The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-06-23PROJECT` COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannini DATE: October 6, 1997 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Scenic Views P.U.D. PLANNER: Bob Blanchard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer Please find the following comments from our review of the Scenic Views, P.U.D.. Please address all comments prior to submittal of Mylars. Engineering 1. No comments WATER/WASTEWATER 1. Cover Sheet - Sheet 12 not included in plan set 2. Sheet 2 of 26 - Clean outs required every 100 feet on sanitary sewer services, show locations 3. Various minor comments to clean up plans 4. Sheet 3 of 26 - show length of pie required on blow up detail. 5. Sheet 9 of 26 - add note to deflect water line under storm sewer 6. Sheet 11 of 26 - Line not described, what it is 7. Sheet 22 of 26 - maximum adjustment is 16 inches not 24 inches (see comment detail) 8. Sheet 24 of 26 provide 18 inches of separation between lines flowline profiles, centerline profile, cross sections at 50' intervals with cross - slopes labeled, off -site design ties, intersection details, striping plans, etc. • As described previously, need to design for the future construction of the extension of Orchard Place. In particular, this will affect the grading of the detention pond at the northeast corner of the site. The pond must be designed to fit with the necessary future grading for the street and sidewalk. Scenic Views page 2 Storm Water lkt4ol 1. See attached comment sheet from Matt Fater of storm water PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS Date:/C, .4, - Signature:: u� ❑ PLAT ❑ SITE �r 5 [UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE City of Fort Collins Current Plannint DATE: 6 - P E PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: 5 e ti Q. V 16 \^" PLANNER: ENGINEER: ❑ - No Problems LJ` Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) i. 5N,-_N\ z d ze. - Tex_-�- ov«'N�;;�s z. \ _ j /�.JNc = � �� ,./ �,a-�aG��c��..� l-G�i QOvlX`r pl..>S¢ z 5 o u� {� a..- Ce�31 �`a,<,- a c �Yu .,�..� �•. � 2' �` 31,<e� �s -I ZG � ten. d. Ua��.e-..� SGe�� .G .�,,.. IS S(✓� • CI�aN �,� Leg; b:1: 4� As. � �,�, ,a``O6ff6 lI 1�1\ .i Z W4:.— r �ti �„�1.a1•O._. (•'�`G?\L fJ 6" J YC h Date: a 3 7 Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ PLATS? ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: -,0?N PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Scenic Views P.U.D. PLANNER Bob Blanchard Please find the following comments from our review of the Scenic Views P.U.D.. A majority of these comments were made on previous submittal, address all comments prior to resubmittal. 1. Sheet 2 of 26 - text overlaps 2. Sheet 3 of 26 - Including note indicating Elizabeth Street construction to be built with Phase I NOT PHASE II. 3. Sheet 8 of 26 - remove under drain comment 4. Sheet 14 of 26 - show percent grade from property line to back of sidewalk. 5. Sheet 16 of 26 - Check R.O.W. and show or dedicate easement. 6. Sheet 18 of 26 - Need vertical scale, R.O.W. is 50 feet at station 8+07 to 9+95. 7. Clean up legibility of sheets 8. Insert ditch company sign off block on all sheets where water, sewer or storm sewer cross or impact ditch easement. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: May 21, 1996 DEPT: Mapping PROJECT: Scenic Views PUD - Final PLANNER: Mitch Haas All comments must be received by: May 31, 1996 ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) r -a .-n F', _..a •.�"r:G�c. l�"a� 4�n^ `=l.v9ne ?� �� Wevc .:, e•y fG4Via'S- i Ca. 3. Fr-I� LEy/�� t�Ot� %S 2�°3G'00"0- NT n1ATci-1 TI-F.T (\ m P vs '-/. CLj2�� C 3 (Th t3cct76eJ iu13r rn Arta-{ mAp/co�.sc . Date: I Signature: CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT C toy COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: 21 1. qlo DEPARTMENT: 9:�.4c1 PROJECT: Sc Piny -ems -0L91v-/�� - p PLANNER: All comments must be received by: rYUAZ k -- C1(,0 ❑ No Problems iProblems or Concerns (see below or attached) SCENIC VIEWS P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY PLAT: • Who owns the outparcel along Overland Trail ? The east side of Overland Trail will be widened with this development - is the owner of the outparcel willing to dedicate r.o.w. for the improvements that must be constructed ? • If the r.o.w. for Orchard Place along the north property line is existing, why is it shown within the plat boundary ? If the r.o.w. is not dedicated, it must be dedicated now. Date: 7 A 1--lb Signature: P1 e ' er CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY • Private streets are not assigned a street name by the City. The units will be addressed off of the public streets (Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail). Later comments will address the need for a connection between the duplex area . and the condominium area - please provide the necessary public access easement between the two parcels. TRAFFIC STUDY • Study notes that Elizabeth will have 2 travel lanes and a center left turn lane. Elizabeth will also have bike lanes - this is not noted in the study. • Need to see a copy of the follow-up traffic study being done on neighborhood impacts which is referenced in the traffic study. At the neighborhood meeting, it was suggested that the developer provide a connection from the property to the east of this site (which is now not part of the preliminary) out to Elizabeth Street. It was stated that this may alleviate some of the impacts on Kimball Drive by providing an alternate route to Elizabeth. • In general, traffic circulation was a significant issue with the neighborhood. It would be helpful to see some kind of overall plan/analysis showing the existing local street network, the street network for