Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-07-231 � Affordable Housing ®®1B A Comment Sheet Current Planning DATE: May 9, 2000 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #17-00 Flying Cherokee Heights — PDP — Type 1 (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: oq\" Wednesday, May !7, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference AI o Co RI.&C Rvl(� signature 5-3 t-0 Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site _Drainage Report _other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Citv of Fort Collins Communitv Planning and Environmental Services Cw rent Planning Citv of Fort Collins November 15, 2000 Mr. Mikal S. Torgerson 211 Jefferson Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Staff review comments for Cherokee Flying Heights Dear Mr. Torgerson, This letter is in response to plans for the Cherokee Flying Heights — Project Development Plan (Current Planning File #17-00 — Type 1 Review) submitted on October 3, 2000, This development proposal is subject to and shall comply with all requirements set forth in the City's Land Use Code (LUC), specifically: Articles 2. Administration (Development Review Procedures); Article 3. General Development Standards; Article 4. [Zoning] District; and, the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) requires that throughout all land use proceedings, the burden to comply with all applicable standards rest with the applicant. After reviewing materials submitted by the applicant, staff fncs that revisions including various levels of re -design to the submitted plans dated 11/01/00 are warranted to meet the Land Use Code. The following lists the agencies and departments that responded and their comments are attached: A. Water Conservation B. Light & Power C. Zoning D. AT&T E. Natural Resources F. Advance Planning G. Engineering H. Water/Wastewater I. Stormwater J. Technical Services K. Traffic Operations L. Current Planning - the following comments are from the Current Planning Department: Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit revisions based on this letter within 90 days or the project application becomes null and void. Your response to the City's concerns is due by February 14, 2001. A 30-day extension to this deadline is available. Request for an extension should be directed to the Current Planning Director. If remaining issues are those that do not require plan revisions, a status report verifying continuing efforts toward resolving the issues is required within the same timeline. "I \i,Ith CoII(}'. \N "!Itj( • P( ). &i\ �80 • Foot ClflIin,, CO 80522-0,580 • (U_ll) 121-6750 • FAN (970) 41b-0020 2. Proposed plans sheet need to note the project as a Project Development Plan. All plans and drawings must be scaled/detailed and are to be compatible with the overall development and utility plans and based upon Land Use Code standards. 3. Provide an overall site plan showing the proposed site plan in relation to the surrounding area. This plan shall include an area within five hundred (500') feet of the proposal which include all land uses, location of principal structures, site improvements, traffic circulation, gross and net densities of residential uses, exclusive of public right-of-way. 4. Signed letters of intent indicating that all required off -site easements and off -site rights -of -way necessary for the project can be negotiated in time for the final compliance plan submittal. 5. Delineate all property line setbacks for all proposed and existing structures and improvements, Taft Hill right-of-way width and improvements on all plans as required by the submittal requirements of the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. 6. The PDP plan sets need to include the exact building envelope/footprint dimensions and distance to nearest platted property lines as required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. 7. The PDP plan set needs to include permanent and temporary drainage courses and structures (please coordinate with Stormwater Utility and Engineering). 8. The landscape plan set needs to indicate the treatment of all exterior spaces including plant sizing meeting City standards and actual vegetation locations as required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. 9, Per LUC Section 3.2.1(D)(2) street trees shall be placed at thirty-foot to forty -foot spacing intervals in the center of all parkway areas. The trees shall be placed at least eight (8) feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys, and forty feet (shade trees)/fifteen feet (ornamental trees) (LUC 3.2.1(K) from any street light. 10. Section 3.2,1(E)(2)(d) of the LUC requires foundation -planting beds a minimum of 5 feet wide along at least 50% of all high -use or high -visibility facades. 11. Please note LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (a) and (b) address the need to screen parking areas with the a plan clearly identifying the extent and location of all plant material and landscape features. All parking lots need to meet the parameters addressed in LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(a) — (e) including 3.2.2(B)(5)(a) walkways shall have one (1) canopy shade tree per forty (40) lineal feet of walkways planted in a landscape strip within five (5) feet of such walkway. 12, If there are trees proposed to be removed, please note Section 3.2.1(F) of the Land Use Code. 13. Address all visual clearance and sight distance triangle areas per Section 3.2.1(L) of the Land Use Code, they have not been shown. 14. The following comments apply to the design and siting of the structures: a. Please indicate all building colors on the Building Elevations in accordance with Sections 3.5.1(F) and 3.5.1(G) of the Land Use Code (include color chips and building materials). b. Ideally, move residential dwelling structures (3 and 6-plexes) to southern property line to create a more urban scale development on future Oak Street. If this is not possible, retain cottages and provide direct pedestrian connection to Taft Hill Road. c. Sections 3.5.1(D); 3.52 (C)(1); 3.5.2(C)(1) - (2), 4.5(D)(2)(d) requires that to the maximum extent feasible that primary facades and entries face the adjacent street. Further, every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from an established street sidewalk system. d. A direct walkway (min.4.5') needs to be placed parallel to the south property to connect western most dwelling units to Taft Hill Road without requiring all pedestrian movements cross drive aisles. e. Minimum back-up distance on private drive for cottage unit garages is 24'. f. Please indicate on the elevations the height of the ridgelines, eaves, et cetera. 