The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSIDEHILL, FILING ONE - PDP - 32-01B - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General Number: 22 Created: 12/23/2002 [3/28/03] Comment still unresolved. [12/23102] Opportunities exist in Block 1 Tract A Multi -Family parking lot to create pedestrian crossing aisle that connects logical walk patterns between Buildings A/B with D/E. See redlines for suggestions. Number: 195 Previous comment #22 not yet been addressed. Created: 3/28/2003 Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility plans Number: 39 Created: 12/30/2002 4/14/03 If all the irrigation ditches are to be abandoned, then will irrigation taps be required on the domestic water mains. Number: 40 Created: 12/30/2002 4/14/03 Coordinate all sheets and plans to reflect the same information (i.e. fire line sizes, etc.) Number: 42 Created: 12/30/2002 4/14/03 Show and label concrete encasement of sewer lines which cross above or within 18-inches vertically of all water lines. Number: 206 Created: 4/16/2003 The existing sanitary sewer in Drake Road has limited capacity available. Some of the sewers included in Rigden Farm 6th Filing are needed to provide relief capacity for the sewer in Drake. If the Side Hill project proceeds before Rigden 6th filing, Side Hill will be responsible for constructing the needed sewers. See Site, Landscape and Utility plans for other comments. 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 eel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yours ruly, t iri) ones tanner related to this project, please Page 11 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 214 Created: 4/16/2003 Extran analysis for Sidehill Filing One Drainage Report comments 1. It appears the area south of rational method basin 102 was not included in the analysis; please explain why not. This area is also not labeled on Sheet 31 of 64. 2. It appears the Cargill inflows are in master plan SWMM subbasin 56. If this is true, please indicate the change in area between subbasin 55 and 56. 3. Please ensure the data created in Extran is used to develop the proposed rating curve for Pond A/B, ensure the calculations/documentation are presented in the appendices, and ensure this rating curve is put into SWMM to analyze the effect of the development and its facilities. 4. The intent of the analysis was to show the hydraulic connection between Pond A and Pond B and verify the master plan release rate of 20 cfs for the site. However, looking at the existing SWMM and schematic, and the Extran input, this does not appear to have been fulfilled. The two ponds should initially be modeled separately in SWMM to determine which subbasins and their pertinent hydrographs flow into each pond. These hydrographs should then be put into Extran which also models the two ponds, not as one pond. The final SWMM can have a "combined" pond but only after the initial SWMM and Extran analysis are conducted - and document the development of the final rating curve (see number 3 above). 5. Initial SWMM input, conveyance element 230 appears to be the outlet for pond 525; this element should already have appeared in the rating curve for the pond when calculating the discharge elevation data. Thus, it should not be modeled again as a "separate" conveyance element. Subbasin 109 should be separated into what portion goes into Pond A and what portion goes into Pond B. Also, please ensure the initial SWMM output presents the hydrographs which you will use in the Extran input. 6. Extran input, please explain the purpose of conduit 225 at 72 inches and 10 feet long. This could not be found on the drawings. Also, the elevation for junction 300, which is associated with conduit 225 could not be found for verification. Please verify the lengths for the conduits; conduits 209 and 205 could not be verified. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 204 Created: 4/14/2003 1. The schedule on sheet 32 would be easier to read if it weren't upside down. 2. Please indicate that detention ponds are to be utilized as sediment traps. 3. Please place a note on the erosion control sheets that all areas disturbed by construction are to be seeded and mulched (per your report/calculations). Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: General Number: 157 Created: 1 /9/2003 [4/16/03] Still Applies. [1/9/03] APF Applies to Timberline/Prospect Intersection[LUC 3.7.3]. Number: 158 Created: 1 /9/2003 [4/16/03] Still applies. [1 /9/03] This project will need to provide a design for Timberline. Topic: Traffic Study , Number: 183 Created: 3/17/2003 The developer has asked for a variance regarding the eye -brow off of Hay Meadow. I do not believe that a variance is required. The eye brow functions more like a driveway and not a street. