HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK SECOND - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-10-28IAWa
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
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.
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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