HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDTAIL - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-03-19Selected Issues Report
City oP Fort Calliva
Date:
3/6/2008
REDTAIL MAJOR AMENDMENT TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
Number:19 Created:5/1/2007 Resolved
[7111/07]
[5/1/07] From Technical Services: The site and landscape plans have type over lines.
Please correct to meet our scanning requirements.
Number:21 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11 /07]
[512/07] We'll handle all of the changes to the original approved utility drawings as revisions
so you'll need to bubble out the changes you made on each sheet and list them under the
revisions in the title block. I think I found most of the changes and made as many
comments as I could, but I may have missed a few differences in the plan sets. There MAY
be an additional comment or two on the next round after I see the bubbling though. I'm not
sure that I found each change.
Number:22 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] The vacation request has been routed with comments due back by July 20, 2007.
[5/2/07] The building on Lot 8 is located outside of the platted building envelope and within
a utility easement. Please provide a written vacation request plus a completed TDRF
application and the associated fee. I will route the vacation request to the various utilities
and get back to you as soon as they approve or deny it. Once we've received the
paperwork, this process takes 2 to 3 weeks including mail time. You do NOT have to wait
until the next submittal to do this. You can submit the paperwork anytime and I'll get it out
within a day or two.
Number:23 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7111/07] Thanks for the note on the redlines Troy! And yes, as long as the scanning issues
are taken care of before mylars, you are fine.
[5/2/07] Scanning issues exist. This does not need to be addressed until mylars, but just
wanted to make you aware of it early on.
Number:26 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11107] Just keeping the comment alive until this step has been completed.
[5/2/07] We will need to amend the original Development Agreement for Redtail where the
number of building permits change and effect certain payments or construction of certain
improvements. We can work through that in Final Compliance - it does not need to be
addressed prior to hearing.
Page 1
Number:605 Created:4/25/2006 Resolved
[4125/061 The College intersection improvements will be required with the first phase and
the plan sets need to reflect that. Right now the plans have it in neither.
Number:619 Created:5/19/2006 Pending
[5/19/06] This email was sent May 17th to Jon Prouty to summarize a meeting with CDOT
on May 15th. Please make the changes required below and coordinate the plan sets so that
they present the same information.
John
We met with Gloria on Monday and wanted to let you know the results of that conversation
Item 1 - College Ave improvements and timing
In regards to the timing of the College Ave improvements - There is not much budge room
here. Per Gloria the improvements on College Ave should be completed before even
construction traffic is added to the intersection - they would typically want all improvements
completed prior to any additional traffic being added to the intersection
We did get an agreement that rather than prior to any work on site that the College
improvements need to be done prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for
the site (prior to anyone living there). This is not the 9th building as you had desired, but is
better than CDOTs standard requirement.
Gloria was also fine with the sidewalk on College adjacent to Phase 2 being installed as an
asphalt sidewalk until the retaining wall is installed along here (which could be phase 2).
As a part of the phasing plans the plans will need to identify what is being built along
College Ave as a part of Phase 1 and what is to be built as a part of Phase 2. If the
retaining wall is not intended to be built as a part of Phase 1 this project will need to show
how the interim grading and erosion control will occur to accommodate the phasing. The
slopes within the row need to be 4:1 or flatter. The slopes behind the row to tie into existing
grade (for an interim without the retaining walls) also need to be 4:1 or flatter unless
stormwater approves a 3:1 slope in this area.
Item 2 - updated traffic study
A new updated traffic study will be needed when you apply for the access permit. CDOT
requires the traffic information for the access permit and the volumes and the uses need to
match the site plan. The City would like a copy of this updated study for our records when it
is completed.
Item 3 - District note on the plans
Gloria didn't think the note the district wanted would cause any problems with them, but she
did take a copy of the plan with her and is going to check with others to make sure. Have
not yet heard back from her yet. We will contact you once we hear from her and let you
know if there are any issues with the note.
Sheri
Page 8
*Update: See comment number 621
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter
Topic: General
Number:569 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[4/25/06] [12121/05] Sheet 6: Provide reception # for grading easement if existing. If not
existing, provide easement with mylars.
Number:570 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[4/25/061 The drainage easement vacation has been corrected, however, the tract table on
the plat doesn't match the other plan sets.
[12/21/051 Several easements do not match up with what is shown on the plat: refer to
redlines. (5710' drainage easement, portion of vacated sewer easement)
Number:573 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Sheet 6: Showing one water meter vault in easement while the rest are not.
Number:574 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[4/21/061 [12/21/051 Provide reception #s for all existing easements, and easement
documents with mylars for any dedicated by separate document.
Number:575 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] sheet 13: are the construction easement and offsite drainage easements shown
dedicated to the city? Please provide a copy of the easement.
Number:576 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Details on S3 show 60' parapet walls for both Storm Culvert 8 and 9. No walls
are shown on other plan sheets for Storm Culvert 9.
Number:577 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] More clarification needed on culvert placement: "stable ground" does not really
tell us how it will be built. Provide soils information (depth, compaction, type).
Number:578 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Must provide 1' clear flat area adjacent to all sidewalks. Several cross sections
show immediate slopes.
Number:579 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Cross section at 10+00 showing a 2:1 slope. The maximum steepness is 4:1
Number:580 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12121/05] Sheet 35: Show where the existing traffic signals will be relocated to.
Number:581 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Sidewalk & Curb and gutter Detail (Sheet 39): Change 4" to 6% required for all
city sidewalk, unless the detail is labeled for private sidewalk only.
Number:582 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Add standard details 1601(sidewalk), 2201(trenching)
Page 9
Number:583 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Sheet S1: Referring to a "Note 4" that does not appear
Number: 584
Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12121/05] Provide us with a copy of the Terracon report for retaining walls referenced on
Sheet S2.
Number:585 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Sheet S4: No spacing information provided for Detail 2.
Number:586 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Sheet S4: Provide sleeves for utilities if needed on detail, and add note to slope
sidewalk 1/4" per foot.
Number:587 Created:12121/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Sheet S6: Specify which walls are S1 and which are S2. They cannot be both as
shown in detail callouts.
Number:588 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12121/051 Sheet 6: Note 22 regarding district utilities is questionable.
Number:589 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21105] Sheet 39: Storm sewer connection to CBC detail needs more information:
dimensions.
Number:590 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] 2 types of curb ramp details are shown. Please specify which ones are for which
locations. (Refer to sheets 43, and 39.
Number:593 Created:12/22/2005 Resolved
[4/21/06] (12/22/05] FYI: Transportation Development Review fees are effective 01/01/06,
and would apply to any easement or ROW dedications and vacations not received by that
date.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Grading
Number:236 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
[9/13/05] What is the grade at the top of the walk along College at the north end of the
property? Is it consistantly 5% or does it change from spot to spot?
[2/11/05] Please label the slope on the reconfigured onsite sidewalk connection from
College to the culdesac. The grading around the sidewalk was illegible. Please make sure
that the grades have been designed to accommodate the sidewalk.
8/14/2: The serpentine sidewalk along College is not acceptable. Please design to ADA
guidelines and to our arterial cross section standard. The sidewalk should run parallel to
College with a series of landings as outlined in the ADA guidelines.
Number:489 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[9/13/051
[211/05] The variance request for the 2.7:1 grading on either side of the pond crossing
needs to have a soils engineer detail how the soil will be stabilized in these areas, if special
Page 10
matting is required, if a special soil needs to be imported, etc, before we can determine if we
can approve it or not.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number:69 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
[5/7/04] Correct the sight distance triangle label to read "Sight Distance Easement'.
8/14/1: Show all existing and proposed ROW and easements.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/02: REPEAT COMMENT. Still missing all the easements, sight distance, and hawk
buffer zone.
3/31/3: REPEAT COMMENT. Please provide and label all existing and proposed ROW,
easements, and buffer zones.
8/613: REPEAT COMMENT. STILL missing the easement along the southern property
boundary, ROW incorrectly shown on the north side of Fossil Blvd, and need to differentiate
between the existing and proposed ROW using different line weights.
Number:158 Created:1/712002 Resolved
1/7102 Utilities are too light to read. Please darken the line weight.
Number:159 Created:1/7/2002 Resolved
[212/05] [5/7/04] Repeat comment.
1/7/2: Reflect the changes asked for under the General, Site and Utility Plans sections.
3/31/3: Coordinate the various plan sets so that they present the same information.
8/613: The Site, Landscape, and Plat were resubmitted two weeks into the 3 week review
and no longer match the utility plans. Please coordinate the plan sets so that they present
the same information.
Number: 310
Remove the contour lines.
Number: 311
Incomplete Legend.
Number: 312
[2/2/05] [5/7/04] Repeat.
See redlines.
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Created:3131/2003 Resolved
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Number:380 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[4/21/061 [9/13/051 [2/2/05] (05/05/04) Repeat comment. Please see Tech Services
before resubmitting plans to make sure that plans are scannable.
See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements.
Number: 457
[5/7/04] Remove "PDP" from the project title.
Number: 499
[2/2/05] Remove the contours for legibility.
Number: 537
Created:5/712004 Resolved
Created:2/2/2005 Resolved
Created:9113/2005 Resolved
Page 11
[9/13/05] Please provide a key map.
Number:538 Created:9113/2005 Pending
[5/19/06] REPEAT COMMENT: Please remove the rocks on the north side of Cameron
Drive as previously requested. Replace that area with concrete as shown on the utility
plans.
[4/21/06] Repeat comment. Please match the utility plans.
[9/13/05] Cameron Drive, north side - the sidewalk is attached here to widen it out in front of
the parapet walls. Please remove the landscaping and match the utility plans.
Number:539 Created:9/13/2005 Resolved
[4/21/06] [9/13/05] Show the ENTIRE sight distance easement offsite.
Number:602 Created:4/21/2006 Resolved
[4/21/06] Need to coordinate the easements with the plat so that all plan sets show the
same information.
Number:603 Created:4/21/2006 Resolved
[4/21/06] Label/show what is happening on the south side of building N. The utility plans
are showing a pool and a type of deck structure from what I can tell.
Number:618 Created:5/19/2006 Pending
[5/19106] Please show the parkway landscaping along College Avenue for the duration of
this project's frontage. This project is responsible for the parkway landscape, maintenance
and irrigation along College. The project boundaries should match the landscape plans.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number:594 Created:12/22/2005 Resolved
[4/21/06] Please add Conejos to sheet 6 of 9.
[12/22/05] Please add street names for all sheets on landscape plan.
Number:595 Created:12/22/2005 Resolved
[12/22/05]deleted
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Letters of Intent
Number:313 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Letters of Intent from the RR, Woodley's, and Martha & Tom Noonan must be provided. The
letter from John Prouty intending to get the letter of intent from the Noonan's is not sufficient
to go to hearing. The letter of intent must come from the Noonan's themselves.
8/6/3: Received the letter of intent from the Noonan's. Also need a letter of intent from
Woodley's stating they will grant the rest of the sight distance triangle. All of the actual
easements themselves can be provided in Final Compliance. There may or may not be
additional easements required for the construction of the retaining walls on the property
boundaries and I'm unable to determine that at this time. I have asked for more detail on the
retaining walls including placing the property line on the various cross sections so that we
can see where the footings are in relation to the property line.
Number: 386
Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
Page 12
Provide Grading Easements on Lot 11, 2,3,4 and 5 of Cameron Park 2nd filing. May need
additional temporary construction easements on various other properties depending on the
location of the retaining walls and footings. Letters of Intent must be provided from the
effected property owners prior to public hearing.
