Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOBSERVATORY PARK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-02-27iziSelected Issues Report CiCe of Fort Collins Date: 2/7/2008 800,808 AND 814 W. PROSPECT ROAD MIXED -USE (OBSERVATORY PARK) - TYPE I & FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Drainage Number:97 Created:2/21/2005 Resolved [2/21/05] When repaving/regrading the offsite parking lots, the drainage must be diverted from flowing over the public walk. Please re -grade to drain to an under -walk drain. Number:166 Created:3/31/2005 Resolved [3/31/051 Regarding the drainage connections to both Lake and Prospect: structures within the ROW are maintained by Stormwater; is Stormwater willing to maintain the non-standard drainage facilities shown in the ROW? On Lake, the drain should probably be altered to have a straight section with standard culvert and metal cover within the ROW, with the angled section occurring outside of the ROW. On Prospect, the flared section should probably be removed, extending the culvert back to the pipe and have the pipe come out of a flat section at the end of the culvert. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number:174 Created:7/17/2007 Pending [8/6/07] Still some line over text issues to correct and other drafting corrections. Please see redlines for clarification. [7/17/071 Please see red -lines and correct all line over text and other issues to comply with the scannability requirements of LCUASS Appendix E. Number:175 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] Please title all plans consistently as Observatory Park or Observatory Park Subdivision (Site, Landscape, Utility, Plat). Number:176 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] Please add the Traffic Engineer consultant info to the cover sheet. Number:177 Created:7/17/2007 Pending [8/6/07] Please label easement as EMERGENCY ACCESS, PUBLIC ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY easement rather than EMERGENCY VEHICLE ... easement. [7/17/071 The Plat boundary and connection to Lake Street has changed since the last submittal and is different than what was presented at the public hearing for this project. A new easement dedication is being proposed on the Farmhouse property. This connection is acceptable for the intended purpose however, some revisions are needed to the design and construction as shown on the red -lines. Page 1 REVISION COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: February 2, 2005 TO: Engineering �&d-►e) PROJECT: #41-02A 800, 808 and 814 W. Prospect Road Expanded Condominium Project PDP All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: February 23, 2005 Note -.Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) offsite esmts �ed�btks�c �� -b LeJCJL �h qm,-) ` j l"&t_&4 (s-� A� Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Am City of Fort Coffins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: July 28, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #41-02A 800, 808 and 814 W. Prospect Road Expanded Condominium Project PDP - Type I All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: August 11, 2004 kll No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE" LV&AL Cc056 CAL S=- ��j. ✓ni � i ER i? c � .A [a7 %`f o Kir rvt L tv S (x*= 47- _T H Z.0 '0-" (c- A la, 19- S�1�i G�i; := L uG�2 -FL =A Name (please print) Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ;; VPlat _Site _Drainage Report _Other am _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape ,. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: April 28, 2004 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #41-02A 800, 808 and 814 W. Prospect Road Expanded Condominium Project PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: May 19, 2004 Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference Trans Coord: ' ra rk4_" Setbatc-C - Y-w t,L c elrlidry_ �e5 ( V10Var. tt cut alf- r,ow G>+rnrevia� to/ rros�ectL_n 7Nd,U0WaMCQ OIC 51"a& 10 Na \/Jy-, jl� O�S� �� C�Jv`;S ( YT'iU I � 120 Q. j 1EA'D,k, Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape "Morit Selected Issues Report 2/7/2008 808 WEST PROSPECT MIXED USE PDP SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All Date: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: Detail Sheet Number:33 Created:10/10/2002 Pending Please use detail 7-29B for the drive approach and use detail D-10 for the sidewalk culvert. 2.7.03 - Detail D-10 was not used; the old detail is still on the plans. 