drive connection providing access for the multi -family units can not be a private drive for it provides a through connection (see Section 3.6.2(L)(1)(b) of the Land 1'se Code). Furthermore. per Section 3.63(D) sub -arterial intersections with an arterial street shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed 660 feet. ♦ The spacing of the driveway access points along Sage Creek Road shall be spaced at 200- tiwt intervals or aligned. ♦ Please provide more detail for the multi -family unit (townhouse") on the north side of Saee Creek Drive. ♦ The private driveway width at the access shall not exceed 25 feet per Detail D-15. ♦ The internal drive aisles for the multi -family on the south side of Saee Creek Road shall have a 20-foot inside radius and a 40-foot outside radius per Section 3.6.6(F) of the Land Use Code. The redlincd areas show inside radii that do not meet the minimum requirement. Please contact Ron Gonzales at the Poudre Fire Authority in regard to this issue. ♦ Please show the horizontal plan for County Roads 36 and 9 on these plans. ♦ Please show the existing accesses into the Homestead development on the south side of County Road 36. The Site Plan shows that the private drive for this development and the existing access do not align. Section 1.02.03.d of the Street Design Manual stipulates that Lill streets interesting an arterial street shalt align. Overall Utility Plan: Sheets 13. 14 & 1.5 of 5 >.' ♦ Please note that ADS subdrain system can not be within the right-of-way. Furthermore, a specific groundwater analysis will have to be submitted demonstrating that the ADS piping can meet The City of Port Collins Criteria _`or Engineered Subdrain System (See attached handout)_ This must be submitted by Groundwater Hydrologist licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Colorado. Reference water main sheet number for the plan and profile. ♦ Please show all services, valves, curb stops, meter pits; etc. Local Residential & Collector Street Comments ♦ A detail of all intersections sufficient to show drainage and ride -ability must be provided (per 1.02.0 ).05.e in the Street Design Manual). Please show this similar to details D-18 or D-19. Also. include the crown transition to the major street. ♦ Shaw all easements, grade breaks, curb return profiles, typical cross -sections, street intersection sheet numbers for reference, type of curb & gutter, and storm drainage inlets for all residential and collector streets. ♦ Please show all flowline profiles to the centerline of the intersecting street. Please show the driveway locations for all circled lot numbers on the utility plans. If the street his vertical curb & gutter, please show all driveway locations. ♦ The intersection of any street with a major street shall be designed to the ultimate street grade of the major street per Section 1.02.0i.05.d in the Street Design Manual. 1 am sure the consulting engineer is aware of this and has an idea which streets will be desi?nated as the major" street for the residential street system. However it is difficult to determine what are the "major" streets without the intersection spot elevations and curb return profiles. Furthermore, it appears that street layout and drainage plan conflict in terms of how the water will drain from the street. Due to the lack of detail and perhaps the lack of cross -pans, the drainage facilities for the local streets do not function properly. Finally_ the centerline elevations on for the profiles through intersection depict in many locations that the crown is either 'inverted or the intersection itself does not have enough elevation change to drain water properly. Corbett Drive Plan & Profile: Sheet 16 q157: ♦ ['lease show a complete design of the traffic circle. This would include all curves data. signing and striping, cross -sections. and spot elevations. t recommend that Traffic Operations be contacted to determine if anything else should be shown. The profile through the traffic circle should be shown as redlined on the plans. Utility Plan Comments ♦ The Site Plan is showing that the project is intended to be phased. The Utility Plans should show all phasing. Cover Sheet, Sheet 1 of 57. $A? Revise the Vicinity Map. i` -Revise the General Notes. �i Provide the Legal Description under the Title. 1 In regard to the Detail Sheets, please include all pertinent engineering details (i.e. driveway, access ramp, street intersection, typical cross sections_ curb & gutter; etc. Please include signing and striping plans as necessary for review. Horizontal Control Plan; Sheets 6 & 7 of 57: 0 The private drive connection providing access for the multi -family units can not be a private drive Ibr it provides a through connection (see Section 3.6.2(L)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code). Furthermore, per Section 3.6.3(D) sub -arterial intersections with an arterial street shall he spaced at intervals not to exceed 660 feet. The spacing of the driveway access points along Sage Creek Road shall be spaced at 200- loot intervals or aligned. Please provide more detail for the multi -family unit (townhouse" ) on the north side of Sage Creek Drive. The private driveway width at the access shall not exceed 25 feet per Detail D-I5. �The internal drive aisles for the multi -family on the south side of Sage Creck Road shall have a 20-foot inside radius and a 40-foot outside radius per Section 3.6.6(F) of the Land Use Code. The redlined areas show inside radii that do not meet the minimum requirement. Please contact Ron Gonzales at the Poudre Fire Authority in regard to this issue. ♦ Please show the horizontal plan for County Roads 36 and 9 on these plans. c� ♦ Please show the existing accesses into the Homestead development on the south side of County Road 36. The Site Plan shows that the private drive for this development and the existing access do not align_ Section I.02.03A of the Street Design Manual stipulates that all streets interesting an arterial street shall align. ♦ The sight distance in the traffic circle shall be measured at 200 feet due to the signing and actual traffic conditions_ 17ie sight lines redlined are not correct. Please use the sight lines measured in black ink. ♦ The design of the bridge will need to be coordinated with the project to the north (Harvest Park). 1 understand that the consulting engineer is the same, but the main question is "fiat project is going to take responsibility for the design and which project is going to pay for the bridge" I imagine that the bridge shall be shown on both plans and payment resolved between developers and The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department (Specifically, Matt Baker with Street Oversizing). Rabbit Creek Road Plan & Profile, Sheet 17 of 57. ♦ The mid -block pedestrian ramps should be shown on a lot line as well as it should provide a more direct connection to the access ramps across the street. Note: This is a typical comment for all ramps so apply as appropriate. ♦ Show the highpoint within the cul-de-sac. a 1 % minimum slope to the inlet, and a cul-de-sac minimum radius of 40 feet per detail D-5 in the Street Design Manual. Pleasc reference this detail on the Detail Sheets. The bike connection to the cul-de-sac should do designed similar to detail D-4 in the Street Desi-n Manual. Please reference this detail on the Detail Sheets. Old Vill Road Plan & Profile; Sheet 18 of 57 Please check stationing between the profile and plan view. Brush Creek Drive Plan & Profile. Sheet 19 of 57. ♦ At the corner of Rabbit Creek Road and Brush Creek Drive there will need to be a sight distance easement as redlined. Although curves FL57. FL58. FL59 & FL60 all meet the minimum radius requirements per Section I.02.0103 and Table 2 of the Street Design Manual. the curves have small deflection angles giving the appearance of a kink. 