Topic: Phasing
Number:459 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[9/13/05] Phasing is now shown, however, do you want to install the waterline for Phase 2
in Phase 1 so that you avoid triple street cut fees later? If so, please add a note: Install with
Phase 1.
[2/2/05] [5/7/04] The site and landscape plans show phasing. Are the utility plans being
phased as well? If so, the utility plans will need to reflect that.
Number:549 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Install type III barricades where Fossil Blvd terminates at the end of Phase I where
the street ends and at the ends of the sidewalks. Provide the city detail for type Ills on the
detail sheet.
Number:550 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/051 Please provide erosion control where Fossil Blvd ends in Phase I.
Topic: Plat
Number:61 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Correct the vicinity map per previous comments.
Number: 62
Provide curve data.
Number: 63
8/14/01 Show 2 ties to section corners.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Number:64 Created:8114/2001 Resolved
[4121/06] [9113/051 All easements dedicated by separate document that must be dedicated
to the city (Sight Distance, Drainage) will need to be brought through the city's acceptance
process and be re -recorded. The reception numbers will change.
[5/7/04] Repeat.
8/1411: Incomplete easements and ROW shown.
1/912: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request.
3/31/3: REPEAT COMMENT
Number:65 Created:811412001 Resolved
8114/01 Label adjoining property per Technical Services.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Number:66 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Plat and legal do not close. Plat does not match legal. Per Technical Services.
Number:67 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Several items missing from plat. See Redlines per Technical Services.
Page 13
Number:68 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Per Technical Services: Shading of existing ROW to be vacated is too dark and will obscure
the information under it.
Number:77 Created:8/21/2001 Resolved
[2/2/05] Repeat again.
8/2111: Provide the Plat language, who is to own and maintain the different tracts.
1/9/1: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request.
3/31/3: REPEAT COMMENT
Number:161 Created:1/7/2002 Resolved
1/7/2: Update all plat language. See redlines and the attached document.
8/14/2: Still need to update the plat language. See redlines and attached document.
3/31/3: REPEAT COMMENT
Number:162 Created:1/7/2002 Resolved
1/7/2: Remove the words "and Emergency Access" from Tracts O, Q and P as they do not
meet minimum emergency access criteria.
8/1412: Repeat Comment. Tracts are now labeled T,S,V.
Number:179 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/16/2: The legal name(s) of the project are incorrect in the title. Also, correct the Utilitly
plans as well.
8/14/2: The utility plans and the plat do not match. Repeat comment.
3/31/3: Shouldn't this also be a "Replat of ......." in addition to the Redtail PDP?
Number:183 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/16/01 Show the railroad ROW on the plat.
Number: 186 Created: 1 /16/2002
1/16/1: Show the redtail hawk buffer area on the plat.
8/14/2: Repeat comment.
Number: 191
1/16/01 Boundary and legal close.
Created: 1/16/2002
Resolved
Resolved
Number:192 Created: 1/1612002 Resolved
1/16/1: Off site sewer easement, is it recorded? What is the 10'/20' wide area through the
whole plat? Existing or proposed water sewer easement?
8/14/2: See comment #16. Is the 10 to 20' sanitary sewer easement running through the
property existing or proposed?
Number:193 Created:1117/2002 Resolved
1/17/01 Any changes to the Cameron Park 2nd filing require a replat.
Number:240 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
[9/131051
[2/11/05] Please verify that the comment below has been properly addressed.
Page 14
From Technical Services: At the time of vacation of Cameron Drive, the owners of Lot 14
and 15 and Lots 9, 7, and 5 of the first filing become owners of their portion of the vacated
street. Those owners and lien holders will then need to sign this plat as owners.
3/31/3: Question from Engineering: Have all the owners been shown on the plat?
Number:241 Created: 8/1612002 Resolved
From Technical Services: Remove the "Mills" Annexation Line.
Number:242 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
From Technical Services: What are tracts 1 - 7 and A - Q? Who owns and maintains
tracts?
Number:243
Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
From Technical Services:
Why vacate the easement along Cameron Drive - offsite? It will
need to be re -dedicated.
Number:244
Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
From Technical Services:
Remove the shading to facilitate copying.
Number:245
Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
From Technical Services:
Why does the plat need "blocks"?
Number:314
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
[9/13/05] [2/11/05][1/31/05] [5/7/04] Boundary and legal close. Boundary and legal do not
match, see redlines.
From Technical Services:
Plat and legal close, typo redlined in legal.
Number:315
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
From Technical Services:
Courses in Legal match Plat, some possible typos in Tract and
Lot identification Tract B,
Lot 13, etc.
Number:316
Created: 3/3112003 Resolved
From Technical Services:
What are the tracts?
8/6/3: Repeat comment.
What are Tracts A thru E? Who maintains F and G?
Number:317
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
From Technical Services:
South FC Sanitation District needs to sign plat.
8/6/3: Repeat - Please provide a signature block for the above.
Number:318
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
From Technical Services:
Is this plat trying to include condo info also?
Number:319
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
More comments to follow
as the site layout changes. Coordinate all the comments under
General, Utility, Site and Landscape so that all plan sets provide the same information.
Number:365
Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
From Technical Services:
Line types in the Legend do not match the sheets 3 & 4.
Page 15
Number:366 Created:815/2003 Resolved
From Technical Services: "Hatch" the portion of the District easement to be vacated.
Number:368 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
Provide a 15' utility easement along College.
Number:369 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[5/7/04] Repeat comment. Correct the sight distance label to read "Sight Distance
Easement", not Sight Distance Triangle.
Please provide the rest of the sight distance easement by separate document.
Number:370 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
Change the 10' access easement in the NW corner to read "10' Public Access Easement."
Number:371 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
Provide a Public Access Easement in Lot 4 for the drive aisle.
Number:372 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[5/7104] The easement is now shown, however, please label with who owns it if not
dedicated to the city.
Show the existing power line easement along the southern property line.
Number:373 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
Provide a Public Access Easement between Lot 14 and Lot N for the sidewalk connection to
the future trail.
Number: 374
Label the property owner to the south.
Number: 375
Spell out "UE" as Utility Easement (typ).
Number: 376
See redlines.
Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
Created:8/512003 Resolved
Number:445 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7104] From Technical Services: Please remove "PDP" from the name of the plat.
Number:446 Created:517/2004 Resolved
[517/041 From Technical Services: The Public Access Easements must be a minimum of
12' wide.
Number:447 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: How do lots 1A, 16, G, K, I, L, L, M get access?
Number:448 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: There is no building envelope detail for Lot G, Lot 1A,
Lot 1 B, and the north side of Lot Q.
Page 16
Number:449 Created:517/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: A note refers to Lots 2 thru 11, where are lots 3 thru 11?
Number:450 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: What is the use of the area of the lots outside the
building envelopes? Utility easements? What about Public Access Easements?
Number:451 Created:517/2004 Resolved
[5/7104] The Public Access Easement on the south side of Conejos Court does not match
the sidewalk location.
Number:452 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] Sheet 4 - rotate labeling to the reader.
Number:453 Created:5/712004 Resolved
[517/041 Cover Sheet - See redlines for other corrections.
Number:480 Created:1/31/2005 Resolved
[1/31/05] From Technical Services: Add curve data for easement at Conejos Road cul-de-
sac.
Number:481 Created:1/31/2005 Resolved
[1/311051 From Technical Services: Label 15' easement at the end of Fossil Blvd.
Number:482 Created:1/31/2005 Resolved
[1/31/051 From Technical Services: All blocks must be a closed figure w/dimensions
designated with bold line type.
Number:483 Created:1/31/2005 Resolved
[1/31/051 From Technical Services: Easements need to be locatable.
Number:490 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[211/05] We've updated the plat language and I can email you that document if you send me
an email at sjoy@fcgov.com
Number:491 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[9/13/05] 1 have received these dedications and will take throught the City's acceptance
process.
[2/1/05] The offsite sight distance easement needs to be dedicated to the city. Please see
attached for the dedication statement that needs to be signed by the property owner to the
north. Please submit a legal and exhibit for the offsite easement as well.
Number:492 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[2/1/05] Sheet 2, General Notes: Note #1 - who maintains tract H? Notes 1 and 2 - who
owns these tracts? Please say "owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association".
Number:515 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2114/05] The plat language needs to be updated to the latest version. Please email me at
sjoy@fcgov.com and I'll send you the word document.
Page 17
Number:30 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Please remove the no parking striping in front of the ped ramp on the northwest
corner of Cameron and Conejos.
Number:44 Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] From Technical Services: No comments.
Number:52 Created:9/6/2007 Pending
[9/6/07] Just need to show and label the vacated portion of the utility easement vacated by
separate document on all plan sets. Please email a word doc of the legal description and
pdf of the exhibit. I'll need a check to Larimer County for the filing fees (amount to be
determined) and I'll get that recorded. Ready for mylars.
Topic: Grading Sheet
Number:24 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Up to 750sf max of surface drainage is allowed over a public sidewalk. It appears
that we may have exceeded that on the south end of the culdesac. If you can't adjust the
grades, then you can leave it as is but add a sidewalk chase off to one side of the driveway
to take the drainage under the sidewalk. Let me know what you think is best.
Number:25 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[512/07] Missing some contour elevation labeling... could you add a few in so that I make
sure I'm not assuming something incorrectly? Thanksll
Topic: Utility Plans
Number:27 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Please refer to detail and sheet number when involving anything in or affecting the
public row.
Number:28 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Thanks for adding in the spots.
[512/07] Please provide tow, bow spots for all new retaining walls. Depending on the height,
we may require the actual design to be included in the plan set. For instance, a new
retaining wall is proposed by the gazebo north of Cameron Drive. Does it have a footing? If
so, the footing needs to be located outside of the utility easement. Also, please refer to
detail and sheet number for the appropriate retaining wall section.
Number:29 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Tricia - have we raised any of the utilities under the roads so that we now have a
cover issue (per 12.2.2)?
Number:45 Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Sheet 10 has a labeled a ped ramp with a "2' sidewalk chase"...I think this was a
mistake or something : )
Number:46 Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/111071 Depending on the timing, this could actually be revision number 2 with the first
revision being the grading sheet you're currently working on. Please see me about the area
around the boxes because if the grading sheet is approved before this one (more than
likely), then you'll need to show the "new" spot elevations from the newly revised grading
sheet.
Page 2
Number:544 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] A separate easement exhibit was submitted for review. Comments are
forthcoming that will need to be addressed on the plat.
Number:545 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[4/21/06] Drainage and access easements need to be dedicated to the city. Comment
below still applies.
[9/29/05] Sight distance and drainage easements need to be dedicated to the city and the
offsite portions of these easements need to be redone, resigned, and re -recorded.
Number:620 Created:5/25/2006 Pending
(5/25/06] From Technical Services: There are 3 "typo's" in the legal that do not match the
map. See redlines.
Number: 622
[5/30/061 See redlines.
Created:5/30/2006 Pending
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter
Topic: Plat
Number:571 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[4/25/06]
[12/21/05] 1. Tracts don't match those shown on utility plans.
2. Plat refers to Redtail Court (no such road shown)
3. General note 4: change north to south, or change the portion shown to be vacated.
4. Note referring to sheet 3 of 4- only 2 sheets.
5. Tract H is not defined.
6. 5' drainage easement shown as 10' on plans
Number:572 Created:12/21/2005 Resolved
[12/21/05] Plat refers to Redtail Court (no such road shown)
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Pond Crossing
Number:399 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[9/13/051 Still missing enough information for a buildable design.