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General Number: 181 Created: 2/12/2003 For safety reasons, please remove the eastern most access ramp that leads pedestrian across Drake Road at Illinois Drive. The median refuge for pedestrians crossing Drake Road is located only on the west side of the intersection. Previous comment not yet addressed. Page 10 . Number: 189 Created: 3/27/2003 Some of the multifamily units show joint gas and electric services. This will not be permitted. Gas and electric services must maintain 4 feet of clearance from each other. This needs to be shown on the utility plans. Number: 190 Created: 3/27/2003 Meter locations for multifamily need to be specified. A profile drawing showing clearance from gas meters will be required. Electric meters and gas meters must maintain minimum clearances - minimum side clearance of 1 foot from a gas meter to any electrical equipment and minimum clearance of 3 feet radially to an electric meter. Number: 191 Created: 3/27/2003 Electric meters will be required to be on the same side of the lot as the electric service stub. Number: 192 Created: 3/27/2003 Show proposed electric facilities along Timberline Road, these will be installed between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. Show proposed streetlights along Timberline Road. One streetlight will be located approximately 240 feet south of Chrismar Drive and another will be located approximately 280 feet south of Iowa Drive. Show these streetlights on utility plans and landscape plans. Street trees will need to maintain clearances to these lights. Number: 193 Created: 3/27/2003 Electric service to Building G does not maintain 10 feet clearance from the water service to Building F. Number: 194 Created: 3/27/2003 Electric service to Building F is shown feeding from the wrong location. Service will come from the transformer located in the parking area. If service is to be installed on that side of the building, show it coming from the correct transformer and maintaining all clearances to other utilities. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: fire - Number: 184 Created: 3/18/2003 A modification has been granted by the Fire Marshal for the fire lane requirements in accordance with 3.6.6(B)(1) of the FCLUC. The modification involves granting less than the required 30 foot fire lane for a 3 story building. In this case, and for most of the buildings, 29 feet was offered. The condition for approval is that all the MF buildings shall be fire sprinklered. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez . Topic: fire - Number: 209 Created: 4/16/2003 REQUIRED ACCESS: A fire lane is required. The fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. 97 UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1; FCLUC NOTE: The 30 foot requirement for the required fire lane has been modified and approvedper Ron Gonzales w/ PFA. The 30 foot fire lane was required due to the height of the buildings (Three stories or more). Number: 210 Created: 4/16/2003 ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). 97 UFC 901.4.4 Number: 211 Created: 4/16/2003 WATER SUPPLY: Commercial No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet aloing an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delovering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a risidual prissure of 20 psi. 97 UFC 901.2.2.2 Number: 212 Created: 4/16/2003 WATER SUPPLY: Residential (Within GMA) No Residential building can be greater than 400 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 800 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. UFC 901.2.2.2 Page 9 . Number: 136 Created: 1/3/2003 Add the street cut note where street cuts are proposed (see redlines): 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. 4/18/3: The note needs to be corrected in a few places. See redlines. Number: 222 Created: 4/21/2003 Correction to the vicinity map on the cover sheet required. Number: 230 Created: 4/21/2003 Do not show the future right turn lane since it will not be constructed with this project. Number: 231 Created: 4/21/2003 See redlines for other comments. Department: Excel Energy Issue Contact: Len Hilderbrand Topic: General Number: 160 Created: 1/9/2003 [3/27/03] Still Applies. [1/9/03] NINE FOOT UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE ADEQUATE IF "NO" OTHER UTILITIES PLACE THEIR EQUIPMENT WITH IN THIS EASEMENT. IF THEY DO INSTALL EQUIPMENT IN SAID EASEMENT, IT WILL NEED TO BE EXPANDED TO 11 FEET IN WIDTH. Number: 161 Created: 1/9/2003 [3/27/03] Still Applies. [1/9/03] NO TREES PLANTED WITHIN 4 FEET OF GAS MAINS OR GAS SERVICES TO EACH BUILDING OR HOME. Number: 162 Created: 1/9/2003 (3/27/03] Still Applies. [1/9/03] OVERHEAD ELECTRIC DIST. LINE ON SOUTH END OF PROJECT WILL NEED TO BE UNDERGROUNDED AT DEVELOPERS EXPENSE. Number: 163 Created: 1/9/2003 [3/27/03] Still Applies. [1/9/03] WILL NEED MIN CLEARANCE 3 FEET FOR GAS & ELEC METERS ON BUILDINGS A - L. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore Topic: Utility plans Number: 185 Created: 3/27/2003 Service for pool/clubhouse shown feeding from transformer feeding Buildings b & C. This transformer is a single-phase 120/240V transformer. Service to the pool/clubhouse must require the same secondary voltage or another transformer location will need to be specified. A Commercial Service Form (C-1 Form) needs to be submitted by the electrician telling us what the electrical requirements will be from this service. Number: 186 Created: 3/27/2003 Lot 7 - Strawford Drive.... Stormsewer is less than 5 feet from the proposed electric lines. Number: 187 Created: 3/27/2003 Storm sewer from Chrismar Drive into the multifamily area with buildings B,C & D is shown less than 2 feet from proposed electric lines. The minimum clearance we will accept is 7ft. Number: 188 Created: 3/27/2003 Electric service to multifamily building C is too far from the transformer location. The service will either need to be located on the south or east sides of the building. Service will come from the transformer near the poo/clubhouse. Page 8 Show the concrete clay cut off walls at the start of the beginning and end of the site per note 9, page 9 of the subdrain report. Number: 227 Is the Rigden Farm system sized to accommodate this flow? Number: 228 The subdrain system must be 80 below sewer. Topic: Utility plans Number: 109 Cover Page - Correct the index, see redlines. 4/18/3: See redlines. Number: 113 Line 41 and 48 of the General Notes require corrections. 4/18/3: Lines 47 and 48 require corrections. Created: 4/21 /2003 Created: 4/21 /2003 Created: 1/3/2003 Created: 1/3/2003 Number: 115 Created: 1/3/2003 Please provide the statement shown in Checklist E4, Section II, J and Section III, E. 4/18/3: Please note the following on the grading sheets: The top of foundation elevations shown are the minimum elevations required for protection from the 100-year storm. Number: 116 Created: 1/3/2003 Provide all typical street sections for each street type proposed. Sections include appropriate horizontal and vertical dimensions and cross slopes. List each street in the development under the appropriate street type. 4/18/3: Repeat comment. Please see John Lofton for further explanation. Number: 119 Created: 1/3/2003 Incomplete or incorrect ROW, property lines and easements shown. Please provide and label with dimensions and labels. Please provide all off -site ROW or easements by plat or separate document. 4/18/3: Your response is acknowledged. Item remains open. Number: 120 Created: 1/3/2003 This project will need to coordinate this design with the project to the west and show enough information on this plan set so that we can determine how the streets will line up across Timberline. 4/18/3: Open item. Number: 134 Created: 1/3/2003 Update all the old details to the new. Provide these details and any other as required by the design: 16-2 1413 703 1606 707 1607 708 D10 - D13 as needed 713.1 F 713.2F 1601 1602 In addition, the feds now require truncated domes on all pedestrian ramps. See attached for CDOT specifications until the City has approved spec's in LCUASS. 4/18/3: Still missing details as listed above. The CDOT detail is no longer required, however, as the city has determined that we will be using our standard detail until further notice. Page 7 Topic: Plat Number: 93 Created: 1/3/2003 Please provide the missing plat language as shown on the attached document (cert of dedication, maintenance guarantee, repair guarantee, notice of other docs, sight distance, etc.). See redlines and the checklist E4. 4/18/3: Repeat comment, see redlines and attached plat language. Number: 96 1 Created: 1/3/2003 Provide all easements and vacations by separate document as stated on the plat. 4/18/3: Repeat comment. Number: 98 Created: 1/3/2003 See comments under "General" regarding additional ROW, emergency access easement requirements; Ditch Company Signatures, Right Turn Lane, etc. 4/18/3: Repeat comment. Number: 144 Created: 1/3/2003 The plat needs to include dedicated ROW for the maintenance/collector road and provide all ROW and/or offsite easements (off -site grading and construction) that occur outside the platted boundary. 4/18/3: Repeat comment Topic: Site Number: 102 Remove contour lines. 4/18/3: Repeat comment. Created: 1/3/2003 Number: 105 Created: 1/3/2003 Coordinate the comments among the various plan sets so that they present the same information. Number: 221 Created: 4/18/2003 Remove the landscaping from the site plan. Topic: Street Design Number: 226 Created: 4/21/2003 Sheet 55/64 Trestle Road offsite design: What's happening here? Topic: Street Names Number: 106 Created: 1/3/2003 Please refer to Chapter 13 of LCUASS for street naming requirements. 4/18/3: Repeat comment. Topic: Traffic Study Number: 107 Created: 1/3/2003 Please contact Eric Bracke at 224-6062 regarding the TIS. An Adequate Public Facilities analysis must be provided for the Timberline and Prospect intersection. The TIS must be detailed enough to sufficiently address any modification and/variance requested by this development. 