Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-09-26City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: June 3, 1997 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DEPT: Engineering PROTECT: #12- 97 Harmony Technology Park (Celestica) -Type H (LUC) ODP PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer All comments must be received by. Wednesday, June 4, 1997 1. An Amendment to the Harmony Road Access Control Plan will be required. The submitted traffic study indicated that an additional traffic; signal at the western access to HP would not degrade the Level Of Service of Harmony Road. Discussion with the State to amend the Access Control Plan should start immediately. Mr. Bob Grube of the CDOT is the contact person, he can be reached at (970) 350-2152. The City Traffic Engineer will support such an amendment. This traffic signal will also assist pedestrians and bicyclists in crossing Harmony Road between HP and Celestica Site. This amendment will only be supported if the southern leg of the intersection is a public road that provides for circulation for the entire area. 2. Because the TI S used trip generation similar to the existing conditions of the HP site, each phase must have the condition that the user will provide documentation and assurances that trip reductions will be achieved. 3. The developer is creating the need for the traffic signal on Harmony Road. Therefore, this cost shall at the developers expense. 4. The addition of the traffic signal at Timberwood and County Rd.. 9 will be evaluated at each phase enters the development process and should not be interpreted as a "given". 5. Improvements to Harmony Road and County Road 9 will be required, these may include bicycle lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, roadway surface improvements, additional right-of-way and utility easement dedications to current City standards 6. Cambridge Drive will need to be improved to City standards. May require addition right-of- way and easement dedications. 7. Some type of buffer to screen the existing estate lots along Cambridge may be required. 8. Show the type of and location of street connections being proposed for networking the property to the south. PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: -AT B5TE UTILITY 0,,L-YNDSCAPE PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 10,1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park, Celestica, Technology Parkway PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer All comments must be received by: 9/17/97 eNo Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 1. Page I of 9 Change from building permit to Development Agreement, note #1 Page 2 of 9 2.. All Harmony Road improvements are to be designed to CDOT standards and must receive their approval. An amendment to the CDOT Access Plan and Federal A -Line designation is required for this roadway intersection. 3. Need easement for sidewalk if outside of proposed R.O.W. Need easement for irrigation ditch S. Detail in profile and cross section the left turn lane on west bound lane Page 3A,B,C 6. Need more detail on cross sections, width, percent grade, percent slope etc. 7. Page 4 of 9 - need cross section of Technology Parkway 8. Label profiles 9. Need profile of median c&g 10. Why tape,- for left turn or show entrance on east side of Tech. Pkwy. 11. Show cross pan in profile 12. Page 6 of 9 Show class of pipe 13. Amount of cover over RCP appears to be shallow, specify the type of pipe required 14. Water line bore at Harmony road will require a CDOT excavation permit PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: �'� PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: August 19, 1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #12-97A Harmony Technology Park, 1st Filing, Phase I, Celestica - Type II (LUC) PDP/FC PLANNER: Ted Shepard All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, September 17, 1997* *This pro-ect will be processed expeditiously. 41, X& ; . Date: CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _mat Site gtWe Report _ Odw �Uo fume Utility ' alx City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins Transport m Services Engineering Department HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK P.U.D. CELESTICA • Page 1 - 37 update August to next submittal month - General notes 1. Change "Plans" to Development Agreement. • Plat - check spelling of Hewlett-Packard. • Page 6 of 37 - what happens with existing ditch and structures - show right-of-way lines for Technology Parkway • Page 7-37 - why the offsets in drive entrances (main drive and one to south). • Page 9-37 - Submit overall utility plan - show project on one sheet with streets, utilities, medians, etc. such as sheet 3 of 37. - show location of irrigation taps for median landscaping - what happens with existing irrigation ditches? Show relocation. • Page 11 of 37 - off set of drive entrances. • Page 13 of 37 - detail of C & G tie in with existing Harmony Road. - How do irrigation structures relate to County Road 9 street improvements i.e. curb, gutter, walk, radius? - Where is existing irrigation line on Harmony? How does it relate to development? - Cross section of Harmony Road improvements - Show sidewalk along Harmony - Right-of-way on Harmony (show) - Where are the plan sheets for rest of Harmony to eastern limits of project - show match lines • Page 13-37 - Harmony Road is subject to approval of CDOT. Use State Access Control Plan for proper design of turn lanes, tapers, etc. • Page 14 of 37 - detail how intersection ties into existing Harmony Road. - Show existing culvert on profiles - size, elevations, etc. - What is dark line along what appears to be on section line? - Show County Road 9 cross slopes - Show right-of-way lines - Show cross section of medians - Where are dimensions of street with curb and gutter types - distance from curb to curb on median - address irrigation ditches - Show sidewalk - Need to have removal and or relocation sheets for existing utilities, irrigation ditches, etc. - How long is right turn lane taper, does it meet what is required by traffic study, speeds, etc. - Very little usable information on this plan '_Rl \�rth CAlcgc _V cnuc • PC). B(o\ �So • Fort Collins. C-0 R052_-0580 • (97M 21-0605 Page 2 Harmony Technology Park P.U.D. • Page 15-37 - Match lines (show) - Right-of-way lines, sidewalks, access ramps flow arrows - where is this shown? - Label street profiles - Street striping, contours not needed on this sheet - general comment - get rid of clutter • Page 16-37 - Is cross pan needed at intersection? - How does County Road and cross street intersect? - Not enough information on plan - need street width, right-of-way lines, sidewalk size, location etc. - Is there a need for inlets north of intersection? - How do curb and gutter flows tie into existing roadway drainage? • Page 19 of 37 - show lane widths, what signs are needed? • No other plan sheets were reviewed by Engineering. • General comment: As a rule, there was not enough information on plans to review in depth - too many unknowns. On next submittal, please submit a set of drawings that accurately reflect proposed improvements, items to be removed or relocated, grades of intersecting driveways and etc. If they are not complete, Engineering will not review for comments. For you information, I have provided a review check off sheet to help determine the items that must be submitted. Although these sheets are not entirely accurate, they will provide sufficient information for your use. - =-: PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannint DATE: December 31,1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park, Celestica, Technology Parkway PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Technology Parkway 1. All Harmony Road improvements are to be designed to CDOT standards and must receive their approval. An amendment to the CDOT Access Plan and Federal A -Line designation is required for this roadway intersection. 2. Need easement for sidewalk if outside of proposed R.O.W. 3. Add note #18, Re: Utility permit from CDOT required 4. Changes as noted on cover sheet 5. Page 4 of 10 - make note of future construction for storm water improvements 6. Page 5 of 10 - change bike lane location 7. Page 5A of 10 - Various comments 8. Page 6 of 10 - Concrete to R.O.W. line at driveway 9. Detail sheets - change bike lane widths, 8 feet required, various minor comments 9. Comments will be addressed after CDOT decision is made on full movement access PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: 0-51 ' . PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins DATE: December 10,1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park, Celestica, PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer Review by 12-10-1997 eNo Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 1. All Harmony Road improvements are to be designed to CDOT standards and must receive their approval. An amendment to the CDOT Access Plan and Federal A -Line designation is required for this roadway intersection. 