Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWARREN FARMS THIRD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-08-17City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: i-� PROJECT'I COMMENT SHEET DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Wa-� 4tL,-Y1y Z�,- -F,+ - -°— PLANNER:Z5j �z 3. ; -x s.0 , ESL �c_C� �Q•-. f.7ca+� 4-e> �,Ma�sti`...-_� owl C1VJ� v �-� \�" �� p` (`(\ • l� �j � `•' 4OU1<Q'�O L�W1a�fa.r� �•� natur ` Date: 2 —i SY Si g PLEASE SEND COP ES OF MARKED REVISIONS: I ET ❑ ❑ UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 14. 1999 TO: Engineering Pvmt. PROJECT: #53-840 Warren Farm, Single Family - Final Compliance -- PDP (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "*PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE" C--C7N �>l rCiC� r�Iv j F7j7j v / r � 6AJ;- r/'C. _yi ni �t = ,,I ✓✓�. s 1�1 7Date: __ % —) �- _Signature: ! ' C K � l c CHECK HERE IF YOU WISE TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ site _ Drainage Repar. _ Other Udliry __ Redline Utlity — Landscape DATE: August 26, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: a �'-84M Warren Farms. 3rd Filing — PDP —Type I ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER Ste IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE RETURN THEM TO STEVE OLT ASAP. General Comments ♦ Obvionsk. this round of review is intended only for the sake of ensuring that all site- plannin,1 iS.oLIC a:c resolved before the Public Hearima. The Engineering Department will expect that all pnvions comments not addressed with This submittal shall be addressed at the Iinlc of the next srthnIittal. 'I he applicant should be aware that the Engineering Department would reruire "rounds" of rep ie%after the Puhiic Hearing, if all previous comments were not addressed. ♦ The public access casement between lets 102 R 10' shall be L feet wide. Please coiTect the casement width prior to Puhiic I fearine on both the site and landscape plans. Sight Distance Easement Comments ♦ Please include the following sight distance easement language on Cover Shect of the Landscape Pian: Date: _/� _ Si-nature:.1�/ Please si6nd copies of marked revisions _Plat site Utility L.:mdscape — ❑ v0 CO\1MEN fS —SUBMIT V1Yi.ARS mm—m City of tort Collins Sight Distance Easement — The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching tratfic and to react safely tot- merging their vehicle into the traffic HONy. The following are -equirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade: (1 ) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions: (a) fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of sight for motorists. (h) DCclduOnS trees may be allowed as Lone as all branches of the trees are trunmed so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon huts lower than six (6) feet above the eround. and the tr s are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of siu,hi for motorsts. Deciduous trees with trunks Large enough to obstruct line of siehn for motorists shall be rem<r✓ed by the owner. ♦ Please accuratcic shun- all corner sight distance and stopping sight distance easements on the Landscape Plan. The reason for showin the sight distance easements is to ensure that landscape contractors have the appropriate information. ♦ Please include a sight distance easement for lots 6�-`_ (as redlined on the site plan) on both the site and landscape plans. Bike & Pedestrian Path ♦ The bike path along the northern boundary of the development shall be constructed as an 8- foot wide asphalt path. This temporary (or interim) improvement will he replaced with concrete path at the time that the Stormwater I-tility constn:cts an outtall adjacent to the ditch. As (,itv Staff has repeutedly stated. d!e applicant is responsible to construct an 840ot wide concrete path (as opersed to an 846ot %%itic asphalt path). Therefore. the City shall require that the applicant cscro%% ftutds to pay the difference in constructing an 8-foot asphalt path as opposed to au 8-b6n1 concrete path. The City's bottom line is that the applicant commit to cscro"ving their required portion of the bicycle and pedestrian path improvements or the applicant will be pulled From the September 8`" Public Nearing. The current site and landscape plans depict an 8-foot asphalt path just south of the 'To4I Pcde.�Irian B/ id,,c phis portion of the path will not be effected by the Stonnwater tftility mprovements; thus. the aforementioned portion of the path shall be constructed as an 8-foot concrete path. One other item that should be clarified before the Public Hearing is whether or not the applicant is aware that single-famili and multi -family projects stand-alone in terms of then individual bicycle and pedestrian path improvements. In other words, on the landscape plan, the applicant has stated that the 10-foot concrete path and bridge are designed per the multi- lanidy site plan. However, although the design was apart of the multi -fatuity development, the single-fo:niiv development is responsible to construct the 10-foot concrete path �ased on he rrip-generated need associated with the sinele-family development. AW 3e i;146 As a result of the off -site path improvements. the applicant shall provide the City with a letter of intent to dedicate a public access easement across the multi -family° property prior to Public Bearing. The reason for the of l'-site public access casement is due to the fact that the multi- family development does not have an approved plat. and as was stated above, both projects stand-alone. (Note: All of the above -required improvements shall be depicted on the site and landscape plane accurately before the Public Hearin;;.) Cc: Glen Schlueter Kathleen Reavis REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 20, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Warren Farms, 3rd Filing — PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments :must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: November tO, 1999 General Comments See redlined comments on all sheets of the utilir✓, site, and landscape plans. More specific comments will he mentioned helow. Ifyou have any qucsi_ons please call me (Mark McCallum) at 2216605 ♦ All plans and documents included 1. Utility Plan 2. Site Plan & Landscape Plan 3. Plat r)�AA275 4. Drive over Curb and Gutter wit:t Detached Sidewalk Detail Utility Plan Comments Final Grading Plan, Sheei 7 of 35. Please .show spot elevations for the drivewav access into The Preserve at the Meadows (see redlined access). Date: A /C,-;—�9�— Signature: Please s nce i' copies / of�narked revissiioins ✓Plxt v/', /l,amdscape I El No COM ANTS — SUBMIT MYLARS ^MWL City of Fort Collins Horsetooth Roacl Plan & Profile/ Signing & Striping l Cross Seetions, Sheet 20 & 20a of 35. Please clearly label what is to be removed and constructed on the plan view as well as on the cross sections. ♦ For the cross sections, please label the flowline elevations, right-of—way litre, and slope transition behind walk. Please enlarge the cross sections. ♦ Add a note that states the street cut and patch will be determined in the Yield. ♦ Pleasc show the sawcut line in the cross sections. ♦ phis comment was from Dave Stringer's comments dated 2-15-99: "Based upon the profile, it appears that a mill and inlay to center line on Horsetooth Road is required to blend the right .tun lane to the existing pavement". Please show how the right turn lane blends into the existing street. The proposed sawcut sloes not appear to'provide an adequate blend. Furthermore, per Section 1,02.0 3.14 d " Cross slopes for w idcning a t cxisiing street or for adding turn lanes shall be a straight- line grade trom tier_ crow" to trite lip of neVv -_uttca adjacent to the new pavement". Please correct, Details; Sheet 32 of 35. Please include a detail for Drive Over Curb and Gutter with Detached Sidewalk (see attachment). Bridge Comments: Sheets 33. 34 & 35 of 35. ♦ On sheet 33. please label all elevations as reclined. The wooden steps should be constructed to ADA standards and should be trade of concrete. ♦ The bridge structures should provide railinUs. ♦ ]'lease see comments made on sheets 33 & 34 by Dave Stringer. Please address all comments. A Plat of Warren Farms Third Filing Comments ♦ Please delete the Clerk and Recorder's Certificate. Pleasc use The City of Port Collins Attorne_v's Certificate. ♦ Please include a sight distance easement in Tracts G, H & J (see redlines). 7 racts C & K should also be dedicated as an access easement. ♦ Please provide a 12-Coot access easement between Lots 102 & 103. Site and Landscape Plan Comments: ♦ How is the Tiller Court cross -pan going to drain into the park with the sidewalk in the path of drainage? ♦ Please accurately show all corner sight distance and stopping sight distance easements on the Landscape Plan. On the Landscape Plan, the paths between Tots (see redlined comments) shall be within a 12-foot aICCCSS easement and have a minimum width of g feet tsce detail D-4 in the ,t d city'> - t ;« manual), y > Tree e esrgn Offsite Easements: ♦ The offsite easements submitted "close". It is in the applicant's best interest to submit the originals ASAP so that they can be processed. Development Agreement Language for the Ditch Company: ♦ This language shall he provided from the city prior to the next submittal. Currently, I am in the process of drafting the language for the Deputy City Attorney to review. If the applicant desires, please have the New Mercer Ditch Company contact me (Mark McCallum) at 221-6605. Utility Plan; Sheets 10, 1], & 12 of 35: ♦ Please dimension and label construction material for all bicycle/ pedestrian paths. The paths between lots 102 & 103 (see redlined comments) shall be within a 12-foot access easement and have a minimum width of 8 feet (see detail D-4 in the city's street design manual). ♦ Please include the limits of street cuts at the intersections of Meadowlark Avenue with Planter Way & Mercer Way. 'The minimum street cut width for a collector street is 8 feet. Also, please specify what is to be removed and replaced along Riva Ridge Drive with regard to the construction of the sanitary sewer and services ro the lots. Finally, add that the limits of the street cut shall be determined in the field by the city's construction inspector and shalt conform to the city's "Street Repair and Reconstruction Standards and Guidelines'. ♦ Please provide dimensions for the bridges. 11eadowlark Drive Plan & Profile/ Signing & Striping Plan; Sheet 13 & 14 of 35. ♦ Please show that Tract G, H & J are sight distance easements. ♦ The cross pan at Planter Way and Mercer Way shall have flowline slope of 0.6% (Section 1.02.03.12.c in the street design manual). Ifercer Way and Mercer Court Plan & Profile; Sheet 16 of 35. ♦ Please show the curb return profiles at Meadowlark Drive. ♦ The K-value at station 10+75.00 must meet the minimum of 30. Planter Way and Warren Farm Court Plan & Profile; Sheet 17 of 35: ♦ Please show the curb return profiles at Meadowlark Drive. Harvest Wav and Tiller Court Plan & Profile; Sheet 18 of 35: ♦ What type of sidewalk chase or inlet is to be used in Tiller Court for the cross -pan outlet'? Intersection Details, Sheet 19 of 35: ♦ Please provide the intersection detail for Meadowlark Avenue and Horsetooth Road intersection. ♦ The street cut limits should incorporate any utility work for the intersections of Mercer Way/ Meadowlark Avenue and Planter Way/ Meadowlark