15. According to Section 3.2.2(C)(3) site amenities such as canopies and benches, etcetera must be provided with the Project Development Plan. 16. Are trash enclosures proposed with this PDP? If proposed, trash enclosures need to incorporate recycling and scaled design elevations for all trash enclosures need to be submitted to insure compliance. Section 3.5.1(J)(1) and (2) requires that no trash enclosure be located within twenty (20) feet of any public street, public sidewalk or internal pedestrian way and screened with vegetative landscaping. 17. Provide a detail for all fence designs, all fences and walls need to meet LUC Section 3.8.11. 18. Section 3.5.1(J) (2)&(3) require that utility meters, HVAC equipment, vaults, irrigation boxes, transformers, and other utility service functions (such as conduits, and vents) shall be located and screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view of the adjacent properties and public streets, Please provide a sketch of the building complete with all of the utility elements and the proposed screening so it can be determined whether or not these requirements are being met. There is currently not enough information provided to make this determination. 19. Provide a detailed lighting plan (spec. sheet for all wall fixtures) insuring that all lighting apparatuses are shielded down, which meets Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4(A) — (D). 20. After revising the site/landscape, please make sure the minimum species diversity is provided in accordance with Section 3.2.1(D)(3) of the Land Use Code. 21. This development must comply with all applicable General Development Standards as set forth in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, including but not limited to the requirements for vehicle and bicycle parking, parking, building setbacks, landscaping, fence screening, et cetera. These development standards are set forth in the following divisions: A) Division 3.1 General Provisions B) Division 3.2 Site Planning and Design Standards C) Division 3.3 Engineering Standards D) Division 3.4 Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards E) Division 3.5 Building Standards F) Division 3.6 Transportation and Circulation G) Division 3.7 Compact Urban Growth Standards H) Division 3.8 Supplementary Regulations 22. Coordinate all easements, open areas, street, sidewalk and pedestrian crossings, infrastructure through out the development with Natural Resources, Stormwater, Traffic Operations, Engineering, Transportation Planning Services and other affected departments and outside reviewing agencies. All infrastructure provisions need to be met and are to be in compliance with the Land Use Code. Please call to set up a meeting if necessary. 23. All certification blocks on the project development plan shall be consistent with language as required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. 24. Return all reclined documents with plan revisions, including reclined plans with Current Planning comments. Prior to formal re -submittal, it is pertinent that City staff meets with you and your team to discuss issues relating to the plans. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are reviewed and received from City departments and frcm outside reviewing agencies. Please provide a written response to each of the above comments with the submittal of plan revisions. Please return all drawings and reports reclined by City staff with submission of your revisions that are clearly dated and labeled as revised plans. Please see the attached Revisions Routing Sheet for the number of copies of revisions to submit. To facilitate the complete re -submittal of the application with supplemental materials, please have your project manager contact Ginger Dodge and/or Voneen Macklin of the Current Planning Department at 970.221.6750. Please contact me at 970.221.6750 and/or e-mail: rfuchs^c ci.fcrt-collins.co.us if you should have any questions or concerns related to these comments. Sincerely, Ronald G. Fuchs City Planner cc: Current Planning File #17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights Tier Two Current Planning Comments REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 14, 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights PDP — Type H (LUC) PLANNER: Cameron Gloss ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: March 7, 2001 ❑ No Problems 2 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Notes: 1. Because of the 57' of right-of-way for the future connector street down the middle of the property, permanent structures cannot be place within the right-of-way, including trees. Picnic tables should not be an issue, although an encroachment permit will be required from Engineering to place the picnic tables within right-of-way. 2. The developer will be required to escrow the cost for the future roadway (full -width) internal to the site, plus 15% (for surveying, construction management, etc .) This will be further specified in the development agreement for the project. 3. It was discussed at City Staff review that offsite grading/construction easements may be needed to construct the project (such as the channels along the north and south property lines.) Letters of intent From the property owners are required prior to a hearing for any offsite easements needed. 4. With this design, is a utility coordination meeting of potential use? 5. Overall, these comments are not of significant issue for the project to go to hearing. Other departments may have concerns. Engineering Comments: 1. The General Notes have recently been re -revised. Please see attached. These notes are also available in electronic Microsoft Word T" 97 format and can be electronically mailed if preferred. 2. There appears to be an incorrect elevation on the grading plan. 3. The Land Use Code does not permit water from a private drive to drain across a public sidewalk. The design of the driveway out to Taft Hill Road needs to ensure water is conveyed beneath the walk or revise the high point to be behind the walk. (The high point can be set at the edge of the new right- of-way, behind where a future detached sidewalk would be located to comply with this requirement.) 4. It should be noted that with the future street construction, the driveway approaches to both sides of the future street may be reconstructed and a revision to plan set may be needed. (The design of the driveway approaches in the reference drawing will need to comply with the City Street Designs in place at the time of construction.) Date: March 16, 2001 Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS 10 Plat Q Site 21 Utility 10 Landscape 11 Drainage R port ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS 5. Is all the curb and gutter on site inflow except the outfall curb & gutter labeled along the west edge of the parking lot? 6. Please clarify if the hatching of the sidewalk at the intersections of the turnaround in the middle of the site are indicating scored concrete or perhaps access ramps? 