4/18/3: Repeat comment. Topic: Underdrain System Number: 224 Created: 4/21/2003 Please provide a letter from Rigden Farm stating that they are willing to accept the additional flows into their system. Number: 225 Created: 4/21/2003 Page 6 - 4/18/3: The variance request to the 200' minimum separation requirement was approved by the Engineering department. In this instance, the TIS volumes are such that allowing the shorter distance between the two intersections will not present a safety issue. Number: 66 Created: 1/3/2003 Coordinate the comments given under various sections so that all of the plan sets present the same information.. Number: 223 Created: 4/21/2003 Dedicate the ROW and utility easements required for the future traffic circle. You will need to account for this in the placement of any utilities. Number: 229 Created: 4/21/2003 The variance request for a smaller centerline radii on Sidehill Blvd was received. Please resubmit the request and restate it so that the design speed is being addressed instead of the traffic calming aspects and show how the design speed compares to what is being proposed. Discuss the operational characteristics of the road and relate it to the design speed instead of traffic calming. It is appropriate to reduce the design speed in this area and Engineering is open to this proposal. The variance request can be submitted any time and does not need to wait for the next submittal. Please call me at 221-6605 if you have any questions. Topic: Grading Plan Number: 67 Created: 1/3/2003 Label all slope ratios. Slope ratios cannot exceed 4:1 in public ROW or where the slopes affect public ROW. 4/18/3: Your response is acknowledged. Thank you.' Number: 69 Created: 1/3/2003 Finish grade elevations must be provided for all. streets and lot corners. See redlines. 4/18/3: You did a wonderful job calling out all the spot elevations on this large of a project. Still have a few missing or overlapping though, see redlines. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 74 Created: 1/3/2003 Show all sight distance, emergency access, and utility easements - the plans currently show the utility easements incorrectly. 4/18/3: Utility easements are still shown incorrectly at street intersections. Number: 75 Created: 1/3/2003 3.2.1.K requires 10 feet between trees and water or sewer lines. 4 feet between trees and gas lines. 4/18/3: Has this requirement been met in all instances? Number: 79 Created: 1/3/2003 Coordinate the comments among the various plan sets so that they present the same information. Number: 218 Created: 4/18/2003 Please place the sidewalk and trees in the ultimate location at Drake and Timberline and place a note on the landscape plan saying that all trees must be 5' back from the edge of sidewalk. See redlines. Number: 219 Created: 4/18/2003 Block 4, Lot 10 - Street tree shown in driveway. Number: 220 Created: 4/18/2003 Coordinate the typical street sections with the utility plans. Topic: Plan and Profiles Number: 86 Created: 1/3/2003 Provide intersection details per 7-27, 7-28 and 3.3.4. 4/18/3: Please make the intersection details a little larger so that I can read the spot elevations better. Thanks very muchl Page 5 Number: 51 Created: 1/3/2003 The actual ROW required along Timberline is unknown until the ultimate design of Timberline is complete. 4/18/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open. Number: 52 Created: 1/3/2003 The Drake Road design has already been completed by the Ridgen Farm development. The actual construction may either be done by that developer or through the City Street Oversizing Program in the summer of 2003. Sidehill must coordinate the plan sets so that this project will tie into the Drake Road design. Sidehill is also responsible for repaying the construction costs along their frontage of Drake Road as well as repaying the small portion of Timberline that has been built to the ultimate. 4/18/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open Number: 53 Created: 1/3/2003 This project is responsible for the design and construction of the northbound right turn lane from Drake to Timberline and will require the dedication of additional ROW. This turn lane will impact the ultimate location of the sidewalk, trees, and perhaps the building setbacks. Place a note on the landscape plan saying that all trees must be 5' back from the edge of sidewalk. 4/18/3: It was determined that this project will not be constructing the right turn lane with this project, however, this project is dedicating the additional ROW for the future construction of the right turn as shown on the plans currently. Please place the sidewalk and trees in the ultimate location and place a note on the landscape plan saying that all trees must be 5' back from the edge of sidewalk. I'll repeat this comment in the landscape section as well. Number: 54 Created: 1/3/2003 This project is responsible for the ultimate design of the Sharp Point connection. To insure that future street improvements will meet City Standards, the centerline flowline, and cross sections of all streets (Sharp Point connection and all stubbed out streets) shall be continued for 500 feet beyond construction or as far as necessary to show that the design will work. Please provide an engineer's estimate for the cost of the Sharp Point connection for the City's review. Once the final cost has been approved by the City, it shall be included in the Development Agreement and a portion collected over each phase to assure that this connection is made in the future. 