5.21.03 -Now there is no detail for the under -walk drain at all. Please show detail D-10 (re- attached). Number: 71 Please include Drawing 16-4a. Topic: General Created:2/7/2003 Resolved Number:9 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Additional Right of Way must be dedicated along Prospect. In this location, Prospect is considered a constrained arterial, with a corresponding total ROW of 102'. (The constrained arterial cross-section is as follows: A 6' sidewalk, 8' parkway, 7' bike lane, five 12' vehicle lanes, another 7' bike lane, 8' parkway, and 6' sidewalk.) Accordingly, this project must dedicate an additional 21' of ROW for Prospect. Retaining walls and drainage facilities will not be allowed within the ROW, so the site must be reconfigured. Number:10 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved The access point onto Prospect may become a right -in, right -out only access in the future. Number:11 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved The street trees need to be placed in the ultimate location. Number:12 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved The parking setback needs to be measured from the ultimate flowline of Prospect. Number:15 Created:1011012002 Resolved Is it possible to share access with adjacent properties? (highly recommended) Number:30 Created: 10110/2002 Pending Where is the proposed ped/bike connection to the North? 2.7.03 - This connection is still not being shown offsite. 5.21.03 - Again, this connection is still not shown. What is going on with it? Will easements be needed for it? Page 1 Number:31 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved The driveway cut width shown is too narrow; a minimum 28' width is required for access to 12 or more multifamily units. Number:34 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Please see the redlined plans and utility plan checklist for any additional comments. (FYI - The checklist should have been submitted with this initial round of review and is required of every project.) Number:72 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved The existing ROW width should be shown on all plans. Number:73 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved It appears that some sort of patterned/colored concrete is proposed across the driveway between the pedestrian ramps. Decorative concrete will not be maintained by the City. Number:74 Created:2/7/2003 Pending The soils report is being returned so that it can be signed and stamped and returned with the next submittal. 5.22.03 - The soils report was not returned. Please return a signed stamped copy of the soils report. Number:78 Created:2/19/2003 Resolved Please have the soils report signed and stamped and returned with the next submittal. Number:80 Created:2/19/2003 Resolved Move retaining wall Number:81 Created:2/19/2003 Resolved The retaining wall needs to be moved a minimum of 2' behind the ROW due to sidewalk separation requirements (for the future sidewalk placement). Number:82 Created:2/19/2003 Resolved There is a possibility that the building might need to get smaller in order to address the various departments' concerns. Number:90 Created:5/22/2003 Pending The offsite utility easements will need to be dedicated to the City in standard form (instructions are attached). They should not be dedicated to an individual (Frazier). Number:91 Created:5/22/2003 Pending Letters of intent from affected property owners for any easements needed are required prior to hearing. The template easement language provided for the temporary construction easements is interesting, but the City's need is for letters from the adjacent property owners themselves stating that they intend to grant whatever easements are necessary for this project to move forward. For the offsite grading and temporary construction easements, copies of the completed easements are required prior to signing of mylars. For the offsite easements dedicated to the City (utility), the completed dedication paperwork, legal descriptions, sketches, and filing fees will be required prior to mylars being signed. Page 2 Topic: Grading Plan Number:32 Created:10/10/2002 Unresolved It appears that temporary construction easements will be needed on the north, east and west edges of the site for the placement of the silt fence and the construction of the pan along the edge of the property. Please provide letters of intent for these easements prior to hearing, and provide copies of the completed easements prior to signing of mylars. 2.7.03 - It isn't necessary to show these easements on the plans/plat. The separate document(s) will be sufficient. Number:68 Created:2/7/2003 Pending There are a few minor locations where it appears that this project will be re -grading on neighboring lots. Any re -grading on adjacent property will require a permanent offsite easement for grading. The construction easement does not cover this. 5.22.03 - Repeat - the grading may be minor, but permission still needs to be obtained from the property owner to do it. Please provide, prior to hearing, letters of intent from these property owners that they will grant grading easements. Number:69 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved The grading as shown does not result in a minimum 2% slope within the parkway between the retaining wall and the curb. Please reconfigure to achieve this. Number:70 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved The high ridge shown on the driveway needs to be located at the ROW line, not further south. An expansion joint also needs to be provided at the ROW line. Number:92 Created:5/22/2003 Pending Grading in the ROW is still unclear. It appears that the grade will drop a foot within the sidewalk and that the grade from the wall to the sidewalk is too flat (less than 2%). Two values are given for TOW, which is correct? Shouldn't the grade contours be perpendicular to the slope