2. Need easement for irrigation line along east side of Technology Parkway 3. Make note on Grading and drainage plans referencing irrigation line page 3 of 37 4. Revise erosion control schedule 5. Sheet 6 of 37 , off site easement is needed for irrigation line 6. Sheet 8A of 37, Does fence at Harmony House have a gate if so show location so I can determine if there is a potential traffic conflict from Harmony Road. 7. Sheet 13-3 7 , Add a not regarding No asphalt pavement shall begin until the final soils and pavement design reports have been received and approved by the City. 8. Sheet 14-3 7 , same note as above 9. Type Ill barricade required at end of sidewalk 10. Sidewalk width conflicts on this sheet and others 11. Elevations at 8+50 and 10+00 smeared 12. Sheets 18 and 19 , bike lanes run straight through 13. Sheet 30 of 37 , Reference detail of irrigation line and water line crossing 14. Sheet 31 of 37 , general comment of 10 foot separation between water and storm sewer 15. Sheet 1 R-2 , need additional details for irrigation line PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: 13 IAWa PROJECT 1006aal COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current PlanninLy DATE: March 31, 2004 TO: Engineering PROJECT: 412-97E Harmony Tech Park 2nd Amended ODP - Type I1 (LUC) All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: April 21, 2004 Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other _ Utility Redlinc Utility _Landscape Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: April 23, 2004 Project: HARMONY TECH PARK 2ND AMENDED OPD - TYPE II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: April 21, 2004 Mote - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 24 Created: 4/23/2004 [4/23/041 Revise the plan to reflect existing conditions: - Rock Creek has parking east of Cambridge. - The phrase "proposed Future street connection" appearing twice on the south side of Rock Creek Drive west of Cambridge should be eliminated as these won't be streets with the development of Fossil Ridge High School (the arrows themselves can remain). - Eliminate the showing of a "future road" for the roadway that intersects Technology Parkway on the south side of Rock Creek Drive. - Remove the phrase "collector street without parking" for Rock Creek Drive as this street has parking east of Cambridge. - Strauss Cabin is a minor arterial, not a collector. Number: 25 Created: 4/23/2004 [4/23/041 The "Cambridge Avenue Access Detail" is not reflective of the construction drawings approved with Harmonv Technology Park 2nd Filing. The CDP detail indicates direct driveway access out to the realigned Cambridge Avenue for two lots. The approved drawings do not have the direct access, instead the existing "Cambridge" runs parallel to the realigned Cambridge and access between the two was obtained through a temporary roadway in line with the future street shown on the northern edge of the detail. The Cambridge Avenue Access Detail should be removed as access points at this level will be evaluated at the time of a PDP and is not reviewed or "vested" at an ODP level. Z S o Dar CHECK HERE IF YOU W SH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site i�<%�� Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page I FOR C'OI,I.INS LOVF:I.AND AA A Il It N', I RIC I SOUII I FORT COLLINS, VA11 A 11ON l n� I R R I November 2, 2004 Mr. Marc Virata, P.E. City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Cambridge Avenue (Harmony Rd to Rock Creek) Dear Mr. Virata, The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned project and submit the following comments. The signature block is to be replaced with the District's current signature block. All District facilities are to be adjusted in accordance with District specifications and requirements. The District does not allow landscaping within existing easements or within 10 feet of District facilities. Tree canopies that extend into the easement or within 10 feet of District facilities may be severely damaged during maintenance operations. The District will not be responsible for any damage, replacement, repair or costs associated with the maintenance work. The existing cover over the District water line is to be maintained and no less than 5 feet. All existing water and sanitary sewer lines need to be clearly identified, Fort Collins — Loveland water District, City of Fort Collins, etc., and shown on all profiles and plan sheets for review. The sanitary sewer line is not shown in Cambridge Avenue near Rock Creek Drive. The 3 inch water line lowering on sheet 14 of 51 needs to be detailed. All fittings and restraint systems need to be shown. The District will require another review due to the nature of the above comments and the lack of adequate information. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional information. Respectfully, Mr. Terry W. Farrill, P.E. District Engineer xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager JR Engineering 5150 Snead Drive, Fort Collins. CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186 HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK PAGE 2 f3 9. The ped LOC "C" for crossing Harmony Road is acceptable in this case. However, crosswalk improvements (whether at CR. 9 or the new location proposed to align with the HP west entrance) will be required per the list in the ped LOS matrix, ( special pavement treatments to highlight crossing areas, increased walk time, increased lighting, ped refuge areas in medians, increased attention to clear lines of site, etc.). 10. The LOS "A" finding for directness and continuity to HP are inaccurate, there are not any sidewalks along HP's property on either CR 9 or Harmony, so the project fails to meet these categories. To meet these categories it is the responsibility of the developer to negotiate with HP to provide and install sidewalks along CR 9 and Harmony to the entrance to HP. 11. If a traffic signal is not built at HP's Harmony Road west entrance, then the crosswalk at CR 9/Harmony needs to be improved and or an overpass could be built along Harmony to connect the site with HP once the site is fully developed. 12. Regarding the bicycle LOS, Preston Center is not the only applicable destination. Include HP,(future) Symbios, and the adjacent neighborhoods. The TIS needs to be revised to show these destinations. Include the fact that bike lanes already exist on CR 9 north of Harmony and with their frontage: improvements they will make this connection also. Date: Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ PLAT ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY 03/14/2005 23:05 FAX 970 226 0186 FCLWD SFCSD 10001 FORT COLLINS-LO VELAND WATER DISTRICT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT Y February 18, 2005 Mr. Marc Vista, P.E. City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Cambridge Avenue (Harmony Rd to Rock Creek) Dear Mr. V irata, The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned project and submit the following comments. All existing water and sanitary sewer lines need to be clearly identified, Fort Collins — Loveland water District, City of Fort Collins, etc., and shown on all profiles and plan sheets for review. District facilities are not shown on the profile, sheet 31 of 51. There are notes that call for the relocation of District facilities but do not indicate by whom or where the facilities are to be re -located. All costs associated with this project are at the cxpcnw of the developer. The District will require another review due to the nature of the above comments and the lack of adequate information- Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or requite additional information. Respectfully, Q� �W �i•y""L.c District Engineer xc: Mr_ Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager JR Engineering 5150 Sumd Drivc, Fort Collins, CO 90525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 2005 PROJECT: Cambridge Avenue DEPT: ENGINEERING • Remove CDOT's approval block, they no longer sign off on construction plans and use the issuance of the access permit as evidence of their approval. • The cross sections on Sheet 35 don't appear to accurately reflect the interim paving on the south side of Harmony Road. • Is there an opportunity to not have the crosswalks on Harmony Road (especially the one on the cast side of the intersection) constructed on a skew by bringing the refuge area closer to the intersection? • There should be a crosswalk running east -west on the north side of the Cambridge/Harmony intersection with access ramps on the north side. • Please provide more detail information as to what is taking place on