'fhe 1984 AASFITO explains that "Curves should be at least 500 feet long for a central angle of 5-DEG.. and the minimum Ieneth should be increased 100 feet for each I -DEG. decrease in the central angle" (pg. 249). The language in AASHTO is more representative for the design ofhighways than for the design of residential streets. After consulting with Mike Herzig with the Engineering Department, the appropriate are length for residential. collector and arterial streets designed to the minimum radius are 200 feet. 300 feet. and 400 feet. respectively. The source of this comment can only make this comment a suggestion and not a requirement Note: 1 will reference this comment again. Sage Creek Road Plan and Profrle; Sheet 20 & 21 (?/ J7. ♦ I low does Sage Creek Road between Old Mill Road and Corbett Drive drain on the south side of the crown'? There does not appear to be anywhere for the water to drain when it gets to the intersection with Corbett Drive. ♦ The arc length comment above will apply to curves F1,24. FL25. FL26, FL27. FL40_ FL41, FI,42 & 17_43. ♦ Please show access ramps at the intersection with Rabbit Creek Road. ♦ Please show more detail in the profile at the intersection Corbett Drive. ♦ The sight distance in the traffic circle shall be measured at 200 feet clue to the signing and actual traffic conditions. The sight lines redlined are not correct. Please use the sight lines measured in black ink. Please check stationing between the profile and plan view. Lone Pine Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 22 of 57: ♦ 1'he arc length comment above will apply to curves FL53 & FL54. ♦ Please clarify the stationing within the cul-de-sac. ♦ Show the highpoint within the cul-de-sac, a 1-% minimum slope to the inlet. and a cul-de-sac minimum radius of 40 feet per detail D-5 in the Street Design Manual. Please reference this detail on the Detail Sheets. Arterial Street Comments and Desi ♦ All developments must have adequate access to the city's Improved Arterial Street Network per Section 3.3.2(F)(1) of the Land Use Code. This will require that this development improve County Road 9 from the northern property line to the improved arterial system to the north at a minimum, 36 feet paved cross section on it base that is adequate to accommodate the ultimate design of the street. If Street Oversizing determines that the halt' widthimprovements for County Road 9 are not needed initially then development will be responsible for 36 feet paved cross section from County Road 36 to the improved arterial system to the north. The above comment will include profles and cross sections. • The Engineering Department is determining if we want the one -half -width of County Roads 9 and 36. However this development may be subject to Section 33?(L)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code which states that all arterial streets shall be improved to one -half -width with pavement. curb. gutter, sidewalk. and any other required street improvements as necessary to bring such street up to city specifications. ♦ In general, please show more detail. For example, show the difference between exiting and proposed (or future) conditions by accurate labeling flowlines, pavement sections, and rights - of -way lines. ♦ A detail of all intersections sufficient to show drainage and ride-abiiity must be provided (per 1.02.03.05.e in the Street Design Manual). Please show this similar to details D-18 or D-19. Also, include the crown transition to the major street. ♦ Show all casements, grade breaks, curb return profiles, stationing and elevations on all points -of -curvature, typical cross -sections, street intersection sheet numbers for reference, type of curb & gutter, and storm drainage inlets for all residential and collector streets. ♦ Please provide curve tables for all arterial streets sheets. Couny Road 36 Plan & Profile, Sheets 23-20 of 5'. ♦ Please show more detail. Also, include a signing and striping plan. County Road 36 Cross Sections, Sheets 27-32 of517: ♦ Please see cross sections 42+50, 43+00, & 43+50 for details that should be shown on all cross sections. ♦ Cross sections 28 �50 through 34+50 are incorrect. There appears to be a stationing error on the profiles that was transferred over to the cross sections. ♦ I do not need to see off site cross sections for County Road 36. Please eliminate cross sections 49, 00 through 5 3+50. ♦ Please show more detail for the cross sections that bisect County Road 9 (i.e. cross sections 47- 00 through 48+00. ( bunty Road 9 Plan & Profile. Sheets 33 & 34 of 57 ♦ Please show more detail. Also, include a signing and striping plan. ♦ Please show the profiles 1000 feet to the south of County Road 36. ♦ As stated above. County Road 9 improvements will have to be made to nearest improved arterial at a minimum of 36 feet. f need to see off -site profiles to the north. County Road 9 Cross Sections: Sheets 35-40 of 57 ♦ Sheet 35 was not included in the submittal. ♦ As stated above, County Road 9 improvements will have to be made to nearest improved arterial at a minimum of 36 feet. I need to see off -site cross sections to the north. Please see cross sections 42+50.. 43+Oo. & 43+50 for details that should be shown on a(] cross sections on sheet 27. ♦ I do not need to see off site cross sections for Countv Road 9 to the south of Cotmt_v Road 36. Please eliminate cross sections on sheet 39. ♦ In regard to the off site improvements, a meeting should be held in the near future to discuss potential build -out in the area. Currently, I am posing the question to Matt Baker in Street Oversizing, but no official response has filtered back my way. I will keep you posted. Connectivity ♦ The spacing of limited movement collector or local intersections with arterial streets shall be spaced at interval not to exceed 660 feet (Section 3.6.3(D) of the Land Ilse Code). This would require that the private drive along County Road 36 be desiened as a through public street. "All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing local street connections spaced at intervals not to exceed 660 feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or rcdevclopable land" (LUC'_ Section 3.63(F)). This would require four potential roadway connections to the north (an additional three). and one road connection to the west. City Staff has discussed the issue of crossing the channel at length. 1 would view Ron Fuchs' comments for more information. Site and landscape Plan Comments. ♦ See redlined comments. ♦ Please include sight distance easement language for the sight lines as shown on the Utility Plans. Also, sight fine language should be incorporated for the traffic circle. Use all applicable sight distance easement language. Plat Comments ♦ Please reference comments from mapping and drafting. ♦ The right-of-way dedication for Sage Creek Road between County Road 9 and Corbett Drive might need to wider. I recommend that Eric Brake. Traffic operations be contacted to determine if additional right-ol=way is needed. ♦ A minimum setback of 9 feet should be maintained adjacent to the right-of-way along the frontage of the multi -family development. The utility easement along County Road 36 should be 15 feet. .CITY OF FORT COLLINS CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERED SUSDRAIN SYSTEM 1. POSITIVE OUTFALL: Demonstrate that subdrain has positive outfall for gravity drainage; prevent surcharging of subdrain. 2. ADEQUATE ENGINEERING: Demonstrate that the system has been designed in consideration of site -specific groundwater conditions, soil properties, topography, and layout of proposed development. Address maintenance aspects of recommended design. 3. SANITARY SEWER KEPT DRY (MINIMIZE INFILTRATION): Demonstrate that the subdrain system maintains adequate flow capacity under peak hydraulic loading rates to keep groundwater below the invert of the sanitary sewer. 4. NO OFFSITE TRANSPORT: Show that the system will neither receive groundwater inflow from additional upstream developments, nor transfer collected groundwater to downstream developments. 5. WATER RIGHTS: The system shall be shown to preate no iiniury to existing water rightsintheyroject vicinity. COscat�. 6. ONE YEAR MONITORIN a system shall incorporate provisions to allow monitoring of groundwater levels to confirm that it is functioning as designed. 