7. Access ramps appear to be needed on locations internal to the site. Provide a detail of the access ramps in the detail sheet. Coordinate access ramp and sidewalk location with the site plan. Plat Comments: 1. 9' of utility easement needs to be ensured on both side of the 57' right-of-way (which is the case as currently shown.) 2. 'Me entire of the private drive and turnaround on the west edge of this site needs to be delineated as an emergency access easement on the plat. Site Plan: 1. Coordinate between the site plan and utility plan, the site plan shows different sidewalk connections compared to the utility plan and also shows access ramps where the utility plan doesn't. 2. The site plan shows sidewalks and channels in the same location. Landscape Plan 1. The drawings are at 20 scale, not 30 scale. 2. Remove the trees within the right-of-way for the future street. Lighting Plan 1. The drawings are at 20 scale, not 30 scale. 2. What are the symbols redlined on the plan set within the right-of-wav? Development Review Comments — Page 2 February 14, 2001 Project No: 1760-01-00 Marc Virata City of Fort Collins Engineering Department P.O. Box 580 Ft Collins, Colorado 80524 Re: Cherokee Flying Heights; Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Marc, SHEAR ENGINEERING This is a response to your most recent review comments concerning the Final Utility Plans and Final Plat for Cherokee Flying Heights. This response addresses utility plan and final plat review comments, as well as written comments noted on your Revision Comment Sheet signed and dated November 16, 2000. Response to general items: ❑ We have been unable to locate redlined plans from the previous submittal. We hope this is not a problem. Thank you for faxing us your Revision Comment Sheet from your previous review. The Cover Sheet General Notes have now been revised according to Tim Blandford's Affordable Housing Comment Sheet signed and dated May 23, 2000. The General Notes which Tim provided are attached here for immediate reference. Please note that the phone number for the Erosion Control Inspector has been changed. If you have current General Notes which have been further modified since May, 23, 2000, please provide these to us with your next review comments. If not. You may want to update your standard General Notes accordingly. Responses to written comments ❑ We have ensured that a crosspan across the future north -south street maintains a minimum 0.60% slope_ Refer to the plan and profile. Also refer to the intersection detail created for representing future intersection conditions. This detail can be found on the Master Utility Plan sheet. ❑ The plan and profile for the future north -south street exhibits both the existing centerline profile and the proposed centerline profile. ❑ Thank you for your support of the modification to the maximum dead end length of a private drive being no more than 150 feet. ❑ We understand that additional comments may be made because of the extensive re -design since the last submittal and review. 1810 S. College, suite 12 Ft_ Collins. CU 80525 (9-0) 226r5; i i Fax (9-0) 282-011 1 \N,ww.sheireiiginccring.com PAGE 2 February 14, 2001 Project No: 1760-01-00 Re: Cherokee Flying Heights; Fort Collins, Colorado We trust that this response has addressed a majority of your specific comments and concerns. If YOU have any questions or further comments during your next detailed project review, please call at (970) 226-53A. Sincerely, Brian W. Shear, P.E. 11--� Shear Engineering Corporation BWS / mo cc: Mike Jensen Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Mikal Torgerson; M Torgerson Architects Derek Marchi; Advanced Professional Engineering Rick Lewis, RJL Surveyors .IIII , AFFORDABLE HOUSING \� RE- VISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: July 31, 2001 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights PDP -Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 22, 2001 ElNo Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** Qk1RCa HERE IF YOU WIS_H_TO RECENE COPIES of REVISIONSSignature:_ Plat Site _ Drainage Report _ Other Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape Fort %9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: July 31, 2001 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights PDP - Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 22, 2001 No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** I 7. Oh1gILia� hecd5 �j� ae rl"a, Icx% cotA(c� be )C1rgCv. B �ql; � re)�>re 4ce_ DMeK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONSSignature: _ Plat Site _ Drainage Report _ Other Utihty _ Redline Utility Landscape Citv of Fort Collins :: :: Current Planning Affordable Housing Comment Sheet DATE: May 9, 2000 TO: Mapping/Drafting PROJECT: #17-00 Flying Cherokee Heights PDP — Type 1 (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, May ,4000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference of orL umarJ7-,� Is Mfssiwf C�0S,5- ✓ A26A `-� n �eeA TV0.ct � r aI�A- dint I tI fb • Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Flat Site _Drainage Report Other Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Citv of Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: August 27, 2001 PROJECT: CHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS, #17-00 All comments must be received by RON FUCHS in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 07, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Dept: Water Wastewater 21 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Reduce proposed water main from an 8-inch to a 6-inch at the intersection of the private drive and future Pennsylvania Street. 22 Issue Contact. Jeff Hill Use a 6-inch 90 degree fitting at the end of the private drive. 23 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill As previously indicated, maintain a 4 feet minimum separation between the outside wall of the meter pit and all building envelops. 24 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Show locations of gas and electric on the overall utility plan. 25 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill As previously indicated, Pothole existing water main located in Tafthill Road and provide pothole information on these plans. 26 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Coordinate landscape plan with utility plan. 1 of 2 Signature` Date CHECK HERE. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS X Plat X Site Drainage Report - Other X Utility x Redline Utility -X Landscape 2 of Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Cityof Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 4, 2001 PROJECT: CHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS, #17-00 All comments must be received by CAMERON GLOSS in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 07, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Dept: Engineering 8 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The playground in the right-of-way for the future street is inconsistent with City policy. Please remove all notes pertaining to equipment within this area. Issue Contact: Marc Virata A (new) low spot appears to be created along the parking area on the south side of the private drive. Is this intended? 10 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The plan set shows unreadable contours. It would still be preferred if the utility plan drawings were enlarged to a 30 or 20 scale. 30 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Private Drive note is needed on the plat. Add the following note (as attached to the utility plan copy of the plat): ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES. 1 of 2 31 Issue Contact. Marc Virata Landscape Comments: These comments were made from the previous round of review: - The scale is incorrect (1"=20', not 1"=30') - Remove trees within the right-of-way for the future street. G CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Palal t t _ Drainage Report Other tility edline Utility _ Landscape 2 of December 26, 2001 Project No: 1760-01-00 City of Fort Collins, Current Planning P.O. Box 580 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Attn: Cameron Gloss Re: Cherokee Flying Heights; Fort Collins, Colorado Responses To Comments, Comments Dated September 4, 2001 Dear Mr. Gloss, This is a response to review comments concerning the Final Utility Plans and Final Plat for Cherokee Flying Heights dated September 4, 2001. These responses address utility plan and final plat review comments. Original comments and responses are provided to applicable technical concerns Engineering 9. A (new) low spot appears to be created along the parking area on the south side of the private drive. is this intended? R (trading has been modified, and the low spot as previously presented has been removed. Sudace drainage from the parking areas south of the private drive, is north to the grater and flows east to the cross pans. At that point flows continue south into the detention pond. Site sections have been modified to reflect the same modification. 10. The plan set shows unreadable contours. It would still be preferred if the utility plan drawings were enlarg,d to a 30 or 20 scale. R Acknowledged. All labels have been revisited and changed appropriately to make more legible. These changer have been made, ivhile retaining the same scale. 30. Private Drive note is needed on the plat. Add the following note (as attached to the utility plan copy of the plat): "ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVE LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY 1816 S. College, Sufic 12 Ft. Collins, (:O 80525 (970) 226-5334 Fax (970) 282-0311 w�vw. sh ea re ngince ri ng. corn Project No: 1760-01-00 December 26, 2001 Re: Cherokee Flying Heights; Fort Collins, Colorado Responses To Comments, Comments Dated September 4, 2001 OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES." R Acknowledged The text as requested has been added to the plat as mote 7 on Sheet 2 of 2. Technical Services 2. Original needs to be of clear quality to reproduce. Text could be larger. IZ Acknowledged. Our opinion is that the plat is currently legible, of clear quality and acceptable. Transportation Planning 5. Site plan needs to show walkway connections from the building entrances to the sidewalk system. R Walkway connections between the sidewalks and building entrances are now provided. Stormwater Please provide documentation on pumping system and describe in text of the report how pump will function with outlet system. Include pump literature and all accessories needed in order to operate the system. Also, please show pump on all outlet structure details in the plan set. IZ pump information is provided in .Section VI.B.5 of the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report. 'Text, as taken from that section states: "A sump pump will be required to transport nuisance flows from the water quality box structure to the upper orifice. The only req uirement for the sump pump is to pump the specified WOCV (1,864 cubic feel) over a 40-hour• lime period. Therefore, the pump must Arntspotl 0.0129 cfs or approximately 6 gpm. The pump specified for this project is a 4" submersible pump designated 5-50R front Aernuotor. The pump can transport water at approximately 9 gpm. Spegfiicalions and a rating curve for this pump are found attached to this report in Appendix III. " R Pump literature is included in Appendix III `Pump Specifications. " The pump is represented out the Master Drainage and Isrosion Control Plan, within the outlet structure detail. Should additional it formation and/or detail be required, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss and provide directly so that additional written connnents and all additional resubtnittal can be avoided. Page 2 Project No: 1760-01-00 December 26, 2001 Re: Cherokee Flying Heights; Fort Collins, Colorado Responses To Comments, Comments Dated September 4, 2001 2. Please clarify the release rate for the pond at the 100-year WSEL and make sure the rating curve is consistent with calculations. The orifice calculations show the 2-year rate of 0.79 cfs as the release and the rating curve says 1. 15 cfs. It The release rate has been re-evaluated and corrected oil both the drainage plan and the calculations. The rating carve is consistent oil both the Master Drainage and Arosion Control Plan, and with the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report. The 2 year release rate for a 100 year storm is 0.79 cfs, and agrees with the rating curve. 3. Please provide more stages for the pond -rating curve and document the WQSEL and 100- year water surface elevation. The volume for the water quality pond should be in addition to the water detention volume. Please explain in the text the proposed design for the site. R Additional stages for the pond -rating carve have been calculated and are provided on both the Master Drainage and Erosion Control Platt, and the Tinal Drainage and Erosion Control Report. The WOSEL of 5068.33 feet, and the 100 year WSEL of 5071.82 are presented The 100 year WSh;L includes both water quality storage phns detention storage. Calculations and discussions thereofare provided in the drainage and erosion control report. Text has been added clar!fying the proposed design. 