Avenue. ♦ The cross pan at Planter Way/ Meadowlark Avenue and Mercer Way/ Meadowlark Avenue shall have flowline slope of 0.6% (Section 1.02.03.12.c in the street design manual). .. PROJECT i.... COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 15, 1999 TO: Avemenf /Vl9l�'1 PROJECT: #53-84N Warren Farm, PDP — Final Compliance (Single Family Residential in LMN District) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: November 10, 1999 Some parts of this dovclopntcnt umq need ntitieation for lti�h swelling soils. more testing will be required to identifc the limits. The Soils report should address trench backGll in high swell soils. Date: Signature: �✓� CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Citv of Fort Collins DATE: June 21, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Warren Farms, 3" Filing — PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: June 16, 1999 General Comments ♦ See redlined comments on all sheets of the utility_ 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: 1. l itility Plan 2. Site Plan & Landscape Plan 3. Plat 4. Approved Variance Request with Letter to Confirm (Comments continued on following pages) Date: Signature: G� Please sand copies of�marked revisions Plat ✓site tility Landscape ❑ NO COMML:NTS — SliBMiT MYLt1RS City of Fort Collins City of Fort CoMas Plannina DATE: /-6-51'' PROJECT COMMENTSHEET DEPARTMENT: PROJECT: Wco-h �•� .�.s ? �.� Z,.,r,�,���r j„rc, PLAN NER-- All comments must be received by: No Problems 0-11'roblemss or Concerns (see below) IVAZI tb Date: I—ela_ Signature -- CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 PU, NNING DEPARTMENT (3031221 -6 750 Utility Plan Comments Cover Sheet; Sheet I of 32. ♦ Revise the Vicinity Map. Please show the existing street system. ♦ Minor revisions to the General Notes. Utility Plan; Sheets 10, 11, & 12 of 32. ♦ Please label driveway locations for all lots. ♦ Please indicate that the subdrain main is to be constructed with PVC SDR-35 within the right-of-way. Meadowlark Drive Plan & Profile/ Signing & Striping Plan. Sheet 13 & 14, ♦ Please show all corner and stopping sight distance easements. This comment applies to all profile sheets. ♦ At the intersection with Horsetooth Road, the centerline profile has a grade break that exceeds the minimum of 0.4 % per Section 1.02.03.e of the Street Design Manual. Please base the vertical curve on the - 0.81 and —0.73 slope. Riva Ridge Drive Plan & Profile, Sheet 14 of 32. ♦ The existing Riva Ridge Drive was built with a 36-foot street cross section and the proposed addition to Riva Ridge Drive is to be built with a 30-foot street cross section_ The City Engineering Department needs to see the transition length to shift the road from 36 feet to 30 feet. The transition is based on the posted speed limit, so if the speed limit were 25 miles per hour than the transition would be 25:1. if this transition is to be based on the centerline were 3 feet of transition is needed on both sides of the street the transition would be 75 feet on both sides of the street (25 * 3 feet = 75 feet). Please show the transition on the plan. ♦ The vertical curve should not be based on the slope within the vertical curve. It should be based on the approach slope. ddercer Way and Mercer Court Plan & Profile; Sheet 16 of 32. ♦ Flowline radius FL-39 should be 50 feet per Detail D-5 in the Street Design Manual. Also, show the cul-de-sac high point and a minimum 1-`1/0 slope from that point. ♦ Please show the curb return profiles at Meadowlark Drive. ♦ What is the starting slopes for the vertical curve at Meadowlark Drive? Please label correctly. Planter Way and Warren Farm Court Plan & Profile, Sheet 17 of 32. ♦ Please show the curb return profiles at Meadowlark Drive. ♦ What is the starting slopes for the vertical curve at Meadowlark Drive" Please label correctly. ♦ Per Detail D-5 of the Street Design Manual. please label the Warren Farm Court high point and a minimum 1-% slope from that point. Harvest Way and Tiller Court Plan & Pro/ile, Sheet 18 of 32. ♦ Check the curb return profile slopes for Harvest Way at Warren Farm Drive. ♦ What type of sidewalk chase or inlet is to be used in Tiller Court for the cross -pan outlet? Intersection Details, Sheet 19 of 32, ♦ Please show all elevations per detail D-18 for the Mercer Way/ Meadowlark Drive and Planter Way/ Meadowlark Drive intersections. ♦ Whv is the cross slope near the maximum of 4-% (approximately 3.8-%) at the Warren Farm Drive/ Harvest Way intersection? This will be a maintenance issue when the street needs to be overlaid for the maximum slope allowed in the City is 4-%. The City would like to see a cross slope closer to the minimum to start and typically on a new street that is how the street is designed. ♦ The previous cornment might apply to Riva Ridge Drive/ Warren Farm Drive intersection as well. Although the cross slope is not as steep in this instance (approximately 3.3-%). ♦ Please check elevation (where redlined) against the profile elevations. ♦ Please show the elevation where the transition occurs for the Mercer Way/ Warren Farm Drive intersection. Horsetooth Road Plan & Profile/ Signing & .Striping/ Cross Sections, Sheet 20 of 32. ♦ Please show the signing and striping on a separate page. This page is difficult to read with all the information. ♦ Please show the existing profile for 125 feet east of the transition. ♦ Please show the curb return profile at Meadowlark Drive. ♦ Please clearly label what is to be removed and constructed on the plan view as well as o❑ the cross sections. ♦ For the cross sections, please label the flowlhre elevations, right-of—way line, and slope transition behind walk. ♦ Please enlarge the cross sections. ♦ Please show