7. DESIGN FOR SEASONAL HIGH WATER: The system shall be designed in consideration of seasonal high groundwater levels anticipated at the project site. 8. GROUNDWATER BARRIERS: The system shall be designed such that clay cutoff walls are provided at boundaries of the development to preclude hydraulic communication with offsite utility trenches either upstream or downstream. 9. FILTER FABRIC: The utility trench shall be lined with a filter fabric specifically selected in consideration of on -site soil conditions in order to minimize the invasion of fine soil particles into the bedding gravel. REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 30, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: 425-98B Sage Creek PDP—Type I(LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting,: Wednesday, February 10, 2000 General Comments Please note that utility plans were not submitted and thus, this review is not a full engineering review. The intent of this review was to verify that the applicant's P.D.P. is in compliance with Land Use Code standards prior to the administrative hearing on February 28, 2000. After review of this submittal, it is the Engineering Department's view that the applicant has yet to demonstrate that the P.D.P. is in full compliance. The Engineering Department recommends that the Current Planning Department set a deadline, as they deem appropriate, for the applicant to revise the P.D.P. to come in compliance with the L.U.C. If the applicant does not address the remaining issues, the Engineering Department will recommend that this project not proceed to a public hearing and be reinstated into the P.D.P. process. In other words, another round of review prior to a public hearing. Sheet I of 9: Please show the approved site plan for Harvest Park. Sheet 2 of 9: Future driveway permits may be considered for Lots I 1 and 12 off of Corbett Drive, but the driveways should be shown on the site plan. ♦ Please show the crosswalk 20 feet from the flowline at the round -about. Date: o? d GO Signature: Pleases nd copies of marked revisions _Plat _Site _Utility Landscape — ❑ NO COMMENTS —SUBMIT MYLARS �— City of Fart Collins ♦ The access drive for the multi -family off of Corbett Drive should provide access ramps that align with Brush Creek Drive. Sheet 3 of 9: ♦ The phasing plan that is highlighted is my recollection of the construction phasing. Recently, Traffic Operations which was not at the phasing meeting, dating back to last year, has since commented that Corbett Drive and the associated bridge be constructed in Phase I of Sage Creek and Harvest Park. h is my opinion that in order for this project to proceed with a public hearing that this issue either be resolved or the construction phasing be omitted from the site plan. However, a phasing plan should be incorporated on the landscape plan for that purpose only (not for construction). f The fence setback for Lot I, BLK 4 and Lot 2, BLK 5 should be 8-feet from the right-of-way line. If there is a conflict between this comment and Traffic Operations comment please apply Traffic Operations comment based on their justification. Please label all bridge/ culvert structures. Also, show the phase they are to be built in. Sheet 4 of 9: Please provide cross sections for the 8-foot concrete path (as redlined). It is important that the cross slope for the path meets ADA requirements. The way the contours are shown do not appear to show an appropriate cross slope. Sheet 7 of 9: ♦ Please coordinate the landscaping for the round -about with Traffic Operations. DATE: August 25, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: 925-98B Sage Creek—PDP—Type II(LUC) A] I comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 General Comments See redlined comments on all sheets of the utility plan, site & landscape plan, and plat_ More specific comments will be mentioned below. If you have any questions, please call me (Mark McCallum) at 221-6605 ext. 7646. All boldfaced comments are previous comments that have not been addressed. All Italic comments are new comments with this submittal that should have been addressed with the first submittal. Also, when I refer to the "SDM" (Street Design Manual), I am referring to the city's De.vign & C onsiruction C'rYeria Standards & Spec fcations far Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, & Other Ptthlic Ways" ♦ Note that I have made a lot of new comments. This is the result of substantial redesign and due to the fact that the last submittal did not provide all the information that is required for a thorough review. As of today. September 13, 1999, 1 have not received from Sear -Brown, the applicant's engineer, a copy of the offsite improvements to County Road 9 for this project. In a meeting on September 1, 1999, the Engineering Department met with Jim Allan -Morley from Sear -Brown to discuss the offsite improvements necessary for the Sage Creek and Harvest Park developments. At the end of that meeting, I mentioned to Jim that if the changes to the offsite improvements for County Road 9, as we had discussed, were not submitted for review within a week of the meeting that I would not have time to review those changes as a part of this submittal. In any event, I expect at least one more round of review before public hearing for this project, so the changes to County Road 9 design should be submitted at that time. (Please see the "Arterial Street Comments" for information on the decisions made at that meeting.) Date: = 15 9 Signature: z Please send copies of marked revisions Plat x Site '-1-Utility xZandscape ❑ NO COMMENTS - SUBMIT MYLARS City of Fart Collins The following are all the plans and documents included with this comment letter: Utility Plan 2. Site and Landscape Plan >. Plat 4. A new version of the city's required "Plat Language' 5. A version of the "Sight Distance Easement Language' that should be added to both the plat and the landscape plan. 6. '`Notice of Other Documents' that should be added to the Plat Q�4 "Drive Over Curb & Gutter Detail w/ Detached Sidewalk" r�cc-l-n1;c4c,�cD- 7Lo 4Sa-G4..�'jti2 �c rh,�,r t.: -•uJ Utility Plan Comments Please include a signature location for the Traffic Engineer on all sheets of the utility plan. Please label the property line clearly on all sheets of the utility plan. The phasing plan for this project should be shown clearly on all sheets of the utility plan. The phasing plan should be shown to incorporate all bridge design crossings for both the street and path crossings. Along the same line,, the entirety of the channel section will have to be shown as part of one or several phases. Please coordinate the channel section with the Stormwater Utility & Natural Resources Department. The utility phasing will obviously have to be coordinated with the District. In any event, all utilities shall be shown as part of a phase (on all utility plan sheets). Also, all utilities shall be shown to stub - out past the phase that the utility is to be built in, Cover Sheet, Sheet I of 64. Revise the Vicinity Map to show all existing developments in the vicinity. ♦ Minor revisions to the General Notes. Horizontal Control Plan; Sheets 6 & 7 of 64. ♦ The private driveway width at the access for all the multi -family driveways shall not exceed 25 feet per Detail D-15 in the "SMNI". ♦ All driveway access points shall be constructed with concrete in the right-of-way (Section 1.02.12.6.