4. Please provide i-foot of freeboard for the detention pond. If this site does not allow for the total amount of freeboard, then explain the circumstances and document a need for a variance in the text of the report. R Onc foot of freehoard is not possible for the site. However, 0.18 foot is provided. The site does not allow for one foot of freeboard, since all sur-r•ounding properties are developed. Site drainage is constrained by the surrounding properties. Text is included in the report, Seclion VILA.1, addressing the need fur a variance. Text, as taken from that section states: "7he wafer quality/detention pond al the southeast end of the site has a maximum WSP;L of 5071.82, which allows for only 0.18 feet of freeboard to the top of the retaining wall. 7his is much less than the required 1.0 feet of freeboard according to section 9.2 of the City, of Fort Collins Slorm Drainage Design Criteria and Constructon Standards rrrarmal. Since all lard surrounding the sire is developed, there are grading constraiols around the perimeter of the site. Due to these constraints, it is impossible to provide the mitttntnn of 1.0 feel of freeboard required for detention ponds. Therefore, a variance from the City of Port Collins requirements is requested. " 5_ Please use a well screen instead of the gravel filter for the water quality outlet structure. R A well screen has been incorporated info the design as requested. Please reference the Master Drainage cntd Erosion Conlrot Plan, outlet structure detail. Additonal detail is provided on the Drainage and Frosion Control Delail Sheet, sheet 14 of 14. S[recificalions for the well .screen have been provided in the report. Page 3 Project No: 1760-01-00 December 26. 2001 Re: Cherokee Flying Heights; Fort Collins, Colorado Responses To Comments, Comments Dated September 4, 2001 Water I Wastewater 21. Reduce proposed water main from an 8-inch to a 6-inch at the intersection of the private drive and future Pennsylvania Street. R As requested, the water main has been reduced in size from 8 inches to 6 inches in diameter. 22. Use a 6-inch 90-degree fitting at the end of the private drive. R As requested, the fitting has been added to the utility plans. 23. As previously indicated, maintain a 4 feet minimum separation between the outside wall of the meter pit and all building envelopes. R The separation between the water meter pit and buildings is 4 feet. 24. Show locations of gas and electric on the overall utility plan. R Gas and electric are shown sharing a common trench on the Typical Street Sections Plan, sheet 7. These lines are not shown on the overall utility plan. In our opinion, showing these items would add unnecessary complexity. 25 As previously indicated, pothole existing water main located in Taft Hill Road and provide pothole information on these plans. R With all due respect, we feel that potholing in Taft Hill Road at the design phase is all unnecessary expense and a bin -den to the City of Fort Collins transportation system. We have experienced this situation in the past and have accommodated with additional construction note directives. We wound refer you to our handling of a similar situation with Lots 1-2, ]clock 5, Replat (No. I) of Evergreen Park. Construction directives were salisfactordy accommodated during construction. R Construction Note No. 2 oil the Master Utility Plan states that verification of the horizontal crud vertical locatiorn of the .sainitary sewer, and therefore the requirement of lowering the water line shall be determined in the field during construction activities. This shall he coordincrled, if necessary, with Shear Engineering Canporation at that time. A note on the "Street cued Utility Plan and Profile" sheet cross-references the note above. Thal portion of the Mcrter Utility Plan sheet presenting Note No. 2 is attached to this document for immediate reference. This some procedure was coordinated and found acceptable by Mr. Roger Bilffnngton for the fire line installation oil Blue Spruce with Lots 1-2, Block 5, Replat (No. 1) ofl;veigreen Park. We have included a print of the Master Utility Plan for Lois 1-2, Block 5, Replat (No. 1) of Evergreen Park for immediate reference. Page 4 Project No: 1760-01-00 Re Cherokee Flying Heights; Fort Collins, Colorado Responses To Comments, Comments Dated September J, 2001 December 26, 2001 R We feel the plans and the lowering detail provided, adequately prepare the contractor for the crossings. Potholing in Taft Hill Road is unwarranted at the design stage. Additionally, this procedure will he the safest during construction activities, will provide the smoothest flow of traffic, and will allow the contractor to thoroughly inspect existing conditions. R We would he glad to meet with you to discuss this item firrther, if necessary. 26. Coordinate landscape plan with utility plan. R Acknowledged. We trust that this response has addressed a majority of your specific comments and concerns. If you have any questions or further comments during your next detailed project review, please call at (970) 226-5334. Sincerely, 9 Michael Rohlfs Shear Engineering Corporation MR/dh attachments cc: Mike Jensen Mikal Torgerson; M Torgerson Architects Derick Mai -chi, Advanced Professional Engineering Inc. Rick Lewis; RJL Surveyors Marc Virata; City of Fort Collins Engineering Wes Lamarque; City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility Jeff Hill, City of Fort Collins Water / Wastewater Page 5 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 4, 2002 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights PDP -Type II (LUC) D?AICK H Plat Utility All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss no later than the staff review meeting: February 20, 2002 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** Site Drainage Report _ Other Redline Utility landscape AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: May 9, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: # 17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights — PDP — Type 1 (LUC) PLANNER: Ron Fuchs ENGINEER: Tim Blandford All comments must be received by: May 24, 2000 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: Utility Plan Comments: • Please modify the General Notes as described on the attached sheet. Response: • Currently the Site and Landscape plans do not match the Utility Plans. Please revise as necessary. Pay close attention to the parking stalls, private drive, building elevations. Response: • Please resolve the property line issue along the west side of this development. You may want to contact Wally Muscott of the City's surveying department for direction. Response: • You will need to dedicate an additional 27.5 feet of ROW along Taft Hill Road adjacent to this property. This requirement is in compliance with the City Code. Response: Date: May 23, 2000 Signature: PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS 121 Plat Rl Site 2 Utility 2 Landscape 11 Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS February 4, 2002 Cameron Gloss, AICP Current Planning Director City of Fort Collins 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Cameron: Attached is our response to planning comments. ISSUES: Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes 11 Friendly suggestion/question on small peaked porch roofs On Bldg 3 south elevation and Bldg 4 north elevation, these peak features look a little unusual, not being over the entrances. and not having any visible horizontal beam or vertical column supports, as is typical for this kind of feature. Unless I'm missing something, they would be stronger positive features if they were handled this way. Also; could they in fact project forward a little bit from the shed roof with columns supporting a visible beam and an interesting little peaked structure? (See Enclosed scratches on elevation drawing) We acknowledge the consideration of meter banks and the siding with paint (vs vinyl). One other little question though - could there be some variation in color shades, and not monotonous repetition of the beige? Thanks. In any infill project compatibility is important. This is particularly important in projects that attempt rather high densities. I think that this was a very good suggestion. These suggestions were explored, and expanded on with what I regard as good results. 12 Provide parking lot perimeter landscaping The parking lot at the rear of the lot, south side, needs to meet 3.2. 1 (E)(4)(b). This is a basic, long-standing requirement. Also in this same location, the sidewalk is squeezed beyond what is useable and reasonable. Please omit the southernmost stall and use the 9 feet to provide perimeter landscaping and a more comfortable sidewalk. Please look at this in detail, at 20 scale minimum, and maybe larger. I don't know the exact parking count, but if this were to eliminate a unit, that could be beneficial in other ways because of the tight packing on this rather unusual development parcel. L 223 Norfh College Fad Collin+CO 80524 970 416.7431 1.888.416.7431 Fox: 970 416.7435 Email: rmkol@amWCx.mm hffp://w ..orchilex.com 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) requires "Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights." We are providing landscaping as well as a six foot fence with crawling ivy. This will block 90%+ of light from vehicle headlights. The parking was reworked to free up more space in this area and separate it from the parking let. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Cameron Gloss 27 Bicycle Parking The applicant may wish to consider several small bicycle parking racks more evenly distributed through the development. As proposed, the two larger racks are not "near building entrances" as required under 3 3.2(4)(c). The large bicycle parking areas have been broken up and placed closer to the building entrances in order to comply with 3.3.2(4)(c) 28 Plat misspelling The owner's name is mispelled on the plat This has been corrected Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata 8 The playground in the right-of-way for the future street is inconsistent with City policy. Please remove all notes pertaining to equipment within this area. The playground has been removed. 9 A (new) low spot appears to be created along the parking area on the south side of the private drive. Is this intended? Yes, this is needed for detention freeboard. 10 The plan set shows unreadable contours. It would still be preferred if the utility plan drawings were enlarged to a 30 or 20 scale. This has been clarified. 30 Private Drive note is needed on the plat. Add the following note (as attached to the utility plan copy of the plat): ALL RESPON"SIBILITIES.4,%D COSTS OF OPER 4TIQV. ;tL4lNTE.%,4NCE .aND RECONSTRLCTION OF THE PRLI ",I I L. STREETS. -I ND.,OR DRI I S LOCATED 0% THE PRIf'4 LE PROPERTY THAT LS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLITSH.-ILL BE BOR,%E BYTHE Off \ERSOFSAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTII'ELY. THRo(.'GH.a PROPER TYOIf'\ERS'ASSOCIATIO:V, IF.APPLIC4BLE. THE CITYOFFORT 'oI_13%SSH.-ILL11111 ;VUOBLIGATIO.VOFoPFR_ITloA.SIAlATE.SaNC'EORREC'ONSTRLC'TIO:%OF SV 'CII PRII',I TT .S'TREF7:S.-I:A'D OR DRLI'E.S NOR SH.4LL 7HE CITY' H I PE , i.%Y OBLIG.1 T/ONTO ACCEPT .V I'H.S7REF.TS,I%DORORLI'ESaSPUBLICSTREETSORDRIP"ES. This note was added to the plat. 31 Landscape Comments: These comments were made from the previous round of review: - The scale is incorrect (1 "=20', not 1 "=30) - Remove trees within the right-of-way for the future street. This has been corrected. Department: PFA 15 Issue Contact: Michael Chavez No new comments Issues were resolved in letter to Cameron Gloss dated 4112101 from Ron Gonzales. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff 5 Site plan needs to show walkway connections from the building entrances to the sidewalk system. These connections have been added. REPEAT COMMENT Bike racks need to be labelled on the site and landscape plans The bike racks are now labeled. REPEAT COMMENT: Bike rac,'<s need to be located where ramp access is available and does not cause damage to the vegetation. Bike racks have been relocated to meet these requirements Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes 1 REPEAT COMMENT They've now added the landscape assurance note, but the wording is not adequate. It needs to state something like "Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all landscaping must be installed or secured with an irrevocable, etc... This note has been changed to reflect this wording. 2 REPEAT COMMENT Looks like only 1 trash enclosure. People in Bldgs. 1, 2. 6, and 7 will have a long !may to carry their trash - between 250' and 400" While this was certainly a concern. After much study both from a planning and economic standpoint. we have concluded that while this is not ideal it is acceptable. 3 Need to label the picnic tables and bike racks on the site plan. These items are now labeled. The parking lot at the west end has one island. The landscape plan shows a ramp and walk going thru it and plants along the side. The parking lot needs 6% interior landscape islands and each island must contain at least 1 tree (section 3.2. 1 (E)(5)c. This island needs a tree. This island has been expanded to contain 6% of the parking area. It now includes a tree and landscaping. 13 Landscaping required along south side of west parking lot per 3.2.2(J) and 3.2.1(E)(4). The west parking lot is now set back 16'-0" from the side lot line to comply with 3.2.2(J) We are placing trees to comply with Section 3.2.2(J) which requires that trees be placed along side lot lines at 1 per 40'. 