this development, and a proposed street layout for the undeveloped land between the ditch and the existing development to the east. This should also include the planned future extension of Orchard Place to Overland Trail. • The traffic :study notes that 65% of the traffic will go east on Elizabeth Street. The conclusions state that Overland Trail and Elizabeth will be improved with this development, but no additional roadway or intersection improvements are necessary as a result of this project. However, due to the additional traffic and roadway widening west of the ditch, some widening of the ditch crossing may be necessary at this time. The plans submitted do not show how far away the ditch crossing is from the project nor do they show existing improvements to the east that will have to transition to match the improvements being done on Elizabeth Street with this project. Need to see some preliminary off -site design to look at these items. At final, enough off -site design will need to be done to show that the improvements being built with this development work with the existing improvements to the east as well as plans for widening on the south side of Elizabeth Street. DRAINAGE REPORT • The Stormwater Utility will be providing comments separately. Items of particular interest include: - It is stated that site development will reduce runoff into the ditch from historic rates. However, will the ditch company allow the continuation of any runoff into the ditch, especially with the existing problems with the ditch overflowing in this area ? - Detaining off -site flows including 100-yr from west of Kimball Ave and north of Locust Dr. City participation in detention pond costs as a regional facility - need to discuss with Stormwater. (Development agreement item) - Need a letter from property owner(s) of intent to dedicate off -site drainage easements for this development prior to preliminary P & Z heating. SOILS REPORT • Groundwater is a problem for basement construction and potentially utility installation. A subdrain system will likely be needed for basement construction. The City has standards for subdrains in the public r.o.w., although at this point, all streets in the development are proposed as private. • The final P.U.D. will need to include pavement recommendations for Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street. Contact Keith Myer of the City Engineering Department for design criteria and standards. SITE PLAN • This property has an obligation for dedication of r.o.w. and construction of the extension of Orchard Place adjacent to this site along the north property line. Even if Orchard Place is not required to be extended at this time, this developer is obligated to design the portion adjacent to the site and escrow funds to be used for the; future street construction. The grading for this site must be designed to include the future street construction. • As noted previously, even if an O.D.P is not required with this project, it is important to look at the existing and future anticipated street network to see that necessary connections are not being precluded by this project. • The street width in the duplex area should be at least 30 feet to allow on -street parking on both sides of the street. Even with the provision of off-street parking spaces, it is likely on -street parking will occur in front of the units on both sides of the street. • Will the private streets be constructed with a crown and curb and gutter on both sides ? In the event the City would ever be approached about taking over maintenance of the street, it is a good idea to design private streets with a crown and curb and gutter. • The street improvements to Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail adjacent to the site must be constructed with this project. The site plan calls them "future'. - As previously mentioned, the improvements along the outparcel need to be built with this project and the final utility plans need to include enough off -site design on Elizabeth and Overland Trail to show how the improvements being built with this project tie into existing and planned improvements. - Striping plans for both Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail will be required with the final utility plans to accommodate existing conditions, bike lanes, turn lanes, and intersection improvements. • There must be public vehicular access between the duplex area and the condominium area. Restricting site circulation to the access points shown forces vehicles to iLise the surrounding arterial street system when internal circulation is entirely possible. Vehicles from the duplex area wanting to go eastbound on Elizabeth Street (65% of trips generated) have to go left onto Overland and then left at the Elizabeth/Overland intersection instead of being able to access Elizabeth Street directly. Likewise, vehicles from the condominium area wanting to go north on Overland Trail have to go through the Elizabeth/Overland intersection instead of being able to make a right hand turn out of the project onto Overland Trail. This is not good neighborhood planning. UTILITY PLANS • Same issues as on site plan • Need to see some preliminary design of Elizabeth Street improvements off -site, as previously described, to see how the transitions will occur between existing improvements, unimproved parcels, planned improvements on the south side of the road, etc. In general, how does this all fit together ? Is additional widening of the ditch crossing needed now ? Need to accommodate turn lanes and bike lanes on Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail. • Final utility plans will need to include full design for Elizabeth Street improvements and Overland Trail improvements including existing/proposed