[2/11105] The bridge requirement has been changed. Instead, a road with sloped
embackments will be allowed. A full design for the road, including a revised soils report, is
still required. All the proper details and notes for the parapet walls are required. See
Young's Creek plans for a good example of the notes and info required to make this road
buildable.
[517/041 Repeat comment.
The bridge needs to be designed in accordance with details 1107 and 1108. See comments
regarding sheet 39-41.
Number:412 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[9/13/05] See redlines.
[2/11/051 [517/04] Repeat.
Sheet 39 - Provide elevations at each corner of the box so that they can set it in the field
(this page or next, whichever makes more sense). Provide the size of the box culverts and
Page 18
the structural information from the manufacturer. Show the roadway placement, cover over
the box, etc. (Keep in mind 12.2.2)
Number:558 Created:9/2912005 Resolved
[9/29/051 Sheet 44, 45 - Reference cross sections on this sheet to the structural details.
Please provide the rest of the design info and notes required to actually build this structure.
Topic: Retaining Wall Details
Number:323 Created:4/2/2003 Resolved
[9/13/05] See redlines.
[2/11/05] The details provided with this last submittal are incomplete. They need to be
included as part of the Utility Plans and show where the property lines are in relation to the
wall placement (including the geogrid) at each of the locations that are in or impact public
row, utility easement or infrastructure.
Please provide more information on the retaining walls. Will they have footings? How high
are the ones in the natural areas?
Topic: Scanning
Number:506 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[9/13/051 [2/14/05] See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Please meet with Tech
Services before resubmitting the plans to make sure that the plans are acceptable.
Topic: Site Plan
Number:70 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
[5/05/04][4130/04] Repeat. Please show all easements on the Site plan.
8/14/1: Incorporate all comments from previous sheets. Show all existing and proposed
ROW and easements.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Comment still stands. Also needs to show the Hawk Buffer Zone and two sight
distance easements on the north side of Fossil Blvd.
3/31/3: Sight distance triangle still required, see redline.
8/613: Still need to show the existing utility easement along the southern property line.
Need to dedicate and show a Public Access Easement in the lot south of bldg G for the
drive aisle. Dedicate and show a Public Access Easement for the southern sidewalk
connection off Redtail Court.
Number:152 Created:117/2002 Resolved
117/02 Remove the words "and Emergency Access" from Tracts O, Q and P as they do not
meet minimum emergency access criteria.
Number:160 Created:l/7/2002 Resolved
[4/30/04] Comment still applies.
1/7/2: Reflect the changes asked for under the General, Landscape and Utility Plans
sections.
3/31/3: Repeat.
8/6/3: New Site, Landscape, and Plat submitted 2 weeks into the 3 week review and now
the utility plans do not match. Site plan doesn't match the Plat or Landscape. Need to
coordinate the plan sets so that they present the same information.
Number: 239
Remove note 14.
Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
Page 19
Number: 307
Please remove the contour lines.
Number: 308
[5/7/04] Comment still applies.
See redlines for more comments.
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Number:378 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[4/30/04] Repeat comment. The utility plans have moved the shelter and ID sign but the
site plans have not. Please coordinate the site plan with the utility plans.
Repeat comment from previous redlines - The viewing shelter and project ID sign cannot be
located in the utility easement.
Number:379 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[4/21/061 The grey scale used is too light to scan. Please darken slightly to meet minimum
requirements in Appendix E6.
[12/21/05] Some lines still look too light.
[9/13/05] Please see JR in Tech Services.
[212/05] [4/30/04] Repeat comment. The site plan is still not -scannable and will not be
approved until it is.
(08/05/03) See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements.
Number:389 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2/1/05] [5/7/04] Repeat. Please dimension all sidewalks and make sure that where
attached, the width has been increased to at least 55.
Sidewalks must be a minimum of 5.5' wide where attached.
Number:454 Created:5/712004 Resolved
[5/7/04] Please correct all incorrectly spelled words.
Number:455 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] Please remove the utilities from the Site Plan.
Number:456 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] Remove "PDP" from the project title.
Number:458 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] Correct the sight distance triangle label to read "Sight Distance Easement".
Number:516 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/051 Project ID signs are not allowed in the UE (see the Cameron Drive entrance to the
project).
Number:536 Created:9/13/2005 Resolved
[4/21/06] [9/13/051 Please show the complete sight distance triangle including the piece on
the Woodley's property.
Page 20
Number:601 Created:4/21/2006 Resolved
[4/21106] Need to coordinate the easements with the plat so that all plan sets show the
same information.
Number:604 Created:4/21/2006 Resolved
[4/21/06] Label/show what is happening on the south side of building N. The utility plans
are showing a pool and a type of deck structure from what I can tell.
Number:617 Created:5/19/2006 Pending
[5/19/06] General note 7 may change at mylar depending on actual schedule.
Topic: Site/Landscape
Number:606 Created:4/25/2006 Resolved
[4/25/06] Please include the College Avenue/Cameron Drive intersection and see comment
605 regarding phasing.
Topic: Soils Report
Number:262 Created:8/29/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: The soils report indicates that a subsurface water investigation report is required per
LCUASS 5.6.1.
3/31/3: Please submit a complete soils report specifically for this project. The original soils
report was for another project and the supplement received with this submittal is incomplete
(no borings logs, etc).
Topic: Stormsewer Profile
Number:552 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Sheet 24 - See redlines, more info needed.
Number:553 Created: 9/2912005 Resolved
[9129/05] Sheet 25 - More info req'd, please see redlines. Also, Note 6 states that the water
quality outlet structure and outlet pipe are to be maintained by the HOA. What is the
maintenance program? This may need to be addressed in the covenants.
Topic: Structural Sheets
Number:560 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Please provide signature blocks on all structural sheets. These will need to be
signed off by the PE as well.
Number:561 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/051 See comment 399.
Number:562 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] See redlines - more information and design is required.
Number:563 Created:9129/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] S2 - Note 4 - who approves the imported material?
Number:564 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29105] S3,4 - Lots of redlines, missing info.
Page 21
Topic: Technical Services
Number:615 Created:4/26/2006 Resolved
[4/26/06] Please see Tech Services regarding plat comments.
Number:616 Created:4/26/2006 Resolved
[4/26/06] Please return the plat redlines with the next submittal.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter
Topic: Technical Services
Number:591 Created:12121/2005 Resolved
[4/21/06] 1. Boundary and legal close but do not match, see redlines.
2. Block boundaries - see comment from 12/21/05. Block, Lot and Tract naming convention
is still inconsistent.
3. Define "Sign Easement".
4. Remove the note about easement vacations - the city will not need to sign that.
5. Show vacated streets (dashed line) and city ordinance number.
[12/21105] 1. Boundary and legal close
2. Plat needs 2 notes: Vacating existing easements from existing plat, and Stating the city
ordinance that vacates existing streets.
3. Vacation note on plat is wrong.
4. If using blocks, need to separate blocks w/ line type.
5. Lot and Tract numbering, naming could use work- confusing
6. Each block should stand alone- lots in that block start with the first number or letter (Blk 1,
lot A, Blk 2, lot A). In other words, don't just continue the lettering across different blocks.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Traffic Study
Number:144 Created:12/2112001 Resolved
Third Request! Tess Jones with CDOT requires additional ROW to be dedicated for future
College Avenue road widening to a full 6 lane arterial. The College Avenue entrance must
be Right In - Right Out only, meet proper spacing requirements and include Accel/Decel
lanes. A median will be required in College Avenue from Fairway to Fossil Creek Blvd
intersections. All of these requirements must be designed and constructed with this project.
CDOT also requires that improvements to Cameron and College Avenue must be designed
and constructed with this project, including a median in Cameron. This project may also be
required to address sight distance concerns at this intersection when looking north from
Cameron. Updated TIS required and a copy provided to Tess Jones with CDOT. State
Highway Acess Permits are required. You may contact Tess at 970-350-2163. This
driveway must be public street designed to LCUASS and in accordance with CDOT
standards and Access Control Manual. Please keep in mind that it takes a minimum of 4
weeks to get your comments back from the State once the plans have been submitted.
That's a minimum of 4 weeks from the day they RECEIVE the plans, not from the day that
they were routed or mailed.
*This comment has never been addressed and has remained outstanding for 3 reviews.
CDOT requires that these items be designed and constructed with this project. Please note,
additional ROW is required on top of the 141' total width to accommodate the accel/decel
lanes. In addition, the design does not show whether or not the CDOT spacing
requirements are met between Fossil Blvd and the closest drive to the north. See chapters
7 and 8 of LCUASS for design requirements in addition to CDOTs.
Page 22
3/31/3: Still need an updated TIS for this project. Please provide an additional copy to
CDOT for their review.
Topic: Underground Parking
Number:548 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Driveways into and out of the underground parking can not exceed 8% max. Also,
how will you address the drainage inside the basement parking?
Topic: Utility Plans
Number:16 Created:8114/2001 Resolved
[2/11/05] 8/14/1: Provide a copy of the off -site drainage easement and Reception Number.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/13/2: Third time Repeat. Please see attached and/or call me if you still don't understand
what I'm asking for. 221-6605,
3/31/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open until the easement is
received.
Number:17 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: The Cameron Mesa residential area must have a public street and two access
points. The drive as it currently exists exceeds maximum length and minimum width
requirements.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: This comment still applies. This configuration still exceeds the max length of 660'
and is still unacceptable to PFA. The proposed emergency access through the public
parking lot to the east does not qualify as a second point of access.
Number:19 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/1411: Provide a Striping Plan sheet showing striping, signage, etc.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/13/2: Third request. Show College Improvements and provide a striping plan. See
LCUASS chapter 7 and 8 for design requirements for all public streets.
Number:20 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Label and dimension all setbacks.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request.
Number:21 Created: 8/1412001 Resolved
Cover Sheet: Incomplete preamble title of "Utility Plans for....". See LCUASS, page 3-5,
3.3.1.G.
Number:22 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Repeat. Cover Sheet: Provide the legal description below the project name. Doesn't match
the legal on the Plat. Shouldn't this be a Replat?
Number:23 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Cover Sheet: Add the current date (month and year) under the legal description.
Page 23
Number:24 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Cover Sheet: Minimum size for the Vicinity Map is 10" x 10" and to a scale of 1"=1000-
1500'. See LCUASS, 3.3.1.C.1&2
Number:25 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Cover Sheet: Provide the General Construction Notes - line 48 needs to be filled
out. See Chapter 3 of LCUASS and the Checklist in Appendex E-4. Need Construction
Notes, Erosion Control Notes, Indemnification Statement, etc.
11912: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat.
Number:26 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Cover Sheet: Reference to the updated or current soils investigation report.
Number:27 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Cover Sheet: Need the following statement annotated on the Cover Sheet: "I
hereby affirm...". See LCUASS, section 3.3.1.F.
/13/2: Repeat.
Number:28 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Appendix E4, item 2K. Provide typical street sections(s) for each street type being
proposed. Sections include appropriate horizontal and vertical dimensions and cross
slopes.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request. Provide typical street sections (College, Fossil Blvd) on the cover
sheet. Please call me if you don't understand what I'm asking for.
Number:29 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Cover Sheet: Add the Indemnification Statement: "These plans have been
reviewed by the Local Entity for... ". See checklist, Appendix E-2, item 2M.
