Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAVEN VIEW - FDP - 12-05B - CORRESPONDENCE -Number: 222 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] The curb stops'for all water services are required to be within the utility easement, normally 1 foot inside of the boundary. Number: 223 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please provide gate valves at water line junctions per redlines. Number: 226 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please remove unused water and sewer details. See redlines. Number: 227 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please provide actual site specific elevations on the water. lowering detail. Number: 233 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please see other comments on the redlined plan set. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Sincerely, Anne H. Aspen City Planner Page 13 Number: 218 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please provide a note on the grading plan and the storm sewer profiles sheet that the existing inlet, which the pond outfall piping is connected to, is to be core drilled and grouted. Number: 224 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] A cross pan is required along Raven View Road at the road stub to the south to keep the flows along Raven View flowing as designed. There should be a highpoint in the road stub design at the property line to keep on -site flows on -site and flowing to the detention pond. Number: 225 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please revise HGL on the storm sewer profiles. See redlines. Number: 228 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please revise water quality outlet structure detail per redlines. Number: 229 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] The swale cross -sections were not shown on sheet DR1 as indicated. Number: 230 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please provide a pond summary table per redlined drainage plan. Number: 232 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please see other comments on the redlined plans and report. Topic: Erosion Control Number: 231 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Comments will be available the week of April 23rd. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 107 Created: 9/29/2005 [4/21 /06] [9/29/05] Separation distance between water/sewer MAINS and trees is 10 feet. (Land Use Code is incorrect.) Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 219 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] A swivel tee is required at all fire hydrant lines where they connect to the main. Number: 220 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Sanitary sewer manhole Al may be eliminated. Maintenance will still be achieved even though it is longer than 400 feet due to the main being the same slope for the entire run. Number: 221 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] All multifamily buildings require meter pits for the water service. Please draw to scale the meter pit on the utility plans. 4 feet is the required separation between the pit and any structure. Page 12 7.5 feet in either direction of the hydrant; the red painted curb extends 7.5 feet in either direction from the hydrant. Sources are 1997 Uniform Fire Code 1001.7.1 and 1001.7.2. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number: 32 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/18/06] Repeat comment. [9/27/05] Repeat comment. [3/29/05] A minor point, on the "Cover Sheet", please remove the wording "Bike Path Each side of Road" as it references Taft Hill Rd. and Mulberry St. While bike lanes do exist (at a sub -standard configuration) there are no bike paths along these facilities in this location. Of course if you want you can leave the wording on the sheet but change "path" to "lane". Topic: Utility Plans Number: 206 Created: 4/18/2006 [4/18/06] A gravel pedestrian crossing of the stubbed out street to the south is not acceptable. At minimum, the crossing surface must be asphalt. Also, align the ramps at this location to align the crossing. This can be easily achieved by sliding the western ramp a foot or two south. Thanks. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 83 Created: 3/31/2005 [4/20/06] A little more clarification needs to take place on this item. A short meeting should solve this issue. [9/30/05] Stormwater is confident this can be worked out after the hearing. Comments may follow at final compliance on the details of this to satisfy Stormwater and Poudre Fire Authority's requirements. [3/31/05] There is a conflict with the emergency access road and inlet along Mulberry which needs to be resolved. Number: 213 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please provide one stage -storage table with water quality included in with quantity detention. Number: 214 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] The water quality orifice sizing calculations do not seem to be correct. Please see redlined drainage report. The number of columns should be 2. Number: 215 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please label lots type A, B, etc. Number: 216 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please revise detention pond contours. See grading plan redlines. Number: 217 Created: 4/20/2006 [4/20/06] Please show detention pond emergency spillway location on the grading and drainage plans and provide spillway crest spot elevations on the grading plan. See redlines. Page 11 Topic: Utility Plans Number: 163 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Complete and submit the checklist in Appendix E4 with the next submittal. Several items not shown on the plans with this round. Any item not addressed with the next round stays an open item until corrected. Number: 200 Created: 4/18/2006 [4/18/06] Provide a signature block for the two homeowners to the north on any sheet where work is proposed on their lot, including the detail sheets. I know you have an easement but this is the only way I know that they are aware of the actual proposed improvements planned for their property and that they have agreed to it. Number: 205 Created: 4/18/2006 [4/18/06] See redlines for other comments not contained here in the comment letter. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann Topic: Fire Number: 209 Created: 4/19/2006 [4/19/06] WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrant location is adequate. However, fire protection would be more effective if we could move the two hydrants shown on the "loop" composed of Raven View Road, Rook Drive, Corvid Way and Pica Street. Sheet U1 shows hydrants in the northwest and southeast comers of this loop. We are requesting these hydrants actually be located at the southwest and northeast corners of this loop. Also, applicant needs to ensure the hydrants flow a minimum of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. Number: 210 Created: 4/19/2006 [4/19/06] FIRE LANE: We acknowledge the Emergency Access Easement, signage, etc., that provides a second access point off Mulberry Street. This fire lane must be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. It must be a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. For details on appearance and spacing of "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" signs, contact Carie Dann at PFA. Number: 211 Created: 4/19/2006 [4/19/06] Sheet U1 shows branches overhanging the fire lane being trimmed to 13 feet, 5 inches. PFA requests they be trimmed to at least 14 feet clearance, to accommodate the height of fire apparatus. Number: 212 Created: 4/19/2006 [4/19/06] Per the inquiry from Anne Aspen at Staff Review, here are minimum clearance distances around fire hydrants: (1) A space of at least 36 inches must be maintained around the circumference of the fire hydrant. The only allowable vegetation within the 36 inches is short ground cover, e.g., grass or flowers, but nothing that would obstruct access or visibility, such as juniper bushes. The 36-inch clearance also applies to buildings, fences, trees, etc. (2) Above the hydrant, minimum clearance is 15 FEET, to accommodate fire -hydrant maintenance equipment. (3) The middle of the 5-inch cap must be a minimum of 18 inches above grade, because the hydrant wrench used remove this cap is 18 inches long. (4) Regarding hydrants adjacent to streets or private drives, vehicle parking is prohibited within Page 10 [4/18/06] Sheet 1 of 10 of the Site and Landscape plan will not scan, please see Appendix E6 for all requirements. Number: 207 Created: 4/19/2006 [4/19/06] From Technical Services: See attached comment sheet. Scanning is still a huge issue with the plan sets. Contex lines will not scan and need to be darkened up to meet the scanning requirements set forth in Appendix E6. Topic: SDI Number: 190 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] HDPE is not allowed in row or in the road. Number: 191 [4/17/06] Scanning issues. Created: 4/17/2006 Number: 195 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Detail Storm Drain Line A and 114/D7 and 400/ST1 need to match each other and be shown consistently elsewhere on the plan sets. Topic: SD2 Number: 192 [4/17/06] See redlines. Created: 4/17/2006 Number: 193 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Homeowner needs to sign this sheet for the off -site driveway cross-section. Topic: Site Plan Number: 47 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] [10/4/05] [3/29/05] Please coordinate the comments under other sections so that all plan sets match. Number: 128 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/18/06] Still have to provide a scale and it must be an engineering scale, not architectural. [10/5105] Please provide a north arrow, scale, etc. Topic: STI Number: 199 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Detail 400 doesn't match the rest of the plans. Label proposed as "proposed" and existing as "existing". Label and dimension Mulberry row and UE. Topic: Stormwater Plan and Profiles Number: 204 Created: 4/18/2006 [4/18/06] Can not use HDPE pipe in the row or where City Maintenance vehicles will drive later to maintain the lines. Replace with RCP. Topic: Utility Number: 37 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06) Repeat. Still no dimensioning shown. It does not appear that the drive aisles have been widened to 28' into the multi -family as previously requested. [10/4/05) [3/29/05] Need to dimension all drive aisles, driveways (at multifamily) and parking stalls in accordance with LCUASS. Page 9 [10/5/05] Final Compliance. The cross slopes shown of 4% exceed the maximum cross slope requirement of 3%. Topic. Raven View Plan and Profile Number: 164 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove note 7. This information must be shown on the_utility plans, all sheets per LCUASS. Number: 165 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Repeat comment (shown elsewhere): Need to take the road design to the CL of Taft. Provide existing information and show how Raven View is tying into it. Scanning issues this sheet. Some information is illegible. Identify taper length, see redlines. Need to construct the street stub to the south to the PCs as previously stated. Gravel does not meet ADA requirements and the raw, asphalt edge proposed along Raven View's flowlines is a maintenance issue for the city. Number: 166 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] You have exceeded the 3% max cross slope requirement. Number: 167 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Show curb return information, all flowline profiles. Number: 168 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Standard requires centerline stationing only, however, you have shown both FL and CL stationing. Please provide spot elevations at appropriate intervals so that I can verify cross slopes. This applies to all plan and profile sheets and especially the street widening in two places. The street widening spots and slope information can be added to the intersection detail