Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM, 7TH FILING, THE WILLOWS - PDP - 56-98N - CORRESPONDENCE - (9)116 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Remove landscape maintenance note #7. Staff will determine how long and when something has to be replaced. The developer can't make that determination for us. 117 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes For purposes of reviewing building permit applications, it would be preferable for the lot area tables to be moved from sheet 3 of 3 to sheet 2 of 3. 118 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Based on the revised plat submittal it would appear that all the units are either detached single family or attached single family, and that there are no more multi -family buildings. However, their site plan still refers to 9 multi -family buildings. If these really are meant to be multi -family, then they need to change the plat again so that each unit is not on its own lot, but rather the entire buildiing is on just one lot. If they really are attached single family, then need to change terminology on site plan to reflect that. 119 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes The top part of the tables on the site plan have been cut off. 120 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Since on -street parking doesn't count as anything, remove all on -street parking information from site plan. 121 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes .REPEAT COMMENT: remove single family detached building footprints from site plan, or at least add note that they are for illustrative purposes only. Otherwise, any deviation from m the footprint will not be allowed at building permit time. 122 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes They have a general note on the site plan about some modifications. The note must state exactly what the modifications were. For example, the note states that they got a modification for front, rear, . and side setbacks. But what is specifically allowed? Instead of a 15' front setback, what are they allowed, 14', 13, 12, 11' or what exactly? 123 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes If their temporary sales trailer is not on a platted lot, we can not issue a permit for it. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any que tions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel ree to call me t (970) 221-6750. Y urs Trul� TR ,Y JO ES City Plann r Page I 54 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Construct access ramps and a striped crosswalk on the north side of the intersection of Parkfront Dr. and Rigden Pkwy. Align with the driveway and parking lot of the neighborhood center. -(updated 10- 16-01) 56 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Include amenities such as benches, canopies, drinking fountains, etc... along the regional trail for residents, and trail users. (LUC 3.2.2 (C.3)] (updated 10-16-01) 124 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Construct a 5-foot sidewalk connection from the south west parking lot (see red lines). 125 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Consider constructing curb bulbouts at the Willow Tree Lane and Parkfront Drive intersection to calm traffic and enhance the main entry into the area. (see red lines). Department: Water Wastewater 138 Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Tract D must be a utility easement. 139 Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Sewer service for Lot 5 may not cross Lot 6. 140 Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Curb stops for Lots 12-14 and Lots 15-17 must be in utility easements. 35 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill As previously indicated, provide the required landscape/utility separation distances on the landscape plans. . 40 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Will an irrigation tap be needed for this -development? If so, show and label on utility plans. 134 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Maintain 10 feet minimum separation between water/sewer services and all permanent structures (Le. drainage structures, entry features, etc,). 135 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill As previously indicated, maintain 4 feet of separation between the outside wall of meter pits and all building envelopes. 136 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Direct taps of water services must be separated by 2 feet minimum. Clearly define this on the plan set. 137 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Coordinate profile views with the plan views to reflect the same information. Department: Zoning 8 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Remove single family building footprints from site plan, or at least add note that they are for illustrative purposes only. Otherwise, any deviation from the footprint will not be allowed at building permit time. Page 10 59 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales FIRE LANE TURNAROUND If a fire lane is provided, it shall not exceed 150 feet in length without a turnaround being provided. The turnaround shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 20 feet and an outside radius of 40 feet. The fire lane shall meet all other design criteria provided by the Poudre Fire Authority. 128 PFA has no new comments. 