Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST RIDGE - PDP - 33-98D - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSRedline drawings have been returned with this resubmittal. Thank you for your review of this letter and the resubmittal PDP materials. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason. Sincerely, JIM SELL DESIGN, INC. Matthew J. Bl ely, ASL Project Mara er cc: George Hart, Progressive Living Structures, Inc. Jeff Strauss, Tri-Trend Homes Keith Sheaffer, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers C:\DOCUW -]\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\Temp\PDP Comment Responses I1-0"5 (2nd mb).doc Page 13 of 13 Topic: General Number: 130 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Please note that due to the short tam around provided and the preliminary nature of the information submitted on this round of review, all the comments given are general in nature. Once a more detailed submittal is provided, more detailed comments will follow. Response: Acknowledged Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number: 105 Created: 8/3/2005 [8/3/05] The size of Block 22 poses a problem from a Ped LOS perspective, specifically the directness measure. Let's take a look at this at see if we can find a way to put in a pedestrian path similar to what has been done in other areas of the project. Response: We have added a mid -block pedestrian connection to Block 22. Topic: Overall Site Plan Number: 11 Created: 4/19/2005 [8/3/05] Thanks for adding the walk. Please add a note that specifically states that this is a "temporary paved connection". [4/19/05] The TIS indicates that there will be a "temporary paved connection" from the southern edge of this property to the existing sidewalk on the east side of Timberline which terminates at Timberline/International intersection. I do not see this noted on the planset. Please include this improvement on subsequent submittals. Response: A note has been added to the Site Plan. Topic: Plat Number: 5 Created: 4/18/2005 [8/2/05] Looks like Tract R is the only one that didn't get resolved, according to the tract table and plat. Looks like that bit of Tract C where the ped path passes through needs a public access easement as well. Thanks. [4/18/05] The pedestrian walkways in Tracts B,R P,U,T,S, and Y need to be placed in Public Access Easements. These can be blanket easements or called out separately. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Topic: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Number: 3 Created: 4/4/2005 [7/26/051 Sheet SP-4 shows the 10 lots for the attached single family units. However, if these lots contain the 3' side yard easement that is typical on all the lots, then attached units won't work. I don't have a plat to review with this round, but if they haven't removed the easements, they'll have to do so. [4/4/05] Their project note #7 and their response number 4 on their Conceptual Review letter response indicate that there are 3 housing types proposed with this PDP. However, only 2 housing types are listed in the Unit Type Summary on Sheet SP-2 of 8. The Code requires 3 housing types in each PDP over 45 acres in size. Even if there are 3 housing types in the ODP, that doesn't satisfy the requirement that 3 are required for this particular PDP. So I don't believe the "Future MY Tracts" count towards satisfying the requirement. Response: The shared side yard easements have been removed from the plat and site plan. C:\DOCIIME—]\PLANNER\LMALS—I\Temp\PDP Comment Respomm 11-08.05 (2nd nb).doc Page 12 of 13 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Canal Overflow (Larimer and Weld) Number: 120 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] According to the Dry Creek master plan, the Larimer and Weld Canal has a spill upstream of this area of 290 cis (Conveyance Element 953). These flows will need to be routed through this site. This spill is shown on the approved Dry Creek master plan. Even though this site is located technically in the Cooper Slough Boxelder basin, it is impacted by this overflow, which is detailed in the Dry Creek master drainage plan. Response: TST has been coordinating with ACE and the city on this matter. Topic: Channeling off -site flows through the site (Black Hollow Channel) Number: 121 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] The City is currently looking at an alternative that would convey water to the Dry Creek Channel from areas north of the Latimer and Weld Canal. The City s consultant on this project is Anderson Consulting Engineers. The channel would carry the detained areas north of the Canal. These flows are in the range of 270 cis. The channel that would be needed for the Larimer and Weld Canal overflow should be sufficient to carry these flows through this site. I can email you a copy of the preliminary design of the channel if requested. This channel could possibly address the conveyance of the Larimer and Weld Canal overflow as provide a master planned improvement needed in this area. It is recommended that you contact me to set up a meeting with our master planning engineers, in order to more fully explain and explore this issue. Please note that this is based on best available information, as this channel alternative design for the master plan improvements was only recently developed by the City. Response: TST has been coordinating with ACE and the city on this matter. Topic: Drainage Number: 98 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] The current design allows water to pond up in forebays prior to entering Pond 1, please provide overflows from these forebays in to Pond 1, and provide a way to get rid of low flows from these forebay areas into the Pond 1. Response: Low flow