(4); `SDIvl") All the parking stalls that are 17 feet in length shall provided a sidewalk adjacent to the stall of at least 6 feet to allow a 4-foot clear walking space for pedestrians with a vehicle overhang of 2 feet (Section 3.2.2(L)(4); LUC). ♦ Please provide a signature block on sheet 7. ♦ Please complete the curve data table on sheet 7. "When ;arages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the driveway most be increased to 28 feet" (Article 3. Paae 36 under Table B, LUC). Please apply this continent to the parking lot on sheet'. Utility Plan; Sheets 13, 14 & 15 of 69: ♦ I he sanitary sewer connection to the outfall for the entire project will have to be built with this project or by the project that necessitates the need for the connection. Of course the District has the final authority. ♦ Please label the width of the bicycle/ ped. path and label to be built with concrete. Please show all phasing on all sheets of the utility plan. See comments above, regarding phasing for this project. Local Residential and Collector Street Comments ♦ Please show all curb return profiles, profiles to the centerline of the intersected street, cross - pans on the profile, typical cross sections, street intersection sheet numbers for reference, and type of curb and gutter (for the latter two and the intersection details include as notes that reference the appropriate Detail Sheet). • 'fhe last submittal included a curve data table for all profile sheets. 'This submittal does not include curve data tables on any of the profile sheets. Please include a curve data table on each profile sheet. ♦ Even though the traffic volumes to not indicate that Sage Creek Road is a connector local street, the right-of-wav for Sage Creek Road shall be widen to a connector local standards. Furthermore, adjacent to the multi -family. Sa�ae Creek Road should be widen out an additional 6 feat to provide a shared parking/ bike lane. Sake Creek Road west of Corbett Drive should be the 36-foot connector cross section. It is Transportation Services justification that Sage Creek Road will function more like a connector local (if not a collector) in the future, as this area builds out. Please comment below under the site plan comments in reeard to Old Mill Road. if Old Mill Road is linked to the north to provide a direct connection, than it is Transportation Services believe that four additional feet of right-of-wav shall be granted to provide for bike lanes (See Detail D-2-b; "SDM"). ♦ The local resulenticd streets that intersect with County Road 36 (Rabbit Creek Road, (Nd ,hfill Road. & Corneratone shoil be designed with a 36-foot cross section and than transition to the 30 foot local residential cro,,a .eection. The reason fbr this is to provide a safer intersection for vehicles turning on aft (Ind oft Cowin Road 36crn . The cross section tvoukl he a 13foot through. 10-fbo1 left turn, & 13- fbot [hroutrh GSee the intersection standard cross section for a connector local street, Detail D-3-a. SD:1-t"). The transition taper o based or the following equation (equation is from MUTCD, 1988 Edition, page 6C'-3): 40-mph or less (speed limit) L=WS2,%60 Where: L — Taper Length in feet W = Width of offset in feet S � Posted speed or off-peak 85-%ile speed in ti1PH Overall UiilityPlan: Sheets 13, Id & 15 of 57: ♦ Please note that ADS subdrain system can not be within the right-of-way. Furthermore, a specific groundwater analysis will have to be submitted demonstrating that the ADS piping can meet T'he Clay of Port Collins Criteria for Engineered Subdrain System (See attached handout). This must be submitted by Groundwater Hydrologist licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Colorado. Reference water main sheet number for the plan and profile. ♦ Please show all services, valves, curb stops, meter pits; etc. Local Residential & Collector Street Comments A detail of all intersections sufficient to show drainage and ride -ability must be provided (per 1.02.03.O5.e in the Street Design Manual). Please show this similar to details D-18 or D-19. Also, include the crowd transition to the major street. ♦ Show all casements, grade breaks, curb return profiles, typical Gros" -sections, street intersection sheet numbers for reference, type of curb & gutter. and storm drainage inlets for all residential and collector streets. ♦ Please show all flowline profiles to the centerline of the intersecting street. ♦ Please show the driveway locations for all circled lot numbers on the utility plans. if the street has vertical curb & gutter, please show all driveway locations. ♦ The intersection of any street with a major street shall be designed to the ultimate street grade of the major strcct per Section I.02.03.O5A in the Street Design Manual. I am sure the consulting engineer is aware of this and has an idea which streets will be designated as the "major' street for the residential street system. However it is difficult to determine what are the "major' streets without the intersection spot elevations and curb return profiles. Purthennore, it appears that street layout and drainage plan conflict in terms of how the water will drain from the street. Due to the lack of detail and perhaps the Zack of cross -pans. the drainage facilities for the local streets do not function properly. Finally. the centerline elevations on for the profiles through intersection depict in many locations that the crown is either inverted or the intersection itself does not have enough elevation change to drain water Properly. Corbett Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 10 o 57: ♦ Please show a complete design of the traffic circle. This would include all curves data, signing and striping, cross -sections, and spot elevations. I recommend that "traffic Operations he contacted to determine ifanything else should be shown. The profile through the traffic circle should be shown as redlined on the plans. The actual taper length per side would be 31.25 feet. Please include 25 feet for storage. The total transition length is 56.25 leer. (This comment is new and should hale been noticed with the last cuhntittal. It is not a standard but the conmuent should be applied for traffic safety purposes./ Corbett Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 16 of 64: ♦ (Note: The profile design for Corbett Drive has changed since the last submittal. Therefore, the applicant should expect new comments.) ♦ Please show a complete design of the roundabout. This would include curve data and a cross section of the roundabout. ♦ The sight distance for the traffic circle is based on being able to see to the right crosswalk. Please see redline comments. Note: The sight distance is based on crosswalks that are pulled back 20 feet from the flowline. This development is responsible for their local portion of the bridge structure. Both the Harvest Park and the Sage Creek plans shall show the design of the bridge structure. The construction of the bridge shall occur at such time that one ofthese des--elopments proceeds with the phase of their project !hat necessitates the need for the bridge crossing. Each development is financially responsible for 'heir local portion oftha bridge, while the ::ty's Street Oversizing (Engineering) Department will reimhurse for the oversized portion of the midge (contact Matt Baker with Street Oversizing at 221- 6605 it have :ins questions). Consequently. the limits of construction for Sage Creek shall include the full span of die bridge ♦ The access ramps at the roundabout should all be pulled back 20 feet from the flowline. ♦ If cross -pans are used for the roundabout, they can only be used across Sage Creek Road, and the concrete should be poured along the curvature of the flowline. ♦ A cross -pan can not he used to cross a collector street (Section 1.02.08.f21); `-SDM"). Therefore, the cruss-pan at the intersection of Corbett Drive & County Road 9 should be omitted. ♦ Please show the bridge structure, all cross -pans and storm inlets on the profile. ♦ Please show the profile design of Corbett Drive for 500 feet passed the limits of construction (Section 1.02.03.06(b ): 'SDM`). (Note: The profile design was shown for 500 feet passed the limits of construction on the last submittal.) ♦ The vertical curve between stations 20+00 & 22-r00 does not have an adequate k-value (or vertical curve i. The minirnum k-value for a 40-mph design speed is 60. 