10-17-01 Department: Police Issue Contact: Michael Chavez 126 Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Landscape: Recommend deleting the Redtwig Dogwood (RTD) where shown in front of sliding doors and ground accessable windows. This plant will create potential security/forced entry opportunities at these locations. Department: Stormwater Utility 129 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Due to the overflow swale and other swales proximity to the window wells, the importance of having the swales graded axactly as designed is greatened. Please provide a detailed, area specific, swale cross-section for swales A -A, B-B, C-C, and D-D from building to building like the ones already in the drainage report. These can be placed on the grading or details plan if they will not fit on the drainage plan. 130 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Please add trench drains to the driveway entrances that do not have any. See redlines grading plans. 131 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Please see some additional minor comments in the report and plans. 132 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Erosion/Sediment Control Comments: 1. There are no standard notes on the plan. - 2. There are no reseeding/mulching notes on the plan per your calculations. 3. You appear to be utilizing the ponds as sediment traps, please indicate gravel filters on the outlets. Department: Transportation Planning 31 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Directional access ramps are required at intersections with detached walks (LCUASS 16.3.1 A,5). Draw directional access ramps as outlined in the LCUASS on the site plan (updated 10-16-01) 33 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Construct a raised or enhanced crosswalk where neighborhood trail crosses Custer Drive (LCUASS 16.6.1), raised crosswalk is recommended to stay consistant with the subdivision. See red lines (updated 10-16-01) Page 9 Department: Natural Resources 22 Issue Contact: Doug Moore Landscape Plan Issue - Seed Mix and Mixer Ratios needs to be called out on the Landscape Plan for review. All plantings used within buffer areas must be plant species native to Fort Collins. (see attached guide) 23 Issue Contact: Doug Moore Limits of Development (LOD) 3.4.1(N)(1-5)- • Limits of Development (LOD) line shall be estabilshed as the boundary of the project outside of which no land disturbance will occur. The purpose of this is to protect the natural habitats and features and their associated buffer zones from inadvertent damage. 133 Issue Contact: Doug Moore Tree Protection Standards- 3.2.1(A)(C), 3.2.1(F),3.2.1(G) The existing Willow Trees on site need to be preserved in accordance to City Land Use Code Standards. Department: PFA 15 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales ADDRESSING All building addresses shall be visible from the street fronting the property. UFC901.4.4 Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. FCLUC3.5.2(C)1 "Extent reasonably feasible" is defined as in Article 5 of the Land Use Code as follows: "shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonble steps.have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with this regulation." NOTE: Because of the forementioned requirements, the two detached buildings in the far southwest corner labelled as "SF-132" and "BG-12" shall not be approved due to them having no street frontage from which an address would originate. - 16 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales WATER SUPPLY Hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. No building can be greater than 300 feet from any hydrant. Each hydrant shall be capable of delivering 1500 gpm at 20 psi. UFC901.2.2.2 17 KNOX BOX Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales A Knox Box (key box) is required to be mounted on every building equipped with required fire protection (see sprinkler requirement). UFC902.4; PFA Policy 88-20. 18 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales FIRE SPRINKLERS The following buildings are required to be fire sprinklered because they are out of acces: BG-1through BG-8 BG-10 and BG-11 BG-16, BG-17 and BG-18 Page 8 Drive does not tie into existing grades at the end of the property, are slope easement needed at the property line and along the access road? 10/17 The utility plan set should indicate whether the access road for emergency purposes is being built at the new grade for the designed street or to existing grade. 127 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Is it the "Willow" or "Willows"? The site and landscape plans differ from the plat and utility in wording. Also, the documents differ in title, starting with either "Rigden Farm 7th Filing..." or 'The Willow(s) ...... Please ensure the titles are all the same and coordinate the naming of the project with the project planner. 141 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Please show the platted boundaries on the utility plan in order to distinguish between on -site and off - site construction and grading proposed. iEK Issue Contact: Marc Virata It was discussed at staff review that the driveways in close proximity to the street storm sewer inlets could have the storm drainage off these driveways conveyed to these inlets via an underground pipe instead of the culvert/chase system. In addition, at these driveway locations, area inlets could be used instead of trench drains. Can this be accomodated into the system? 