HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIDEHILL, FILING ONE - PDP - 32-01B - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.)
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
If you have any tions regarding these responses please feel free to give me a call. I can be
reached at 2264074.
Thank
Cityscape Urban Design
Page 17
2. Please indicate that detention ponds are to be utilized as sediment traps
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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).
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke
Topic: General
Number: 157 Created: 1/9/2003
[4/16/031 Still Applies.
[1/9/03] APF Applies to Timberline/Prospect Intersection[LUC 3.7.3].
So noted. Thank you.
Number: 158 Created: 1/9/2003
[4/16/03] Still applies.
[1/9/03] This project will need to provide a design for Timberline.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Topic: Traffic Study
Number: 183 Created: 3/17/2003
The developer has asked for a variance regarding the eyebrow off of Hay Meadow. I do not believe
that a variance is required. The eyebrow functions more like a driveway and not a street.
The applicant and his consultants agree with this statement. Thank you:
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.
The ramp has been removed as requested
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson
Topic: General
Number: 22 Created: 12/23/2002
[3/28/03] Comment still unresolved.
[12/23/02] 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 Created: 3/28/2003
Previous comment #22 not yet been addressed.
As requested, the pedestrian connection has been added. Please see the response to comment
number 217.
Page 16
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
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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 sub -basin 56. If this is true, please
indicate the change in area between sub -basin 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 sub -basins
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. Sub -basin 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.
For comments number 1 through 6, please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this
comment.
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 upsidedown.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Page 15
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Minimum separation distances between streetlights and street trees have been respected throughout
the project. The applicant's engineer has located the requested streetlights along Timberline Road.
Number. 193 Created: 3/27/2003
Electric service to Building G does not maintain 10 feet clearance from the water service to Building
F.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
So noted. Thank you.
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).
So noted. Thank you.
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
So noted. Thank you.
Number: 211
Created: 4/16/2003
Page 14
Number: 163 Created: 1/9/2003
[3/27/03] Still Applies
[119/03] WILL NEEDMIN CLEARANCE 3 FEET FOR GAS & ELEC METERS ON BUILDINGS A - L.
So noted. Thank you. More than a three foot clearance has been created between gas and electric
meters on buildings A-L Please see the building elevations and the typical 20 unit building
landscape plans.
Department: Light It 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 1209240V transformer. Service to the pool/clubhouse must require the same
secondary voltage oranother 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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 186 Created: 3/27/2003
Lot 7 - StrawFork Drive.... Stormsewer is less than 5 feet from the proposed electric lines.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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 pool/clubhouse.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 189 Created: 3/27/2003
Some of the multifamiy 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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment. Also, please refer the the
amended architectural elevations of the multi -family buildings.
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.
Page 13
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 136
Created: 1/3/2003
Add the street cut note wherestreet 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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 222 Created: 4/21/2003
Correction to the vicinity map on the cover sheet required.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 230 Created: 4/21/2003
Do not show the future right turn lane since it will not be constructed with this project.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 231 Created: 4/21/2003
See redlines for other comments.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
So noted. Thank you.
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.
So noted. Thank you.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment. .
Page 12
Number: 113 Created: 1/3/2003
Line 41 and 48 of the General Notes require corrections.
4/18/3: Lines 47 and 48 require corrections.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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
713.1F
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.
Page 11
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Topic: Street Names
Number: 106 Created: 1 /3/2003
Please refer to Chapter 13 of LCUASS for street naming requirements.
Chapter 13 has been referenced for street naming criteria.
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.
The applicants' traffic engineer, Matt Delich, contacted both Susan Joy and Eric Bracke on April 30,
2003 to discuss this comment. From these conversations it was agreed that all parties are aware that
APF issues exist for both Timberline Road and the Timberline/Prospect Road intersection. And it was
agreed that at the time of this writing, all parties have agreed upon no solution to the APF issues.