pipes have been shown. Pipes will be finalized with final design. Topic: Drainage design issues Number: 102 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] Please explain in the report what areas off -site from this development were accounted for in the drainage design and how that compares and complies with the sub -basin delineation as shown in the Cooper Slough master drainage plan. The Cooper Slough Mater plan shows basin 16, to be 60.5 acres to the northeast of this site and to drain through the site with a future planned detention. The model takes into account only 13.08 acres at a very low percent impervious rate. This issue was brought up early on with the design engineers; however, the drainage report for this site has failed to address it and thus does not comply with the currently approved master plan for this site. Please provide a SWMM model schematic in the drainage report showing all basins, conveyance elements and ponds. It seems like the percent impervious for open areas was assumed to be close to 0% in some open areas, please use a minimum of 20% per City criteria. Response: SWiLfMmodel has been adjusted. C:\DOC IME-1\PLANNERUMAIS-1\T=p\PDP Co= m Rmpoo 11-0"5 (2nd mb).doc Page 11 of 13 Response: Our first submittal did show this off -site sewer design and it was included in the plan sets. We also provided the letters of intent (in the first submittal) for comment. This sheet is an overall util. sheet showing the off -site sanitary sewer alignment. Call -outs and labels were added to help clarify. Number: 127 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Sheet 38 -please provide 500' of offsite preliminary design Response: Design has been extended to 500' offsite where needed. Number: 128 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] See chapter 7 for street design requirements including but not limited to minimum arc lengths, slopes, tangents, radius, sag and crest curves, etc. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 96 Created: 7/26/2005 [7/26/05] A streetlight plan drawn on a landscape plan, was hand delivered to Jim Sell Design on 7-26-05. The planned streetlights need to be shown on the landscape plan and street tree locations adjusted to provide 40 ft. clearance between lights and trees (15 ft. if the tree is an ornamental). Note that some storm drain catch basins may need to be adjusted to provide space to install streetlight standards. Response: Street lights have been added to the landscape plans and trees have been adjusted to accommodate light clearances and a note is included to indicate said clearances. Street lights were adjusted where conflicts with inlets existed. Topic: Streets Number: 95 Created: 7/26/2005 [7/26/05] Is the road from Timberline, south of House Dr. is named Quinby Way or Zepplin Way? The overall landscape plan shown Zepplin, the 1 "=50' landscape plan shows Quincy. Response: It is Zeppelin Way and has been clearly labeled. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 94 Created: 7/26/2005 [7/26/05] The developer is encouraged to separate the planned 'paired' water services. As an alternative, many, but not all, of the water services will be required to be separated to provide space for electric vaults and streetlights. Specific locations where the separation will be required will not be known until the electric utility system is designed, but prior to actual installation of the water services. Response: Acknowledged, utils. have been updated per the util. coordination mtng. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General Number: 97 Created: 8/l/2005 [8/l/05] No remaining issues. Wonderful job on the Wetland Mitigation Plans. NRD will provide a reference to this plan as well as a reference to the timing of construction limits related to the raptor use the development agreement. Please contact Doug Moore at (970) 224-6143 if you have any addition question or concerns. Thank you. C:\DOCUbffi-1\PLANNER\LOCAIS-1\T=p\PDP Co=ew Rmpom 11-08-05 (2nd mb).doc Page 10 of 13 Number: 103 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] Lot numbering does not match the utility plans. Response: Acknowledged -Lot Numbers have been coordinated on the utility plans. Number: 104 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] The row for Dassault at the southern property boundary does not accommodate the curve in the road shown on the utility plans. Response: Acknowledged. ROW has been revised. Topic: Street Names Number: 12 Created: 4/ 19/2005 [8/8/05] House is very close to Howes, an existing street. Phonetically similar names are not allowed and suggest contacting PFA to see if they approve of House as soon as possible. [4/19/05] Collector street names must be taken from the approved street name list. Please contact Ted Shepard (221-6750) as soon as possible. Response: We have selected another street name and have contacted the City to reserve: "Sykes Drive ". Topic: Utility Plans Number: 19 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Please see comment #92. These comments go hand in hand and must be completed before the next round of review and before we can schedule the public hearing. [4/20/05] Please schedule a utility coordination meeting prior to your next submittal. You cancall me at 221- 6605 or email me at sjoy@fcgov.com to set one up. Response: We had a utility coordination meeting on 8124105. Number: 47 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Several highlighted items were not provided with this submittal. [4/20/05] Please complete and submit Appendix E4 with the next submittal. All highlighted items must be complete prior to scheduling the public hearing. Any item not addressed will become a new comment with the next submittal. Response: E4 will be submitted with this submittal. Number: 124 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] The property boundary lineweight is too close to the lot lines and existing and proposed contours. Please make it more distinguishable. Response: Property boundary linetype was changes. Number: 125 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] No manholes are allowed in wheel paths or bike lanes. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 126 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Sheet 25 - what exactly is this sheet proposing? If you are installing utilities on someone else's property, you will need a letter of intent prior to hearing allowing this occur. The actual utility easement must be provided in Final Compliance. C:\DOCUME-I\PLANNER\LOCALS--1\T'mp\PDPCo== Rapoa 11.08-05(2ud=b).dm Page 9 of 13 Number: 132 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Show driveways on all lots less than 50' in width. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Overall Site Plan Number: 133 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] No structures of any kind, including project ID signs, are allowed in any easement. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 134 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Please provide a legend, scale, north arrow, etc. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 136 [8/5/05] Remove contours. Response: Acknowledged. Created: 8/5/2005 Topic: Plat Number: 54 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Please update the plat language to the current version. I can email this to you so you can just cut and paste it into your drawing. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 56 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] From Technical Services: The boundary and legal do not close with this submittal. [4/20/051 From Technical Services: Boundary and legal close. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 61 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Need to say that all tracts to be owned and MAINTAINED by the HOA. [4/20/051 From Technical Services: Need a "chart" as to what the tracts are and who owns and maintains them. Response: Acknowledged. On sheet I of the plat, a table has been shown. Survey note I explains that the HOA owns and maintains all facilities. Number: 99 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] From Technical Services: Can you place block numbers on the preliminary plat? Response: Acknowledged. Blocks are shown. Number: 101 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] From Technical Services: Minor drafting problems only. Response: Acknowledged. C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNER\LOCAL&d\Temp\PDP Commmt Repo-= 11-08-05 (2nd mb).doo Page 8 of 13 Response: Driveways have been shown, as well as all utilities. Number: 100 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] Remove the word "Preliminary" from the title block on all plan sets, all sheets. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 122 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] My comments with this round are preliminary in nature and are not all inclusive due to the insufficient turn around time for the submittal as well as the lack of information on the plans. More detailed comments to follow with the next round of review for which I will require at least a 3 week turnaround to properly review and coordinate the plans. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 123 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] This project may not go to hearing until the "bumpout" along the southern property line is annexed into the City. You may also handle this by changing the property boundary on the plan sets to reflect what was annexed in with the ODP and then handle that piece as an offsite improvement with the appropriate easements. Response: This area has been annexed to the City and is referred to as "East Ridge Second Annexation ". Number: 129 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Alley intersections need to meet PFA's 25' inside and 50' outside turning radii requirement. Response: The alley intersection has been removed and converted into a pedestrian connection. Number: 135 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Just want to make sure that it is very clear to your client that no structures over 4' are allowed within the Sight Distance Easement. This affects quite a few lots and tracts in the project and may make future development in the effected tracts difficult at best. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 137 Created: 8/8/2005 [8/8/05] Please show all existing features within 150' of the project boundary. Response: Acknowledged Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 91 Created: 4/25/2005 [8/5/05] [4/25/05] Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. These sheets will not scan well and will not be accepted. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 131 [8/5/05] Show all utilities. Response: Acknowledged. Created: 8/5/2005 C:\DOC Nffi 1\PLANNER\LOCAIS-1\Temp\PDPCom =Rcpon 11-08-05(2ndmb).doc Page 7 of 13 Number: 43 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] No more than 500sf of surface area may drain over a public sidewalk [4/20/05] Will need sidewalk culverts at all Alley intersections to take the drainage out to the street. Cannot drain over sidewalk. Response: Sidewalk culverts were added to all alley intersections. Number: 44 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/051 Vertical crest and sag curves must be in accordance with details 7-17 and 7-18. Response: Vertical curve design was checked and revised where necessary. Number: 45 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] (4/20/05] Need to show existing features for a minimum of 150' of the project boundaries. Response: Existing trees, structures and utilities are shown. Number: 48 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] See redlines for other comments. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 49 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] More detailed comments to follow in Final Compliance when greater detail is given. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 51 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] I am very concerned that several meetings and/or conference calls have taken place regarding Engineering's comments without Engineering's knowledge or consent. This is a complicated site and attempting to negotiate Engineering comments with other departments can only delay your project and cause confusion. Please make sure that I am involved in all fixture meetings or discussions. [4/20/05] Please call or email me to set up a meeting with Matt Baker regarding the overpass design requirements. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 53 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] As shown on Appendix E4, preliminary cross sections are required every 50' as stated below. Sheri has agreed that you may provide fewer cross sections along Timberline as long as it is clear what is being proposed for the overpass in the ultimate. [4/20/05] Please provide cross sections for all arterial and collector streets at 50' intervals. Please provide cross sections at the local street widenings, three total, one on each end and one at the middle. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 92 Created: 4/25/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat. This comment must be addressed on the plans prior to scheduling the public hearing. Please call me to schedule a utility coordination. [4/25/05] Any lot with less than 50' of frontage will have to have the driveways shown on the plat, landscape, site and utility plans to ensure that you can fit the utilities, driveway and street trees. C:\DOCUNE-I\PI.ANNER\CACAIS-1\T=p\PDP Co=m Repore 11-08-05(1nd sub).doc Page 6 of 13 Response: After meeting with PTA, the following notes have been added to all plans: 1. Lots 12-18 of Block 5 shall be sprinklered if Barnstormer Drive will exceed 660' as shown with turnaround. 2. If Barnstormer Drive connects to the subdivision directly to the east prior to Lots 12-18, Block 5 being developed, said lots shall not be required to be sprinklered. Number: 33 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Need to align ped access ramps. See trans planning for their input for your proposed midblock locations. Response: Pedestrian access ramps have been aligned. Number: 34 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/5/05] Please label all slopes on the grading sheets so that we can determine whether or not the 4:1 max is being met. [4/20/05) Slopes effecting public row or in public row cannot exceed 4:1. Response: Areas of 4:1 slope have been labeled "4:1 max slope " Number: 35 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] See Appendix E6 for all scanning requirements. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 36 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat comment. [4/20/05] Need a greater overlap from sheet to sheet so that all lots are shown in their entirety on at least one sheet (all plan sets). Response: Acknowledged. Number: 37 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat. No variance will be granted to allow the crosspan at the Collector/Arterial intersection. [4/20/05] Crosspans are not allowed in Collector streets. Midblock crosspans have to be 12' wide. 8' on Collector streets, 10' on Arterials. Response: Crosspan was removed from plans. Number: 40 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Please call out ALL dimensions as required per detail 7-24. [4/20/05] Plan and Profile sheets — provide a detail of the street widening for all locations that this occurs. Show all dimensions required in detail 7-24. RI can be from 20-36' per Mike Herzig. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 42 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] This configuration is insufficient and will not be approved. A larger median will be necessary to prevent the left turn movements from Citation. [4/20/05] The pork chop in Timberline may not be adequate in the interim to control the movement. Will need to look at this more and discuss with Eric. Response: TST will coordinate design with cityfor final design. C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNERUACAIS—I\Tmp\PDPCo=mt Rcspon II-08-05(2ud=b).doc Page 5 of 13 Number: 25 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] The City agrees that the developer can provide an escrow for the cost of final design and construction of that portion of International Blvd from its SE comer west to a point representing the easternmost 1/3 of the wetland. The developer will be given the option to credit this cost against the payment from the City for Timberline ROW costs. The developer does not need to provide a final design for this roadway at this time, but does need to provide a preliminary design of this roadway so that drainage patterns and roadway grades for the three street stubs that tie into International Blvd will be accommodated. The city also agrees that the developer shall provide interim and ultimate designs for the three street stubs to International Blvd and escrow the costs to construct the portion of the roadways that will not be constructed with the development. It needs to be clarified that the portion of roadway adjacent to buildable lots will need to be constructed in accordance with Section 24- 