the refuge area for the cast side of the Cambridgc/Harmony intersection. Sheet 34 shows what almost appears to be a refuge island, though the contour lines (4910) still seems to imply that this is part of the depressed median. • The construction of the eastbound bikelane on Harmony Road doesn't appear to make sense given that there will be a gap between Ziegler Road and this starting point. Is there a mcchanisrn to have this constructed to Technology Parkway? • The irrigation line on the east side of Cambridge Avenue approaching Harmony Road will need to be relocated further east as the new alignment falls within the 9' of future utility easement behind the sidewalk. There may then be a concern with the placement of the signal pole being in close proximity. • Side swales along Cambridge need to have a minimum grade of 1.0% to prevent standing water. Please show information on the plans to ensure this is being met. • Provide information as to how the median on Cambridge will be designed (landscaped or hardscapc&') • I low is access to the existing private drive taking place from the new construction of Cambridge? It doesn't appear to be clear. i Date: �� Signature: Please send copies of marked revisions Plat Site ,�tJtility Landscape ❑ NO COMMENTS SUBMIT MYLARS =_ City of Port Collins • There arc some storm sewer crossings on Cambridge that do not provide adequate cover over the roadway. • As previously mentioned, please provide a letter from HP indicating that they arc aware of the proposal and do not object of Mr. Kaplan acting as an "agent" under HP's development plan to build the road. • Please show the existing crown line along with the proposed crown line on the striping plan just for further clarification/verification on the shifting ofthc crown in relationship to the lane lines. • It should be verified who maintain the temporary drainage swales alongside Cambridge and that the City will not maintain these. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: June 23, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park— 20% PROJECT MANAGER: Ted Shepard PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata 20% Signoff Meeting Date: June 29, 2000 @ 3PM ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: 1. Note that the former County Road 9 is "Ziegler Road". 2. Per discussion with the City's Transportation Staff and Bob Almirall (J.R. Engineering), the design of the Cambridge/Harmony intersection is preferred to intersect at 90 degree angles. The City would be in favor of granting a variance request by the design engineer reducing street centerline radius and tangent requirements in order to facilitate a design where the roads intersect at 90 degrees. 3. The Engineering standard that will be adopted with regards to median width (with landscaping) is 7'. The City Forester should be consulted on whether 6' is a concern for landscaping in these local commercial streets. 4. Medians shown on the private drives intersecting Cambridge Road and Technology Parkway shall not be located within the right-of-way of the intersecting roadway (Cambridge/Technology Parkway). 5. Discussion should be made on the potential need and design for pedestrian refuge islands. 6. Discussion with PFA should be made on the ingress/egress width requirements of the private drives that are split by medians at the intersection with the public street. 7. The onsite detention shown along Cambridge Road appears to abut the back of walk in some locations. 9' of utility easement needs to be provided from behind the sidewalk. A utility coordination meeting should be considered at some point to discuss whether the utilities have a concern with this (as Stormwater requires the detention to be in an exclusive drainage easement) Would utilities require additional easement width? 8. Note the incorrect dimensions for Cambridge Drive. Date: June 29, 2000 Signatur CC: 0 Project Planner 0 Engineering Project File 101 JR Engineering 0 bha design 0 0 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DATE: September 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park 2nd Filing PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: October 5, 2000 ❑ No Problems El Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments: • It appears that I am the lone dissenter on the 2 week turnaround with the 90% submittal. I intend to make myself available for meetings prior to the submittal date, I hope that this will provide me with review information so that I do not have two weeks to look at a project 'bold". Any lacking information will be considered incomplete and may delay my review as well as scheduling Planning and Zoning Board approval. • The TIS does not show long range geometry. As such, I have concerns with the submittal and if the proposed street system is proper. For example, the plans appear to show a dedicated right -turn lane off Technology Parkway heading west on access A. This was not shown as being required with the existing Celestica site, and it is not being shown as needed in the short mange geometry of the submitted TIS. Is this required in the long range? • The internal east -west public streets appear okay with regards to horizontal alignment. Cambridge Drive requires a variance request for the intersection with Harmony (and will be supported as previously discussed). Technology Parkway appears to be ok, provided the previous comment is addressed. (Note that without long-term geometry in the TIS, it cannot be determined if additional right-of-way is needed for additional lanes for turning movements into the internal public streets.) • The notation of Harmony Road and Cambridge to be constructed by others is not correct. Although HP may have agreements with neighboring properties with regards to construction responsibilities, this will only work assuming that the timing of the developments correspond accordingly. If this site is set for development but the neighboring properties are not, this site would then be required to construct Cambridge and Harmony Road as required by code. • Harmony Road is not to be designed by others. It is my understanding that the most current design of Harmony Road was done with the first filing of Harmony Technology Park. Information needs to be provided on the plan set regarding the design of Harmony Road with this development project. Prior to the next submittal I need information with regards to the design of these streets. I need to see how the intersection of Harmony with Cambridge and Technology Parkway line up with the driveways across the street as well as the improvements for a 3/4 intersection_�Harrrrony and Cambridge. Date: October 6, 2000 Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS 11 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 11 Landscape 13 Draina Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS • A preliminary soils report was not received and is required prior to the next resubmittal. Will a subdrain system be used for onsite groundwater mitigation and/or dewatering of the deep utilities in the right-of-way. A hydrological analysis is required for any subdrain system. • When sidewalks intersect at the intersection of two adjacent streets, the sidewalks should provide a radius intersection rather than meeting at right angles. This should be reflected in the site plan and the plat • The radius style driveways for where the private drives meet a public street is in conflict with the Land Use Code. The radius style drives should be changed to the "New Driveway Approach" as detailed in the engineering design standards. Otherwise, the use of the radius style driveways require a modification before the Planning and Zoning Board. Note that the new Larimer County street standards scheduled for adoption next year allows for the radius style driveways provided the driveway traffic meets the definition of "high volume", provided this change is incorporated into the Land Use Code. [LUC 3.6.2(L)(2)(e)] • The next submittal should show a design (grade and ground lines) of Cambridge and Technology Parkway south at least to Rock Creek Drive. • It is my understanding that the northern unnamed east -west public street is going to be realigned because of the location of trees east of Cambridge. I would like to see this redesign prior to the next resubmittal, along with a horizontal alignment design east of the site to see how the street would continue in relation to the existing trees. • Prior to a hearing, a letter of intent is needed for any offsite easements (such as the portion of Cambridge Drive to be built outside of the AP property.) • I have the right to add additional comments in the future as the S@#* network crashed while I was saving this document and could not recover it. Plat Comments: Maintenance and Repair Guarantees and Notice of Other Documents need to be incorporated into the plat prior to final sign off. The