During the phone conversation, Eric Bracke stated that SideHill would not be allowed any building
permits until some type of solution was agreed upon.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 225 Created: 4/21 /2003
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 227 Created: 4/21/2003
Is the Rigden Farm system sized to accommodate this flow?
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 228 Created: 4/21 /2003
The subdrain system must be 8" below sewer.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Topic: Utility plans
Number: 109 Created: 1/3/2003
Cover Page - Correct the index, see redlines.
4/18/3: See redlines.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment
Page 10
4/18/3: Repeat comment, see redlines and attached plat language.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 96 Created: 1/3/2003
Provide all easements and vacations by separate document as stated on the plat.
4/18/3: Repeat comment.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this 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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this 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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment
Topic: Site
Number: 102 Created: 1/3/2003
Remove contour lines.
4/18/3: Repeat comment
As per conversations with Susan Joy and Troy Jones, the contours will remain on this overall site
plan. A note stating: "The contours shown on this plan are for continuity only. Please refer to civil
plans for grading and contour information" has been added to the plan.
Citysca
Number: 105 Created: 1/3/2003
Coordinate the comments among the various plan sets so that they present the same information.
Number: 221
Remove the landscaping from the site plan.
Created: 4/18/2003
Although the applicant would like to retain the landscaping on this site plan for overall context, the
trees have been removed at the request of the City Planning and Engineering departments. The
landscaping was added to emphasize a major pedestrian feature connecting the future Rigden Farm
neighborhood shopping center, the proposed transit stop on Timberline and the SideHill
neighborhood park.
Topic: Street Design
Number: 226 Created: 4/21/2003
Sheet 55/64 Trestle Road offsite design: What's happening here?
Page 9
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
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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?
An alternative compliance request has been submitted to the city for approval reducing the separation
distance between trees and utilities and trees and driveways. This request would reduce the
separation distance between trees and utilities from 10 feet to 8 feet.
Number: 79 Created: 1/3/2003
Coordinate the comments among the various plan sets so that they present the same information.
So noted. Thank you.
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.
The trees along Drake and Timberline have been moved to their ultimate location. A note has been
added to the landscape plan. stating that trees shall be placed 5' from the edge of sidewalk.
Number: 219 Created: 4/18/2003
Block 4, Lot 10 - Street tree shown in driveway.
The tree shown in the driveway of Lot 10, Block 4 has been moved to a more appropriate and
vehicular friendly location.
Number: 220 Created: 4/18/2003
Coordinate the typical street sections with the utility plans.
The typical street sections have been coordinated. Please note that the sections shown within the
planning set of documents are not for construction and are for graphic representation only.
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 much!
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment
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.
Page 8
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment. The water treatment facility
buffer and historic structures are shown within the Context Diagram on the Cover Sheet of the
planning documents.
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.
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.
So noted. Thank you.
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 221-6606 if you have any questions.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment
Page 7
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.
The sidewalk and trees have been moved, as requested, to their ultimate location.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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 74F or 7-5F depending on TIS and whether or not access is taken off it) and show
Page 6
Number: 216 Created: 4/17/2003
Please remove the trees on the north side of Iowa between Timberline and WindRow, and on the
west side 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.
As requested, these trees have been removed.
Number: 217 Created: 4/17/2003
Transportation Planrang's issue #22 is still unresolved. The internal pedestrian connections between
buildings DIE 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 bt 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.
The connecting walkway between buildings AB and DIE has been added per the redlined drawings.
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.
Number: 51
Created: 1 /3/2003
Page 5
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).
The Alternative Compliance request was mailed and received by Current Planning. The request has
been revised at the request of staff and included in this submittal package.
(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)].
Multiple meeting with staff regarding street trees has resulted in the addition of trees to this block.
Utilities have been realigned to resolve this issue.
(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 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.