143 Issue Contact: Marc Virata I have received preliminary indication from Xcel Energy that they have concerns regarding the . placement of the trench drains on top of the gas lines as shown on the utility plan sheet. Any issues regarding gas line location should be resolved prior to a hearing. 169 Issue Contact: Marc Virata- The Developer should provide some sort of documentation regarding the ownership of lands beneath the common breezeway for the attached single family 12-plexes. Could access through this breezeway be prevented from the property owners? 170 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Show the transition point to remove the crown of Willow Tree Lane as it approaches Parkfront Drive. (Already shown on Sheet 12, just needed on Sheet 13.) 171 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Revise utility plan details for the pedestrian ramps (to be bi-directional) and neckdowns (to be in accordance with the design.) 172 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Add a note on the plat regarding maintenance of tracts (who maintains them.) Department: Excel Energy 163 Issue Contact: Len Hilderbrand No trees planted within 4 feet of a gas line. 164 Issue Contact: Len Hilderbrand Same comments apply as stated on July 7 / (July 18). Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore Landscape Plan does not conform to the minimum clearances required between shade trees and streetlights. Shade Trees MUST maintain at least 40 feet of clearance from streetlights. There are at least 12 streetlights on the landscape plan that have conflicts with street trees. Page 7 10/17 The submitted groundwater analysis by Terracon recommends perimeter drains surrounding individual units with a discharge to a drainage swale, storm pipe, or some other drainage appurtenance. This analysis shows a preliminary design for discharge in some example areas. No actual design regarding this subsurface drainage system was shown on the utility plan set and should be designed at this time for the various utilities and Engineering to comment on. In general, horizontal and vertical separation from utilities needs to be addressed to the satisfaction of the various utilities. In general, Engineering needs to see the actual design to find out if there is an impact of the design on public right-of-way. There is an immediate concern in that the preliminary design appears to follow the alignment of the sanitary sewer in an area and appears to possibly be at or near the same depth. Please provide this design (horizontal and vertical) to ensure that such a system will not have any utility or public right-of-way impacts, as well as ensure that such a system is readily maintainable by the Developer and its successors in interest (HOA). The submitted study should make recommendations regarding pipe material, cleanout location and spacing, If the Developer seeks to deviate from the recommendations of the groundwater analysis, an addendum to the report must be submitted for review. 81 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Street names are not the same between the site and utility plan sheets. Please ensure they correspond. 10/17 The Plat still shows old street names. 82 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The sidewalk along the west side of Parkfront Drive that meanders round the tree needs to be in a public access easement. 10/17 This appears to be somewhat addressed on the utility plans, but this is not reflected on the plat. However, the sidewalk must be in an access easement, not right-of-way as the utility plan and responses indicate. M Issue Contact: Marc Virata A trench drain appears to be missing on Sheet 7. 10✓17 Conflicting responses were made regarding this from the site planner and the engineer. The site planner indicated that the trench drain was added, the engineer indicated that it is not needed according to drainage criteria. The utility plan does not show a trench drain added, in my view it is required based upon 9.4.11 of LCUASS. k�7 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Directional ramps at intersections are required on all new construction in accordance to LCUASS, please revise the drawings to use directional ramps. 10117 This was noted as acknowledged on the planner's response letter, however this is not reflected on the site or utility plan sets. Please use Detail 16-413 of LCUASS. 99 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Please show the access ramps scaled out on the utility plans. 10117 (Ensure that that these are directional ramps scaled out on the drawing.) 102 Issue Contact: Marc Virata A variance request is required for the instances where the minimum off street parking setback distance is not being met per the requirements in 19-03 in LCUASS. 109 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The access road along the west that heads out to Custer needs to be clarified on roadway width, plans show both a 20' and 30' wide access road. In addition, since the proposed onsite roadway for Kansas Page 6 159 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Follow upon issue # 64 from the first round of review -REPEAT COMMENT --The Attorney Certification block is different for projects that were granted modifications than our standard Attorney Certification language. Please see the attached example. This is a final compliance issue. 