a 6-foot bike lane through the intersection and an 8-foot bike lane before the transition. ♦ Add a note that states the street cut and patch will be determined in the field. ♦ Please show the sawcut line in the cross sections. ♦ I am still determining the amount of right-of-way that may be needed to be dedicated with this project. Please, see the plat comment below for more details. ♦ This comment was from Dave Stringer's comments dated 2-15-99: `Based upon the profile, it appears that a mill and inlay to center line on Horsetooth Road is required to blend the right turn lane to the existing pavement". Please show how the right turn lane blends into the existing street. The proposed sawcut does not appear to provide an adequate blend. Furthermore, per Section 1.02.03.14.d, "Cross slopes for widening an existing street or for adding turn lanes shall be a straight-line grade from the crown to the lip of new gutter adjacent to the new pavement" Details, Sheet 32 of32: ♦ Please redraw the typical residential street cross section. See redlined continents. A Plat of Warren Farms Third Filine Comments ♦ Please include the following sight distance easement language: Sight Distance Easement — The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade: (1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions: (a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as lone as they do not obstruct the line of sight for motorists. (b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner. ♦ Please accurate show all corner sight distance and stopping sight distance easements on the plat. ♦ Please delete the Clerk and Recorder's Certificate. ♦ Please indicate the right-of-way for Horsetooth Road and how it was dedicated. ♦ It appears that Horsetooth Road will need additional right-of-way. 1 have to check with Dave Stringer when he returns From vacation to see what has been decided in previous meetings in regard to right-of-way dedication. ♦ Is the Ditch Company an Owner" The plat just needs a signature block for the Ditch Company. ♦ Please show access easements that are necessary to make bike/ pedestrian connections. Site and Landscape Plan Comments: ♦ Please show all necessary access easements needed to accommodate bike/ pedestrian connections. See redlined comments. ♦ Do not include stop sign locations on these plans. At the intersections of Warren Farm Drive/ Harvest Way and Mercer Way/ Planter Way in particular delete the stop conditions as redlined on the plan. ♦ How is the Tiller Court cross -pan going to drain into the park with the sidewalk in the path of drainage. ♦ Show the existing sidewalk along Horsetooth Road. ♦ On the landscape plan, please include sight distance easement language. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: 28_,S6`p�b�erj"8 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: 953-84M Warren Farm, 3"d Filing-PDP-Type I (LUC) PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Mark McCallum A11 comments must be received by: �02/10/h9 No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments: C See redline comments on all sheets of the utility plan, site plan and landscape plan. More specific comments will be mentioned below. Utility Plan Comments: Cover Sheet; Shee[ l of 23: 0 Inc]ude the legal description under the title. 0 Separate the index, specifically, the roadway plan and profile and sanitary plan and profile by street name. C There is a new vertical control listing for the City. Check with Wally Muscott at 221-6605 for more information. 13 Revise the General Notes as redlined. Plot Comments O The dedication of R.O.W. Meadowlark Avenue and the right turn lane on Horsetooth should be done by separate document. 0 Provide signature block for the ditch company on the plat. C The land is currently not platted. If casements were done by separate document and are dedicated on this property, the plat should provide a note that hereby vacates all existing easement. If existing easements are to remain then show them in the plat. 0 An additional 7.5 feet should be dedicated along Horsetooth Road (in addition to the 20 feet additional provide). The new, street standards for an arterial street is 57.5 feet from centerline. O Label all tracts of land. It might be helpfui to note all tracts off to the side of the plat. Utility Plans, Sheets 9,10, & II of 23 13 Show spot elevations on the plan and profile sheet as indicated. The other spot elevations can be compared to the Infrastructure Plans. C The south access of Warren Circle onto Meadowlark Avenue is less than the minimum 200 lest from the private roadway. O '['he "bump -out" for Warren Way should be designed to maintain a straight flowline. There is no need for it and it appears to present itself more as a hazard. I have made this comment through -out the utility plans. 0 Show all existing and proposed access ramps. I have marked areas that do not show access ramps. C It might be helpful to include a horizontal plan that specifies that dimensions of the roadway, R.O W., sidewalk, Parkway, and to provide a curve data table. It could be done on the utility plans, but a separate sheet (or two) would be helpful. Otherwise show all these dimensions on the plan and profile sheets. General Street Plan and Profile Comments: 0 The flowline curve data table for all sheets is code deficient for the majority of the curves. A variance to the standards was request and subsequently denied for all the roadways within Warren Farms Filing (single family) with the exception of the departure angle at the intersection of Warren Way and Meadowlark Avenue. Furthermore, there was a request to decrease the sight distance requirements. 