14 Indicate on site plan that there is an existing 6' privacy fence on neighbors property along south lot line adjacent to west parking lot. A six foot privacy fence has been added along the south lot line. In response to neighborhood comments, and in an effort to resolve some of the issues that were raised by staff, we removed one unit from the site plan. This also allowed a reduction in the parking areas and opened up more green space. This has been an extremely difficult site given all of the constraints that the economics of affordable housing presents along with the physical constraints of the area. We believe that the plans is much improved as a result of all of the City staff input we have received and are confident that we now have a plan that will meet all applicable criteria. Please feel free to call if you have any questions, ideas or comments. Sincerely, Mikal Torgerson M. Torgerson Architects REVISION C M/1MENT SHEET DATE: February 4, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights PDP - Type II (LUC) 06 All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss no later than the staff review meeting: February 20, 2002 ❑ No Comment ©%'Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** l 13ovroc7R2Y CL�ISES • . S�I44UV J i3 A sum„� LINE IJ., C. L-itjc � UMM HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONSSignature:_ +,-Plat Site _ Dramge Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape z-/N V L c,...J �s L, k� 7-(4 : a rtq er 6aProject Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: February 26, 2002 Project: CHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS, #17-00 All comments must be received by CAMERON GLOSS in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: February 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 37 Revise the year for all documents to 2002. Topic: Plat 32 Remove "Subdivision" from the Plat title (or add "P.D.P." to the title). 33 The name(s) of the lienholder(s) should be listed on the plat. 34 On the plat, remove the revisions listed on the revision sheet when a mylar copy is submitted. 35 Note #4 on the plat is no longer needed with the addition of Note #7. 36 Please ensure that the emergency access easement shown on the plat is extended through the utility easement to the Pennsylvania Street right-of-way. 38 It should be verified that City Light and Power needs to sign off on the plat and if so, who at Light and Power (or is the City Manager's signature required?) D to CHECK 117 IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ✓,Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility -7 Redline Utility ✓Landscape Page I Topic: Utility Plans 10 The plan set shows unreadable contours. It would still be preferred if the utility plan drawings were enlarged to a 30 or 20 scale. (2/20) Sheet 5 still has issues regarding clarity. There are portions of the plan that are unreadable and would not scan well with the Engineering Department's attempts to scan approved documents. Please change the scale of the drawing. 39 The plans now show stormwater ADS pipe (previously RCP) in right-of-way to be dedicated ADS is not allowed in right-of-way. 40 Show the stationing on Sheet 4 for the reference street profile. 41 The retaining walls along the south do not appear to be constructable without encroaching onto the property to the south. The detail of the retaining wall on Sheet 13 shows a Tooter that would encroach onto the property to the south based upon the cross sections shown on Sheet 7. A letter of intent would be required from the property owner to the south prior to a hearing with the actual easement subsequently required. 42 The utility drawings should reference a second project benchmark (2 total) as a check to better ensure staking is done in the proper location. Page 2 rl Affordable Housing ® r ® � Revision Comment Sheet `J J Current Planning . DATE: September 3, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT. #17-00B tCherokee Flying Heights Final Compliance - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Cameron Gloss no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference /, 3&1.A,oARy c�sEs. Z. NA M s /= su i3 i� r u t S i o �.\/ //J C FUA L- Dd c-S iVd-r- Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site. Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: September 24, 2002 Project: CHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS, PDP/FC #17-00/B All comments must be received by CAMERON GLOSS in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: September 18, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 62 The landscape plans appear to show a street light (by way of symbol) proposed within the western boundary of the additional right-of-way granted for Taft Hill Road. This or any other permanent type of structure should be relocated away from right-of-way. Ensure that information is coordinated between site, landscape, and utility plans. 63 Attached is an "Information for Development Agreements" Sheet which should be filled out in order to begin the Development Agreement process. Topic: Utility Plans 60 Previous redlines were apparently not received. These would be helpful to ensure any minor comments not typed on DMS but documented on redlines were addressed. 61 This project was formally submitted and is required to be reviewed under older Street Standards. Engineering would like the applicant/engineer to look at providing a radius style driveway (20' radii) off of Taft Hill Road (which would be required under the new street standards) instead of the driveway pan. Engineering views it as an advantage to allow faster turning movements off of Taft Hill Road. Dat HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other, Utility Redline Utility �iEandscape Page 1 • A 15 foot utility easement will need to be dedicated along Taft Hill Road adjacent to the ROW lie. Refer to the redlined Plat for the location. Response: • Please show all of the existing easements with the reception numbers on the Plat. Response: • Please confirm with Wally Muscott about the correct title of the Plat for this development. Response: • Please include the "Notice of Other Documents" language on the Plat. See the attached sheet for your reference. Response: • Please modify the Attorney's Certificate per the attached sheet. Response: • You will need to provide the ability to connect to the adjacent property to the north and to Oak Street to the south. These would need to be at a minimum public access easements. Chances are though, these connections would need to be public ROW. This will result in the modification of the private drive. Response: • Once Oak Street is connected to Taft Hill Road, the access to this development off of Taft will need to be closed and access taken from Oak Street. Response: • Will the overhead power lines along the north and