arrows? (The ped. Ramps at the driveway corners are shown to be flat and to slope at the same time.) Topic: Overall Utility Plan Number:23 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Please provide a standard 7' attached sidewalk along Prospect. Number:24 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Prospect has been recently rehabilitated, and street cut fees will be accordingly high. Number:25 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Driveways onto arterials are required to use the radius -style drive approach. Number:26 Created: 10/1012002 Resolved Please submit a variance to not design the ultimate widening of Prospect. Number:27 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Please show the spacings of the next closest driveways on both sides of the street. Most likely a variance will be required for this driveway location. Also, is there an existing driveway cut to be closed? Page 3 Number:28 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved A 30' wide fire lane is required adjacent to 3-story or higher buildings. The lane shown is insufficient. Number:29 Created: 10110/2002 Resolved Where will the fire trucks turn around? Any private drive greater than 150' in length is required to have a turnaround 100' in diameter at the end for emergency vehicles. Number:62 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved The existing buildings/driveways adjacent to the site (within the distance contained on the plan sheet is ok) need to be shown in a grey/ghosted weight line. Number:63 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved Please label the radii of the curb returns. It appears that they are 20', but it should be labeled. Number:64 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved Regarding the sidewalk, in order to add width to an existing sidewalk, a minimum of 4' should be added. Any width to be added under that amount will need to be done by demolishing the existing sidewalk and installing a new one. It looks like a good portion of the sidewalk will be taken out anyway due to the installation of utilities, so it might be better to replace the whole sidewalk. Number:65 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved The new meter pit and stop box should be placed outside of the ROW. Number:66 Created:2/7/2003 Resolved The pedestrian ramp on the west side of the driveway should be designed to the detail shown on the driveway detail. Number:67 Created:217/2003 Resolved Where are the existing curb cuts to be filled in? Topic: Plat Number:13 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved The standard 15' utility easement needs to be dedicated behind the Prospect ROW. Number:14 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved An emergency access easement needs to be dedicated on the plat. Number:16 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved The title shown is incorrect, please rework title (for example: Frazier Sub, being a replat of...) Number:17 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Please label all adjoining properties. Number:18 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Are there any existing easements? Page 4 Topic: Utility Plan cover sheet Number:19 Created:10/10/2002 Resolved Please include the legal description of the site below the title. Number:20 Created:10/10/2002 The title does not match the titles shown on the site and landscape plans. Resolved Number:21 Created:10/10/2002 The plat should not be included in the numbering of the plan set sheets. Resolved Number:22 Created: 10/1012002 Please provide a reference to the soils report on the cover sheet. Resolved Number:61 Created:2/7/2003 Please note the two approved variances under number 48. Resolved Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number:56 Created:10/28/2002 Pending It is recommended that a meeting be set up to discuss the future circulation pattern for this area as it redevelops for higher intensity according to the neighborhood plan. Follow-up comment (Rnd #2): There has been further talk within Transportation Services about a future possible rear street/drive/alley between lots that can accommodate future traffic projections for this area as it redevelops. It is strongly suggested that a meeting be set up to discuss the area's future circulation needs and to not preclude a future rear circulator. (COMMENT 6-4-03) The potential to allow for vehicular cross access to the north and for the creation of a future rear circulator/alley has been recommended from the start of this project's review. Even though the current neighborhood plan does not require or mention such a circulator, the improved accessibility would greatly benefit the future residents of the proposed development, as well as the neighborhood. To facilitate such an improvement, it is recommended with this development that 8 feet along the north side of the lot be identified and dedicated as a public access easement. No construction improvements would be required with this proposal other than the walkway connection mentioned in Comment #59. Number:57 Created:10/28/2002 Resolved Please be aware that this driveway may become a right -in / right -out access in the future