160 Issue Contact: Troy Jones The title of the project on all sheets needs to be "Rigden Farm, 7th Filing, The Willow." All projects in Rigden Farm are required to follow this format. This includes the site plan, landscape plan, elevations, plat, and Utility Plans. This is a final compliance issue. 161 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Any off -site emergency access easements, utility easements, or site distance easements need to be obtained prior to hearing. 162 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Water Tight Window Wells - It is my understanding that you have shown the Stormwater Department staff that the 100 year storm flows won't flow over the tops of the window wells. A point of discussion on this issue that came up at staff review is that the window well need to be water tight so that the water doesn't seep in through the sides. Please specify wherever the window wells are shown on the plan set drawings that they will be water tight. This is a final compliance issue. 167 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Follow up on issue # 71 -- Look in the definitions in Article 5 of the LUC under "Solar -oriented lot." Analyze each lot against the definition and depict on the site plan which of the lots are solar -oriented lots, and which are not. Usually this can be done with a little symbol on the lot if it is one. Then calculate what percentage of the proposed lots are solar -oriented. If less than 65% of the lots are solar oriented,- the standard is not being satisfied. If this is the case you will need to request alternative compliance to the issue. This issue needs to be resolved prior to hearing. 168 Issue Contact: Troy Jones If you have any questions about how to request an alternative compliance for any of the issues I have mentioned might need one, call me and I will help you work through it. The justification needs to address certain criteria specific to each section of the code. Department: Engineering 13 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Add Light and Power to the City of Fort Collins Utility Plan Approval Block. 10/17 This only occurs on the cover sheet. It is at least also needs to be on the utility plan sheet at a minimum. 78 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Letters of intent for all offsite easements are required before a hearing. 10/17 Not received at this time, this includes emergency access, utility, and sight distance easements. 79 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Alternative compliance to Section 3.6 of the Land Use Code is required for no street connections to the south. 10/17 Response indicates this is addressed by Wheeler, has this been the case? 80 Issue Contact: Marc Virata A groundwater analysis report because of the high groundwater shown on the soils report in conformance of Chapter 5 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Page 5 150 Issue Contact: Troy Jones What is the sidewalk connecting to on the south side of the trail to the south property line? There is no longer going to be a pedestrian connection proposed by the applicant on the. other side of the channel. 151 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Remove the 40' radius circles around street lights on the landscape plans. This is a final compliance issue. 152 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Follow up to Issue # 61 from the first round of review - Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the LUC requires that canopy shade trees be used as street trees, except ornamental trees can be substituted for canopy shade trees where "overhead lines and fixtures prevent normal growth and maturity," and when such fixture is a street light, the substituted ornamental tree can be planted as close as 15 feet to the streetlight. The proposed landscape plan uses ornamental trees for street trees where canopy trees are required. There are also many locations where ornamental trees are placed 15 feet apart, where the street tree requirement specifies that they be spaced ad 30 to 40 foot spacing intervals. If you can't work out the issue to meet the LUC requirements, an alternative compliance request will be necessary as part of the materials that goes to the type 1 hearing. This issue must be resolved prior to hearing. 153 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Another follow up to Issue #61-The block bounded Willow/Custer/Rigden/Parkside (1880') has the required number, but ornamental trees are used in many locations where canopy shade trees are required. The south side of Parkside still doesn't have enough trees. 154 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Issue # 62 from the first round of review -REPEAT COMMENT. The species of trees are not labeled on the landscape drawing. Show the quantities of plantings on the plant list. This must be resolved prior to hearing. 155 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Follow up to Issue # 67 from first round - Add parking lot perimeter landscaping to the area between the parking lot and trail in accordance with 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) where it requires a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of 30 inches and shall extend a minimum of 70% of the length of the trail. This must be_ resolved prior to hearing. 