1/27/1: Rpeat.
8/14/2: Third request.
Number:31 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Show existing and proposed contours at 2' intervals and label.
Number:32 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
[9/13/05] See redlines for comments and questions (S1-S5 and sheet 41).
[2/1/05] The retaining wall design must be included in the utility plan set.
[5/7/04] Keeping this comment open until resolved. This comment ties in with the new
comment under General.
8/6/3: This comment is mentioned elsewhere, so please forgive the duplication. We will
need the property line shown on the various cross sections so that we can determine
whether or not construction easements are necessary. Also, more cross sections along the
various sections of walls are necessary. Some of the walls are pretty high and will need to
be designed. Details will need to be provided even if "by others". This may be done during
final compliance.
3/31/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open until the easements are
received.
Page 24
8/14/2: Third request: It does not appear that you will be able to construct these retaining
walls without going onto neighboring property. Please provide construction easements as
requested.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/1: Provide detail, dimensions for the retaining walls on the north and west sides of the
project. Will you need a construction easement to do the work?
Number:33 Created: 811412001 Resolved
8/14/1: Please show and label all existing features, ROW, and easements along College
and for a minimum of 150' from the project limits. Sidewalk and other improvements
required to College. Additional ROW and easements required. Provide the design and
construct with this project.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third Request. Minimum 20.5' of additional ROW required PLUS accel/decel lanes.
You are only dedicating 20' which is not enough. Show existing features within 150' - are
you meeting CDOT's minumum separation requirements at Fossil Blvd and the nearest drive
to the north? 1000' of design required north and south of the project on College.
Number:34 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
What is happening on the east entrance, north side of the project? Provide details and
reference the detail on this sheet. Get an easement for this work or pull it back inside your
property line. Show how this will work with existing. Reconfigure the entrance by moving it
further south and this will give you the room to taper down the grade from the north and
meet ADA requirements for the sidewalk. Need a smoother transition of the entrance into
the interior drive. Additional ROW & utility easements required for the improvements on
College Avenue.
Number:35 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/01 The private drives in the Cameron Mesa residential area does not meet minimum
width requirements. Must be 24' minimum and 28' minimum where garages face each
other. Exceeds maximum length requirements. Currently well over 1000' in length.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Number:36 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/01 The pond on the south side of the project shows an outlet outside the property line.
You will need an easement to do this and for any grading done outside the property.
1/9102 Repeat.
Number:37 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
What is that arrow for just to the west of Pond C? What is it? Where does it go? How will it
tie into existing? Please label and dimension.
Number:38 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Need the contours extended a minimum of 50' offsite and tied into existing contours.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request.
Number:39 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Incomplete finish grade elevations shown. Provide spot elevations for all streets, lot
corners, and finish floors/top of foundation of buildings for all lots.
1/9/2: Repeat.
Page 25
8/14/2: Incomplete spot elevations shown.
Number: 40
8/14/1: Grading Sheet: All. Add the statement:
shown...". See Checklist Appendix E-4.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request.
Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
"The top of foundation elevations
Number:41 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/01 Provide drainage arrows and show positive drainage to streets or to an approved
drainage facility.
91/9/02 Repeat.
Number:42 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
[2/11/05] Site and landscape plans are still showing phasing. Are the utility plans phased
as well?
8/14/01 Show all phasing of development and construction of all public improvements.
119/02 Repeat.
Number:43 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Show temporary and long term erosion control devices and label. What's shown is
hard to see. Please split the project into two sheets using matchlines.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Your response to "see Landscape Plans" is insufficient. This information must be
shown on the utility drawings.
Number:44 Created:8114/2001 Resolved
8/14/01 Sheet 6/13: Line weights are too similar, hard to tell what is what. Please change
this and make it more clear. Existing features should be a ghosted line weight.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Number:45 Created:8/1412001 Resolved
8/14/01 Provide all existing and proposed ROW, property lines, building envelopes, and
easements with dimensions. Label on all sheets. Hard to tell if the structures are
encroaching or not. There are several areas where the improvements are definately shown
encroaching onto neighboring property (retaining walls, drainage, grading, etc) and
easements must be provided for these or pull the proposed improvements back behind your
property lines.
119/02 Repeat.
Number:46 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/01 Show all access ramps, cross -pans, and reference appropriate detail.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Number:47 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Update all details on Detail Sheet to current LCUASS details (Cross -pans, access
ramps, curb and gutter, & sidewalks, etc.). Provide 7-20a, 7-20b, 7-20c if applicable, 7-21,
7-22, 7-29a, 7-29b if applicable, 7-30, 7-31, 7-34 and any other detail as dictated by your
design.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request. Only included two of the above details required.
Page 26
3/31/3: Repeat comment.
Number:48 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/1411: Dimension all sidewalks. The sidewalks don't move you around the site well and
only connect two buildings in several areas. Some buildings have no sidewalk connection at
all.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat.
Number:49 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Must have sidewalk on the north side of Cameron drive and show how it will tie into the
existing sidewalk.
Number:50 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Show existing and proposed driveway locations, labeled & stationed. This comment
applies to when the private drives are converted into public streets as requested.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat. All driveways must be stationed off centerline.
Number:51 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Show existing features adjacent to this development in a ghosted or alternate line
weight for a minimum of 150' beyond the project limits.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat. Still missing fences, power lines, manholes, etc.
Number: 52
8/14/1: Show general location of signs.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat.
Number: 53
Size and label all manholes.
Created: 8/1412001 Resolved
Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Number:54 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/01 All manhole locations, valves, curb stops, meter pits, etc, need to be dimensioned
from the centerline of the roadway.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Number:55 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
811411: Provide station, critical elevation, and dimension of all existing and proposed utility
and/or drainage structures.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat.
Number:56 Created:8/1412001 Resolved
8/14/01 Intersections must show construction and lane details for new and existing facilities
for a minimum of 150' beyond the limits of construction.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Page 27
Selected Issues Report
City of Fort Collins
�v
Date:
3/6/2008
REDTAIL RESIDENTIAL PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Advisory Comment
Number:215 Created:8/15/2002 Resolved
Since it is anticipated that a lot of details will change in the next submittal due to the required
changes to the site, please use these comments as advisory and general in nature only.
More detailed comments will be provided once a final site plan is agreed upon between the
City and the developer.
Number:387 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
A new Plat, Site and Landscape plan was submitted 2 weeks into the 3 week review that
now conflicts with the Utility plans. This practice makes reviewing the plans difficult for us
and impossible for the engineers to keep the project coordinated. Any such future
resubmittals will be rejected and will have to wait for the next round of review. Now there
exists discrepancies between the various plan sets which must be corrected in the next
round. More comments may follow once the plan sets have been coordinated and
resubmitted.
Topic: CDOT Permit
Number:512 Created:2/14/2005 Pending
[5/19/06] [4/21/06] [9/13/05] Just keeping the comment alive.
[2/14/05] CDOT Permit required for the work done in College. Please submit the
application directly to Gloria at CDOT with an approved set of plans.
Topic: Cross Sections
Number:554 Created:912912005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Sheet 32 - Grading shown in some of the cross sections exceeds the 4:1 max
allowed. Please label the slope at station 10+00.
Topic: Detail Sheets
Number:555 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/051 Sheet 40 - See redlines.
Number:556 Created:9/2912005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Sheet 41 - Please remove detail 7-31 and replace with D10, D11, D12, or D13,
whichever is applicable. Will need to call out which detail/sheet on the plan views.
Page 1
Number:57 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Add centerline flowline. Correct the left and right flowlines - the labels are switched.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat.
Number:58 Created: 8/1412001 Resolved
8/14/01 Provide sidewalk on north side of Cameron Drive and show how it ties into existing.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Number:59 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
Sheet 7113: Add pedestrian crosswalk, reference a detail for the ramps, and make all
improvements to current LCUASS requirements.
Number:60 Created:8114/2001 Resolved
8/14/01: Scale for all plan and profile sheets should be 1 "= 5' or 10'. Please correct.
1/9/02: Repeat.
Number:72 Created:8/15/2001 Resolved
8/1511: Utilities shown with less than the required minimum 10' separation. Please correct.
1/9/1: Repeat.
8/14/2: Repeat.
Number:146 Created:12/21/2001 Resolved
12/21/01 Repeat - There is an incredible amount of off -site grading, piping, etc taking place.
These will all require off -site easements as stated in the previous comments. Provide the
easements and reception numbers and show on the plans.
Number:147 Created:12/21/2001 Resolved
12/21/01 Repeat. Provide a drainage report.
Number:148 Created:12/21/2001 Resolved
12/21/01 Repeat. Provide an updated TIS.
Number:163 Created:1/7/2002 Resolved
1/7/2: Repeat. Expand the Legend on all sheets to include the ROW, RR ROW, buffer
areas, easements, etc.
8/14/2: Repeat. Legend should also include existing and proposed vertical (rollover?) curb
and gutter, etc.
Number:164 Created:1/7/2002 Resolved
1/7/02 Show ROW, easements, building envelope, etc, all sheets. No footings, overhangs,
eaves, etc, in any easement or the ROW.
Number:180 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/16/1: The legal name(s) of the project are incorrect. See Plat comment and coordinate all
of the documents.
Number: 184
1/16/1: Show the railroad
8/14/2: Repeat Comment.
ROW on the utility plans.
Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
Page 28
Number:187 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/16/01 There were too many comments left unaddressed from the first submittal's utility
redlines to redo on this second submittal. I am returning the first submittal's redlines along
with the 2nd submittal's redlines. Please refer to both for the 3rd submittal. Then return
both sets of redlines in the 3rd submittal.
Number:216 Created:8115/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Correct the index. See redlines.
Number:223 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Appendix E4, item 2L - please provide the Owner's name, address, and telephone
number.
Number:225 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/1412: Specify existing and proposed curb and gutter, vertical or rollover.
Number:233 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: The CDOT signature block needs to be provided on the cover sheet as well as any
other sheet that involves College Ave.
Number:247 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Add street cut note where applicable:
Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City
Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards.
Number:305 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
(9/13/05] A concrete wall without geogrid is now proposed. Is this ok with planning?
[2/1/05] Repeat comment. You will need a variance from the utilities in order to do this. If
you wish to pursue this, please provide a letter explaining what and why as well as an
exhibit that we can route around. The turnaround is 2 to 3 weeks.
[5/7/04] Repeat comment. A retaining wall is now proposed in the 15' utility easement
along College and is not allowed without the utility companies permission.
(03/31/03) No buildings, footings, overhangs, or structures of any kind are allowed in utility
easments OR the FCLWD's exclusive sanitary sewer easement. Several areas currently
shown with buildings (residential and viewing shelter), footings, retaining walls, etc, in these
easements.
Number:322 Created:4/2/2003 Resolved
Complete and submit Appendix E4 with the next submittal.
Number:325 Created:4/2/2003 Resolved
Provide the Greeley ramp details for the texture and dimensions of the the textured area to
replace the colored concrete of the Fort Collins detail.
Number:381 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[2/1/05] The lighter line weights are too light to scan. Shaded areas will not scan - please
try a hatching pattern instead.
[5/7/04] Repeat
Page 29
See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements.
Number:390 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[5/7/04] Correction required, see redlines.
Sheet 2 - Fill in line 48 with the approved variances. State section and code being varied
and then what the variance was granted for.
Number: 391
Sheet 3 - Correct overlapping labels.
Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
Number:392 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
Sheet - Correct overlapping labels. See Doug Moore regarding the existing trees that are
labeled "to be removed". This area was to be preserved in exchange for the road
connection coming from the north side of the pond.
Number:393 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
Sheet 5 - Correct overlapping labels. Also, the shaded areas may be too dark to scan well.
Is there anyway you can lighten this up a little? Thanks!
Number:394 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2/1/05] [5/7/04] Shaded areas will not scan. Suggest using an outline or hatch pattern
instead.
Sheet 6 and 7 - See redlines.
Number:395 Created:818/2003 Resolved
Sheet 8 - 15' Utility easement along College Avenue required. This is one of the areas that
changed with the new plat, site and landscape. I'm not going to comment on anything that
conflicts with the newly submitted plan sets until you've had a chance to coordinate the utility
sheets.
Number:396 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
19/13/05] Still not clear on what is getting constructed on the west property line. Handrails
are indicated but what else? Details? Offsite easements will be required if grading or
constructing offsite (including footings).
[2/1105] [517/04] Please see 7.7.2.A for grading requirements. Several areas exceed the
4:1 max requirement. Please provide a section through the wall on the west property line
identifying the block dimensions, property line, etc. An addtional easement may be
requirement if you can't construct the wall entirely on the Redtail property. Provide BW
elevations for the retaining wall at the souther entrance to the parking garage. Provide
riprap at the end of the stormpipe or refer to the detail shown on sheet 42. Show limits of
grading easement to the property owner just east of Pond C. See redlines for other
comments.
Sheet 9 - Please contact Stormwater and Natural Resources regarding any grading shown
greater than 4:1. Offsite grading shown (discussed under "Letters of Intent"). See redlines
for other comments.
Number: 397
Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
Page 30
[2/1/05] [5/7/04] Sheet 10 - Scanning issues. Areas exceeding the 4:1 max requirement
must be corrected. Refer to detail on sheet 40 for the culvert under Cameron. General
comment: Provide a complete design for the modular block wall where it exceeds 36". It
can be designed by others, but it needs to be included in the utility plans before we can
route for signatures. Make sure that the foundation for the picnic enclosure do not extend
into the utility easement.
Sheet 10 - Correct overlapping labeling. Offsite grading shown. Please provide location
and dimensions of the retaining wall along Pond B so that they can lay this out in the field.
Contact Doug Moore with Natural Resources regarding the height and appearance of the
proposed retaining wall.
Number:398 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2/2/05]
Sheet 11 - or wherever appropriate - grading should be flat or nearly flat for 2' off the back of
walk.
Number:400 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[9/13/05] Sheet 11, repeat, offsite grading can not occur without an easement from the RR.
Also, is there a retaining wall here? Handrail indicated but no reference to a detail. Please
show exactly what is getting built here.
[2/1/05] [517/04] Scanning issues, grading shown exceeding 4:1, label the R of the curb
return at Conejos and Fossil Blvd., offsite grading shown at the western property line (either
pull it back on the property or obtain a grading easement from the RR), and label the slope
ratio in the area of section C-C.
Sheet 11 - Please see the comment given by Tom Reiff, Transportation Planning, regarding
the ramps and detached sidewalk on the south side of Redtail Court (north side of the
pond).
Number:401 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2/1/05] [517/04] Repeat.
Sheet 11 - See redlines. Correct overlapping labeling.
Number:403 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[5/7/04] Please label the radius of the curb return. Additional offsite grading shown. Please
provide additional grading easements from the property owner. Scanning issues.
Sheet 12 - Please provide a detail of the area covered by the property line so that I can see
how the proposed ties into existing Fossil Blvd. Correct the overlapped labeling and provide
missing BW elevations.
Number:404 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[9/13/051 Repeat. Still need design.
[2/1/05] If the footings for the retaining walls are on the neighboring property then you will
need permanent easements. If you can't construct the wall within your property boundaries
then you will need temporary easements.
[5/7104] Repeat comment. Show limits of the grading easement needed from the property
owner to the north. Scanning problems with this sheet, please see Appendix E6. See
redlines for additional comments.
Page 31
Sheet 13 - Please provide the Grading Easement shown and remove the word "temporary".
Correct the overlapped labeling and provide missing BW elevations.
Number:405 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[9/13/05] Much better but wouldn't hurt to run these by JR in Tech Services before
submitting again just to make sure your mylars will scan. You can do this just prior to
submitting mylars too.
[2/1/05] Please see JR in Tech Services before resubmitting. The plans will not scan as is
and Tech Services will not accept the mylars even if they are signed off. They will refuse
them until they are scannable, even if it means the mylars have to be resigned by everyone
again.
[5/7/04] Repeat, shaded areas will not scan.
Sheet 14 and 15 - Some areas are too dark to scan properly.
Number:406 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2/1/05] Corrections required.
[5/7/04] Please provide a detail of the street widening labeling all the dimensions shown in
detail 7-24. You do not need to add detail 7-24 to the detail sheets.
Sheet 16 thru 18 - Show and dimension all sidewalks. Dimension all radii and driveway
widths. Show and dimension all parking stalls. Provide a detail of the street widening per 7-
24. Show and label R1, R2, R3, W, PC, PCR, etc. You can put this detail here or on the
plan and profile sheets, whichever works best for you. Show and dimension all easements.
Correct all overlapped labeling. Project ID sign and viewing shelter must be located out of
the utility easement.
Number:407 Created:818/2003 Resolved
[5/7/04] Scanning issues remain. Please see Appendix E6.
Sheet 22 - Show all pipes and structures in the profiles (typ). Show curb returns (typ).
Provide intersection details for all intersections (typ). We will have trouble scanning this
sheet - please correct overlapped labeling and lighten the hatched areas.
All utilities and structures (culverts...) must be at least 2 feet below scarified subgrade per
12.2.2 or the pavement above the object must be in concrete.
Number:408 Created:818/2003 Resolved
[211/05] Please provide typical street sections.
[5n1041 The street design over the pond does not match the typical street section shown.
Please see Appendix E6 for scannability requirements.
Sheet 22 - See redlines. The residential local street typical street section is provided for
Fossil Blvd and Cameron Drive. Provide a section where the sidewalk is attached north of
the bridge. Please label from "station _ to station _ "and show N,S,E,W. Please see
the comments from Tom Reiff, Transportation Planning.
Number: 409
Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
Page 32
[5/7104] Scanning problems. Perhaps reducing the thickness of the line weight of the text
will help.
Sheet 23 - Correct overlapped labeling.
Number:410 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2/1/05] [5/7/04] Shaded areas will not scan. Suggest removing the shading and the
striping symbols and try using an outline with wide diagonal hatching instead of the shaded
areas to show limits of construction. Increase the width of the sidewalk and attach it to the
retaining wall instead of leaving an unmaintainable strip between the wall and the sidewalk
(if the location of the wall is staying and is agreed to by the utility companies).
Sheet 29 - Scannability issues, see redlines. Show approximate area of the street cut
where the ramp is being installed. Add street cut note.
Number:411 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2/11105] [5/7/04] Need to show the retaining wall in the cross sections where ever it
occurs.
Sheet 32 - Label all slopes (4:1 max allowed).
Number: 413
Created: 8/1212003 Resolved
[9/13/05] Repeat.
[2/11/051 [5/7/04] Repeat. I gave a copy of all of the notes we'll require on the plan sets in
August of 2003. They still have not appeared on the plans to date. Please see Young's
Creek plans for a good example.
Sheet 40 - See attached for additional notes on the retaining wall and handrail requirements.
Select the appropriate notes and include them on this sheet. Show how the curb, gutter,
sidewalk, parapet, etc, in the typical culvert layout.
Number: 414
Sheet 41 - Remove the duplicate detail, 11-01.
Number: 415
[5/7/04] Repeat.
Sheet 42 - See redlines.
Created:8/12/2003 Resolved
Created:8/12/2003 Resolved
Number:464 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[5/7/04] Relocate the existing telephone pedestal shown in the proposed sidewalk at the
corner of Coronado Drive and the frontage road.
Number: 465
[5/7/04] Remove "PDP" from the project title.
Number: 466
[5/7/04] Sheets 16-19, see redlines.
Number: 467
[5/7/04] Sheet 25 - See redlines.
Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
Page 33
Number:485 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[2/1/05] Typical Street Sections - Please remove the word "minimum". The street sections
need to show exactly what is being built.
Number:486 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[9113/05] Please provide signature blocks on the structural sheets. See redlines.
[2/1/05] The parapet walls are preliminary and labeled to be designed by others. That's
fine, but the design needs to be included in the plan set or we can't sign off on the plans.
Please provide the design and all necessary details in order to correctly build the road
through the pond.
Number:487 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[2/1/05] 1 have the new "official" ramp detail that I can email to you. Please include it in the
plan sets and make sure that the correct row is being dedicated to accommodate them.
Number:488 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[2/1/05] Please complete and submit Appendix E4 with the next submittal. Any applicable
item not included in the plan sets will become a new comment.
Number:504 Created: 2/1412005 Resolved
[2/14/05] The design from Gary Weeks needs to be included in the utility plan set. Identify
each cross section on the utility plans and show where the property line is where applicable.
Need additional details for the railing and storm culverts 4,3, and 3a. See redlines for other
comments.
Number:505 Created: 2/1412005 Resolved
[2/14/05] See redlines for additional comments.
Number:507 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/05] Expand the Legend to include retaining walls. The easement line needs to be
called "existing easement".
Number:508 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[9/13105] Repeat. The design has to be buildable and contain all necessary notes. Please
see below.
[2/14/05] The parapet wall along Cameron Drive has to be designed to detail 1108. Include
all necessary details and design in the plan set. See Young's Creek development for a good
example.
Number:509 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/05] Add to line 48 - a variance was granted to the parapet wall design over the pond
to allow overtopping of the road (or something to that effect).
FYI - No other variance for any other parapet has been asked for to date and all other
parapet walls at the row must be designed per 1108.
Number:510 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/05] Sheet 13 - See redlines.
Page 34
Number:511 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/051 Sheet 24 - Note 4: We need to talk about this. If Council does not vacate the
frontage road then stormwater may require that the HOA to maintain this culvert.
Number:513 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/05] Sheet 43 - see redlines.
Number:514 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/05] Sheet 44 - see redlines.
Number:543 Created:9129/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Please add another variance to line 48 of the General Notes section regarding the
retaining wall along College located within the utility easement.
Number:546 Created:9129/2005 Resolved
[4/21/06] Please use grey scale for existing and dark line weights for proposed. Please
correct plan sheets and legend.
[12/21/05] Legend linetype does not match what is shown on plans.
[9/29/05] Please add a phase line to the legend.
Number:547 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9129/05] Sheet 6 - corrections required to the legend.
Number:559 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Sheet 46 - Please provide detail 1202 on this sheet. Also, all sleeves must be
equal to schedule 40 PVC and conform to detail 1202.
Number:607 Created:4/25/2006 Resolved
[4/25/06] Sheet 3 - 5: Need to show phasing if the demo is being phased too. See
comment 605 regarding phasing also.
Number:608 Created:4/25/2006 Resolved
[4/25106] Sheet 6 and where applicable: Remove note 22 on all sheets. Note 18 doesn't
match the tract table on the plat. Looks like the 12' access easement layer was accidentally
turned off, needs to be shown (the plat does not have an access easement on this tract).