sheets if you like. Either place will work for me. Number: 169 [4/17/06] See redlines. Created: 4/17/2006 Topic: Rook Street Plan and Profile Number: 170 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Font size not meeting minimum requirements in some areas. Number: 171 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove note 7, this information must be shown all plan sets per LCUASS. Topic: Scanning Requirements Number: 10 Created: 3/28/2005 [4/17/06] The plans still do not meet the scanning requirements set forth in Appendix E6. No mylars will be approved until they do so. [9/30/05] This is more a Final Compliance issue but I'll just keep the comment open until resolved. [3/28/05] Please see Appendix E6 for our scanning requirements. Shaded areas and arial photos will not scan. Please correct all overlapped labeling. Please see Jr/Tech Services if you have any questions. Number: 203 Created: 4/18/2006 Page 8 Topic: Overall Utility Plan Number: 162 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Label and dimension all crosspans. Scanning issues. Remove number 8 under notes, this information must be shown on the utility plans per LCUASS. See redlines for other comments. Topic: Pica Street Plan and Prot'.le Number: 175 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove note 2 and 7. Number: 176 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Provide curb return info in the profiles. Number: 177 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Scanning issues, correct all overlapped labeling. Dimension and label crosspan. Topic: Plan and Profiles Number: 42 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] Dimension the existing eastern driveway on the existing conditions sheet so I can determine how much square footage is being added. A sidewalk chase may or may not be required. [10/4/05] Repeat. [3/29/05] The east driveway off Mulberry is shown draining towards the street. No more than 500sf of drainage is allowed to discharge over a public sidewalk. Number: 43 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] According to the existing conditions sheet, there is no existing drive where the Emergency Access drive is going. A sidewalk culvert will be required if exceeding the max drainage allowed over a public sidewalk. [10/4/05] Final Compliance. This driveway exceeds the maximum 500sf of drainage over a public sidewalk. You will need to provide a culvert to the street and/or an inlet to the stormdrain. Need to specify what the drive is constructed out of. [3/29/05] Please provide a typical section and a plan and profile for the western emergency access drive and include all information necessary build it. This drive must meet PFA's minimum requirements. Show how you are tying into Mulberry with it. The maximum 500sf of drainage over a public sidewalk applies here as well. Number: 64 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/18/06] If applicable. [10/4/05] Final Compliance. [3/29/05] Identify all grade breaks. Number: 65 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] Repeat. [10/3/05] [3/29/05] Final Compliance. Continue the centerline profile through the intersection at Taft and where the road loops back on itself. Number: 125 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/17/06] Cross slopes are still not meeting standards in some areas and not enough information is shown in other areas to determine if the cross slopes are meeting standard. Page 7 Number: 202 Created: 4/18/2006 [4/18/061 The street stub to the south was not designed correctly and this area will change... just a heads up. Topic: Landscape Plan Number:48 1 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] [10/4/05] [3/29/05] Please coordinate the comments under other sections so that all plan sets match. Topic: Ofisite Easements Number: 134 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/18/06) Will need legals and exhibits for all offsites for our review and approval and completed dedication statements for filing. [10/5/05] The plat and the offsite easement documents do not match. The emergency access drive on the plat says it is a 24' emergency access, maintenance and construction easement while the contract calls it an emergency access and utility placement only. The construction easement needs to be called out separately on all documents and say whether its temporary or permanent. Is a drainage easement necessary as well? A letter of intent from the property owner is required prior to hearing if the original document is not correct. The drive on the east side of the property is called out as a 30' drainage and utility easement on the plat. The contract document calls it an Access and Utility Easement. We will also require a drainage and maintenance easement. Also, the 30' easement is not wide enough to include and construct the retaining wall. A letter of intent revising the contract is fine before going to hearing, the actual documents will need to be filed during Final Compliance. Emergency Access and Drainage easements need to be dedicated to the city and accepted through the city process. All other private easements can be recorded between the individual parties at the County. We will need a copy of the recorded documents before final plan approval. Topic: Overall Site Plan Number: 201 Created: 4/18/2006 [4/18/061 Please see E6 for scanning requirements, this sheet will not scan. Needs to be in engineering scale, not architectural. Use darker line weight for proposed, grey scale for existing (for instance, proposed sidewalks are grey lined). Topic: Overall Utility Number: 59 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/18/06] [10/4/05] [3/29/05] Need to show/dimension existing and proposed row and utility easements along Taft and Mulberry. Number: 60 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/18/06] Still need to dimension and label all crosspans. [10/4/05] Final Compliance. [3/29/05] Need to dimension the crosspan at Taft and provide the detail in the detail sheets. Page 6 Topic. Intersection