A separation distance of 5' has been maintained between trees and both electrical vaults and junction
boxes. Please see the plans for the location of these utility features. These features have been
made more visually apparent to assist in the review of these plans. The applicant's engineer has
moved Junction Boxes and vaults with Monica Moore's approval to accommodate street trees.
(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 "18.00' wide access
easements for driveway locations," and shall be consistent with driveway locations depicted on the
landscape plans.
A note has been added to the general notes on sheet 4 of 15 that reads: Driveway locations for
single-family lots shall be located only at the locations indicated on the plat as "18' wide access
easements for driveway locations."
Number: 215 Created: 4/17/2003
On the previous version of the landscape plan, the sidewalk that extends the alignment of WindRow
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.
The required trees along the connecting walkway have been added to the plan
Page 4
however final compbance 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.
So noted. Thank ynw.
Number: 203 Created: 4/10/2003
Elevations of the bathhouse building must be included on the building elevation sheet(s). Make sure
materials, colors, and dimensions are included.
The dimensioned elevations of the Pool House are included in this plan set. The color scheme will be
consistent with one of the four-color schemes provided at the time of the 2ntl submittal.
Number: 207 Created: 4/16/2003
Regarding issue #155 from the first round of comments dealing with the "location" 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."
We disagree with the assessment that the parking lot acts as a rear yard for abutting buildings. One
half of all units in each building face away from the street, creating a "front yard" on both the street
and parking lot side of the structure. Additionally, the Fort Collins Land Use Code encourages the
screening of parking lots with buildings. Regardless, a connecting walkway has been added from
Building H to the small neighborhood park.
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 apparant reason they were removed was tree/utility separation conflicts. Section
3.2.1(K) states, "Treelutility 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 3829 feet, and lot 7 is 49.63 feet. It's becoming clear that the frontage for these
lots is just toonarrow 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.
Additional street trees have been added to this area to meet standard by realigning utilities.
Number: 213
Created: 4/16/2003
Page 3
Can utility easements be granted along Sidehill Boulevard so that facilities can be placed when the
road is built?
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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?
The following note has been added to the plan set: THE "INTERPRETIVE" ZONING DISTRICT LINE
USED FOR LAND USE CALCULATIONS AND THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT LINE PER THE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAVE THE SAME NET AREA. The interpretive zoning line was created to
calculate density. When the existing zoning line is applied to the current lot configuration it divides
lots unevenly and does not provide a definitive lot count for density calculations. Hence the
interpretive zoning line was created with the same total area as the existing zoning line to provide a
definitive lot count.
Number. 170 Created: 1/10/2003
[4/16/03] 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.
The applicant has removed the wall -mounted fixtures from the lighting plan. The James Company is
no longer using sconces in their lighting designs. A cut sheet of each rixture has been included with
this submittal.
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.
[1/10/03] 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.
Gas and Electric meters are shown on the elevations and in plan view on the landscape sheets.
Landscaping has been used to screen the meters from view. Please see sheet 11 of 16 for meter
locations and screening.
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 Prospect/Timberline intersection. The requirement of Adequate Public ,
Facilities is therefore still a major obsticle for this project. This issue won't prevent PDP approval,
Page 2
May 21, 2003
Troy Jones
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental Services
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
cKn@@P@
urban design, inc.
RE: Timberline Village PDP — Conceptual Review Comments and Responses
Dear Troy,
3555 stanford road, suite 105
fort collins, colorado 80525
(970) 226-4074
fax (970) 226-4196
e@cityscapeud.com
Included below are the comments received from City Staff regarding the first round of Project
Development Plans for Timberline Village (Harmony School Shops). An explanation (in italics) of how
issues have been addressed follows each comment. These comments were initially received on April
21, 2003
With the response to these comments and this re -submittal, the consultant team considers the Project
Development Plan review complete and requests that a hearing be scheduled.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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.
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
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?
Please see JR Engineering's response letter regarding this comment.
Number: 201 Created: 4/10/2003
Page 1