as improvements to Prospect occur. Number:58 Created:10/28/2002 Resolved The existing attached sidewalk will need to be widen to a minimum of 7 feet. It is recommended that the sidewalk be widened to an 8 foot minimum since the sidewalk in this location of town also serves as the bike way, especially for CSU students. Number:59 Created:10/28/2002 Pending Please explain further how this project ties into the surrounding transportation system, such as walkways, drive aisles, etc. (COMMENT 6-4-03) The proposed walkway connection to the existing walk along the apartment to the north needs to be shown on all plan sets. Page 5 n PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannine DATE: September 23, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #41-02 808 West Prospect Road Mixed -Use PDP — Type I (LUC) must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: �LN October 23, 2002 Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference f - ray � LE&AL ecoss. .Z. T /JgAAAP_ ShOQI � Shou(c>) JLtS�' be 3. CO,u/Lo1 0F%✓mc,v-rs Ai? s, /Ve-r 1Jasc�2i��, LF OU T6/'Z /JG ✓iJ0 4127 MUNtJ rYI C.t,. T�(,J4's`k Ia". % Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS L-jPlat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape citvot� c�� REVISION i MAY 15 2003 COMMENT S DATE: May 14, 2003 TO: Technical Services F(zAZ i>`iz Su 1r. PROJECT: #41-02 808 WEST PROSPECT MIXED USE PDP - TYPE I (LUC) kN\, All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: June 4, 2003 ❑ No Comment ElProblems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** C. Su V T fi ! V U.2 /V z IZ /L.i i + �•$ tr }7oT 1=5ti'�f Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ''_'Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Date y_ Number:178 Created:7/17/2007 Pending [816/07] No easement dedication was provided with this submittal. Plans cannot be approved until the off -site easement document has been reviewed and is ready to record with all review fees paid. [7/17/07] Plat - A 30 foot wide easement for Emergency Access, Public Access, Drainage and Utilities shall be dedicated through the site and also off -site through the Farmhouse property. See red -line comments regarding easement dedication language and labeling. The portion on -site will be dedicated by the Plat and the off -site portion dedicated by separate document. Please submit a letter from the Farmhouse property owner(s) stating that they have reviewed the construction drawings and agree to the location and design as shown on the revised construction drawings. A signed deed of dedication shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. Please submit the above mentioned letter, deed of dedication with legal exhibits stamped by a licensed surveyor and review fee of $250. The off -site easement must be recorded and referenced on the final Plat prior to recording the Plat and approval of the Utility Plans. The Plat shows two lots being combined into one single lot. Please give the new parcel a new designation LOT 1. Number:179 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] Label and call out the new driveway on Lake Street with LCUASS DWG 706. Number:180 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] The proposed concrete walk along the drive isle on the Farmhouse property shall be labeled and dimensioned. This walk shall also be raised above the drive isle pavement elevation. Please provide one cross-section of the drive isle and sidewalk. See red -line comments on the Overall Utility Plan sheet and Grading Plan sheet regaring the off -site connection. Number:181 Created:7117/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] Ramps will required for the pedestrian connection drive isle crossing on the easement. Please show, label and call out with detail. Number:182 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] Please remove the landscape layer on the proposed sidewalk on the Farmhouse property. Number:183 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7117/07] The paved drive isle on the Farmhouse property is graded to drain to the east however, it should be graded to slope west such that surface drainage is conveyed to the grated trench drain. Surface flows from this drive isle cannot drain over the sidewalk on Lake Street. Number:184 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7117/07] Please revise the culvert and sidewalk chase on Lake streeet such that the culvery and chase are straight within the ROW and the angled on -site. The City will maintain the portion within the ROW only. Number:185 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7117/07] Please add detail 706 to the detail sheets for the driveway on Lake Street. A variance request will need to be submitted for driveway seperartion on Lake Street. Page 2 Number:186 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/071 See Site Plan red -line comments. Please revise the Site Plan to reflect revisions requested on the Utility Plans. Number:207 Created:8/6/2007 Pending [8/6/07] Please show and label break -away ballards on acess drive and provide a detail on the detail sheets. Number:208 Created:8/6/2007 Pending [8/6/07] A stamped formal variance request letter must be