firelane access and easement notation on the plat should be designated as an "emergency access easement" [LUC 3.6.2(L)(2)(a)] Utility/Site Plan Comments: • Why aren't the sidewalks being shown on the utility plan set? • While it is my understanding that a street striping plan isn't typically received with a 50% submittal, I would suggest that this is appropriate at this time with the size of the project. I would like to verify what is bring proposed for the street system both with regards to any dedicated turn lanes. This would verify whether the street horizontal layout is sufficient with the shown pavement transitions or demonstrates that additional right of way is needed in order for a striping plan to work. • There are driveways that exceed the maximum allowed width of 35' as specified in the City Code [24-76(2)a.] The driveway widths need to be reduced. • The internal east -west pedestrian treatment out to Cambridge and Technology Parkway appear fine. I question the north -south pedestrian treatments that intersect the public roads on the south border and northern end of the site. Wouldn't they be better served located at a driveway intersection rather than between driveways? Vehicles turning onto the roads would be better conscious of the pedestrians with the pedestrian trails closer to the driveway. The site plan does not correspond with the utility plan with regards to the width of Technology Parkway and the site plan does not show the medians proposed on the utility plan. Development Review Comments — Page 2 The utility plan shows the medians on Technology Parkway having 2' of gutter. This is not consistent with our outfall curb and gutter detail of 1' gutter. It appears that the road width can be reduced 2'. The Traffic Engineer decides on the use of enhanced crosswalks in the right-of-way. You may want to verify with the Traffic Engineer that the enhanced crosswalks shown across driveways are acceptable. Development Review Comments — Page 3 ii 1 CITY OF FORT CALLINS CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERED SUBDRAIN SYSTEM I. 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 eate no Injury, to existing water e p rights in throject vicinity. eoscd� 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 DVATER. The system shall be designed in consideration of seasonal high groundwater levels anticipated at the project site. S. 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 tined with a fitter fabric specifically selected in consideration of on -site soil conditions in order to minimize the invasion of fine soil particles into the bedding gravel. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: November 17, 2000 TO: Transfort PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK, HEWLETT PACKARD, TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 29, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference 107 Signature CHECK HERE IF YQU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat ite _Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape PROJECT DATE: November 15, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park, HP— Type II PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: November 29, 2000 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments: • Letters of intent are required from offsite property owners for any offsite construction prior to a hearing. • A modification request is required to allow the use of radius style driveways for the private drives. Preliminary discussion based on the previous meeting is that the modification would be supported. [LUC 3.6.2(L)(2)(e)] • It is my understanding that this submittal is not intended as a "90% submittal" per the pilot project process and is more for review purposes. It should be noted that much of the design, especially with regards to Cambridge Drive and Harmony Road, is not complete for a 90% submittal. • The utility plan needs to show how the existing Cambridge Drive will be impacted by the new realignment of the roadway onto HP property. How will the existing property owners access their property and will the new roadway cause issues with drainage or sight distance? • With regards to improvements on the east side of Cambridge and the utility easement on the east side of the roadway, the question of what to do with the HP property on the east side of Cambridge that serves as the utility easement can be addressed with either of the following options. Note that the City does not see the need for landscaping and sidewalk on the east side of Cambridge Drive with this development at this time. I) Dedicate the utility easement area as right-of-way to the City, it is understood that the City will have acquired additional width. 2) Realign the roadway so as the right-of-way ends at the back of (future) sidewalk and don't reserve additional land for utility easement. This option needs approval of the utilities stating that they do not plan to install services at this time and are not in need of the utility easement with this development. As previously stated (and noted by the TOPS Director in a letter dated November 6 h 2000, the intersection of Cambridge Drive and Harmony Road is required to be constructed as a 3/< movement intersection. The plans have not been reflected to show this. In addition, the TIS indicates a full movement intersection in the short range, which is not the case. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannint DATE: August 26, 1998 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Tech - Park , Erosion Control Revisions PLANNER: ENGINEER: Ted Shepard Dave Stringer All comments must be received by: Wednesday August 26,1998 No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) t Date: Signature` PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ PLAT ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE • Pedestrian refuge needs to be created across Cambridge at the Harmony intersection, as well as as across Technology Parkway at the Harmony intersection. 6' of median is required the refuge. Additional pedestrian refuge may need to be provided on other intersa minimum for ections, based upon the transportation planner. • Signs are not typically allowed in easements, if more than 15' of utility easement is required for utilities and the proposed signage is within the expanded easement on Harmony Road (for utilities, pedestrian, landscaping, etc,) might this be a concern, especially with the utilities? Has a detail been provided of the signs proposed? There appear to be two project identification signs within utility easements on the north east -west street, this would have to be approved by the utilities. • The site and utility plan shows pedestrian paths that cross parking lot medians, though no indication is given if access ramps are provided. • Per the traffic study, the first east -west street off of Cambridge south of Harmony and east of this site is limited to right -in, right -out turning movements, as such the median needs to be extended. • Clarify the use of driveway cuts and radius style driveways between the site and utility plan. Plat: • The sidewalk along Harmony Road needs to be in an access easement. At a minimum a 15' utility easement is required behind the right-of-way on Harmony Road. The firelane access easement illustrated on the plat needs to be changed to an emergency access easement. In addition, the delineation on the plat should provide 25' inner/50'outter radii at the 90' turns. Utility Plan: • More detail is needed for grading internal to the site. Among other things, I need to be able to determine how the drainage onsite is accommodated and whether drainage enters the right-of-way across a sidewalk at any given point. • The utility plan needs to show curve data on all the streets in the plan and profile portion as well as stationing on the flowlines (including the medians.) • Spot elevations are required at all public street intersections in accordance with Standard Detail — D- 18/D-19. • Call out the type of curb used internal to the site as well as on the medians in the right-of-way (inflow or outfall.) • 7' is the minimum width required for medians. • Show concrete to the property line for all driveways. • The flowline profile disappears on sheet C35. • Need to see invert elevations and storm pipe locations on the plan and profile sheets. • The utility plan is missing sidewalk along the property in some locations. • The utility plan shows the medians on Technology Parkway having 2' of gutter. This is not consistent with our outfall curb and gutter detail of F gutter. It appears that the road width can be reduced 2'. • The Traffic Engineer decides on the use of enhanced crosswalks in the right -of --way. You may want to verify with the Traffic Engineer that the enhanced crosswalks shown across driveways are acceptable. Additional comments will be made with more information