Details Number: 12 Created: 3/28/2005 [4/17/061 Repeat - Please call out all dimensions shown in Figure 7-24. Still not known whether or not the widenings are meeting standard. [10/4/05] Will need this detail before hearing to make sure the horizontal layout is to standard OR you can go to hearing with the understanding that the row.may still move if the bulbouts are not designed in accordance with 7-24. [3/28/05] Please provide a street widening detail for each of the three bulbouts. The street widening must be designed in accordance with detail 7-24. Call out each of the dimensions asked for in the detail (R1 can equal 20-36' per Mike Herzig). Where the street has been widened on the east leg and out at Taft, show another typical street section for those areas and label with "from station xxxx to station xxxx. Number: 70 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] Repeat comment. Incomplete spot elevations shown and it appears that the max 3% cross slope has been exceeded. Also, need to dimension the street widenings in accordance with figure 7-24. [10/3/05] [3/29/05] Please provide a cut section through the PC and widest point of the bulbouts so that I can verify you are meeting our cross slope requirements (Final Compliance). Number: 185 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Incomplete intersection details. See figures 7-27 and 7-28 for requirements. See 7-24 for information and dimensions you need to show on widenings. Number: 186 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Correct detail 2 to match earlier comments. Need interim and ultimate intersection details for street stub. Number: 187 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] ID curb transitions at crosspans and refer to detail. Number: 188 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove note 5 and place info here. Number: 189 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove landscaping from detail 1. Topic: Intersections Number: 68 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] Repeat. Incomplete spot elevations shown. [10/3/05] [3/29/05] Please provide intersection details in accordance with details 7-27 and 7-28 (Final Compliance). Topic: Landscape and Site Plan Number: 52 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/18/06] [10/5/05] [3/29/05] Please label and dimension all easements, row. Number: 149 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/18/06] [10/5/05] Must be in engineering scale. Page 5 Topic: General Number: 49 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/17/06] The utility plans still have not been dimensioned. [10/4/05] Repeat. Also, please dimension both the utility and site plan with all parking stalls in accordance with LCUASS. [3/29/05] There are no handicapped parking spaces shown. Number: 114 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/17/06] Repeat comment. [10/5/05] Final Compliance. The street stub to the south needs to be designed and constructed to the property line and a type III barricade is required (please show on all plan sets). This development has the option of building the stub and the curb return to the PCs and ramps and then cash in lieu of the rest. If this option is chosen, the plans would need to show interim and ultimate and an estimate for the remaining portion of the street has to be submitted for our review and approval. The estimate must include the removal of any landscaping in the row of the future street. Only grass will be allowed in the row, however, no shrubs or trees of any kind. We need it to be very clear to the future and existing residents that the street is absolutely going through. Number: 117 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/18/06] [10/5/05] Please label all Tracts and Easements, all sheets, all plan sets. Number: 120 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/18/06] Missing information, see redlines. [10/5/05] Final Compliance. Please provide more information and details on the proposed inlet modification on Mulberry. Topic: Grading Number: 121 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/17/06] [10/5/05] Label slopes in all detention areas. Number: 122 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/17/06] Repeat comment. Incomplete spot elevations shown and many are illegible. Must provide spot elevations at all lot comers, including overall property boundary corners, and drainage arrows, etc. Lots of missing info, see redlines, and LCUASS. [10/5/05] Final Compliance. You may have to break this sheet into two sheets so that the information is clear and scanable. Topic: Grading Plan Number: 161 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] This sheet is missing a lot of spot elevations and some that are shown are illegible. Need to specify emergency access road surface (Concrete? Asphalt?) Need to label all slope ratios (4:1 max). Provide TOW, BOW for retaining wall. Correct street cut dimensions as shown on redlines per Lance Newlin, Chief Inspector. Provide signature block for both homeowners with driveway improvements on the east and west drives to Mulberry. Lots of scanning issues, this sheet. See redlines for other comments. Page 4 Topic: Drainage Number: 58 Created: 3/29/2005 [4/18/06] [10/4/05] [3/29/05] Final Compliance. Show drainage arrows on the drives out to Mulberry. Number: 159 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] The street stub to the south is draining towards the neighboring property. You will need to either keep the drainage onsite or get an offsite drainage easement. Will need erosion control where the curb and gutter terminates at the PC. Number: 160 [4/17/06] Add drainage arrows. Created: 4/17/2006 Topic: Emergency Access Number: 124 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/17/06] [10/5/05] Please see PFA as soon as possible for their comments on the emergency access drive. Topic: Emergency Access Plan and Profile Number: 178 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove note 7. Number: 179 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Profile - label station and elevation information from R4 to show tie in information. Number: 180 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Provide profile information to CL of Mulberry. Show existing grades and how you tie in. Number: 181 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Need to show existing features, dim sidewalk, label curb type etc. Number: 196 Created`. 