The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS - PDP - 17-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yours Truly, CAMERON GLOSS City Planner 5 of 5 24 25 26 Zoning 2 3 4 13 14 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Show locations of gas and electric on the overall utility plan.. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill As previously indicated, Pothole existing water main located in Tafthill Road and provide pothole information on these plans. Coordinate landscape plan with utility plan. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Issue Contact. Peter Barnes REPEAT COMMENT: They've now added the landscape assurance note, but the wording is not adequate. It needs to state something like "Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all landscaping must be installed or secured with an irrevocable, etc... Issue Contact: Peter Barnes REPEAT COMMENT: Looks like only 1 trash enclosure. People in Bldgs. 1, 2, 6, and 7 will have a long way to carry their trash - between 250' and 4004 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Need to -label the picnic tables and bike racks on the site plan. Issue Contact: Peter Barnes The parking lot at the west end has one island. The landscape plan shows a ramp and walk going th'ru it and plants along the side. The parking lot needs 6% interior landscape islands and each island must contain at least 1 tree (section 3.2.1(E)(5)c. This island needs a tree. Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Landscaping required along south side of west parking lot per 3.2.2(J) and 3.2.1(E)(4). Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Indicate on site plan that there is an existing 6' privacy fence on neighbors property along south lot line adjacent to west parking lot. 4of5 18 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque 3. Please provide more stages for the pond -rating curve and document the WQSEL and 100-year water surface elevation. The volume for the water quality pond should be in addition to the water detention volume. Please explain in the text the proposed design for this site. 19 Issue Contact. Wes Lamarque 4. Please provide 1-foot of freeboard for the detention pond. If this site does not allow for the total amount of freeboard, then explain the circumstances and document a need for a variance in the text of the report. 20 ,Issue Contact. Wes Lamarque 5. Please use a well screen instead of the gravel filter for the water quality outlet structure. Transportation Planning 5 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Site plan needs to show walkway connections from the building entrances to the sidewalk system. 6 ' Issue Contact: Tom Reiff REPEAT COMMENT: Bike racks need to be labelled on the site and landscape plans 7 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff REPEAT COMMENT: Bike racks need to be located where ramp access is available and does not cause damage to the vegetation. Water Wastewater 21 22 23 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Reduce proposed water main from an 8-inch to a 6-inch at the intersection of the private drive and future Pennsylvania Street. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Use a 6-inch 90 degree fitting at the end of the private drive. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill As previously indicated, maintain a 4 feet minimum separation between the outside wall of the meter pit and all building envelopes. 3 of 5 Current Planning 27 28 Issue Contact: Cameron Gloss Bicycle Parking The applicant may wish to consider several small bicycle parking racks more evenly distributed through the development. As proposed, the two larger racks are not "near building entrances" as required under 3.3.2(4)(c). Plat misspelling The owner's name is mispelled on the plat Engineering 8 Issue Contact: Cameron Gloss Issue Contact: Marc Virata The playground in the right-of-way for the future street is inconsistent with City policy. Please remove all notes pertaining to equipment within this area. 9 Issue Contact: Marc Virata A (new) low spot appears to be created along the parking area on the south side of the private drive. Is this intended? 10 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The plan set shows unreadable contours. It would still be preferred if the utility plan drawings were enlarged to a 30 or 20 scale. PFA 15 Issue Contact: Michael Chavez No new comments. Issues were resolved in letter to Cameron Gloss dated 4/12/01 from Ron Gonzales. Stormwater Utility 16 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque 1. Please provide documentation on pumping system and describe in text of the report how pump will function with the outlet system. Include pump literature and all accessories needed in order to operate the system. Also, please show pump on all outlet structure details in the plan set. 17 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque 2. Please clarify the release rate for the pond at the 100-year WSEL and make sure the rating curve is consistent with calculations. The orifice calculations show the 2-year rate of .79 cfs as the release and the rating curve says 1.15 cfs. 2 of 5 �� STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins Torgerson Architects Date: 8/30/2001 Mikal Torgerson 211 Jefferson Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for CHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS, #17-00, and we offer the following comments: 1+&*11 31 Advance Planning 11 Issue Contact: Clark Mapes Friendly suggestion/question on small peaked porch roofs On Bldg 3 south elevation and Bldg 4 north elevation, these peak features look a little unusual, not being over the entrances, and not having any visible horizontal beam or vertical column supports, as is typical for this kind of feature. Unless I'm missing something, they would be stronger positive features if they were handled this way. Also, could they in fact project forward a little bit from the shed roof, with columns supporting a visible beam and an interesting little peaked structure? (See Enclosed scratches on elevation drawing) We acknowledge the consideration of meter banks and the siding with paint (vs vinyl). One other little question though - could there be some variation in color shades, and not monotonous repetition of the beige? Thanks. 12 Issue Contact: Clark Mapes Provide parking lot perimeter landscaping The parking lot at the rear of the lot, south side, needs to meet 3.2.1(E)(4)(b). This is a basic, long-standing requirement. Also in this same location, the sidewalk is squeezed beyond what is useable and reasonable. Please omit the southernmost stall and use the 9 feet to provide perimeter landscaping and a more comfortable sidewalk. Please look at this in detail, at 20 scale minimum, and maybe larger. I don't know the exact parking count, but if this were to eliminate a unit, that could be beneficial in other ways because of the tight packing on this rather unusual development parcel. 1 of 5