for review. Date: December 1 2000 PLEASE SEND COPIES OF RKED RREVIS MAIOI�Y f � Q Plat 0 Site RlUtility RILandscape 0 Drainage Re�BYVMT40 ftVA4Lqq MYLARS PROJECT COMMENT SHE Current Plannino November 15, 2000 TO: PROJECT: Os � G i/ ;may #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK, HEWLETT PACKARD, — TYPE H (LUC) All comments must be received by STEvE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 29, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference �K W.. /� i� ��y G6�GG��✓vr Gc7� /t�'� WV1.74 �fl��vvr _ - _�Iainagr/Keport _Other_ _Redline Utility Landsr,.,P COMMENT S Current Plannine DATE: November 17, 2000 TO: Trans Planning, g� / PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK, HEWLETT PACKARD, TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 29, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference � � (3 Lit `alb 2 C9 V4 Uvt �G c 0 I"V` oiV, b�. e��� caYvv�.v�naw�J Canny �- �c�— �-��.Q,�,cnr�1�- �- wi n e-�-L e4,L Cc w l,yOCc , CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat 69ite _Drainage Report _Other ztility _Redline Utility Vandscape PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Plannine DATE: November 17, 2000 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK, HEWLETT PACKARD, TYPE II (LUC) MATZO All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 29, 2000 Note- Please identify/your redlines for future reference r. MAi� C+-6s�5, An.8.4 — GCG,9L 006-1 X67- R-4rcy Mqp S�VeAAt- CAsa=s, 1) Tb SL cT %- //J R .- Pl rT % i signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS "Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape ...; City of Fort CCol� PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Plannine DATE: November 17, 2000 TO: Street Oversmng PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK, HEWLETT PACKARD, TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 29, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference 5 � ! / / Q d�lcrpa�7o� a �t �Of1at�Ni4{ if-te, % / al�ti� /_—"Vof A;s /A,/eMI- F4t/W s�'IcaoQ! lrkiG �v./`e ;44 ALc /oe-a[�9��etl�D✓pia+, liesfao�6;It1r /DL' CHECK HERF0 YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort o PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannin" DATE: November 15, 2000 TO:� • ��z•I �Q, PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK, HEWLETT PACKARD, - TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 29, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference ,,,Vre'j �&C/,Sz RASP(i)>� signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Tech Svs PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK — PDP — HEWLETf PACKARD -TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: February 7, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** J, GLR'r � I-EGAC C,osE , A F£ W Pf rF&2En1cE5 ,nJ C4J,2J£ bfhT"H 6r46U Cb _rHLr_ 120a0 /2OCn) .N Lv1_1 7- ftT ; C&,j S 1 Oc c) r- �c./F /`� �` @ oS .%Z /T6 .4 3. W H,4-r t b T T C-r,4 -rj J c)F 7-64S ALolq C,4sr 3auvo.��l ifs 57,t�� �a — _T�411 A✓0ej 7a Bps ►Zug Z P11 UI06 .4c-r_ t-:sl 72) a TN-z .-_ d W n/ iF 2S CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Dat'tiat Site IhainaRe Report Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK— PDP — HEWLETT PACKARD -TYPE 11 (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: February 7, 2001 FJNo Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** C7_`D .>zi 7 G�;ifL,e- 4p CHECK HERE 1F YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Dat& site Drainage Report s Utility _ Reduce Unity _ Landscape r PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Jl�,U Z -i, zcz� 1 DATE: _Noventber45,2M DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park, HP— Type H PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata ,i�3 /v) 2o6 All comments must be received by: ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments: ■ The interim design of Harmony Road will need general approval of Street Oversizing and CDOT. As a meeting with CDOT, City Engineering (with Street Oversizing), and JR Engineering will not take place until the Thursday the 15t', additional comments may be forthcoming regarding the design. • A letter of intent is needed for the portion of Cambridge Drive outside of HP's dedication. • Will offsite easements be required for the acceleration lane on Harmony east of Cambridge? There isn't enough information on the utility plan set to determine where the existing right-of-way is and whether easements for grading are needed. • A modification is required for the use of the radius -style driveways out to any public street. ■ There is a Melody Road in Larimer County and as such, Melody cannot be the new street name for Cambridge Drive. ■ Imagination Drive and Discovery Drive should be changed to Timberwood Drive in keeping with Timberwood Drive west of Ziegler Road. • With the use of enhanced crosswalk across the driveways in public right-of-way, as noted on the site plan, the maintenance responsibilities will fall upon the adjacent property owner. It should also be noted that any work or repair of the crosswalks in right-of-way will require a right-of-way permit from the Engineering Department. In addition, if the City maintains said crosswalks instead of the adjacent property owner, the City may replace the crosswalks with concrete. • With the proposed Phase 1 phasing, a cul-de-sac needs to be constructed at the termination of Precision Drive. In addition, the western drive that connects Precision Drive with Timberwood Drive and serves as an emergency access easement will have to be built in conjunction with the public streets to ensure the Technology Parkway/Precision Drive construction is not a road system in excess of 600'. ■ Phase 1, the initial phase for the development needs to show the offsite improvements on Harmony east of Cambridge with the acceleration lane off Cambridge out to Harmony. What are the proposed improvements on Harmony with Phase 1? Based upon the width shown, it is unclear based on the construction phasing plan if the interim improvements on Harmony Road are being proposed with Date: February 14, 2000 Signature:% ' PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIOS 21 Plat 121 Site Q Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage eport 0 NO COMMENTS-SUBivIIT MYLARS this first phase. Is sidewalk along Harmony proposed? The existing Cambridge proposed to be used with the development in the initial phase should be improved to a 36' wide width in accordance with 3.3.2(F). Offsite easements appear to be needed for the detention pond south of precision Drive as well as the Portion of Cambridge Road outside of existing right-of-way and the platted boundary of HP towards Harmony Road. Utility Plan Comments (onsite): • There are numerous instances where drainage from the parking lot is directed out a driveway across a Public sidewalk. Please either provide inlets behind the right -of --way of the driveways, or provide for storm conveyance measures to direct the flows under the sidewalks, or redesign the grading. This appears in eight driveway locations and on some of these, the area of influence is quite large. Z- ■ Show the proposed grading in the setback area south of Harmony Road, this does not appear in any of the utility drawings that I'm aware of. ■ Provide high points on the grading plan to better discern the proposed grading and grade breaks. y • There are sheets on the grading plan where storm drainage improvements are not shown. Layers are _ fumed off and/or inlets are missing. S • Show concrete (or indicate such) on all driveways intersecting the public street. • Label the width of all cross pans in right-of-way. 7 • Please show inlets on the profile of the street design. $ • There are instances on the street plan and profile where the elevations shown on the intersection don't match the elevations shown on the intersecting street's plan and profile (including with the Harmony Cambridge set.). q ■ Show where the transition is located to remove the crown from the roadway approaching the intersecting street and provide this elevation in accordance with Detail D-19 of the Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways. to ■ The stationing on sheet C31 of the onsite plan set does not scale properly. 