4/18/3: Item still open. Please provide 500' of off -site design or as far as necessary to show that the design will work with existing. It was determined in a meeting with JR Engineering that the cross sections asked for above were not necessary. Number: 55 Created: 1/3/2003 The proposed maintenance road for the sewer line is designated as a future collector street. This project must provide an interim design with a driveable surface that will withstand heavy maintenance vehicles. The proposed gravel road as shown is not acceptable. In addition, this project must provide the ultimate design for the collector street (in accordance with 7-4F or 7-5F depending on TIS and whether or not access is taken off it) and show how it ties into Drake (1000' either side) in the interim and ultimate design. Show all historic structures, buffer zones (historic, treatment plant, natural resources, etc), on all plan sets. The Ditch Company and/or Carghill needs to sign off on the plat to vacate the easements proposed as well as sign off on the utility plans wherever the design is affecting their ditch. 4/18/3: Repeat comment. This project must provide the ultimate design for the collector street (in accordance with 7-4F or 7-5F depending on TIS and whether or not access is taken off it) and show how it ties into Drake (1000' either side) in the interim and ultimate design. Show all historic structures, buffer zones (historic, treatment plant, natural resources, etc), on all plan sets. The Ditch Company and/or Carghill needs to sign off on the.plat to vacate the easements proposed as well as sign off on the utility plans wherever the design is affecting their ditch. Number: 62 Created: 1/3/2003 The eyebrow on Haymeadow Way does not meet the 200' separation requirement between local street intersections. This distance is calculated from the CL of Iowa to the CL of the first leg of the eyebrow. See table 7-3. Page 4 - - between trees and electric vaults & junction boxes. See Current Planning redlines on pages 6 of 15 and 7 of 15. Please either solve this conflict, or clarify that no conflict exists. i (d) Add a note in the general notes on sheet 4 of 15 specifying that driveway locations for single family lots shall be located only at the locations indicated on the plat as "l8.00' wide access easements for driveway locations,' and shall be consistent with driveway locations depicted on the landscape plans. Number: 215 Created: 4/17/2003 On the previous version of the landscape plan, the sidewalk that extends the alignment of W indRow Drive through the apartment complex to the Timberline/Drake intersection was separated from the parking lot by a row of trees, evenly spaced, planted in the landscape strip between the sidewalk and the parking lot. This was an excellent design feature. Why did you remove these trees? This connecting walkway is a critical link between much of the neighborhood and the future bus stop, and it's buffering from the parking lot with these trees is very important. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(d) requires that connecting walkways through parking lots shall have one canopy shade tree per forty lineal feet of such walkway planted in landscape areas within five feet of such walkway. Number: 216 Created: 4/17/2003 Please remove the trees on the north side of Iowa between Timberline and WindRow, and on the west sied of Windrow between Iowa and the north boundary of filing one. These trees should be coordinated with the utilities and driveways of future filings. It would make more sense to review their alignment at that time rather than with this filing. Number: 217 Created: 4/17/2003 Transportation Planning's issue #22 is still unresolved. The internal pedestrian connections between buildings D/E and buidings A/B don't compete for land'area with the calculation of land area devoted to interior parking lot landscaping. If you notice, section 3.2.1(E) of the LUC requires that 10% of the area of that parking lot be devoted to landscaping, however, subsections (c)&(d) of that code section clearly call out pedestrian refuge areas and connecting walkways through parking lots as items that can be within the landscaped areas. As a point of clarification, issue #22 requires the walkway through the parking lot in section 3.2.2(C)(5). This section should also spells out design requirements for such walkways. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 50 Created: 1 /3/2003 The following is a summary of the conclusions reached at the City's Transportation Coordination meeting on Thursday, December 19, 2002: Sidehill is responsible for the full design of Timberline along the property frontage. Timberline also needs to be designed offsite to the north through the intersection at Prospect, showing the horizontal and vertical alignment, the centerline profile of Timberline, and any further information needed to verify that the design will work to City Standards. This design should maintain the current elevation of the railroad tracks and, if possible, should accommodate any trees that the City Forester requires to be maintained. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed roadway coming into the crest of the hill will be 3 to 5 feet lower then the existing elevation. The redesign of the Prospect/Timberline intersection will need to be included as well, holding the east curb line in its current location. It is highly encouraged that the engineers from Sidehill coordinate with the engineers of the Mansion Park development directly across Timberline for the design of Timberline, and Development Review Engineering will schedule a meeting to facilitate this coordination. The PDP for Sidehill may be approved with conditions pertaining to the APF issues by the Planning and Zoning Board /or Hearing Officer after the above designs have been completed, However, the Final Compliance will not be approved and plans signed off , nor will a Development Agreement be started, or filing of the plat will occur until the APF issues at -the Timberline -Prospect intersection have been solved by the design and construction of improvements to the intersection either by the City or by private development, or the City has appropriated a Capital Project to construct the required improvements. 4/18/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open. Page 3 - Number: 202 Created: 4/10/2003 On April 8, 2003, voters did not pass the proposed transportation taxes, therefore we have no City money to improve the ProspectTmberline intersection. The requirement of Adequate Public Facilities is therefore still a major obsticle for this project. This issue won't prevent PDP approval, however final compliance approval cannot occur until funds are allocated for the Prospect/Timberline intersection improvements. For clarification, final compliance approval is basically the administrative process of signing the mylars, recording them, recording the development agreement, and officially logging the project into the system as an approved project. Number: 203 Created: 4/10/2003 Elevations of the bath house building must be included on the building elevation sheet(s). Make sure materials, colors, and dimensions are included. Number: 207 Created: 4/16/2003 Regarding issue #155 from the first round of comments dealing with the 9ocation" requirement for the small neighborhood park, I have the following follow-up comment: We did meet in January 2003 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, I did agree verbally that we could make the layout work without the loss of lots 7 & 8. 1 also agreed that the shape and size of the park would work. There's still one detail that needs to be resolved in order for me to conclude that the park meets the location requirements for small neighborhood parks in 4.4(D)(7)(a) of the LUC. This section of the code requires that "rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than 2 sides or more than 50 percent of the perimeter frontage of the park." The portion of the eastern edge of the park that abuts the parking lot does not allow the park to have any interaction with building H. Staff concludes that this type of interaction between the park and the parking lot is in effect, a "rear yard" type of treatment. The solution would be to make the parking lot act less as a "rear yard of a dwelling" for building H, so that there's not a question of whether or not the east edge of the park abuts a rear yard. A direct walkway connection through the parking lot from the eastern building entry of building H to the small neighborhood park would allow this edge of the park to not be viewed as abutting a "rear yard." Number: 208 Created: 4/16/2003 There's only one street tree for the whole distance of frontage for lots 4, 5, 6. 7, and 8 on block 6. The previous landscape plan from the first round of review had 5 trees proposed along this same distance. The only apparent reason they were removed was tree/utility separation conflicts. Section 3.2.1(K) states, "Tree/utility separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees." Additionally, to follow up on issue #25 from the previous round of review, I stated "a successful coordination of utilities, driveways, and street trees must be demonstrated before staff could support the widths of single family lots proposed." While you have demonstrated that you can make it work in much of the project, you have not demonstrated that it can work for block 6, particularly lots in the eyebrow. The plat clarifies that the lot frontage of lot 4 is 38.96 feet, lot 5 is 37.57 feet, lot 6 is 38.29 feet, and lot 7 is 49.63 feet. It's becoming clear that the frontage for these lots is just too narrow to coordinate all the required utilities with driveways and street trees. It seems likely that block 6 may need some lots reconfigured in order to solve this conflict. Number: 213 Created: 4/16/2003 Regarding utility and tree coordination on narrow lots, as