95 of the City Code and Section 3.3.2(D)(6) of the Land Use Code. Estimates for the escrow amounts must be submitted by a license professional engineer for the City's review and approval and those amounts will be added into the Development Agreement. [4/20/05] This development is responsible for the design and construction of International along its frontage. Need an interim and ultimate design for your street stubs to it. Will need to provide an estimate for the construction of the street stubs to the property line for our review and approval. That amount will go into the DA. Response: Acknowledged. A note was added clarifying roadway construction adjacent to lots. Number: 26 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] No decision has been made at this time pending more design information on the plans. [4/20/051 Right Turn Variance on Timberline — will discuss with Eric next week. I may need more information (like striping plans, street section, etc) from you before we can make a determination. Response: Acknowledged Number: 27 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] A formal variance request is required where you are not meeting this standard. All variances must be either approved or denied before going to public hearing. [4/20/05] Public alleys cannot exceed 660'. Response: The cross -connecting alley has been converted into a mid-blockpedestrian connection. After meeting with City Transportation Department, this is an acceptable connection and will not require a variance. Number: 28 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] It is all right to use the 53' row in all conditions because the parkway will just be wider on the side with the vertical curb. The plans need to be very clear with what's happening and where. Right now there are conflicting typical cross sections that need to be cleaned up. [4/20/05] All local streets have been designed and platted with 53' of row BUT you have some streets with VC -both sides, some streets with rollover both sides, and some streets that mix and match. 53' of row is req'd for rollover both sides, 5 P for VC both sides, and 52' where they are combined. You will need to provide separate typical street sections for each of these occurrences (4 possible configurations depending on what side of the street is VC and rollover) and then list the street name from station xxxx to station xxxx underneath it. The curb must be consistent from block to block, can't change the curb type mid block. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 29 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Barnstormer exceeds the 660' max for a temp cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac needs to be pulled back so that it doesn't exceed that distance. No building permits will be allowed for lots 12-18 until the street goes through. C:\DOCUW—I\PLANNER\LMALS—I\Temp\PDPCorn mt Response 11-06-05 (2nd s b).doc Page 4 of 13 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 20 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat. The emergency access easement shown or its proposed location does not meet PFA's minimum requirements. As stated below, this development is required to design and construct a second point of access acceptable to PFA in both the interim and ultimate conditions if you want to pull building permits for the entire site. In order to determine if the EA drive works in both the interim and ultimate, enough preliminary horizontal AND vertical design is required on the plans before going to public hearing. Please provide a plan and profile of the EA road as well as a plan and profile and show how it ties into Timberline in both the interim and ultimate. If you can not show that the EA drive will work in the ultimate, than only half the site will be allowed to pull building permits and this site would have to be phased or done in separate filings (please see continent 21). [4/20/05] This development as shown with is out of fire access. A second point of access is required per Ron Gonzales with PFA. He has agreed to a temporary emergency access lane off the north west side of the property in the interim BUT this may go away if the over/under pass is constructed. If and when that happens, another acceptable secondary point of access will be required prior to the release of future phases. Response: Emergency access road was realigned. Ron Gonzalez (PFA) has seen the current configuration and approves, pending a separate exhibit being submitted to him showing the truck clearance in profile view. Number: 21 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Suggest doing separate Filings for this development versus Phasing. Phasing would require that all public improvements be constructed within a 3 year time frame. If this does not occur, then the plans expire and you must resubmit to whatever the standards are at that time. Do Filing one now such that it meets PFA's requirements and leave the future filings alone until another street provides your secondary point of access. Response: Client has chosen to phase the project. Number: 22 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat comment. Not enough information was provided for Timberline's design to comment on. Please see chapter 7 of LCUASS for all street design requirements and call out the information on the plans (CL radius, tangent lengths, taper lengths, etc). [4/20/05] Please provide an interim and ultimate design for Timberline up to Skymaster. Please provide a typical street section for each condition. Please provide an interim and ultimate striping plan. Response: Curve tables have been provided on p&p sheets with centerline info. Number: 23 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Not enough vertical information is