submitted by the engineer for the driveway seperation on Lake Street. Number:209 Created:8/6/2007 Pending [816/07] You may address all engineering comments with mylar submittal. Please return red -lines with the mylars for final review and signatures. The off -site easement will need to be reviewed and ready to record prior to Utility Plan approval and recording of the Plat. Topic: Engineering -Tech Services Number:187 Created:7117/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] Designate Lot and Tract. Number:188 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] Dedicate Emergency Access, Public Acess, Drainage and Utility easement on -site with Plat, off -site by separate document. Number:189 Created:7/17/2007 Resolved [7/17/07] State area of new Lot 1 and ROW take. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number:3 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] The required parking setback required per LCUASS is 75', which should be measured from the location the ultimate curb will be built on Prospect (14' south of the new ROW). Staff would not support a variance to this standard. Number:4 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [516/041 An engineering variance is required to reduce the standard 4-lane arterial ROW requirement from 11 5'to 102'. Staff will support the variance, but the engineer needs to submit it per LCUASS. Number:5 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] The sidewalk should be placed against the ROW, and should be a minimum of 6' wide, with transitions to the existing walks east and west of the project occuring along this project's frontage. Number:6 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] The retaining wall near the ROW should be placed a minimum of 2' from the ROW. The 2' between the ROW and retaining wall may either be landscaped or be paved as additional width for the sidewalk. Please provide details for retaining walls, including a cross-section showing the railing to be put on top of the wall. Additionally, permission must be obtained from each utility to place a retaining wall in a utility easement. Page 3 Number:19 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [3/31/05] [2/21 /05] [8/5/04] Repeat FYI. [5/61041 Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for further comments. Number:20 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [516/04] Please submit a soils report. Number:70 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] Please resubmit the variance request for driveway spacing on Prospect with a revision addressing the spacing from Prospect Lane. Number:71 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] The developer's financial responsibility for the project's local street portion of Prospect will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Number:77 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [3/31/05] [2/21/051 [8/5/04] Please reivew LCUASS Appendix E for scanning requirements for all plans. Number:78 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [2/21105] [815/04] Please clearly identify ROW being dedicated by this project on the Site plan, and utility plans. Number:79 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [815/04] There is a section of the parking lot (northwest) where the drive aisle behind the parking stalls is 20.5' when the minimum width in that location should be 24'. Please revise. Number:81 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [8/5/04] How will the one-way drive be enforced? Please show needed signing and striping. Please clearly label it as a private drive. Number:82 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [8/5/04] Additional offsite easements are needed for the one-way drive and dumpsters shown. Please provide a letter of intent from the affected property owner prior to hearing, and copies of the completed easement(s) prior to submittal of mylars. Number:83 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [8/5/04] Please construct a standard driveway on Lake for the private drive. Number:84 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [8/5/04] Please show grading data for the private drive to Lake Street. It appears from the bit that is shown, that water will be draining north to Lake Street. Water from this drive is not allowed to drain over the sidewalk on Lake, and must be diverted to an under -walk drain. Number: 96 Created: 2/2112005 Resolved Page 4 [2/21/05] Please show the parking configuration of the parking lot offsite to the north to show that parking stall and drive aisle standards will be met. Topic: Grading plan Number:18 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] Please label the new grading contours. Topic: Plat Number:10 Created:516/2004 Resolved [3/31/05] [2/21/05] [8/5/04] Please correct a few remaining typos. [5/6/04] Please correct the plat language (as redlined). And please correct the vicinity map. Number:11 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] The required radii for emergency access easements are 25' for the interior and 50' for the exterior, measured from the same centerpoint. The exterior radius is currently shown as 45' and should be revised. Number:73 