156 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Please see the attached sketched suggestions from the Advance Planning Department on the redlined site plan regarding rounding off some of the harsh sidewalk corners, and the configuration of the western edge of the parking lot. 157 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Follow up to Issue #69 from the first round of review -- The wall mounted security lights in the motor courts must be down directional cut off fixtures. The breezeways must also be lit. I need to see a spec sheet on the fixtures that you choose. This is a final compliance issue. 158 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Follow up to Issue #112 from the first round of review -- REPEAT COMMENT -- The written responce from Slayt Construction says that the side yard use/access easement comment was acknowledged and to see the plan. What plan? I don't see any clarification anywhere on this issue. This issue needs to be resolved prior to hearing. Page 4 each species of trees, shrubs, and grasses on the plans (pages L-1 through L-3) and put the quantities of each species in the landscape table on page L-4. - 64 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Signature Blocks RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: The site plan must have the "planning approval' and the 'owner's certification" signature blocks on it. The attorney's signature block on the plat needs to be changed because we use different wording for projects that were granted modifications to the LUC. Please see the attached signature block examples. 67 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Parking Lot Design RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: If you do integrate a parking lot into the design, make sure to design it in accordance with 3.2.1(E)(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping, 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping, 3.2.2(E) Parking Lot Layout, and 3.2.2(M) Landscaping. If a parking lot were to be located next to the trail along the southern portion of the site, adequate screening will be required between the lot and the trail. 68 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Required Street Crossing RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: During the review of the property south of this site (Rigden Farm Filing 6 currently under review), across the Foothills Drainageway, we made a comment to that developer (Wheeler Commercial & Jim Sell Design) that a street connection is required between your property and their property crossing the channel in accordance with section 3.6.3(F) of the LUC. In our discussions with the other developer, they have indicated to City Staff that they intend to address the issue through recommending an alternative compliance to this section of the LUC.. To date, I have not received an alternative compliance request from -that developer that satisfies the review criteria specified in 3.6.3(H)(2) of the LUC. I have verbally discussed the issue with the other developer, and it looks like they have found an argument that can be supported by staff in eliminating this crossing. Your application must also request an alternative compliance to this requirement or provide the street connection. You may want to coordinate with Vaughn Furness of Jim Sell Design at (970)484-1921 on this issue. He is the person who is in the process of drafting this request for the other site. 69 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Lighting in the Motor Courts _ RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: Please clarify how the interior of the motor courts will be lit. We want to ensure that they will be lit enough to discourage safety hazards. Any lighting must comply with the site lighting design standards in section 3.2.4(D) of the LUC. Once the lighting is clarified, we will have the information needed to comment more specifically on this issue. 71 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Solar -Oriented Lot Requirement RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: Section 3.2.3(B) of the LUC requires that at least 65 % of the lots less than 15,000 square feet in area in single family residential developments must conform to the definition of a "solar -oriented lot." Based on the letter included in the submittal explaining that lots 44 through 64 on the plat will actually be changed to depict individual unit parcels, all residential lots for this project will be considered in the calculation of compliance with the solar -oriented lot standard. Because the plat is not accurately depicting the ultimate lot configuration of the areas west of Willow Drive, it is not possible to determine if the proposed plan satisfies this standard. If less than 65% of the lots satisfy the definition, you will need to either change the site plan to comply, or request an alternative compliance to this standard specifically addressing the review criteria in section 3.2.3(E)(2) of the LUC. Page 2 City of Fort Collins Slayt Construction Ralph Colasanti 215 Union Blvd Suite 350 Lakewood, CO 80228 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Date: . 10/25/2001 Staff has reviewed your submittal for RIGDEN FARM, 7TH FILING, THE WILLOWS - #56-98N, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Dry Utilities 165 Issue Contact: Dennis Greenwalt AT&T Broadband would like to know what the Tracts are and have them labeled on the plat map as Utiltiy Easements. 