shown on the plans to determine if the proposed row is enough to accommodate the future overpass and emergency access road. Please do NOT resubmit until we have met to go over your proposal. It is to your benefit if you work with me closely and coordinate this design over the next few weeks. I can set up as many meetings as we need with all of the appropriate people to get this worked through but I need you to CALL me to start the process and be willing to meet (221-6605). [4/20/051 Please provide a preliminary design for the overpass with enough information to determine the actual row needs along Timberline OR you can start at the west row line at the Plummer School, take it up 4:1 to the 20 or 25' height, add in the street section, and then take it back down 4:1 to find the approximate slope. This option will put you out about 300' into your property. Response: Overpass design and alignment has been coordinated with city staff and has been OK'd. C:\DOCUI�ffi1\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\Temp\PDP Commwt Rapomes I I-OS-05 (2nd mb).doc Page 3 of 13 Number: I I I Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-5: Label east sidewalk adjacent to lots (20-23). Response: The sidewalks have been labeled. Number: 112 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-5: Remove building envelopes from site distance easement along lots (9-15). Response: No building envelopes have been shown on the site plan drawing. The lines shown on the site plan drawings are utility easements. See sheet SP2 for typical building envelope locations. Number: 113 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-6: Remove building envelopes from site distance easement along lots (19-25). Response: No building envelopes have been shown on the site plan drawing. The lines shown on the site plan drawings are utility easements. See sheet SP2 for typical building envelope locations. Number: 114 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-8: Show limit of sidewalk on south end of Dassault St. Response: The limit of sidewalk has been shown on the south end of Dassault Street. Number: 115 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Overall Landscape Plan L-1: Revise emergency access easement on all drawings. Response: This easement has been added to drawings. Number: 116 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] L-1: Planting Notes, revise #7. Landscaping within residential parkways shall be installed by developer for each block phase at time of completion of driveway installations. Parkway landscaping shall be maintained by lot owner following installation. Delete note #2 in Landscaping Assurances section. Delete note #15. No standard for shrub separation to utilities in LUC. Response: The planting notes have been revised. Number: 117 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] L6-8: Off -site improvements to property in second annexation including landscaping, irrigation, grading and fencing shall be ... Response: The second annexation has been approved, therefore the improvements shown are a part of the PDP and included in the project. Number: 118 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Park site (tract Q) dies not have to be graded. We will do at time of development. If some grading is needed, complete at 1 % grade (see Craig Foreman for any questions). Response: Acknowledged. Number: 119 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Boxelder Sanitation (Randy Siddens). See red -line comments. Response: The drawings have been updated to reflect the sanitary sewer location and plant separations. C:\DOCUIAE—I\PLANNERq.00ALS—I\Tmp\PDPCommwReVonses I I-08-05 (2nd=b).doc Page 2 of 13 November 16, 2005 Mr. Pete Wray Current Planning Department 281 N. College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Project: East Ridge Response to City Comments, Project Development Plan JSD Project No. 1894.3 Dear Pete: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING ENGINEERING GRAPHIC DESIGN We have received comments from City of Fort Collins staff, dated 08/08/2005, regarding our submittal for the EAST RIDGE Project Development Plan (PDP) - TYPE I and have incorporated responses to the comments in our resubmittal documents (attached with this letter). The following is our narrative response (in italicized text) to each of the comments. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Topic: General Number: 106 Issue Contact: Pete Wray Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Site Plan SP-2: Net residential density shown as 4.60 will meet minimum standards with future multi -family phases. Response: Acknowledged. /Number: 10 Created: 8/5/2005 18/5/051" ite Plan SP-2: The minimum mix of 3 housing types is described in the Unit Summary Table. Staff has reviewed conceptual architectural elevations dated (3-29-05). More detailed architectural drawings including plan and elevation renderings will be required prior to Final Plan approval. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 108 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Show emergency access easement on all drawings. Response: This easement has been added to drawings. Number: 109 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-4: Add note describing hatched lots (9-18). Response: The following note has been added to lots 9-18: "Hatched area within Block 5, Lots 9-18 to be single family attached units. " See Site Plan cover sheet for additional information regarding lots 9-18. Number: 110 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-5: Check "Zeppelin Way" street name spelling? Response: Acknowledged. 153 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 P970.484.1921 F970.484.2443 INFOO IIMSELLDESIGN.COM JIMSELLDESIGN.COM