Also, the stormsewer pipe 1-1 shown entering the newly proposed pool deck needs to be
completed on this sheet, the storm p&p sheet, and all other applicable sheets. Will it have
an inlet to drain any water that enters the parking garage, etc?
Number:609 Created:4/25/2006 Resolved
[4/25/061 Sheet 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 24, 29, 29, 34, 35, 39, 40, and 41 - see redlines.
Number:621 Created:5/25/2006 Pending
[5/25/06] Gloria Hice-Idler and Ron Griese (Region 4 Utility Engineer) with CDOT has
approved the following note for the Utility Plans:
At the time of College Avenue widening, no cost shall be imposed to the Fort Collins -
Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District for the relocation of
existing utilities in College Avenue.
Page 35
Per Gloria, it is Ron's position that CDOT would be responsible for the relocation of the
lines. I will forward Gloria's email to you for your records as well.
Topic: Variance Requests
Number:256 Created:8/27/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: See table 7-3 of LCUASS for minimum corner clearance between driveways and
street intersections. Two driveways on the cul-de-sacs do not meet the min requirement of
80' from CL to CL. See redlines.
Number:324 Created:4/2/2003 Resolved
The variance requests will need to be resubmitted in accordance with 1.9.2 explaining why
the variances requested do not pose a health and safety issue. An updated TIS will need to
be performed so that the data may be used to confirm the safety aspect of the request.
8/6/3: Variance Requests 1-5 have been received and approved as presented. The
variances granted were for the Fossil Blvd & Redtail Court Intersection angle and centerline
radius, Fossil Blvd drive widths less than 24', Redtail Court drive widths and spacing,
Driveway separation distance from Redtail Court, and off street parking setbacks.
Topic: Waterline Profile
Number:551 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29/05] Sheet 19 - please provide more info/details on the insulation called out between
the waterlines. See redlines.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kathleen Reavis
Number:94 Created:8/24/2001 Resolved
8/24/01 Site design needs to address issues identified in the existing South College Access
Control Plan such as providing a roadway connection between Fossil Blvd and Cameron
Drive. Dave Stringer with the City's Engineering dept has an idea for a roadway alignment
that could work for this site.
1/23/02 Repeat.
Number:97 Created:8/27/2001 Resolved
8/24/01 1 would suggest having the connection between the parking lot for the office
development and the frontage road be only for emergency access - this would minimize the
traffic impact at the intersection of the frontage road/Cameron Drive/South College anad
encourage traffic to use Fossil Blvd to access S. College. Check with Eric Bracke in Traffic
Operations to get his input on this issue.
Number:98 Created:8/27/2001 Resolved
8127/01 The right-in/right-out access point shown north of the Cameron/South College
intersection is in accordance with the South College access plan update but it should be
noted on the site plan that this is only a right in/right out access point only. Also, need to
see a design for the right-in/right-out - will there be a median installed on South College or
will it be designed with a "pork chop" island?
Number:99 Created:8/27/2001 Resolved
8/27/01 The existing sidewalk along South College north of this site (Woodley's furniture)
needs to be continued south along this property to the intersection of South
College/Cameron Drive in order to provide access to the existing transit stop.
Page 36
Number:100 Created:8/27/2001 Resolved
8/27/01 TIS issues:
The close proximity of the frontage road at Cameron Drive/South College intersection was
not addressed by the TIS, this should be done.
The traffic projections in the TIS are much lower than the projections in the traffic report for
the South College Access Management Plan, they need to coincide.
The TIS does not mention the Mason Street Transportation Corridor at all and it needs to be
referenced for the bike, ped and transit LOS analysis. Ped connectivity is needed to the
existing adjacent transit stop on College at the intersection of Cameron Drive/South College.
Also, it should include Werner if that will be the school for the children living in this
development.
The TIS includes mention that there are currently bikelanes on South College (actually they
are just existing shoulders) however the report goes on to recommend that these shoulders
be used to create the accel and decel lanes for the right-in/right-out and at Cameron Drive.
Bikelanes still need to be provided in the shoulder area. How will this be accomplished if the
shoulder is going to be used for the a & d lanes?
1/23/02 Repeat.
Number:200 Created:1/24/2002 Resolved
Update the TIS with the new land use mix.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Easements
Number:443 Created:5/5/2004 Resolved
[2/1/05] Follow up comment from DA: This doesn't appear to fall entirely in ROW or an
Public Access Easement. Please clarify. Thanks.
1515104] Is the walkway connection from the College Ave. sidewalk to the Fossil Blvd
sidewalk placed in a public access easement or is it in ROW?
Number:444 Created:5/5/2004 Resolved
[5/5/04] Are the trail connections from Conejos Rd to the MTC placed in a public access
easement on the plat?
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kathleen Reavis
Topic: General
Number:257 Created:8/27/2002 Resolved
Reviewed TIS amendment - concern if this new TIS has been reviewed and ok'd by Traffic
Operations and CDOT. It does not fit with the direction provided by prior CDOT & City
comments to Mr. Delich, particularly as it relates to the medians and short-term conditions
for the access points on US287. There are several areas of the TIS that area incorrect or
misleading. For example, Mr. Delich indicates that a median is not shown in the short-term
US 287 Access Plan along this property, but this portion of US 287 is not covered by the
short-term Access Plan (the short-term plan only covers the section of US 287 from Trilby to
Crestridge). The only Access Plan for the section along the Redtail property does show a
raised median to control access to the right-in/right-out access point. Also, Mr. Delich says
in the TIS that I did not provide him with the traffic counts on South College, only the access
information. I have provided Mr. Delich with a full copy of the Access Plan, including current
Page 37
Number:557 Created:9/29/2005 Resolved
[9/29105] Sheet 41 - A preliminary design detail is given for a section of retaining wall. We
need the actual design on this plan set before signing mylars. Also, will need to refer to this
detail on the appropriate sheets.
Topic: General
Number:18 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14101 Complete and submit the Checklist in Appendix E-4.
1/9/02 Repeat.
Number:30 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: Must coordinate with the Mason Street Corridor Plan and the Transit Center. Add
sidewalks on the west side and show how it will tie into existing.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request. All sidewalks connecting to the natural area to the south and the
Mason Street Corridor Plan must be coordinated, designed and constructed to the project's
property line.
Number:71 Created:8/14/2001 Resolved
8/14/1: More comments to follow as the project evolves.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/13/2: Repeat.
3/31/3: Repeat.
Number:78 Created:8/21/2001 Resolved
8/21/1: Contact Craig Foreman with Parks & Rec regarding the railroad underpass. You will
need to coordinate and show this on your plans.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/2: Third request.
3/31/3: Parks Dept. has an underpass planned for this area and it may or may not be
located on this property. Please call Craig Foreman at 221-6618 to confirm the actual
location of the RR underpass. I am not sure, but it may be going in south of this project, in
which case, this comment goes away.
Number:143 Created:12/20/2001 Resolved
12/20/01 Second Submittal: This is an insufficient submittal. All comments from the first
submittal are repeat comments and must be individually addressed in subsequent
submittals. Engineering Items 16-78 are not addressed within other departments comments
and/or complied with or corrected as stated in the response letter dated 12119/01.
Number:145 Created:12/21/2001 Resolved
12/21/1: Repeat from 8114/1. Is there a 2' parking overhang? 17' parking depth shown but
code requires a 19' depth unless you provide the 2' overhang. The proposed retaining wall
looks like it won't allow for any overhang. (This comment was originally part of comment
#32).
8/14/02: Third Request. The retaining wall on the north and west sides of the project
appears to interfere with the 2' overhang making the parking stall depth requirement 19'.
Please correct this item.
Page 2
and projected traffic counts for this area. Also, I have spoken with Mr. Delich several times
during his preparation of the TIS to review these counts. He cannot ignore the updated
counts/projections for this area. In addition, there are now sidewalks along Fossil Creek
Parkway east of US 287 so the site should be able to meet the Ped LOS to Werner
Elementary School. Mr. Delich also ignored the information we provided regarding
bikelanes on South College/US 287. Staff has explained to him that we have a funded
project in 2004 to install bikelanes on US 287 from Harmony to Carpenter Road and that this
project needs to account for these bikelanes in their transportation analysis and not
presume that the existing shoulder can be used as their accel and decel lanes.
Number:258 Created:8/2712002 Resolved
Reviewed revised site plan provided 8/21/02 - the bike/ped connection from the site to Fossil
Boulevard could work for bikes and peds if it is paved (a soft path does not work for
wheelchairs, strollers, rollerblades, bikes, etc.) I am unclear if the sidewalk along S.
College/US 287 is proposed to be straight or meandering, the two site plans I have show
each version of the sidewalk - which one are they proposing? The bike/ped connections
from the site westward to the future Mason Street Transportation Corridor need to be at
least 8' wide (or 10' preferred) to accommodate bikes & peds. Also, the bike/ped path
connection from the south side of the project site to the City's Fossil Creek trail should
remain on the plans (I don't know why it was removed - it had been shown previously).
Topic: Natural Habitat & Features
Number:436 Created:5/4/2004 Resolved
[5/4/04] no comment - tried to delete this?
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic: Plat
Number:493 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[2/11051 Would it be possible to widen the southern walkway connection to the Mason
Transportation Corridor (from the Conejos Rd. cul-de-sac)? Typically these are 8 feet in
width, but since there is another connection (shown at 8') to the north we could probably
settle for 6' at a minimum. Thanks.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kurt Ravenschlag
Topic: Site Plan
Number:521 Created:8/26/2005 Unresolved
[8/26/05] Response letter (dated 8/15/05) indicates that 2nd bike/ped connection to Mason
Transportation Corridor trail has been widened to 6' but the Site Plan still shows 5'. Please
review site plan to 6'.
Number:522 Created:8/26/2005 Unresolved
[8/26/05] Sidewalk connection between cul-de-sac and US 287 does not show a specific
width - this sidewalk needs to be 6' minimum or the preferred is 8'.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kathleen Reavis
Topic: Transportation
Number:437 Created:5/4/2004 Resolved
[514/04] has grading of site changed along west side? Please verify that it is still the same as
previously provided to City. This is important because of the construction of the new MTC
trail adjacent to this site.
Page 38
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Transportation
Number:288 Created:3/28/2003 Resolved
[5/4/04] The northern trial connection from the development to the MTC needs to be
constructed to an 8-foot width to safely accommodate bikes, pedestrians and any other trail
users.
Please provide a public access easement from the curve at the northern edge of the
sidewalk to connect to the future Mason Transportation Corridor project (see red lines).
(FOLLOW UP COMMENT 8-5-03) Due to timing of the Redtail and MTC Trail projects, the
trail will be constructed before the Redtail project and will be built on a separate alignment
and bridge crossing of the pond. The previous access easement along the north side of the
property will now need to be constructed as a 8 foot trail connection to the MTC Trail with
the Rectail project (see red lines for the trail connection alignment). Since the northern trail
connection will be built, the trail connection south of the pond can be reduced to a 8 foot
width or removed from the plan. There will also need to be bike/ped. access ramps added
from the roadway to the future MTC northern trail connection (see red lines).
Number:289 Created:3/28/2003 Resolved
[2/1/05] Follow up from DA: Thanks for widening out the sidewalk. The crossing of Fossil
and Conejos is still problematic. The ped crossing (and affiliated ramps) need to be oriented
to either Fossil or Conejos at 90 degrees, and not diagonally across this curve in the road.
See reclined site plan for detail. Thank you.