11 • Curve data is missing on multiple sheets for the street plan and profile. M • The access ramp on the southwest comer of Cambridge and Harmony Road is missing as well as a pedestrian refuge on the median in this location. r) • Contour lines stop abruptly on different sheets. M ■ See plan set for additional comments and minor clarifications. Additional comments may be made with the addition of information on the plan set. Utility Plan Comments (Harmony & Cambridge): ' The interim design on sheet C5-C8 doesn't provide full information. Flowlines, spot elevations, Proposed contours, and right-of-way east of Cambridge is missing. Line weights are all the same (making it extremely difficult to follow interim/ultimate/existing flowlines), since stationing is sometimes shown on four different locations — show where the north and south edge of asphalt that the flowlines are referring to (but missing) are located. �" • The plan and profile sheets need to show more information (proposed and/or existing elevations) • Where is the '/< movement shown on the interim design for Cambridge and Harmony? • The cross-section at station 201+00 shows a cross slope of 0%. Additional information needs to be provided on the interim street plan and profile design showing the proposed grading, how it ties into the existing and to what extent will a "flat spot" be occurring. Development Review Comments — Page 2 PROJECT -COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins DATE: December 10,1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park, Celestica, PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer Review by 12-10-1997 No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 1. All Harmony Road improvements are to be designed to CDOT standards and must receive their approval. An amendment to the CDOT Access Plan and Federal A -Line designation is required for this roadway intersection. 2. Need easement for irrigation line along east side of Technology Parkway 3. Make note on Grading and drainage plans referencing irrigation line page 3 of 37 4. Revise erosion control schedule 5. Sheet 6 of 37 , off site easement is needed for irrigation line 6. Sheet 8A of 37 , Does fence at Harmony House have a gate if so show location so I can determine if there is a potential traffic conflict from Harmony Road. 7. Sheet 13-37 , Add a not regarding No asphalt pavement shall begin until the final soils and pavement design reports have been received and approved by the City. 8. Sheet 14-37 , same note as above 9. Type III barricade required at end of sidewalk 10. Sidewalk width conflicts on this sheet and others 11. Elevations at 8+50 and 10+00 smeared 12. Sheets 18 and 19 , bike lanes run straight through 13. Sheet 30 of 37 , Reference detail of irrigation line and water line crossing 14. Sheet 31 of 37 , general comment of 10 foot separation between water and storm sewer 15. Sheet 1R-2, , need additional details for irrigation line PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: [r t r r 5�N Per the response letter from JR Engineering, (1/19/01), the utility easement previously shown on the east side of Cambridge Road would now be dedicated as right-of-way, in excess of the standard. This does not appear to be the case as shown on the street design for Cambridge, which labels the 6 property line to the back of walk and labels a utility easement behind it. w=•=Y .a y w,liiccuon or i imoerwood Drive out to Cambridge shown on sheet C31 needs to have additional information regarding the existing and proposed grading. Will utilities using the newly dedicated Cambridge for services be hampered in their ability to install utilities at the ultimate location because of this temporary connection? ■ Phases shown for median on Cambridge may be different based on the ability to get a street to line-up with Timberwood per the ODP? Show transition tapers used for the median on Cambridge, as done on Harmony. • Provide a detail of the 4' glue down median serving to create the'/4 movement at the Harmony/Cambridge intersection. • See plan set for additional comments and minor clarifications. Additional comments may be made with the addition of information on the plan set. — %Naw 5T>¢�Pi2�,' 01V 4F 2l el. c g 2. Plat Comments: ■ It appears that the sidewalk along Harmony Road is not labeled as an access easement. • There are lines on the plat that aren't labeled. • The plat needs further clarification on the east side of Cambridge. Per the response letter from JR Engineering, the utility easement on the east side of Cambridge as shown on the previous round would now be shown as right-of-way (excess) — option 1 from my previous comment sheet. The plat appears to be showing only 84' as right-of-way by way of dimensioning (93' would be the right-of- way width for option 1.) Perhaps this is just a clarification in labeling. The plat implies that HP will be creating parcels of land outside the 84' right-of-way that would control access, that or HP is platting land that is outside its property boundaries and offsite easements are needed. The indications of firelane easement need to be changed to emergency access easement. ' There are areas that need to be cleaned up, duplicate language, text on top of text, etc. Site Plan ■ Please show the Harmony Road improvements on the site plan (street striping, ped refuge, etc.) ■ Cambridge is shown as 84' of right-of-way; it is my understanding that applicant wishes to dedicate additional right-of-way for what will be the utility easement on the east side of this roadway, in this case additional 9' of right-of-way needs to be shown. If this proposed right-of-way is within private property, letters of intent from affected property owners are required. The note regarding the maintenance of the crosswalks in the right-of-way for the private drives also needs to indicate that a right-of-way permit is needed from the Engineering Department prior to any repair work in the right-of-way. Development Review Comments — Page 3 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Traffic Ops PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park — PDP- Hewlett Packard — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 28, 2001 ElNo Comment ElProblems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** MY�-. C,: (I�L]a:C Jl... jli:�;'iP'(,� I�t^';. t✓+' } � � .G. �'•i 1` i ,—R.•j r�A'.� '..`.:: i C.. L�!/��_.+ 1'G U ��: �.../.: /fit.._ � JA� G"(_G..LC..�. ��^"i t_....... G• r CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Dat& Site Drainage Report Signatufk5er _ Utility _ Redlme Utdiry _ Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Transfort PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park — PDP- Hewlett Packard — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: i March2B� joNo Comment roblems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** �V o/ CHECK HE 1F YOU SH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS DatNt ite Drains a Report < Utility _kedhne Utility _ Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park — PDP- Hewlett Packard — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 28, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** C 7� - GfL �Tc Ok 7J �/8so T Sty C.t.niJrC�c6 3G .�.,,� C Rio 06Ti//L O*� �liu<tvfy 0%7/4P S2.7`�141S ov f., .640- o ^G 14f - ;W4ow.I6d' As •Y2v714c wWp ov 2IL, G 19 - f�.t•�i w�tc�� ovr i/r�oss S .�te+...r<<� C 2 0 _ F7.tf.r�E' CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REWSIONS Daft Site Drainage Report c — Utility _ Redhnc Utility _ Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park — PDP- Hewlett Packard — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 28, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** I, PLAT GLo5E5, LEG AG i7ec5naT 1GArg`1.E4fIG �ONTrr7A7CF✓. THE t'�ar t L£�Ac NAVE LNaNc €'v SiNCE TNEyaWEte LeST SEEJ. �G Z. Cu,, C,64,q. iS wi;s5i ,q 1'h vhaK7 10�4 ens. 3. Te--X-� Si ze- i s 1 f4 �l ahow�e�. Y 01-6 'Lou 1111`7 frtis ct►e hD� dcScvrbed. �, E�sewirh�s cam ho� �e �ooa�ec�. Wlz9� aye .��ey� ►)eel. 4-C) e;drc- CL- nCLO Sl Loe t . CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS DaMO Site Drainage Report SignatiMer — Utility _ Redlme Utility — Landscape C PROJECT SHEET DATE: April 11, 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park, HP— Type H PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: May 2, 2001 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments: 1. Remove all instances of Melody Road and replace with Cambridge Avenue. The most likely new street name for Cambridge/Melody is "Franz", however this may not be finalized in time for utility plan signatures. Labeling this roadway Cambridge will reduce confusion. 2. There are areas where different text combined with shaded areas and/or utility lines create areas that cannot be read and will not scan well. To help legibility and reduce the likelihood of utility information obscuring roadway information, it is suggested that utilities being shown along Harmony on the plan and profile sheet be removed and placed on a separate sheet illustrating existing utilities. Please ensure that all information is legible and not obscured. 3. Ensure that detail sheets show details of the pedestrian refuge. 4. Curve data shown on some sheets show curves that I could not find on the sheet or other sheets. 5. Show existing/proposed right-of-way and utility easements on all sheets. 6. Please ensure that centerline stationing is shown on the plan view, it is not shown on the south side of the median on Sheet C8. 