1 am assuming the algebraic difference is correct for 1 do not have the slope of the profile from the PVI to 22+00. Please correct vertical curve and show all slopes. ♦ Please verify that Al profile elevations at intersections correspond with the intersection detail sheets. (1 have reclined all those that I have found that do not correspond with the intersection detail sheets.) ♦ !'he algebraic difference for the vertical curse between 14-65.22 & 16 r35?2 should be —0.66. Please correct. Otherwise the vertical curve is acceptable. Rabbit Creek Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 17 of 64. • Show the highpoint within the cul-de-sac, a 1-% minimum slope to the cross -pan, and a cul-de- sac minimum radius of 40 feet per Detail D-5 in the "SDM". Please include the detail of the cul- de -sac on the intersection detail sheet. Also, show more detail of the cul-de-sac, similar to what is shown on Detail D-23 in the'"SDM". ♦ on this sheet there is a curve data table, but the plan view does not designate where these curves are located. ♦ The curb return radii at the intersection of Rabbit Creek Drive & County road 36 should be 20 feet. ♦ T'he cross -pan at the intersection of Rabbit Creek Drive &County Road 36 shall be a minimum of 6 feet (Section 1.02.03.12.a: "SDM"). ♦ The bicycle% pedestrian path needs to be within a minimum access easement of 12 feet. The path should also be spaced from the lot line of Lot 5. See Detail D-4 in the "SDM". Also, provide an access ramp for the bicycle/ Pedestrian path. ♦ A cross -pan hould be constructed at the intersection of Rabbit Creek Drive & Saddle Creek Drive. Sce redlined comments. Old ddill Road Plan & Profile: Sheet 18 of 64. ♦ (Note: This profile only needs a few minor revisions. Please .see redline comments.) Cornerstone Drive Plan & Profile; Sheet 19 of 64 ♦ (Nate: The design of this street is new with this submittal. Therefore. all the comments below are ne to. j ♦ A cross -pan should he constructed at the intersection of Comerstone Drive & Sage Creek Road. ♦ The vertical curve between stations 10+75.93 & 1 1+75.93 does not have an adequate k-value (or vertical curve). The minimum k-value for crest curve with a 30-mph design speed is 30. Please correct the vertical awes for both the left & right profile so that they meet the minimum requirements. ♦ The approach grade for Cornerstone Drive at its intersection wirh Sage Creek Road should not exceed from the right-of-Gvav of Sage Creek Road (Section 1.02.03.05.c; "SDM"). In this case Sage Creek is the through street. Save Creek Road, Sheet 20 & 21 of 64: ♦ lNote. The street profile has not changed very much from the last submittal. However, the street plan ulon,r.4age Creek Rood's corridor has chanted, creating a couple new conflict points. GYith that in mind, the applicant should expect new comments.) ♦ Please show the plan & profile design of Sage Creek Road for 500 feet from station 10+00 going west (Section 1.02.03.06(b); `SDM" ). ♦ Please provide continuos station between profile I & 2 for this project. Also, properly show match lines between both profiles. ♦ A vertical curve is required for the crest PVI at station 18+86.44 for the left flowline profile. ♦ "fhe intersection detail for Sage Creek Road & Old Mill Road. as well as the Old Mill Road Plant & Profile depict that there is a sump condition at south side of the intersection of Sage Creek Road & Old Mill Road. In other words, for the Sage Creek Road right profile at station 17+76.98 the water would collect with no where for it to drain. Please correct the design of this intersection. Also, if this point were designed correctly with respect to drainage then a vertical would be required at the PVI (station 17+16.98) ♦ The access ramps at the roundabout should all be pulled back 20 feet from the flowline. ♦ The profile through the roundabout should follow the flowline as redlined. ♦ A vertical curve is needed for the grade break at station 11+08.88 (on profile 2) for both the right & left tlowline profiles. ♦ The vertical curves with the PVI stations 19+00 & 20+53.95 do not have an adequate k-values (or vertical curves). The minimum k-value for crest or sag curve with a 30-mph design speed is 30 and -10, respectively. Please correct the vertical curves for both the left & right profile so that they meet the minimum requirements. Gristmill Road Plan & Profile, Sheet 22 of 64. ♦ (Note: The design of this street is new with this submittal. Therefore, all the comments below are new.) ♦ Label curve stationing on the plan view. ♦ A vertical curve is needed for the grade break at station 10+50.00 for both the right & left flowline profiles. ♦ At the intersection of Gristmill Road & Saddle Creek Drive, Gristmill Road should be designed as the through street. Please correct the design of this intersection to show Gristmill as the through street. ♦ Both the Sage Creek and Harvest Park project development plans are responsible for'h of the culvert crossing (or bridge span). The design of the culvert crossing (or bridge) shall be shown on both the Sage Creek & Harvest Park utility plans. The construction of the bridge shall occur at such time that one of these developments proceeds with the phase of their project that necessitates the need for the bridge crossing. Unlike the bridge crossing for Corbett Drive, the city will not participate in the payment of this bridge. However, the city will try to help the builder of the bridge collect a repayment for construction of'- the bridge from the adjacent development. As a result the limits of construction will be the full bridge span. ♦ Please show the bridge structure, all cross -pans and storm inlets on the profile. ♦ Please show the plan & profile design of Gristmill Road for 500 feet beyond the limits of construction (Section 1.02.03.06(b); "SDNT7). ♦ The vertical curve for the left profile at station 16+70.00 does not meet the minimum k-value requirement for a sag curve of 40. Although it is close, please correct the vertical curve by those few feet. tlfiddle Creek & Temple Creek Plan & Profile, Sheet 23 of 64. ♦ (Note: The design of this street is new with this submittal. Therefore, all the comments below are new.) ♦ Label curve stationing on the plan view. ♦ At a "T" type intersection, the grade of the street intersecting with a through street should not exceed 2.0% for a distanice of 50 feet from the right-of-way of the intersected street (Section 1.02.03.05.c; "SDM"). Therefore, the approach grade is too great for Middle Creek Road and for Temple Creek Road intersecting with Sage Creek Road and Corbett Drive, respectively. Please correct the approach grades so that they do not exceed 2.0-%. ♦ In the comment above, I asked that the approach slopes be readjusted to meet the maximum slope of 2.0-%. Please do so, but also note that the transition slope from the intersection approach grade will need to be designed with a vertical curve at stations 10+50.00, 16+64.66 (Rt. Flowline) & 17+25.00 (Lt. Flowline). ♦ The vertical curves with the PVT stations 12+75.00 & 14+00.00 (Lt. Flowline) do not have adequate k-values (or vertical curves). The minimum k-value for a sag or crest curve with a 30-mph design speed is 40 and 30, respectively. Please correct the vertical curves so that they meet the minimum requirements. ♦ Please provide vertical curves at PVI stations 11+93.98, 15+50.00, & 13+47.38. Please be aware that the minimum k-value for a sag or crest curve with a 30-mph design speed is 40 and 30, respectively. ♦ The storm inlets between station 12+00 & 13+00 should not be designed within the 90-DEG bend. This is due to safety and maintenance considerations. Also, the access ramps should not be designed within the 90-DEG bend for similar reasons. Please correct the location of storm inlets and the access ramps. Saddle Creek Plan & Profile, Sheet 24 of 64: ♦ (Note: The design of this street is new with this submittal. Therefore, all the comments below are new.) ♦ Label curve stationing on the plan view. ♦ At a "T" type intersection, the grade of the street intersecting with a through street should not exceed 2.0-% for a distance of 50 feet from the right-of-way of the intersected street (Section 1.02.03.05.e; "SDM"). Therefore, the approach grade is too great for Saddle Creek Road intersecting with Rabbit Creek Road (Rt. Flowline) and Gristmill Road (Rt. & Lt. Flowlines). Please correct the approach grades so that they do not exceed 2.0-%. ♦ A cross -pan should be constructed at the intersection of Rabbit Creek Drive & Saddle Creek Drive. See redlined comments. ♦ Please provide a vertical curve at the PVI station 10+35.00 (Rt. Flowline). ♦ The vertical curves with the PVT stations 13+53.44 (Lt. Flowline) & 13.55.44 (Rt. Flowline) do not have adequate k-values (or vertical curves). The minimum k-value for a sag curve with a 30-mph design speed is 40- Please correct the vertical curves so that they meet the minimum requirements. Brush Creek Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 25 of 64.