commented on in issue #25 from the previous round of review, the following follow-up comments apply: (a) In your response to staff comments, you stated that alternative compliance will be requested for trees that are less than eight feet from the edge of driveways. Such a request needs to be addressed in the form of a letter to me, specific to that request. This way I can include it in the packet of information that goes to the hearing officer when the project goes to hearing. Make sure the request addresses the review criteria for alternative compliance requests to the lanscaping standards of the LUC as found in section 3.2.1(N). (b) The lot frontage onto public right-of-way (for the sides and front of the block face) of block 6, lots 1 through 11 is 800 feet long. Street trees are required along the sides and front of a block face at an average of 30 to 40 foot spacing intervals [LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a)]. This means that along this block front, a minimum of 20 street trees are required. Only 17 are provided. There must be three more trees incorporated into this block face. Keep in mind that tree/utility separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees [LUC 3.2.1(K)]. (c) In the detached residential lots, the electric service line is shown on the landscape plan, however it's not clear where the oval vaults or the rectangular junction boxes (typically found directly across the street from an oval vault) are planned to be located. This is relevant because it's not clear whether or not these facilities will prevent the street trees from being located as proposed. In particular several specific locations seem to have conflicts Page 2 - STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins CITYSCAPE URBAN DESIGN, INC Date: 04/21/2003 ELDON WARD 3555 STANDFORD RD #105 FT. COLLINS, CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for SIDE HILL FILING ONE PDP - TYPE I (LUC) #32-01 B; and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: AT&T Broadband Issue Contact: Dennis Greenwalt Topic: General Number: 196 Created: 4/10/2003 Comcast Cable would like to see the 20-foot Drainage easement along the Cargill property changed to Utility & Drainage Easement. Number: 197 Created: 4/10/2003 We will also need a rear lot utility easement on lot 14 of block 3 so that service can be made available to lot 13. Number: 198 Created: 4/10/2003 On block 8 Lot 4 a rear lot utility easement is needed so that service can be made available to lot 3. Number: 199 Created: 4/10/2003 Block 4 lot 1 a utility easement is needed along the North side of the lot so the rest of the rear lot utility easements can be accessed. Number: 200 Created: 4/10/2003 Can Tract "I" be made into a utility and drainage easement? Number: 201 Created: 4/10/2003 Can utility easements be granted along Sidehill Boulevard so that facilities can be placed when the road is built? Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones Topic: General ' Number: 28 Created: 12/27/2002 [4/16/03] Please add a note (or somehow clarify) on page 2 of 15 that the area of the actual legal zoning district and the interpretive zone boudary are the same size. (12/27/02] Sheets 3 of 15 and 4 of 15 identify a line labeled as an "interpretive° zoning district boundary. We don't really have such a thing. Did the areas of the zone districts within this PDP reflect the legal zone district boundary line, or was the "interpretive" zoning boundary used? Number: 170 Created: 1/10/2003 [4/16/031 Are there no longer any wall mounted lighting fixtures? Show the fixture specifications and locations on the lighting plan if there are. [1/10/03] Sheet 14 of 15 needs to include a specification sheet of each fixture type. In particular, it needs to be clarified that all fixtures are fully shielded, down -directional, cut-off fixtures. Fixture "E" is the most common fixture, and has the highest potential to cause unwanted light spillage. Put a note on the lighting plan declairing that all fixtures are "fully shielded, down -directional, cut-off" fixtures. On the "sconce detail" on sheet 14 of 15, show more detail of how the fixture and bulb configuration fit into the sconce. Number: 177 Created: 1/10/2003 [4/16/03] So where are the gas, electric, and phone meters? This question is still not answered. I see on the lansdcape plan the the gas and electric services enter the multifamily building on the short end. In looking at the building elevations, it's not clear where on the facades these meters will be located. Without knowing that, I can't determine if the landscape plan adequately screens them. Please clarify by identifying on the landscape plan and the building elevations, where the meters are to be located. [1/10/031 Where are the gas, electric and phone meters to be located on the multifamily buildings? These meters must be incorporated into the oveall design theme of the buildings and the landscape so that they are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and the public streets as per 3.5.1(1)(2) of the LUC. Page 1