7. On Sheet C8 The fast three distances shown as part of the bearing and distance labels on the plan view don't appear to match the distances between stationing. In all three cases, the distances are off close to a foot. 8. On Sheet C9 continue the centerline profile along the north side of the median. 9. On Sheet C9 Curves C6-C8 on the curve table are apparently not on this sheet (or any sheet?) 10. On Sheet C9 the new right-of-way line is not being shown on this sheet. 11. On Sheet C9 label/show existing right-of-way east of Cambridge. 12. On Sheet C9 flowline stationing is not shown on most of the sheet. In addition, centerline stationing is obscured by storm drainage pipe. 13. On Sheet C9A the proposed ground does not appear to tie into existing along the south edge of asphalt. 14. On Sheet C9A show the existing right-of-way along the south side of Harmony Road. 15. On Sheet C9A show flowline stationing. Date: May 4, 2001 Signature: RKE_ PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MAD REVISIONS 0 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS 16. In general, readability/missing information concerns exist on other sheets following the sheets listed above. 17. Sheet C 12 —The ultimate design along the flowline in front of the west entrance of HP is confusing. The plan view shows the flowline stopping at the driveway entrances, the profile view shows the flowline continuing. In addition, the flowline shows proposed grades don't match existing, would the driveway entrance then need to be modified as well? 18. On the same sheet, a vertical curve is required west of the driveway entrance into HP. 19. The intent of pedestrian treatments on Harmony Road at the intersection with Cambridge should be a topic of discussion. Based upon comparisons with the design at Technology Parkway I'm interpreting that ped refuge is not being installed on Harmony at Cambridge. If this is the case, has this been approved by Transportation Planning? If ped refuge treatments are planned/required, how would they work with a glue down median in the interim condition? Should they be delayed improvements until a signal is installed? Perhaps this was clarified by the onsite designs? 20. Ensure that ped refuge is shown in the ultimate condition on all Harmony Road street intersections. 21. The interim cross sections appear fine. In instances where the crown is maintained on eastbound Harmony (east of Cambridge) it appears that the crown is at a lane line. Verification should be made in the design that this does occur at all locations. 22. The ultimate cross sections need to show the area where additional pavement widening occurs along the north side of Harmony Road. They are not reflected on the cross section sheets. 23. If desired, a note may be placed on the cross sections with regards to the north side of the Harmony Road design being "For Future Reference Only." Additional comments may be made with more information for review. Development Review Comments — Page 2 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DATE: April 11, 2001 TO: KATHLEEN REAVIS PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park — Harmony Road Plans This is a portion of a Pilot Project All comments must be received by Marc Virata in Engineering no later than the staff review meeting: May 2, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference -4-� C ��'1 U 1-�ft. 4-1,� per. q YWJA . s e �tiu�VUw�- �L Name CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other tility _Redline Utility lAandscape =I" City of Fort Collins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: April 11, 2001 DEPT: Water & Wastewater PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park — Harmony Road Plans This is a portion of the Pilot Project All comments must be received by Marc Virata no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, May 2, 2001 ➢ Insufficient information was provided to do a complete review. ➢ Please show and label all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and their associated appurtenances. ➢ See overall utility plans for other comments. Date: S- 3'0 4 Signature: CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVIS S X PLAT X SITE DRAINAGE REPORT _OTHER _XUTILITY X REDLINE UTILITY X LANDSCAPE City of Fort Collins PROJECT COMM ENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannin:z SioRMWATEfl UTILITY DATE: April 11, 2001 TO: PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park — Harmony Road Plans This is a portion of a Pilot Project All comments must be received by Marc Virata in Engineering no later than the staff review meeting: May 2, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference 1. Please provide CDOT signature block on Harmony Road cross section plans. RESPONSE: 2. Please label all existing and proposed stormsewer pipe and inlets on all plans. RESPONSE: 3. Please include contours on intersection detail sheets. RESPONSE: Please refer and address all additional comments provided on the redlined plans and report. CC Name (please print) 6✓es 0. e�wwee. Elliilol CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat JUtility _Site _Drainage Report _Other X_Redline Utility _Landscape Marc Utrw+a S R Eoy. ON of Fort Collins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannini DATE: OCTOBER 31,1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park, Celestica, Technology Parkway PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer Scheduled for P& Z 11/6/97 eNo Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) I . All Harmony Road improvements are to be designed to CDOT standards and must receive their approval. An amendment to the CDOT Access Plan and Federal A -Line designation is required for this roadway intersection. 2. Need easement for sidewalk if outside of proposed R.O.W. County Road 9 3. Need more detail of grade, percent slope between sidewalk and irrigation ditch. 4. Need profile of median c&g on cross sections 5. Show size of inlet on Cty Rd 9 and Harmony Rd. & Construct right turn lane to avoid conflict with vehicles and bicycles 7. Extend RCP and reconstruct irrigation diversion structure to avoid conflict with pedestrians 8. Is location of bus turn out as per Transfort? Technology Parkway 9. Comments will be addressed after CDOT decision is made on full movement access PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: 126_ -f PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current PlanninLy DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK— HEWLETT PACKARD — FINAL COMPLIANCE (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: May 23, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference C O 46�G c fL% LE-ce,Z-, /vZc CC� iq,°Ifr L err s roc r7 ,P�<K-7 Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: May 9, 2001 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #12-97D Harmony Technology Park, HP — Type H PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: May 23, 2001 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: 1. The emergency access way hatched out for buildings C & E on Sheet C8 (and buildings D & F on Sheet C9) should have the reference note changed. The accessway needs to be in place prior to CO's 2. The 25' accessway out to Ziegler should show how this ties out to Ziegler. (Does it utilize an existing driveway cut, does it line up with or affect anything on the other side of the street?) 3. Where is the stationing shown on the Technology Parkway cross sections based on? (Plan and profile sheets for Technology Parkway show fiowline stationing, not centerline.) 4. Please ensure that all instances of Melody Road are replaced with Cambridge Avenue. 5. As the sidewalk along Harmony Road is not shown to be constructed until buildings A & B, this should be verified that Transportation Planning concurs. 6. Two benchmarks are needed for construction of the project. 7. The enhanced crosswalk detail on sheet C90 should be revised to Details 16-09, 16-10, and 16-11 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Are all crosswalks in the development concrete? Please label the enhanced crosswalk as either concrete or asphalt on the site and utility plan sets. 8. The traffic signal detail shown on Sheet C91A should be noted on the index of sheets of the cover page as a traffic signal detail sheet, not a street detail. Is this detail specific to Technology Parkway and Harmony? 