'Ibis to was denied and as a result the review will not look at all the sight distance deticiencies. Instead it is the designers responsibility to submit a project that meets the design standards required by the City. O Show all point -of -curvature elevations in the plan view. O Show or make reference to the typical street cross -sections used throughout the project. O Note the curb type. 0 Reference all intersecting street by name and sheet number. • babel the location of all cross -pans is the profile. O Show and label the location of storm drainage inlets in the plan and profile. O Show all driveway locations. Details, Sheet 23 of 23. • Provide the typical cul-de-sac detail. • Provide the typical cross -sections based on the new street standards for both local residential and local connector. O Provide access ramp detail indicative of the street section and Curb type. PROJE': T -- COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannini DATE: Jule 29, 1998 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #-53-84K Warren Farm 3rd Filing, P.U.D. - (LDGS) Final PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Dave Stringer All comments must be received by: 7/29/98 8 No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 1. Include Meadowlark Plans with this set, Meadow Lark Avenue plans have not been approved therefore; this projects does not have access. 2. Need Traffic Impact Study 3. Need Horsetooth Road plans, additional comments will be made after review of traffic study 4. Submit new soils report, and an engineered groundwater report, see attachment 5. Need New Mercer ditch company signature on plat for their granting of access easement across the ditch 6. Check all intersection for site distance restrictions then establish required site distance easements. 7. Additional right -of-way may be needed along Horsetooth if right turn lanes are required. 8. Show proposed sidewalk culverts on street plans/profiles 9. Details need for box culverts on east side of Meadowlark 10. Show subdrains and details on utility plans 11. Remove pork chop island at private drive, this drive exceeds City standard, reduce in size 12.. Need detail of street intersections for all that are other then standard City driveway approaches 13. Address other comments as noted on plans 14. Additional comments will be provided with more complete submitial Date: '7 Signature:-� PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ PLAT ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Tort Collins Current Planning DATE: ember 25, 1996 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Warren Farm PUD, 3rd Filing PLANNER: Kerrie Ashbeck All comments must be received by: Monday, January 13, 1997 WARREN FARM P.U.D. 3rd Filing Infrastructure Plans 1st Submittal Review Comments Engineering Department January 27, 1997 • In addition to approval of the final utility plans, a Development Agreement will be required to !be executed prior to beginning site work. • A hydrologic study, prepared in conformance with the City's guidelines, must be prepared for the proposed subdrain system and submitted for review. A hydrologic study is required for all subdrain systems within the public r.o.w. • It appears all utilities (water, sewer, subdrain) are stubbed to a point outside of the r.o.w. Please be sure there will be no utilities (mains and/or services) left stubbed under the new pavement - although Water and Sewer allows 2 foot stubs or construction to the next manhole, the Engineering Department requires that utilities be stubbed to the edge of the r.o.w. so that the new pavement does not need to be cut when utilities are extended with future development. This often necessitates extension of sewer mains to manholes and advanced planning for service locations. Date: Signature CHECK_ IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE UTILITY • The plan for Meadowlark Avenue needs significant modifications. Meadowlark is on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Because this development received preliminary approval prior to July 1996 when the new street standards were adopted, the developer can build the street out to the old collector standard However, it is desirable from both the City's standpoint and the Planning and Zoning Board's for the developer to elect to use the new standard. The only difference is dedicating 76 feet of total r.o.w. instead of 68 feet to widen the parkway strip and the sidewalk to meet the new standards. Please note that the current collector street standard requires 50 feet of pavement flowline to flowline (as did the old standard). The 50 feet accommodates 2 travel lanes, a center left turn lane, and bike lanes. This is the minimum section needed on this portion of Meadowlark Avenue whether or not there is proposed to be on -street parking since the number of access points and intersections will require the center left turn lane. Bike lanes are required on all collectors. Although the City is in favor of traffic calming measures on collector streets, the proposed necking down of the street is unacceptable since the street width then does not accommodate the center left turn lane and the "bump -outs" interfere with the bike lanes. The traffic study for the previously proposed development from August of 1995 concurs that Meadowlark is to be 50 feet wide with two travel lanes, center left turn lane at appropriate intersections, and bike lanes. The City is willing to look at traffic calming measures. but the design needs to coincide and work with the function of the street (bike lanes, on -street parking needs, turn lane needs, etc.) and utility locations. The drawback to trying to build the roadway with only preliminary design for adjacent land uses is trying to plan appropriately for the traffic needs