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] This doesn't match what's shown in the Storm Drain Line A plan and profile or 114/D7 and 400/ST1. All of these sheets need to match each other in design. Number: 197 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Show and dimension existing row and the UE along Mulberry. Topic: Future Street Plan and Profile Number: 182 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] The information shown is incomplete. As discussed previously and stated under other comments, you must provide both an interim and ultimate plan and profile for the street stub if not building to the property line. Must provide both CL and FL profiles, see 7.4.1 LCUASS. Need to address drainage to neighboring property. Number: 183 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove note 7 and provide the information on plans. Number: 184 [4/17/06] Scanning issues here as well. Created: 4/17/2006 Page 3 There was no further communication about that. Finally, in an email dated April 1, 2005, Susan Joy wrote to Nick Hawes and stated that the street stub would need to be designed and constructed. So as it stands now, you will be responsible for the design and construction of the street stubs. Staff has determined that it would be possible to modify the requirements given the nature of the circumstance. See Susan's comment # 114. Number: 234 Created: 4/24/2006 [4/24/06] At the hearing, Russ agreed to install a 6-foot solid wood fence around the perimeter of the entire property except where overland stormwater flows would prevent it. Please add fence along the north side of the property. Number: 235 Created: 4/24/2006 [4/24/06] Please line up the ramps on the south stub. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Corvid Way Plan and Profle Number: 172 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Remove note 7. Number: 173 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Provide curb return information in profiles. Number: 174 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] ID transition lengths for crosspan in VC and provide a detail. Topic: D6 Number: 194 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Homeowner needs to sign this sheet for the off -site EA road section. Topic: D7 Number: 198 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Where is 111, 112, and 113 being used? Couldn't find a reference to them on the plan sets. Need to label all onsite curb and gutter as "On -Site". Detail 114 doesn't match the EA plan and profile sheet or details 114/D7 and 400/ST1. Topic: Demo Sheet Number: 136 Created: 10/5/2005 [4/17/06] Repeat. Scanning issues are still a problem with this sheet (font size too small, shading versus outlining, overlapped labeling, etc). Mylars will not be approved until the scanning requirements in Appendix E6 are being met. [10/5/05] Final Compliance. Scanning issues here. Don't shade the existing offsite structures, just outline. Add the street row for Crestmore Place and Court. Number: 157 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Dimension existing sidewalk widths. Number: 158 Created: 4/17/2006 [4/17/06] Dimension the existing eastern drive to Mulberry. How much impervious surface are you adding with the new proposed drive? Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citgof Fort Collins TOM PETERSON Date: 04/24/2006 3555 STANFORD RD. #204 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for RAVEN VIEW PDP AND FINAL PLANS, TYPE I, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Number: 208 Created: 4/19/2006 [4/19/06] The following departments indicate that they have no further concerns with this project: Park Planning, Xcel Energy, Neighborhood Services, Comcast, and the Post Office. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 99 Created: 9/27/2005 [4/24/06) It looks like there is in fact room for a tree even with the hydrant. Please refer to PFA's comments. [9/27/051 Need to add a street tree at the NEC of Pica and Corvid Way Number: 236 Created: 4/24/2006 [4/24/06] Please add foundation plantings on at least 50% of the highlighted areas on the redlines. Number: 237 Created: 4/24/2006 [4/24/06] Please add landscaping to the detention pond area. Topic: Lighting Plan Number: 238 Created: 4/24/2006 [4/24/06] Please add fixture cut sheet to lighting plan. Number: 239 Created: 4/24/2006 [4/24/06] Reduce brightness or add house side shields to reduce offsite light spill. Topic: Site Plan Number: 110 Created: 10/4/2005 [4/24/06] Construct the stub. [10/4/05] In the staff review meeting, you indicated that you do not intend to construct the stub road to the south. Your site plans seem to show, with equal line weights, that you plan to build and not build the stub. You said that City staff had OK'ed not building the stub at this time. I told you that wasn't what I recalled but that I would look back through the record and get back to you. I looked through the entire record on this project and found nothing to indicate that staff OK'ed your not building the street stub. What I did find were three references to the contrary. First, in your conceptual review letter dated May 10, 2004, it is clear that street stubs must be designed and constructed. Second, at a transportation coordination meeting on March 31, 2005, Susan Joy and I explained to you, Russ Wells, Matt Delich and Wayne Hochstetler that you would be required to construct the street stubs to standard, which in this case would be 51-53'. Susan mentioned the possibility of a contribution in aid as a possibility and suggested that you be in touch with her about that. Page 1