9. I found two signing and striping plans with my submittal, which I assume were to have gone to Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering. Did these two departments receive individual utility plan sets? In particular, Traffic Engineering needs to seethe information above, sheet C91A. I don't believe it's worthwhile to route these signing and sniping plans to Traffic and Trans Planning as I believe these are the same as the previous submittal which both departments had commented on? 10. The final compliance landscape plans shows landscaping along Harmony as part of phase 2 while the sidewalk along Harmony as phase 3. General discussion should occur between pertinent members of City Staff and the applicant to verify the intent of phased improvements along Harmony Road. 11. In general, as it appears mylars may be submitted (assuming Harmony/Cambridge design issues are addressed and other City Staff concurs) it would be be a cial to have a final look at the information Date: May 28, 2001 Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS ; ❑ Plat ❑ Site ❑ Utility 0 Landscape 0 Drainage R ort 101 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS on the plan set and ensure information is clear. There are instances, especially on the grading plan where information is still obscured by the small font on top of contour lines, utility lines, or other information. 12. Jim Slagle no longer works at PSCO, which is now Xcel Energy. It may be worth revising the cover sheet to reflect this change. Gary Huett may be the appropriate contact person at 225-7840. Comments regarding the Harmony and Cambridge Road designs were not made with this submittal as the submittal did not change from the previous separate submittal for Hamiony and Cambridge Road. Development Review Comments — Page 2 Ry City of Fort Collins Current Plannine MAY 15 tool NPROJECT SHEET DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Transportation Planning PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK — HEWLETT PACKARD — FINAL COMPLIANCE (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: May 23, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference G �i° V2� (��✓�Yr-cz� ;Ui"�_ b2Q,G2 o TU �-r--�l, C�2�1�',di2'.1�'��✓ [�l. ".. I� V (please print) 10/ CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _✓Site _Drainage Report _Other ✓Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #12-97D HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK— HEWLETT PACKARD — FINAL COMPLIANCE (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: NMI May 23, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference 1, pG AT e&o5E5n�. L EGa L pae6l l' I ela Sc 8 Y , / / L Ei, APz,/r r ab wr m197e,1 fiC- ,3. Sage codC15 a+-e. Lthkzwowyl OL.S k U04ctT r4ex Qre, Tkc svna!' ,,d Shaaf�Kg wake i� %ard }o rid Cl d kA.d �n Sc4n. Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS IN PNo lat Site _Drainage Report _Other am—mwk,M— _Utility Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannint DATE: October 7 ,1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park, Celestica, Technology Parkway PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer All comments must be received by: 10/8/97 ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) SEE ATTACHED SHEETS 1. Sheet 2 of 9 - ADDITIONAL HARMONY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED BY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 2. Minimum of 450 foot taper required along Harmony 3. Add Left turn lane 340 feet plus taper 4. Add right -of-way for right turn lane on Tech. Pkwy 5. Design right turn lane 6. Need cross walk information with pedestrian refuge areas 7. Provide intersection design of harmony and technology 8. Sheet 3A - 3C - Provide % slope on cross sections 9. Sheet 4 of 9 - Sidewalk location at intersection, how does it cross swale along Harmony? 10. Where will signal poles be? 11. Show island detail with elevations, how will median cover be addressed in the areas that are to narrow for landscaping? 12. What is driveway width? Not greater then 35 feet, 15 foot radii, are drive isles one-way? 13. Add north bound left turn lane for future 14. Need easement for turn around 15. V.0 at station 21+19 to short need 120 foot minimum 16. Show future driveway location east side 17. Sheet 5 of 9 - need left turn lane to HP site, omit stop sign assume signalized intersection 18. CDOT permit required for water line bore Celestica Technology Parkway page 2 19. Sheet 6 of 9 -- It appears that distance between proposed irrigation pipe and bottom of curb will cause conflict, suggest this be evaluated and look at other type of pipe, "o" ring type gasket required 20. Add access ramps, right turn lane 21. Concrete encasement required with water line, distance between pipes appears to be close 22. Where is irrigation ditch/pipe on profile 23. What is barrier material, size etc. 24. Blow off required ends of water lines 25. City will make water tap on existing 16 inch line 26. Where is water tap location for median island 27. On Celestica plans water line is poly wrapped , why not this one? 28. 9 foot U.E. minimum both sides 29. Sheet 8 of 9 - Use current city Standard detail D-12.5 30. Bike way widths minimum of 8 feet 31. Where will detail for Arterial/Collector to residential street access ramp be used? Date:/D 'S -! i PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED Signature. REVISIONS: G-PLAT [1—rafTE [4-UTILITY C3--LANDSCAPE PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 7 ,1997 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: Harmony Technology Park, Celestica PLANNER: Ted Shepard ENGINEER: Dave Stringer All comments must be received by: 10/8/97 ❑ roblems roblems or Concerns (see below or attached) SEE ATTACHED SHEETS 1. Water/Wastewater 2. Storm Water 4. Transportation Planning 5. Traffic 6. Engineering A. Sheet 1 of 1 plat - Show right - of- way needed for right tum lane on Cty Rd.. 9 and Technology Parkway * Provide 15 utility easement around parameter of property and storm water easements * Change dedication note regarding maintenance etc to verbiage shown on redlined plans * Add signature block for irrigation ditch users Additional right-of-way required for right turn lanes on Cty. Rd.. 9 and Tech. Pkwy B. Sheet 3 of 37 -need easements for turn around and storm water ponds C. Sheet 4 oF37 -where are swales referred to in detail, did not find reference to on plan D. Sheet 5 of 37 -Need ditch company/owners signature for ditch work * Provide match lines E. Sheet 6 of 37 - match line, access Ramp at Tech. Pkwy east side F. Sheet 7 of 37 - Where on page 37 is detail? Provide detail of storm water pipe crossing ditch, What are elevations of contours? G. Sheet 10 of 37 - Show detail of sidewalk along Harmony (typical) Need access easement for areas of sidewalk outside of R.O.W. Harmony Technology Park Page 2 H. Sheet I I of 37 - Show detail of water and sewer lines crossing irrigation ditch L Sheet 12A of 37 - What is dashed line shown? * Show detail of walk at intersection of Cty. Rd.. 9 as it crosses irrigation diversion strictures, walk location does not match site plans, show right turn lanes , need pedestrian refuges at Harmony medians J. Sheet 13 of 37 - Where are intersection details? Add right turn lane, where are pedestrian connections? Show sidewalk with typical detail along Harmony. Show Harmony Road R.O.W. How does sidewalk cross swab; as shown on site plan? ADDITIONAL HARMONY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED BY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. K. Sheet 14 of 37 - Show sidewalk, distance of median to street flowlines, street widths etc. Vertical curves to short, provide smooth transition from Harmony to Cty. Rd.. 9 need 57.5 feet from road centerline to right of way line, see addition comments as red lined L. Sheet 15 of 37 - Show proposed median on cross sections M. Sheet 16 of 37 - from station 7+50 show milling of existing street pavement with overlay of existing to provide smooth adequate cross slope from gutter lip to centerline N. Sheet 19 of 37 - Sidewalk connection not acceptable, does not match site plan * Show location of existing telephone poles, fire hydrant, etc. , right turn lane design and O. Sheet 20 of 37 - Need off site casements P. Sheet 21 of 37 - label new right-of-way lines remove old lines Q. Sheet 23 of 37 - Where is fence location? 20 foot radius are maximum for these driveways R- Sheet 24 of 37 - 35 feet is maximum for driveway widths, use 15 foot radii, move median out of right-of-way, are drives to be one? If so label as such S. Sheet 25 of 37 - Detail of water storm sewer crossing, extend water line to property line , rod and tie back to valve and cross T. Sheet 27 of 37 - Detail water and storm sewer crossing, what is distance between storm sewer and water line? U. Sheet 28 of 37 - Show detail of water and storm sewer crossing V. Sheet 28 of 37 - Show detail of storm sewer pipe through retaining wall W. Sheet 29 & 30 of 37 - Show detail of crossing between water and storm sewer X. Sheet 31 of 37 - State permit required for water line bore under Harmony Rd.., Detail water line crossing need easement for water line, minimum distance is 18 inches from bottom of encasement to top of water line 7 Si nature: Date: ( 'G' f g Y