of those future uses such as on -street parking. As an example of traffic calming that may work on Meadowlark Avenue, a recent development is designing the Seneca Street extension (a collector) south of Horsetooth Road to include islands which allow for bike lanes to be continuous, drainage to work, the adjacent development is being designed to not need on -street parking, and the islands are being designed to accommodate fire truck turning needs. The islands will be installed entirely at the developer's expense and are proposed to be maintained by the adjacent Homeowner's Association. The details of the design are ;still being worked out but the concept is feasible. The City will be reviewing the detailed design next month which will include review by the street maintenance department. At this point, maintenance such as street sweeping and utility work is the biggest question as to whether the proposed design will work. In the event the variance to allow the islands is not acceptable, the street has been designed to function and meet the standards without the islands (i.e. inlets/low points set to work with or without islands). • All proposed traffic calming must be submitted as a variance request since the street standards (both the current ones and the old ones) do not have any standards for such measures. The variance request must come from an engineer and address how the design was arrived at, that it does not pose a public, health, safety or welfare problem, maintenance, etc. Please see the attached variance request criteria. W � ,� �Sl� 9m.�C � .��-- -- • The right-iniright-out shown just south of Riva Ridge Drive must be restricted by a raised median rather than a "pork -chop" island unless the City Traffic Engineer approves an alternative design. "Pork -chop" islands are not effective in restricting access. • The traffic study for the preliminary development indicated there is a proposed right-in/right-out off of Horsetooth Road which would require an auxiliary right turn lane and a variance for its length. It is assumed these improvements are proposed to be done with future development. However, the traffic study should be updated to reflect all improvements necessary at this time and current volumes for use in the final pavement design. (The project is subject to the new pavement design criteria adopted in April of 1996.) Also, the developer needs to be aware of any auxiliary lanes necessary so that he can plan for the additional r.o.w. dedication along Horsetooth Road. Is a westbound right turn lane needed at Meadowlark on Horsetooth Road with the connection of Meadowlark ? If so, that must be part of this project. • A minimum of a 9 foot wide utility easement is required along Meadowlark. More easement may be necessary due to the storm sewer location. • All manholes must be a minimum of 2 feet from the lip of any gutter. • Please provide a signing and striping plan for Meadowlark Avenue. • Collector street design requires that the centerline profile be shown as well as both flowlines. Also, the cross slope should be kept as close to 2.00% as possible. • Provide individual actual driveway details for all private driveways. The City's standard intersection detail for streets is only an example and is not intended to suffice for final design for private driveways. Show radii, width, surfacing spec, spot elevations, etc. • Profile all flowlines from PCR to PCR and provide the existing flowline grade you are tying into as well as the spot elevation at the join you provided. Grade breaks around the returns should be smooth. • Specify the subdrain pipe on the details • Typically, the subdrain is shown on the sanitary sewer profile, but if it is o.k. with Water and Wastewater as shown, then it is o.k. to leave as shown • Use the current ramp details available in the Engineering Department • All easements and r.o.w. necessary will need to be dedicated by separate deed if the property is not being platted at this time. Use the City's standard format for deeds of dedication for r.o.w. and for easements. Each r.o.w. and easement should be dedicated individually and must be accompanied by an 8 1/2x11 drawing of each. In addition, due to the number of easements necessary for the project, provide an overall key map for the area identifying where each easement is and referencing the deed of dedication. All deeds dedicating easements and/or r.o.w. to the City must be in the proper format, be attorney certified, have correct legal descriptions, and be submitted to the City for acceptance and recording prior to the City approving final plans. • See redlined plans PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins DATE: December 25, 1996 DEPT: � �Y �2vintnl" PROJECT: Warren Farm PUD, 3rd Filing PLANNER: Kerrie Ashbeck All comments must be received by: Monday, January 13, 1997 A Traffic Impact Study will need to be submitted as well as a soils report prior to the final pavement design as per Chapter 2 'Pavement Design and Technical Criteria" City of Fort Collins Standards for Streets . Date: Signature CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: June 26, 1998 TO: Engineering Pvmt. PROJECT: #53-84K Warren Farm 3rd Filing, PUD - (LDGS) Final PUD All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, July 29,1998 A1988 preliminary soils report is not acceptable, a revised preliminary report will need to be submitted and a final report will be required prior to construction of street improvements. Date: CHECK HERE IF YOU WIM TO RECEIVE COPIFS OF REVISIONS -PIS _ Site _ Drainage Report _ Oda — Ufilil _)tt be Utility — Ian S* PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: June 26, 1998 TO: Mapping/Drafting PROJECT: #53-84K Warren Farm 3rd Filing, PUD - (LDGS) Final PUD All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, July 29,1998 I,A)Q,ao %Y'eti F,Yw� 11(j Lo7 /�f��o ?