[5/4104] The attached sidewalk along the northern portion of Conejos Road is acceptable,
but the width needs to be increased to 6-feet, NOT 4'6" as shown. Also the directional ramps
at Conejos and Fossil Blvd. should align with the sidewalks as much as possible.
8/14/1: Provide a copy of the off -site drainage easement and Reception Number.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/13/2: Third time Repeat. Please see attached and/or call me if you still don't understand
what I'm asking for. 221-6605.
3/31/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open until the easement is
received.
Number:290 Created:3/28/2003 Resolved
Construct a directional ramp that aligns to the western ramp at the intersection of Redtail
Court and Cameron Drive (see red lines).
Number:291 Created:3/28/2003 Resolved
Please provide a 6 foot walkway connection from the end of Coronado Court to the walkway
connecting Bldg G to Fossil Blvd if parked cars will be overhanging into the walk. Otherwise
a 4 foot walk would suffice.
Number:292 Created:3/28/2003 Resolved
Decrease the driveway width for Bldg 3 to match the proposed driveway widths for Bldg H
and 1, which appears to be 24 feet.
Number:293 Created:3/2812003 Resolved
The transition from the MTC trail to the bridge crossing needs to be improved. The trail /
sidewalk pinch point should be eliminated (please see red lines).
Page 39
Number: 296
[5/5/04]
[5/4/04]
Created:3/28/2003 Resolved
Please provide a more detailed drawing of the culvert crossing of the pond. According to the
LCUASS the standard residential street cross section of 51 feet should continue across the
culvert. However the proposed crossing can be modified to reduce the overall width by
reducing the roadway width and parkway widths without sacrificing a transportation choice.
(FOLLOW UP COMMENT 8-5-03) Since there will need to be a separate bike / ped. bridge
for the MTC the sidewalks along the bridge only need to be an extra 1-foot in width for a
local residential street, if they plan to be attached. However, please note that the 6 inch curb
is NOT included in that additional width. Therefore, from the face of the curb to the bridge
wall, the total width needs to measure 6 feet (66" attached sidewalk & a 6" curb). Also the
attached 6' sidewalk width along the west and north side of Redtail Court can continue to the
north up to the Fossil Blvd. intersection, rather than the 8' attached sidewalk. Lastly, if there
plans to be no vehicle parking permitted on the bridge the roadway width can be reduced to
a 22 foot width to allow for 2 - 11' travel lanes.
Number:297 Created:3/28/2003 Resolved
The major walkway spine should be ADA accessible. Are stairs planned for the walkway? It
appears that all other walks have stairs leading to the residences.
Number:382 Created:8/6/2003 Resolved
FYI - The alignment for the MTC Trail is incorrect. The trail will be located on the eastern
side of the 20' BNSF Railroad corridor, which will need some design coordination with the
proposed parking area. Please contact Kathleen Reavis with any questions.
Number:383 Created:8/6/2003 Resolved
The existing white shed in the northwest corner of the site will need to be removed/relocated
out of the BNSF corridor. Contact Kathleen Reavis with any questions.
Number:384 Created:8/612003 Resolved
Standard 'Bike Lane' signs will need to be included within the utility plan's signing and
striping plan sheets.
Number:438 Created:514/2004 Resolved
[5/4/04] Follow-up comment to Issue #296. Since there will be no parking permitted on the
bridge reduce the roadway width of the bridge to 22-feet from 24-feet, and increase the
sidewalk widths on each side of the bridge by 1-foot. No parking signs will also have to be
installed along the bridge.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kurt Ravenschlag
Topic: Utility Plans
Number:523 Created:8126/2005 Unresolved
[8/26105] See minor comments on sheet 28, 33, 34, 35, and 41.
Number:524 Created:8/26/2005 Unresolved
[8/26/05] Use standard City bikelane signs and stencils.
Page 40
Number:525 Created:8/26/2005 Unresolved
18/26/051 Coordinate design with City/CDOT US 287 Bikelane Project.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jim Hoff
Topic: General
Number:360 Created:4/14/2003 Unresolved
Technical Services has the following comments:
a. Plat closes ok.
b. Courses in legal match plat; some possible typos in tract and lot identification Tract B,
Lot 13 etc.
c. What are the tracts?
d. South FC San. Dist. needs to sign the plat.
e. Is this plat trying to include condo info also [or are buildings A through F supposed to be
single family attached lots]?
Page 41
Selected Issues Report
(3tv of Fort Bills
4/8/2008
Date:
REDTAIL MAJOR AMENDMENT TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
Number:19 Created:511/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07]
[5/1/07] From Technical Services: The site and landscape plans have type over lines.
Please correct to meet our scanning requirements.
Number:21 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/071
[5/2/07] We'll handle all of the changes to the original approved utility drawings as revisions
so you'll need to bubble out the changes you made on each sheet and list them under the
revisions in the title block. I think I found most of the changes and made as many
comments as I could, but I may have missed a few differences in the plan sets. There MAY
be an additional comment or two on the next round after I see the bubbling though. I'm not
sure that I found each change.
Number:22 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] The vacation request has been routed with comments due back by July 20, 2007.
[5/2/07] The building on Lot 8 is located outside of the platted building envelope and within
a utility easement. Please provide a written vacation request plus a completed TDRF
application and the associated fee. I will route the vacation request to the various utilities
and get back to you as soon as they approve or deny it. Once we've received the
paperwork, this process takes 2 to 3 weeks including mail time. You do NOT have to wait
until the next submittal to do this. You can submit the paperwork anytime and I'll get it out
within a day or two.
Number:23 Created:512/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Thanks for the note on the redlines Troy! And yes, as long as the scanning issues
are taken care of before mylars, you are fine.
[5/2/07] Scanning issues exist. This does not need to be addressed until mylars, but just
wanted to make you aware of it early on.
Number:26 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Just keeping the comment alive until this step has been completed.
[5/2/07] We will need to amend the original Development Agreement for Redtail where the
number of building permits change and effect certain payments or construction of certain
improvements. We can work through that in Final Compliance - it does not need to be
addressed prior to hearing.
Page 1
Number:30 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Please remove the no parking striping in front of the ped ramp on the northwest
corner of Cameron and Conejos.
Number:44 Created:7111/2007 Resolved
[7/11/071 From Technical Services: No comments.
Number:52 Created:9/6/2007 Pending
[9/6/07] Just need to show and label the vacated portion of the utility easement vacated by
separate document on all plan sets. Please email a word doc of the legal description and
pdf of the exhibit. I'll need a check to Larimer County for the filing fees (amount to be
determined) and I'll get that recorded. Ready for mylars.
Topic: Grading Sheet
Number:24 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[512/07] Up to 750sf max of surface drainage is allowed over a public sidewalk. It appears
that we may have exceeded that on the south end of the culdesac. If you can't adjust the
grades, then you can leave it as is but add a sidewalk chase off to one side of the driveway
to take the drainage under the sidewalk. Let me know what you think is best.
Number:25 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Missing some contour elevation labeling... could you add a few in so that I make
sure I'm not assuming something incorrectly? Thanksll
Topic: Utility Plans
Number:27 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Please refer to detail and sheet number when involving anything in or affecting the
public row.
Number:28 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/071 Thanks for adding in the spots.
[5/2107] Please provide tow, bow spots for all new retaining walls. Depending on the height,
we may require the actual design to be included in the plan set. For instance, a new
retaining wall is proposed by the gazebo north of Cameron Drive. Does it have a footing? If
so, the footing needs to be located outside of the utility easement. Also, please refer to
detail and sheet number for the appropriate retaining wall section.
Number:29 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Tricia - have we raised any of the utilities under the roads so that we now have a
cover issue (per 12.2.2)?
Number:45 Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Sheet 10 has a labeled a ped ramp with a "2' sidewalk chase"...I think this was a
mistake or something : )
Number:46 Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Depending on the timing, this could actually be revision number 2 with the first
revision being the grading sheet you're currently working on. Please see me about the area
around the boxes because if the grading sheet is approved before this one (more than
likely), then you'll need to show the "new" spot elevations from the newly revised grading
sheet.
Page 2
Selected Issues Report
Citv of Fort Collins
Date:
4/8/2008
REDTAIL MAJOR AMENDMENT TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS
SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
Number:19 Created:5/112007 Resolved
[7111/07]
[5/1/07] From Technical Services: The site and landscape plans have type over lines.
Please correct to meet our scanning requirements.
Number:21 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07]
[5/2/07] We'll handle all of the changes to the original approved utility drawings as revisions
so you'll need to bubble out the changes you made on each sheet and list them under the
revisions in the title block. I think I found most of the changes and made as many
comments as I could, but I may have missed a few differences in the plan sets. There MAY
be an additional comment or two on the next round after I see the bubbling though. I'm not
sure that I found each change.
Number:22 Created:5/212007 Resolved
[7/11/07] The vacation request has been routed with comments due back by July 20, 2007.
[5/2/07] The building on Lot 8 is located outside of the platted building envelope and within
a utility easement. Please provide a written vacation request plus a completed TDRF
application and the associated fee. I will route the vacation request to the various utilities
and get back to you as soon as they approve or deny it. Once we've received the
paperwork, this process takes 2 to 3 weeks including mail time. You do NOT have to wait
until the next submittal to do this. You can submit the paperwork anytime and I'll get it out
within a day or two.
Number:23 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Thanks for the note on the redlines Troy! And yes, as long as the scanning issues
are taken care of before mylars, you are fine.
[5/2/07] Scanning issues exist. This does not need to be addressed until mylars, but just
wanted to make you aware of it early on.
Number:26 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Just keeping the comment alive until this step has been completed.
[5/2/07] We will need to amend the original Development Agreement for Redtail where the
number of building permits change and effect certain payments or construction of certain
improvements. We can work through that in Final Compliance - it does not need to be
addressed prior to hearing.
Page 1
Number:30 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Please remove the no parking striping in front of the ped ramp on the northwest
corner of Cameron and Conejos.
Number:44 Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] From Technical Services: No comments.
Number:52 Created:9/6/2007 Pending
[9/6/07] Just need to show and label the vacated portion of the utility easement vacated by
separate document on all plan sets. Please email a word doc of the legal description and
pdf of the exhibit. I'll need a check to Larimer County for the filing fees (amount to be
determined) and I'll get that recorded. Ready for mylars.
Topic: Grading Sheet
Number:24 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2107] Up to 750sf max of surface drainage is allowed over a public sidewalk. It appears
that we may have exceeded that on the south end of the culdesac. If you can't adjust the
grades, then you can leave it as is but add a sidewalk chase off to one side of the driveway
to take the drainage under the sidewalk. Let me know what you think is best.
Number:25 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Missing some contour elevation labeling... could you add a few in so that I make
sure I'm not assuming something incorrectly? Thanks!!
Topic: Utility Plans
Number:27 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Please refer to detail and sheet number when involving anything in or affecting the
public row.
Number: 28
Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Thanks for adding in the spots.
[5/2/07] Please provide tow, bow spots for all new retaining walls. Depending on the height,
we may require the actual design to be included in the plan set. For instance, a new
retaining wall is proposed by the gazebo north of Cameron Drive. Does it have a footing? If
so, the footing needs to be located outside of the utility easement. Also, please refer to
detail and sheet number for the appropriate retaining wall section.
Number:29 Created:5/2/2007 Resolved
[5/2/07] Tricia - have we raised any of the utilities under the roads so that we now have a
cover issue (per 12.2.2)?