- ♦ (Note: This profile only needs a few minor revisions. Please see redline comments.) Minor Arterial Street Comments (Note: These plans need to show more detail, as I had requested in my comment letter from the previous submittal. I do think that the design of County Road 9 & County Road 36 will be adequate enough to go to public hearing after the next submittal, if the comments below are addressed, more detail shown from what is to be built, and offsite improvement requirements satisfied.) ♦ The following comments are from the last submittal and the September 1, 1999 meeting: All developments must have adequate access to the city's Improved Arterial Street Network per Section 3.3.2(F)(1) of the Land Use Code. This will require that this development improve County Road 9 from the northern property line to the improved arterial system to the north (which would be the southern property of Wildwood) at a minimum, 36 paved cross section on a base that is adequate to accommodate the ultimate design of the street. In the meeting we discussed a 36-foot cross-section with no curb and gutter, however since that meeting, Transportation Services would like the design to remain as you have shown with this submittal. In other words, the Developer will responsible to construct the one -half -width arterial street for both County 9 & County Road 36. The bridge construction for County Road 9 will be considered 'A of the Sage Creek developments responsibility. Below I have provided two options for this development in regard to the bridge construction. Regardless of the option chosen, the applicant will need to provide an ultimate design due to the 1000-foot off -site design requirement. Option 1: The developer can build a 36-foot interim bridge crossing the culvert as part of their off site design. This improvement will be at the cost of the Developer with no reimbursement from the city. At the time the bridge is constructed its ultimate width the developer will be responsible for'/< of the bridges local portion. Option 2: The Developer can design and build the bridge crossing the culvert to the ultimate standards. At such time the adjacent property develops the Developer can file for a reimbursement from the adjacent property owners. The Sage Creek development is responsible for''/a the bridge. Harvest Park is responsible for''/a the bridge. The property on the east side of County Road 9 is responsible for the bridge. In this option, Street Oversizing will repay the Developer for the oversized portion. Also, the Developer can ask for repayment from the Stormwater Utility (I suggest calling Basil Hamdan with the Stormwater Utility). County Road 36 Plan & Profile; Sheets 26-29 of 64: Please provide a curve data table, show cross -pans and curb returns on the profile, and include notes as I have redlined on the utility plans. Please fade-out existing contours and show the proposed grading for the entire portion of County Road 36 & Countv Road 9. Please label (or shade) the temporary pavement section of County Road 36 on the plan view. The temporary pavement will need to be extended on the north side of County Road 36, east of County Road 9 to provide the transition from proposed to existing street width. As a result of the last comment, I will expect to see cross sections for the temporary pavement transition every 100 feet until station 53+46.83. Also, I need to see the existing right-of-way lines for this offsite area and any grading that is required to "tie-in" the street with the existing conditions. ♦ Provide an intersection detail for the intersection of County Road 36 & County Road 9. ♦ Please label all proposed construction more clearly. Specifically, delineate proposed edge of asphalt on the south side of County Road 36 and east side of County Road 9. 1 have seen some utility plan profiles that shade the proposed construction. ♦ As the road transitions from the proposed tlowline to the existing edge of asphalt, please be aware that on the south side of County Road 36 and the east side of County Road 9 must have a pavement width to accommodate the bike lane. See the yellow highlighted area shown on the utility plans. ♦ Please verify and the correct right-of-way on the south side of County Road 36. ♦ Please show the plan view stationing for all PCR. County Road 36 Cross Sections, Sheets 30-34 of 64: ♦ Please see cross section station 22+00 on sheet 30 for all the information that I would like to see on all cross sections throughout. ♦ I noticed that on the south side of County Road 36 the pavement slope to drain the water is interrupted by the land slope. Please correct for all cross sections as indicated on cross section station 23+50 on sheet 30, ♦ If more or less pavement is need in any given area for transitions than the cross sections should reflect the pavement width that is being constructed (This comment applies to County Road 9) County Road 9 Plan & Profile, Sheets 35 & 36 of 64: ♦ (Note: See all comments made above for County Road 36. In particular the comments that mention County Road 9. Aiso see comments in regard to the September 1, 1999 meeting.) County Road 9 Cross Sections; Sheets 37-40 of 64: ♦ (Note: See all comments made above for the County Road 36.) ♦ Please show culvert crossing for station 155+00. ♦ Please show offsite 36-foot pavement section without curb and gutter from station 155+50 to the southern property line of Wildwood. These cross sections should show how the off -site improvements would be graded into existing conditions. If the ultimate improvements are shown, than they should be in a lighter shade. Detail Sheet, Sheets 55-60 of 64. ♦ (Note: The .street details shown on sheets 59 & 60 were not submitted with the last round of review. Therefore, all the comments below are new.) ♦ For the "Driveway Approach" detail, please include a note that states the maximum driveway width for a multi -family residential complex is 25 feet. Also, change the 2-inch flowline lip to `/z-inch, which is the requirement for drive over curb & gutter (vertical curb & gutter it is 2-inches). ♦ Please include the dummyjoints for sidewalk detail as shown on Detail D-I I in the "SDM", ♦ Please provide a drive over curb & gutter detail with a detached sidewalk (see attached detail). ♦ Please include "Street Intersection Gutter Detail for Drive Over Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk" (Detail D- 16, "SDM"). ♦ Please show the design for the "Mid -block Access Ramp Detail" per the standard Detail, D-12.6 ("SDM"). ♦ Please include a detail for the enhanced crosswalks at the intersection of Corbett Drive & Sage Creek Road. ♦ Please include "Pedestrian Ramp Details" for all appropriate intersection types used throughout this project site. ♦ This plan should include the design of the culvert crossings (or bridges) for all three street bridge structures (County Road 9, Corbett Drive & Gristmill Road). ♦ This plan should include the design for the two -pedestrian/ bicycle bridges. ♦ Typical Sections County Road 9 & County Road 36 Sections: I . Please separate the ultimate and interim design sections. 2. The interim design sections should have a minimum cross section of 36 feet with two 12-foot travel lanes and two, 6-foot bike lanes (an 8-foot bike lane is alright with the city). The interim improvements should not show curb & gutter, but should show the sidewalk adjacent to the property in its ultimate location. In the meeting on September 1, 1999 with Jim Allan - Morley, the city directed him to design the interim improvements along the section line (centerline). 