166 Issue Contact: Dennis Greenwalt AT&T Broadband will not make plans to service buildings with more than 4 units until a service agreement, A.K.A. Broadband utility easement, is completed with our Commecial Accounts Executive, Reneta Santro, who can be reached at 970-419-3106. .,Department: Current Planning 61 Street Trees Issue Contact: Troy Jones RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS.FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: In accordance with section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) of the LUC, "wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees shall be planted at thirty-foot to forty -foot spacing (averaged along the entire front and sides of the block face) in the center of all such parkway areas." The block bounded by Willow, Custer, Rigden, and Parkside is approximately 1880 feet in circumference. The above code section .(3.2.1(D)(2)(a)]would require 47 trees in the parkway areas around the circumference of this block. The proposed landscape plan only shows 42 trees. The southern side of Parkside Drive is roughly 1050 feet in length, which would require 29 trees. The landscape plan only shows 17 street trees along this section. The front and sides of the block along the western side of Willow Drive is roughly 780 feet in length, which would require 20 street trees. The landscape plan only shows 19 street trees along this section. The front and side of the block along the eastern side of Kansas is roughly 710 feet in length, which would require 18 trees. The landscape plan show 18 trees, so this section meets the code.The front of the block on the west side of Kansas is roughly 545 feet in length, which would require 14 trees. The landscape plan shows 13 trees in this section. Any less than the required number of street trees around for any section of street would require an alternative compliance request in accordance with 3.2.1(N) of the LUC. If you choose to request an alternative compliance request make sure that your argument specifically addresses each and every one of the review criteria for alternative compliance requests in 3.2.1(N)(2). 62 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Species Diversity RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: Section 3.2.1(D)(3) limits the number of trees on the project to no more than 15% of a single species. The landscape plan does not specify the quantities of each species of tree. The submittal requirements list for Project Development Plans requires that the "extent and location of all plant materials and landscape features" be shown in the landscape table. You must revise the landscape plans to label Page 1 77 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Street Names RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: The plat and the site plan have street names that do not match. 85 Bulbouts Issue Contact: Troy Jones RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: Given the limited amount of available on -street parking, the street neckdowns where the midblock crosswalks cross Parkside Drive should be modified to maximize the amount of parallel parking the street that will physically be able to handle. Please see the redlined site plan from Current Planning with regard to this issue. The modified neck down will require an engineering variance, but we feel it makes sence from a site planning standpoint. 112 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Sideyard Setbacks - Modification Conditions RESTATED FROM FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES: The planning and zoning board approved the reduction in side yard setbacks on 6/21/01 with the condition that access/use easements be granted for the side yards. Please provide the documentation that explains and depicts how this side yard access/use easement will work. 145 Issue Contact: Troy Jones It was my understanding that we had agreed that the motor courts were going to have breezeways that can be walked through (under the 2nd story extension between buildings) for pedestrians to get into and out.of the motorcourts. If my memory serves me. correct, we had agreed that this would be given design attention on the elevations and a safe lighting arrangement. The landscape plan shows landscaping blocking pedestrian ingress and egress through these breezeways. The site plan needs to have walkways connecting these breezeways to the adjacent walkways. The elevations need to address breezeway concept (read as an entry or throughfare). The plat needs to either provide pedestrian access easements or there. needs to be restrictive covenants that allow the passage of pedestrians out of the breezeway. 146 Issue Contact: Troy Jones The site plan, landscape plan, and elevations are part one set of documents that get recorded together in the city files. They need to be numbered 1 of 8, 2 of 8, 3 of 8 and so forth. The landscape plans can continue to have names of L-1 through L-5 as long as they also have 4 of 8 through 8 of 8 in the lower right corner. This is a final compliance issue. 147 Issue Contact: Troy Jones, Follow up on Issue # 68 from the first round of review - REPEAT COMMENT -- An alternative compliance request on this issue is still needed prior to hearing. 148 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Follow up on Issue # 77 - REPEAT COMMENT - The plat and site plan have street names that do not match. 149 Issue Contact: Troy Jones The parking note has a typo, please change "hoseholds" to "households." The titles of the tables on the site plan are cut-off the top of the print area of the plotter. Please make all text fit onto a 24"x36" page. This is a final compliance issue. Page 3