Number: 45
Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Sheet 10 has a labeled a ped ramp with a "2' sidewalk chase"...I think this was a
mistake or something : )
Number:46 Created:7/11/2007 Resolved
[7/11/07] Depending on the timing, this could actually be revision number 2 with the first
revision being the grading sheet you're currently working on. Please see me about the area
around the boxes because if the grading sheet is approved before this one (more than
likely), then you'll need to show the "new" spot elevations from the newly revised grading
sheet.
Page 2
Number:155 Created:117/2002 Resolved
1/7/02 Repeat. Provide the design for the Mason Street and Fossil Creek Ped/Bike
Connections and construct with this project.
Number:156 Created:1/7/2002 Resolved
1/7/02 A public street is required in the proposed Affordable Housing area - this will solve
several code requirements that this project is not currently meeting. The proposed entry off
College does not meet current street or PFA standards and the homes exceed the 200'
maximum distance to a street sidewalk. See redlines. See 9.4.2. And on a more personal
note, this type of project will be attracting a lot of single parents with small children and
young families with babies and toddlers. Please try to imagine living on the south side of the
second row of buildings, furthest away from parking, and trying to carry groceries, babies,
strollers, and whatever else you've got to juggle. Barely tolerable in good weather, unsafe
and unbearable in winter. Please keep this in mind when redesigning this area.
Number:157 Created:l/7/2002 Resolved
1/7102 The proposed cul-de-sac on the north end of the property does not meet street or
ADA standards. Please see Site Plan redlines. This needs to be an intersection of two
public streets. See your planner for several ideas for how the streets might align.
Number:165 Created:117/2002 Resolved
[4121/06] Kaye and I went through the easements together and found 3 more that need to
be dedicated to the city. She is in the process of getting those documents to along with
$250 per dedication.
[9113/05] 1 have received the information below and have it under review. I will get back to
you shortly.
[2/11/05] Still waiting for all offsite easements, Iegals, reception numbers. An email was
sent to Northstar Design on January 11th outlining the row vacation process and what
needed to be turned in. Still waiting for all appropriate documents. See comment 226 as
well as others.
1/7/02 Easements provided are on the wrong form. Please see attached.
Number:181 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/16/1: Block 2 of Redtail Pond - building B is out of access. Street exceeds the maximum
dead end street length of 150'. Must provide an 80' turnaround with this configuration.
8/14/2: Repeat Comment.
Number:182 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/16/1: 3.6.6.D.3 - Buildings over 3 stories in height require an access road with a minimum
unobstructed width of 30'. This requirement takes precedence over the 24' and 28'
requirements mentioned elsewhere.
8/14/2: Repeat Comment. The privates drives at buildings N,O, P must be 30' MINIMUM -
sprinkling the buildings does not eliminate this requirement. This configuration is
unacceptable to PFA. No private drives off of private drives. How will these buildings be
addressed or accessed in an emergency? Please contact Ron Gonzales with PFA
regarding this area.
Number:185 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/1611: Show the redtail hawk buffer area on all sheets.
8/14/2: Repeat Comment. This needs to be shown on all plan sets.
Page 3
Number:189 Created:1/16/2002 Resolved
1/1611: From Matt Baker in Street Oversizing - No Street Oversizing participation in this
project.
Number:214 Created:8/15/2002 Resolved
8/15/2: The 30' proposed gravel road through the ponds for the waterline is not acceptable
to Natural Resources. Please contact Doug Moore to discuss the work being proposed in
the wetland area. A pedestrian connection was required through here if a public road is not
going through and the pedestrian connection must be ADA compliant - a gravel surface is
not.
Number:217 Created:8/15/2002 Resolved
Per a meeting with the developer and all city departments on 4/21/02, the bench on the west
side of the pond next to the RR ROW must be coordinated with the Mason Street Corridor
Plan and designed and constructed with the Redtail project.
Number:226 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
[9/13/05] 1 have the legals, will get back to you with the next step.
[2/11/05] Repeat comment - the offsite sight distance easement from the neighboring
property owner still needs to be dedicated to the city. Please submit a legal description and
an exhibit for our review and approval. Once we have reviewed and approved the
paperwork, the developer needs to have the neighboring property owner sign our dedication
statement granting the sight distance easement to the city.
03/31/3: The new site layout eliminates one of the sight distance triangles, however, the
need for the other is still there. Please see the horizontal control sheets for redlines.
8/14/2: Dedicate two sight distance triangles on the north side of Fossil Blvd. See detail 7-
16.
Number:227 Created: 8/1612002 Resolved
8/14/2: Design the two cul-de-sacs to standard drawing 7-24A. Remove all of the bulb outs,
and design the sidewalk to standard. See redlines.
Number:228 Created: 8/1612002 Resolved
8/16/2: Buildings A and I are out of emergency access. Both buildings exceed the 150' limit
and require an 80' turnaround with this configuration.
Number:229 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: See 9.4.2 Entrance Angle - all driveways must intersect the street at 90 degress,
plus or minus 10, for a minimum of 25'.
Number:230 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: See detail 19-03 for parking setback requirements.
Number:231 Created:8116/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Driveways must be a minimum of 20' from BOW to the garage door. Most
driveways shown are out of compliance. Also, MF driveways must be 24' - 36' wide with a
min of 12' between driveway edges, most driveways shown are out of compliance.
Page 4
Number:232 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: No more than 500 sf of drainage may be discharged across a sidewalk. The
driveways at the ends of the two cul-de-sacs need to be looked at.
Number:234 Created:8116/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: See detail 16-5. Access ramps shown in the cul-de-sac area do not line up with the
sidewalks and are not designed to standard.
Number:235 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: A sidewalk connection from Fossil Blvd to the Frontage Road is required. Please
contact Transportation Planning for the location and extent.
Number:237 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: The porkchop at Fossil Blvd and College is insufficient - it is too easy for people to
turn left and go north on College.
Number:238 Created:8/16/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Show how the 20' waterline access road ties into the parking lot to the north - how
does what's shown work?
Number:246 Created:8116/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Please see comments 240-245 under "Plat".
Number:263 Created:8/29/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Show all existing utilities on and off -site (within 150') as requested earlier -
especially around the ponds. Show the RR fence along the west property line and the
existing fence along the south property line.
Number:264 Created:8/29/2002 Resolved
8/14/2: Show and identify the existing power line & power line easement along the south
side of the project on the plan sets. Depending on its type and location, the line may be
required to be undergrounded per 3.3.2.D. And/or there may be a buffer zone on the poles
as well, again depending on the type and size of the line.
3/31/3: Repeat comment.
Number:298 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Smooth the sidewalk transition from the existing to proposed on College Avenue. Also, the
proposed off -site sidewalk connection to Coronado Court is a little awkward. Please smooth
out that transition as well.
Number:299 Created:3/3112003 Resolved
The off-street cul-de-sac parking must be designed in accordance with 19-21L.
Number:300 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
[2/11105] This comment was originally made on 3131/03. 1 have included it again to show
that we have continuously stated that no structures of any kind are allowed in the utility
easements. It has been brought up several times over the years.
All structures must be a minimum of 2' from the back of walk. No permanent structures
(retaining walls, timbers, etc) are allowed in utility easements.
Page 5
Number:301 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
[2/11 /05] Still waiting for the offsite dedications.
3/31/2003 A sight distance triangle must be provided from the first driveway located off the
north side of Fossil Blvd. See redlines.
Number:302 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Please connect the parking lot from lot 13 of the Fossil Creek Office Park to the driveway off
Fossil Blvd to improve the circulation for the lots off Coronado Court.
Number:303 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Directional ramps are required at all intersections in Fort Collins.
Number:304 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Remove the access ramps located at the north end of the bridge. They do not provide any
real benefit at this location.
Number:306 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
Please contact Natural Resources regarding building placement and natural area buffers.
Number:309 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
[9/13/05] Repeat only because you'll need the info for your DCOT permit (not me).
[2/1/05] [517/04] Repeat comment.
CDOT will want to know whether or not you are increasing water into College Avenue.
Number:320 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
From Traffic Engineering: Median at 287 and Cameron, on Cameron, is problematic now
that no other exit road exists for Coronado Court. Need to rediscuss median.
(Staff review concluded that the parking lot from Lot 13 should be connected to Fossil Blvd
or the driveway area to improve overall circulation).
Number:321 Created:3/31/2003 Resolved
From Traffic Engineering: Alley access in Fossil Blvd cul-de-sac should be straightened out.
Very poor site issues in current configuration. Should parallel east side of adjacent bldg.
Number:326 Created:412/2003 Resolved
The monthly meeting with CDOT was canceled due to the blizzard and no comments from
CDOT were obtained for this round of review. The next meeting with Tess is scheduled for
the 17th of April. If you would like her input on that date, please submit another set of
utility/site/landscape plans prior to that date for her review. Or you can wait until you
resubmit, either way is fine.
Number:367 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[2/11/05][1/31/051 [5/7/04] Repeat comment. Please. Somebody needs to provide this.
8/6/3: Please provide legals and exhibits and put them on disk. We can start working on
this now but the actual vacation will occur after public hearing.
From Technical Services: Streets must be vacated by Council Action
Page 6
Number:377 Created:8/5/2003 Resolved
[517/04] Repeat comment.
The area in front of the retaining walls on the north side of Cameron Drive is
unmaintainable. Widen the sidewalk out to the wall to fill in that area with concrete.
Number:402 Created:8/8/2003 Resolved
[2111051 Please provide copies of all offsite easements. Please label all offsite easements
with the reception number on the plan sets.
[5/7/04] Public Access Easement now shown, just need to provide us with a copy of the
recorded document and label the plans with the reception number. Will not need to do this
as a separate easement if you put a public access easement on the whole tract which you
will need to do anyway or no one will have access to their homes or the open space areas.
(08/08/03) Sheet 12 - Provide a Public Access Easement for the portion of the drive aisle
shown on the lot to the south of bldg G and Garage 1.
Number:460 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[2/1/05] [5/7/04] The various plan sets need to be coordinated so that they all present the
same information. For example, some easements are shown on some plans but not on
others. Suggest preparing an exhibit with all of the easements (both on and off site) shown
so that everybody gets on the same page.
Number:461 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[2/1/05] [517/041 Please provide a copy of all of the recorded offsite easements by separate
document along with their reception numbers. Label the reception numbers on the plans.
Number:462 Created:5/7/2004 Resolved
[2/1/05] [5/7/04] Handrails are required anywhere the retaining walls exceed 30".
Number:463 Created:517/2004 Resolved
[2/1/05] Permanent easements are required if the footings are not within your property
boundaries. A design for all retaining walls are required on the utility plan set if over 2' and if
in or effecting the public row.
[5/7/04] Retaining walls are shown on the west and north side of the property. Please
confirm the depth of the modular blocks and that you will not need a temporary or
permenant easement from either the RR or the property owner from the north.
Number:484 Created:2/1/2005 Resolved
[211105] The project title needs to match on the various plan sets. The utility plans call the
project "Redtail Residential", the site, landscape and plat plan calls it "Redtail". Pick one
name and call it that on everything.
Number:503 Created:2/11/2005 Resolved
[2/11/05] The public sidewalk along College needs to be 2/ wider where attached at the
retaining IF the wall is allowed by the Utilities.
Number:517 Created:2/14/2005 Resolved
[2/14/05] The easements on the Plat, Site, Landscape and Utility plans need to match.
Number:518 Created:2/15/2005 Resolved
[2/15/05] A public access easement through the underground garage is required.
Page 7