� /2�_ / /2.q-C I J 3 CO/v'j R() -- /L//()/k/M&-/V J �2� /UdT (/ESCRIIZED. Date: Ma li(TfE IF YOU WE TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS g4ow�L% k' _ Pig I _ Sikn h� _ IT),ca,���a,,ge�RgW Rda Uhlq _Ian&* City of Fort Collura PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins DATE: 1- - DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT:Warren Farms 3rd Filing ( Meadowlark Drive) PLANNER: NA Engineering Comments: 1. Are easements shown on plat? Water/Wastewater: l . Provide 5 foot seperation between lot line and water service 2. 10 foot typical seperation 3. Include lengths between fittings and valves 4. Change 8' plugs to 6" plugs 5. Shorten length of pipe to allow for 45 degree bends not 90 degree. 6. Remove plug at existingf waterline. 7. Deflect joints of DIP to, joints not to extend MFG's recommended allowable 8. Extend sewer to locate in future pavement 9. Place note on 10 foot seperation in general note section of page 10. Page 9/15 - core drill into manhole 11. See comment about subdrains on page 12/15 Stormwater comments: 1. Comments provided on seperate sheet PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: kll l/17 PROJECT: t-✓ t4trn/ PLANNER: 7?"tve 57221u6t5rL ENGINEER: DEPT: Engineering -B No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) /5 - p19 Y NUr 1140vea:� /NDl Vlrvovz-- 7ilc Vti1rt5 �Zp 7�l�r'- 7<//4,v xTenldr�G- l��N vs INTi� �2lv�T6 �4,ES f 1<r 1/07 lNblviGt.'gL 6g--'Vle�s ' it 6 Z/C5 �/LD✓lOc FGG� U'��aG /o � �L �irsr?lGn� . L (EL r 5 0< / SS — 1 N rn � !�'Nu ` 66iW161-5 A-R& /,0 5Tn LL--� "ic tc'T uAlG5. U -�4gf;7- 6' 7`E,� ni' Ff i TA r,1`x 6 Date: ISignature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ PLAT ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE 4 ^ I z -R'7 O k 7r(t vr+ ✓ c+J Fl+- s u fats w«(_ F(1-4PIT A-L(,Ow lti G}-( c�Z 805 rt-r, �izo roc �Zrc�+! b K t gcr s -t&VF- 31-2+ tN6Qr� Mezrtb c,Pra-k �FtCt of (S _ LEi'LGtn/e �fJZf To c cfr�7rJ (JpS�RW rnT� 5 c� 5 of [s- 11 Iu�7a� 5crul(c�� A> AJCT CsDNNEc-�cLc-, 7o sTuas 2C� t Rzz�) of�T L[N C✓K� NS7W-t L . iJ: �i�� / a �r (S � {��01//l7G �O � ��/L#Tlc�-� 6E %t.�C-�l� SYvSi7�>�l fH✓!� l/, 5kC-<� �' of !S� L✓��/ `�'��"�� /5v�5�//�A-/nJ U�-�S f s6c�rc�S �vsT lA/ 5F-27-f'�v� s T,15. C /NTEae SeT�oti1s (see ono CT� SfIEET 8 0€ t c,- _ 61 fOC�— �c/Ij-j- dE "JIVE bE�d;=/Z i nJ pp A -a- (- 1N1 4 &v6AY 4-Do (cw Bo-Tkl "4rNlTAfZlt 5GVJ42- J)Ub 2Ai iJ i�i2fJ`i LDS �72DUnk� Nit T�pZ_ �_ r4 (I1 F�t� b S SJ P�(L - �1 To 1 n1S tY1 r� C6 ��ilL APe r1 - I�C�2�Dlu�l f�-� �f'G� �✓i /-/ - /n C pF f�- 30 F 'COY oft ',r ,C vtrcW) lS cyr—DFF �✓%y �D CDU'T Dl/E f�l/>J� <✓�i t �Z GE C Ww- , (60061Vd Z APer& //IL // at%yr��c Ge�ot- oNt/`�, `fib• S�I�T �' eF is- con D2a� pP�rnl4� tn)-t-o �tS-(� n3� rKCM1 (-���• n 7 I 4 -1 i �tJHi�K r=ry �`/`irtmn5 � u, 5r4 (D of i s C 3f 0)L.1/7 F H, 6 - taJc S-r R1 Q 6-0 rZ fir• srt�-r �t o� rs- r.�� c-���avis �nr ��oCro�s 54Ec-r 12 DP l r - 17' /1/'PW7,W-r 6 3" /4) sus J j oo* 45 GpW. 5r�� TiIaArlce _E dc�/9/�s Sifov� sifot.� sv� � 0 D� !S - �j2p i/i/�E �tx Um r/ail TN�4 T /� u� Z`n (orl- 8 ��_ 7l.4�j A) C-,r -ie4d1D 6,. W, i�0 TO rNC F-nDT >feDVE /� w• L NC T ty v� is Wyr I��TW� lTo/ #)c--rV Pir 0 ; &6049 lne_re4� ©Cl;qlc-- City of Fort Collins CurrentPlannin#; PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DATE: 22 August 1995 DEPARTMENT: PROJECT: #53-W WARREN FARM PUD, Fig 3 -Preliminary PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments must be received by: Friday, 1 Sep 1995 No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below) GENERAL COMMENTS • RIGHT IN - RIGHT OUT ACCESS TO PARCEL I FROM MEADOWLARK NEEDS TO BE DESIGNED AS SUCH • ANY VARIANCE FROM STANDARDS REQUIRE A VARIANCE. THESES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND INCLUDE JUSTIFICATION • NECKING DOWN OF MEADOWLARK AT INTERSECTIONS MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE WITH THE COLLECTOR DESIGN WITH NO PARKING ( FROM TRAFFIC STUDY ) PROVIDE PROPOSED STRIPING IN THESE AREAS TO INDICATE HOW IT WILL WORK PLAT • SHOULD BE CALLED PLAT OF ...�� • TAKE OFF REFERENCE TO AURORA AND CHERRY CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) Date: Y,., :`r,' Signature. -,,r CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY CONINI 1NII'V PLANNING and F,NVIRONMF.N'I AI, SERVU ES„ _ 2XI NORTH COLLEGE, 1'.0.130X 580 PoRT COLLINS, COLOILAUO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750 ( (IRIZENT I'LANNING I)EI'AR'I'NIEN'I' • INDICATE WHO IS TO OWN AND MAINTAIN TRACTS A & B AND LOT 4. BLOCK I IT IS A DETENTION POND CORRECT? • IT APPEARS THAT TRACT B NEEDS TO BE AN ACCESS EASEMENT • LABEL FRONTAND BACK LOT EASEMENT WIDTHS • IT APPEARS THAT ADDITIONAL ROW WIDTH IS NEEDED ALONG HORSETOOTH RD. 1 00 FEET OF ROW IS NEEDED, 550 FEET FROM SECTION LINE • ANY ACCELERATION LANES/ DECELERATION LANES ON HORSETOOTH REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL I 2 FEET OF ROW • PROVIDE 1 55 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG HORSETOOTH RD • NEED DITCH �:O SIGNATURE ON PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS • ADD STREET NAMES THAT ARE MISSING • WHAT IS SHEET 3 OF 3 PRELIMINARY STREET SECTIONS • MEADOWLARK AVE - YOUR SECTION DISAGREES WITH THE TRAFFIC REPORT. IT STATES THAT THIS ROAD SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH CENTER TURN LANES AND NO PARKING • CROSS SLOPE SHOULD BE 2.00/o r PROJECT i.�.• COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collin:. Current Plannine DATE: April 3, 2000 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #53-84N Preserve at the Meadows — Warren Farms — 3rd Filing — PDP — Type II - (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: THIS IS A REVISION WITH A FULL ROUTING April26, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference Signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS" _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility ___Redline Utility _Landscape City of P�rtC rmdlflrw%l� PROJECT City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: April 21, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #53-84N Preserve at the Meadows-WarrenFarms PDP-Type II LUC PLANNER: Ron Fuchs, April 26,2000 1. Need construction easements for work outside of lot lines 2. I did not get a Traffic Study, was one submitted? 3. Need to add attached language to plat, change notes. Bench Marks don't match 4. Need Ditch Company signatures on Utility Plans 5. Need to coordinate with Warren Farm 3rd Filing plans for utility relocates 6. Include Warren Farm sheets for Bridge Construction 7. Private Street to be built to City Standards, includes inlets,grades and etc. revise as needed 8. Please provide invert elevations for storm water and sanitary sewer manholes (typical) 9. Provide typical cross section of private street 10. Other reline continents on Blue Lines Date: Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: �PiAT ITE -1' UTILITY F-LANbSCAPE r7OW104: PROJECT ice.. COMMENT SHEET City of FortCallins Current Planning DATE: April 3, 2000 TO: Mapping/Drafting `zt.,,H- wg11-1 K. PROJECT: #53-84N Preserve at the Meadows — Warren Farms — 3rd Filing — PDP — Type 11- (LUC) 1.7 All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: THIS IS A REVISION WITH FULL ROUTING April26, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference -Tit .�.£ Ye-�FLe i��C 11y1 e.$ Cl LUQ NI^Er 777 TL, F Of W a Y 7Y v✓i S 1 r) �c "h. jq fi �c r-i �e�v,c•ci �r.•, b r OJ i� 1" ✓�C G t `> 4(1,t46t)J(-; i� I�,c— tv,1� Signature CHECK WERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape r (� _(_1 ()a R-I) Fort r c �n i Yt L' F' ci 0. t vi a N,)-- 14 � Q PC C Co /Z ✓Z, 0 ( % cE;- � /4 If L- 0— S O TN�S rum,_ Z)C�c- 7-A A �' �� � � 3 4 lE: is.71 %/ZO"03" REVISION ray COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 14, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Warren Farms, I'd Filing — PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, January 5, 2000 General Comments ♦ See redlined comments on all sheets of the utility plan. More specific comments will be mentioned below. If you have any questions please call me (Ml ark McCallum) at 221-6605. Utilitv Plan Comments Horsetooth Road Plan & Profile/Signing & Striping/ Cross Sections; Sheet 20 & 20a of 35: ♦ Please correctly show the sawcut line in the cross sections. Bridge Comments; Sheets 33, 34 & 35 of 35: ♦ Please provide shop drawings two weeks prior to the construction of the bridge. ♦ Please apply all comments from our meeting on January 4, 1999 and the information from the Parks and Rec. Dept. handout provided at that meeting. A Plat of Warren Farms Third Filing Comments ♦ Please reference and apply mapping and drafting comments. ♦ Please delineate Tracts A. B. and C clearly. Date: % Signature: Please se--�d copies l of marked revisions t _Sine /[ tility _Landscape NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS City of Fort Collins ♦ The dedications of Tract A, B, & C are not shown as was discussed in a previous meeting. Please provide correct dedications in the description. ♦ Please add note that states which lots are to be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. ♦ Is the 17-foot drainage easement coming off Affirmed Court an existing easement? If not the easement shall be dedicated prior to the signing of the utility plan mylars. Offsite Easements: ♦ The offsite easements submitted "close". It is in the applicant's best interest to submit the originals ASAP so that the mylars can be signed. Development Agreement Language Information: ♦ The Engineering Department will need to review a quantity sheet for the construction of Meadowlark Drive and for the construction of the sidewalk adjacent to the development. The quantities sheet is for the purpose of determining reasonable compensation for oversizing Meadowlark Drive from Local to Collector street standards and for oversizing the sidewalk along Horsetooth Road from Local to Arterial standards. Furthermore, see the "Development Agreement Information" handout and return with required information (see packet of information). Schedule of Events: (SEE PACKET OF INFORMATION ♦ To expedite the process, please submit with the mylars an application for the Development Construction Permit with all required information. In particular, the quantities sheet for the public infrastructure improvements and inspection fees (Please submit this quantity sheet separate from the quantity sheet for the oversizing requirements). ♦ Submitted Mylars, DCP Application, Offsite Easement with original signatures, and Quantities sheet for oversizing --- January 12, 1999 ♦ Draft Development Agreement to the Developer --- January 14, 1999 ♦ Development Construction Permit Meeting -- January 19, 1999 ♦ Final Changes to the Development Agreement and back to the Developer for final signatures --- January 28, 1999 (fhe above date is dependent on the Developer's response to the Draft D.A. Realistically the time may be less. Also, the Plat will be filed when I receive the signed D.A.) ♦ DCP signed and submitted to the city with the public infrastructure bond, inspection fees, excavation permit fees, and erosion control deposit receipt. This can happen simultaneously with the signing of the D.A. ♦ DCP issued --- February 2, 1999 ♦ Start construction ("Turn Tarco loose") --- February 3, 1999