south property lines need to put underground? Please consult with the Light and Power Department. Response: • Please add a note to the plans that the final saw -cut limits will be determined by the engineering inspector. Response: • The interior sidewalks need to be a minimum of 4.5 feet wide. Please modify the plans accordingly. Response: Development Review Comments — Page 2 Please modify the typical private drive sections. Response: The plans currently show drainage along the south property line within a utility easement. This easement was dedicated as a drainage easement. Therefore you will either need to redirect the drainage or dedicate a drainage easement. Response: • 1 would like to see cross sections along the north and south property lines that show how the proposed grading ties I with the exist ground. What are the side slopes of the swales? Response: Please show the access ramps on the utility plans. Provide details of the ramps that deviate from the City's standard access ramp so that they can be constructed properly in the field. Response: Please include detail D-20 on the detail sheet. Response: Please include detail D-15 on the detail sheet and modify with the correct dimensions existing. Response: Site Plan Comments: • Please modify the Attorney's Certificate per the attached sheet. Response: Show future public connections to the north and south. See the utility plans and site plan for the location. Response: • Please dimension all sidewalks and parking stalls. Response: Please refer to the utility plans and site plan for additional comments and concerns. Development Review Comments — Page 3 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 3, 2000 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #17-00 Cherokee Flying Heights PDP -Type II- LUC All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 ElNo Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** 1. /Dc, A T -4 C C' 6i/4 � C La Sj 1 11 I I Ad Q� �� t.ves7l' 14 f !3 �� Ot i� VI C e� vvt�e +• Date: Signature: CHECK Nat _ Site Drainage Report _ other tility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape �� DATE: October 3, 2000 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #1.7-00 Cherokee Flying Heights PDP — Type H (LUC) PLANNER: lion Fuchs ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: October 18, 2000 ❑ No Problems Cal Problems or Concems (see below or attached) Comments: • Ensure that a cross -pan across the future north -south street maintains a minimum .6%. • Provide a profile along the centerline of the future street showing the existing and proposed grade by this development along the projected future centerline. • City Staff has agreed to be in support of the modification to the maximum dead-end length of a private drive being no more than 150 feet. • Additional comments may be made at time of resubmittal. Because of the changes to the design, the review of this submittal was limited. Date: November 16.2000 Signature:1�-�� PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS//� 0 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 9 Landscape Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS October 3, 2000 Project No: l 760-01-00 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins Engineering Department P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 Re: Cherokee Flying Heights; Ft. Collins, Colorado Dear Sheri, SHEAR This is a response to your most recent review comments concerning the Final Utility Plans and Final Plat for Cherokee Flying Heights. This response addresses utility plan and final plat review comments, as well as written comments noted on Tim Blandford's Project Comment Sheet signed and dated May 23, 2000. Please note the following plan changes made since our first submittal. ❑ Provisions for a future north -south ROW have been provided at the request of the Planning Department and the Engineering Department. ❑ Provisions for access onto the future Oak Street ROW when it is dedicated to the south has been provided. At the time the connection is made, the connection onto North Taft Avenue will be removed. Responses to written comments ❑ General notes have been modified per your comments. ❑ We have provided the architect and the landscape architect with the appropriate information so that their plans are coordinated with plans prepared by this office. ❑ The surveyor of record, RJL Surveyors, will be working out the property line issue with the City mapping department. ❑ An additional 27.5 feet of ROW has been dedicated along North Taft Hill Road by the plat. ❑ A 15' utility easement has also been dedicated along North Taft Hill Road by the plat. ❑ The title of the plat has been confirmed with the City mapping department by RJL Surveyors. ❑ Notice of other documents will be provided by RJL Surveyors. ❑ Attorney's Certificate will be provided by RJL Surveyors. The ability to connect to Oak Street and the property to the south is now provided as noted above. iM6 S_ Cnllcgc. Suilc 12 Ft. Collins. CO 80525 (9-0) 2 J6-513-i Fax (9-0) 282-011 1 www. shearengineeri ng.com October 3, 2000 Page 2 Project No: 1760-01-00 ❑ The developer understands that when Oak Street is connected to North Taft Hill Road the private drive connection to North Taft Hill Road will need to be removed. ❑ We have coordinated the electrical utilities with the electric department. ❑ A note has been added to the plans stipulating that the City Engineering inspector will define the limits of saw cutting along North "Taft Hill Road. ❑ The interior sidewalks are four feet (4') wide as noted on our earlier submittal. We have not changed them since expanding the walk will put all the electric lines completely under concrete. This was worked out at the utility coordination meeting. ❑ The typical private drives have been modified per your redlines except as noted concerning the walks. ❑ The plat shows all areas outside the limits ofthe building envelopes (Lots 1-4) as Drainage, Access and Utility Easements. ❑ Site cross -sections are provided as you requested. ❑ Access ramps are shown on the utility plans. ❑ Detail D20 and D15 are now provided on the detail sheet. ❑ Future public connections to the north and south are now shown. ❑ Sidewalks and parking stalls are now dimensioned on the master improvements plan. M Torgerson Architects are responsible for adding this to the site plan. We trust that this response has addressed a majority of your specific comments and concerns. If You have any questions or further comments during your next detailed project review, please call at (970) 226-5334. Sincerely, Mark Ohcrschmidt Shear Lngincering Corporation BWS / mo cc: Mike Jensen IZen Fuchs; Current Planning Mikal Torgerson; M Torgerson Architects Rick LeNvis; RJL Surveyors Bnan W. Shear, I Shear Engineerin