3. For the ultimate improvements, please label sections as I have redlined on the utility plans (Sheet 60). 4. Please include all notes for the ultimate design as shown on Detail D-1-c (`SDM"). 5. Please label a 15-foot utility easement at the back of the right-of-way. Corbett Drive Section: I. Per Detail D-1-E (`SDM"), curb & gutter shall be vertical. 2. Please label section as I have redlined on the utility plans (Sheet 60). 3. Please include all notes for the ultimate design as shown on Detail D-1-E (`SDM"). 4. Please label a 9-foot utility easement at the back of the right-of-way. Local Residential Sections: 1. Please include all notes for the ultimate design as shown on Detail D-I-E ("SDM"). 2. Please label a 9-foot utility easement at the back of the right-of-way. Show intersection details per comments made about the 36 feet cross section at County Road 36. Sign & Striping Plan; Sheet 61 & 62 of64: (Note: The .Sign & Striping Plan is new with this submittal. Therefore, all the comments below are new Ifmy comments conflict with the Trafjic Operations Department in anyway, please refer to their comments.) ♦ Please show and label the barricade locations. The striping taper along County roads 9 & 36, which provides a transition from the ultimate width to the existing width of the street should be designed with the equation shown below (equation is from MUTCD, 1988 Edition, page 6C-3). Please label all transitions. 40-mph or less (speed limit) L=WS2/60 where: L = Taper Length in feet W = Width of offset in feet S = Posted speed or off-peak 85%ile speed in MPH ♦ Please show all striping widths and lane widths. Also, label stripe markings (i.e double yellow). Intersection Details; Sheet 63 & 64 of 64: ♦ INote. The Intersection Details are new with this submittal. Therefore, all the comments below are new.) Instead of going through every intersection detail comment by comment, I will generalize certain comments below. Please see redline comments for more detail. I. A few curb return profiles have slopes in the 4 to 6-% range. This is due primarily to the inadequate approach grades at those intersections. All curb return slopes should not exceed 2% (Section 1.02.03.05.b; "SDM"). 2. At a few intersections (i.e. Sage Creek Road/ Old Mill Road), the drainage does not work. In most cases this can be rectified with a redesign of the profiles and with the addition of cross - pans. 3. A few cross -pan slopes do not meet the minimum slope requirement of 0.6-% (Section 1.02.03.12.c; "SDM"). 4. Please make sure that the cross slopes of the through streets are between 2-4-%. 5. Please make sure all intersection elevations correspond to the profile elevations. 6. The cross slope for the roundabout should be maintained at 2.0-%. Please indicate how the Sage Creek Road (& if necessary Corbett Drive) crown transitions at the roundabout. From the drainage plan it appears that Corbett Drive will maintain its crown and the storm water will divert around the roundabout on the east and west sides. Therefore, there might be a need for cross -pans at the intersection. However, the main point is that Corbett Drive appears to "flatten -out" out at the northbound approach. Please make sure all elevations are correct. 7. Please see redline comments that describe crown elevations and spot elevations that need to be shown on each intersection detail. Please show all crown transitions! S. In the nest submittal, please include an intersection detail for County Road 9 & County Road 36. Plat Comments ♦ Please reference comments from mapping & drafting. ♦ The utility easement along County Road 36 should be 15 feet. ♦ Both the roundabout and island within the cul-de-sac need to be dedicated as right-of-way. Also, few the Corbett Drive redlines for other important sight distance requirements. ♦ The street width changes mentioned above under Collector & Local Street Comments should be applied here in regard to right-of-way width. See redline comments on the plat and information below. I . Sage Creek Road between Corbett Drive and County Road 9 shall have right-of-way width of 63 feet. 2. Sage Creek Road between Corbett Drive and western property line shall have a right-of-way width of 57 feet. 3. All local residential street intersecting with County Road 36 shall have a right-of-way width of 57 feet until it transitions to 50 feet of right-of-way. ♦ Please include note that the maintenance of all tracts is the responsibility of the H.O.A. ♦ Please include all language that I have described on the plat and use the information I have provided with the attachments. ♦ Please label Tract B and Tract C. ♦ For both Pedestrian/ Bicycle paths, please provide at a minimum a 12-foot access easement. See Detail D-4 (`-SDM-'). ♦ Please provide a drainage easement between lots 2 & 3 on the eastside of Gristmill Road. ♦ In a few bridge locations (Ped. /bike path or street) and water main & sewer connections, the applicant will need to receive from the adjacent property owner, a temporary construction easements and/ or utility easements. Site & Landscape Plan Comments ♦ Please see comments under the Utility Plan Comments in regard to phasing of this project. ♦ Please label all easements on the site and landscape plans. ♦ Please add sight distance easement language to the landscape plan notes. Please label all areas with sight line easements on the landscape plan (i.e. the roundabout and the cul- de-sac island). ♦ In review of Section 3.6.3(B) of the Land Use Code, I feel that Old Mill Road should provide a direct connection to the north property line, where it will connect with a stubbed street from the proposed connection is necessary to "... provide multiple direct connections to and between local destinations such as parks, schools and shopping". On Thursday, September 16, 1999, I took this issue to Transportation Coordination. The Transportation Services group decided that it is a reasonable connection that would provide a direct route to the park. The Building & Zoning Department has brought to my attention that the 6-plexes at the intersection of County Road 9 & County Road 36 are not multi family residents. Since the 6-plexes are considered single-family the private drive "loop " can not serve this development (LUC Section 3.6.2(L)(1)). Please correct this situation by providing public or private street connections or by requesting a modification to the standard. In regard to the latter, City Staff can not firmly state whether as a whole we will support the modification. It is up to the applicant to provide a burden of proof, which shows how this private drive system is equal to or better than an alternative public or private street syslem. I recommend that applicant contact Ron Fuchs (221-6750), Current Planning, to coordinate a meeting to resolve this issue. ♦ The sight distance in the traffic circle shall be measured at 200 feet due to the signing and actual traffic conditions. The sight lines redlined are not correct. Please use the sight lines measured in black ink. ♦ The design of the bridge will need to be coordinated with the project to the north (Harvest Park). I understand that the consulting engineer is the same, but the main question is what -project is going to take responsibility for the design and which project is going to pay for the bridge'? I imagine that the bridge shall be shown on both plans and payment resolved between developers and The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department (Specifically, Matt [faker with Street OversizinO. Rahhit Creek Road Plan & Profile; Sheet 17 of d7: ♦ The mid -block pedestrian ramps should be shown on a lot line as well as it should provide a more direct connection to the access ramps across the street. Note: This is a typical comment for all ramps so apply as appropriate. ♦ Shov the highpoint within the cul-de-sac, a 