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [815/041 The 20' wide utility and emergency access easement should also be labeled as a public access easement (which is different than an emergency access easement). Number:74 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [8/5/04] Please label the property to the east of the access easement and provide the owner's name if it is unplatted property. Number:75 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [8/5/04] Please show the Lake Street ROW and label how wide the existing ROW is. If the existing ROW is less than 76', then dedicate additional ROW to standards. Number:76 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [2/21105] See comment V. [815/041 The emergency access easement near the building should be 30' wide to match the fire lane width. Topic: Site and Landscape plans Number:7 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [2/21/051 The easements are shown differently on the plat and site plan and utility plans still. The EAE is required to be 30' wide for servicing buildings that are 3 or more stories tall. The drive aisle provided on the north side of the building is 30' wide, but the easement within it is only 20'. Please check with PFA to ensure that the drive aisle along the west side of the building doesn't need to be 30' wide as well. The new offsite EAE needs to meet the minimum radius requirements on the curves (25' interior, 50' exterior) unless specific approval is gotten from PFA for the smaller curves. [8/5/04] Please match the emergency access easement shown on the plattutility plans/site and landscape plans. [516/04] Show the emergency access easement. Page 5 Number:8 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] The ROW dedication shown for Prospect Road is shown as 14' on the site plan, but 21' on the plat, and is required to be 21'. Please match plans, and label and dimension the new and existing ROW on the site plan. Number:9 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6104] Please place street trees in their ultimate location, approximately 4' from the south edge of the sidewalk in its ultimate location. Number:80 Created:8/5/2004 Resolved [2/21 /05] [8/5/04] Please show the existing curb and gutter location. Topic: Transportation Number:60 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] Comment inserted from Tom Reiff: (5/19/041 The sidewalk along Prospect needs to be placed at the back of the new right of way and the street trees need to be planted in the parkway. Also the minimum width for a sidewalk is 6 feet along a 4-Lane Arterial and the landscape retaining wall needs to be setback 2 feet from the edge of the back of sidewalk. Suggestion: instead of creating a troublesome landscape maintenance issue in the 2 foot setback, it is recommended that the sidewalk be paved up to the edge of the retaining wall. Number:61 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] Comment inserted from Tom Reiff: [5/19/041 Please show how the new sidewalk transitions into the existing sidewalks to the east and west of the site. Number:62 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/041 Comment from Tom Reiff: [5/19104] Please include the location of Prospect Lane on the plan sets. Number:63 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [2121/051 How will this project meet its bike and ped LOS standards now that the bike/ped path to Lake Street is gone? [8/5/04] Revised comment (David Averill, Transportation Planning): If the proposed drive out to Lake Street is to have bollards on both ends and is to be restricted to emergency use only, then the paved section of that drive (minimum 8' wide) could double as the required ped/bike path out to Lake Street. [5/21/04] Comment From Tom Reiff: [5/19/041 According to the applicant's planning objectives, the path out to Lake Street will serve as a connection for bikes and pedestrians from the proposed development to CSU. To safely accommodate both bikes and peds and to meet the City's design standards the path needs to be a minimum 8 feet in width (LUC 3.6.3 & 3.2.2). Number:64 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] The path in the utility plans is not shown as connecting to the Lake Street sidewalk system (Sheet 4 / 9). Please show the path connecting to the Lake Street sidewalk in the next submittal. Number:65 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved (5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] The utility easement in which the bike/ped path is located should also be identified as a public access easement. Page 6 Number:66 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [2/21/05] [8/5/04] See comment #63. (5/211041 Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] The submitted TIS is incorrect in stating that there are no bicycle destinations within a quarter mile. According to the City's Level of Service (LOS) Manual, public schools are considered a destination which includes CSU. Since there are no on -street bike lanes connected to this site to satisfy the LOS, it would be acceptable to allow the proposed path connection to Lake Street and its bike lanes to satisfy the bike LOS to CSU. However, it must be designed