1-1/o minimum slope to the inlet, and a cul-de-sac minimum radius of 40 feet per detail D-5 in the Street Design Manual. Please reference this detail on the Detail Shects. The bike connection to the cul-de-sac should de designed similar to detail D-4 in the Street Design :Manual. Please reference this detail on the Detail Sheets. Old Mill Road Plan & Profile: Sheet IS of 57 ♦ Please check stationing between the profile and plan view. Brush Creek Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 19 of 5?' At the corner of Rabbit Creek Road and Brush Creek Drive there will need to be a sight distance easement as redlined. ♦ Although curves 1L57, FL58, 11.59 & FL60 all meet the minimum radius requirements per Section L02.01.0_1 and Table 2 of the Street Design Manual, the curves have small deflection angles giving the appearance of a kink. The 1984 AASHTO explains that "curves should be at (cast 500 feet long fbr a central angle of 5-DEG.. and the minimum length should be increased 100 feet for each 1-DF.G. decrease in the central angle' (pg. 249). The language in AASI ITO is more representative for the design of highways than for the design of residential streets_ After consulting with Mike Herzig with the Engineering Department, the appropriate are length ftu residential, collector and arterial streets designed to the minimum radius are '00 lect, 300 feet, and 400 beet, respectively. The source ofthis comment can only make this comment a suggestion and not a requirement. Note: I will reference this comment again. Sage Creek Road Plan and Profile; Sheet 20 & 21 of 57: ♦` Ilow does Sage Creek Road between Old Mill Road and Corbett Drive drain on the south side of the crown? There does not appear to be anywhere for the water to drain when it gets to the intersection with Corbett Drive. ♦ The arc length comment above will apply to curves F1,24, FI,25, 1-1-26, FI,2T FL40, FL41, F1,42 & FL43. ♦ Please show access ramps at the intersection with Rabbit Creek Road. Please show more detail in the profile at the intersection Corbett Drive. The sight distance in the traffic circle shall be measured at 200 feet due to the signing and actual traffic conditions. The sight lines redlined are not correct. Please use the sight lines measured in black ink. -s Please check stationing between the profile and plan view. Lone Pine Drive Plan & Profile; Sheet 22 of 57. ♦ The arc length comment above will apply to curves FL53 & 171,54. ♦ Please clarifv the stationing within the cul-de-sac. ♦ Show the highpoint within the cul-de-sac_ a I-% minimum slope to the inlet, and a cul-de-sac minimum radius of 40 feet per detail D-5 in the Street Design Manual. Please reference this detail on the Detail Sheets. Arterial Street Comments and Des ♦ All developments must have adequate access to the city's Improved Arterial Street Network per Section 3.3.2(F)(1) of the land Use Code. This will require that this development improve County Road 9 from the northern property line to the improved arterial system to the north at a minimum, 36 feet paved cross section on a base that is adequate to accommodate the ultimate design of the street. If Street Ovcrsizing determines that the half - width improvements for County Road 9 are not needed initially then development will be responsible lor 36 feet paved cross section from Count\ Road 36 to the improved arterial system to the north. The above comment will include profiles and cross sections. The Fngincering Department is determining if we want the one -half -width of County Roads 9 and 36. however this development may he subiect to Section 3.3 7(F)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code which states that all arterial streets shall be improved to one -half -width with pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk. and any other required street improvements as necessary to bring such street up to city specifications. ♦ In general, please show more detail. For example, show the difference between exiting and proposed (or future) conditions by accurate labeling tlowlines, pavement sections, and rights - of -way Tines. ♦ A detail of all intersections sufficient to show drainage and ride -ability must be provided (per 1.02.03.05.e in the Street Design Manual). Please show this similar to details D-18 or D-19. Also. include the crown transition to the major street. ♦ Show all casements, grade breaks, curb return profiles, stationing and elevations on all points -of -curvature, typical cross -sections, street intersection sheet numbers for reference, type of Curb & gutter, and storm drainage inlets for all residential and collector streets. ♦ Please provide curve tables for all arterial streets sheets. County Road 36 Plan & Profile; Sheets 23-26 of 57. ♦ Please show more detail. Also, include a signing and striping plan. County Road 36 Cross Sections. Sheets 27-32 of 57. ♦ Please see cross sections 42+50.43+00, & 43+50 for details that should be shown on all cross sections. ♦ Cross sections 28+50 through 34+50 are incorrect. There appears to be a stationing error on the profIcs that was transferred over to the cross sections. ♦ I do not need to see off site cross sections for County Road 36. Please eliminate cross sections 491-00 through 53+50. ♦ Please show more detail for the cross sections that bisect County Road 9 (i_e. cross sections 47+00 through d 8+00. Courtly Road 9 Plan & Profile; Sheets 33 & 34 of 5?: ♦ Please show more detail. Also, include a signing and striping plan. ♦ Please show the profiles 1000 feet to the south of County Road 36. ♦ As stated above. County Road 9 improvements will have to be made to nearest improved arterial at a minimum of 36 feet. 1 need to see off -site profiles to the north. County Road 9 Cross Sections. Sheets 35-40 of`57. ♦ Sheet 35 was not included in the submittal. ♦ As stated above.. County Road 9 improvements will have to be made to nearest improved arterial at a minimum of 36 feet_ I need to see off -site cross sections to the north. ♦ Please see cross sections 42+50. 43+00, & 43+50 for details that should be shown on all cross sections on sheet 27. ♦ I do not need to see off site cross sections for County Road 9 to the south of County Road 36. Please eliminate cross sections on sheet 39. ♦ In regard to the off -site improvements, a meeting should he held in the near future to discuss potential build -out in the area. Currently, I am posing the question to Matt Baker in Street Oversizing, but no official response has filtered back my way. I will keep you posted. Connectivity }The spacing of limited movement collector or local intersections with arterial streets shall be �f spaced at interval not to exceed 660 feet (Section 3.6.3(D) of the Land Use Code). This would require that the private drive along County Road 36 be designed as a through public street. "All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing local street connections spaced at intervals not to exceed 660 feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redcvelopable land" (LUC. Section 3.6.3(F)). phis would require four potential roadway connections to the north (an additional three), and one road connection to the west. City Staff has discussed the issue of crossing_ the channel at length. I would view Ron Fuchs' comments for more information. .Site and landscape Plan Comments. ♦ See redlined comments. ♦ Please include sight distance easement language for the sight lines as shown on the Utilih Plans. Also. sight line language should he incorporated for the traffic circle. Use all applicable sight distance easement language. Plat Comments ♦ Please reference comments from mapping and drafting. ♦ 'fhc right-of-wa,, dedication for Sagc Creek Road between County Road 9 and Corbett Drive might need to wider. I recommend that Eric Brake, Traffic Operations be contacted to determine if additional right-of-way is needed. s A minimum setback of 9 feet should be maintained adjacent to the right-of-wav along the frontage ofthc multi -family development. ♦ The utility easement along County Road 36 should be 15 feet.