to City standards so it can safely accommodate both bikes and pedestrians. Number:67 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] There needs to be a 2 foot setback / buffer between the walkway along the eastern edge of the development and the landscape retaining wall. Suggestion: instead of creating a troublesome landscape maintenance issue in the 2 foot setback, it is recommended that the walkway be paved up to the edge of the retaining wall. This would also connect to the bike/ped path that leads out to Lake Street. Number:68 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] It appears that the intent of this building is to serve future CSU students. If this is the case it is recommended that additional bike parking be provided in near the building's west entrance to not only serve future residents but also visitors. This would meet the city standards for a bike rack location and could be accommodated in the additional space that will be present once the parking stalls are pulled back further. Number:69 Created:5/21/2004 Resolved [5/21/04] Comment from Tom Reiff:[5/19/04] The driveway design onto Prospect Road needs to be designed to City standards. This includes the proper curb radius, access ramps, and driveway width. Topic: Utility plan cover sheet Number:12 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] Why is there a new mercer ditch signature box? Number:13 Created:5/612004 Resolved [5/6/04] Please provide typical street sections for Prospect, existing and proposed. Number: 14 [5/6/04] Please provide the name, address, and owner (at final). Created:5/6/2004 Resolved and phone number for the project developer Topic: Utility plans Number:15 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] Please provide details for any retaining walls. If retaining walls are over 6' tall, then a building permit is required for the wall (work with Building and Zoning on that permit). Number:16 Created:5/6/2004 Resolved [3/31/05] Please, look at detail 707 with attached walk and revise the western ramp to meet it, including spot elevations. Page 7 [2/21/05] The ramp still does not meet the detail. Please revise and show spot elevations to ensure that ADA requirements are being met. Also, Truncated Domes need to be added to these ramps to meet current ADA standards. [8/5/04] The ramp on the west side of the driveway needs to meet the detail below. Please revise. [5/6104] See detail 707 for the correct construction of the driveway. The driveway radii should be dimensioned and meet LCUASS standards. Number:17 Created:516/2004 Resolved [5/6/04] Minimum driveway width for multifamily serving this many units is 28', and the current driveway width shown is 24'. Please revise. Number:94 Created:8/13/2004 Resolved [8/13/04] The variance requests for driveway separation from other driveways and streets, and for using the constrained arterial cross-section on Prospect have been approved. Variance approvals are for this project only. As with all variances to the street standards, the variances granted for this project are based on the particular situation under design and the judgment that we (the designer and the City) apply to determine whether there is a public safety concern. The variances for this project in no way set any precedence for relaxing these standards on other projects without complete analysis and justification. Please list approved variances in the general notes. Number:95 Created:2/21/2005 Resolved [3/31/05] The letter of intent does not address the drainage easement needed. Please provide a letter of intent addressing this. Also, the draft deed of dedication for the emergency access easement also includes public access, which is also not included in the letter of intent. [2/21/05] Please provide letters of intent from the adjacent property owner for the proposed offsite utility and emergency access easements (and any other esmts needed) prior to scheduling a public hearing. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: Drainage Number:165 Created:2/28/2005 Unresolved [2/22105] How does the applicant propose to meet Bicycle/Pedestrian LOS standards with this new access design off of Lake St? It would appear that the favorable finding in the TIS (which states the LOS for both modes to be "B" or better for the CSU destination area) needs to be revisited with this change. [2/28/05) Follow up comment: a project came into Conceptual Review this morning for the parcel immediately east of this project. It is suggested that this applicant explore solving the bike/ped/vehicular access puzzle for this site with the parties to the east. Page 8 REVISION COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: March 23, 2005 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #41-02A 800, 808 and 814 W. Prospect Rd. PDP, Type I All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: April 6, 2005 Note - Please identify vour redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) COLr'Ylp C1ek-uk IS -1k 6v-ck- \a cAc Cemn,ct�s fa vndEr" Wa4�. Cud uT.,-(-) — will Srn rv�a�v�f�i'n SCOWN a_\6� t1�� + V, a cad r e S S �� rc� vNc !Z SY>M 05 Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility LCRedline Utility Landscape