HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE PUD, SECOND FILING - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 32-95F - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSREVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: September 6, 2000 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #32-95F Registry Ridge PUD, 2nd Filing,
Prelim/Final (LDGS)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, September 26, 2000
❑ No Comment
,. Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
i
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
Registry Ridge PUD, Second filing sheet 1 of 2 October 3,.2000
Utility Plans
1. Update general note #5
2. All of the utilities within the streets (excluding Enterprize) are shown as existing. The first filing plans have not been
modified to add these service connections in. This needs to be done. Any connections in these streets that have to be
done after the street is paved will require the overlay of the entire street. Plan for this or get all of the utility stubs and
connections on the first filing plans, approved and in before the streets out there are paved.
3. The south crosswalk does need to be an enhanced x-walk as it is adjacent to the commercial area. Please show as
enhanced and provide enhanced x-walk details.
4. Showing some utilities going thru the building envelopes. Need to check with the utility that you are showing doing
such to determine if this is acceptable. PSCO was routed so hopefully they will comment on this. May still want to
verify with them before you try to construct it that way. L&P was not routed the plans so please check with them.
5. The building envelope for the retail site differs from that shown on the site plan.
6. Have indicated that the crown transition for Enterprize Drive at each intersection is 16 feet. This does not meet min
requirements, per detail D-19 min transition length is 30 feet. Please adjust transitions and provide elevations at the
transition point.
7. On the street intersection details you have referenced the replacing concrete pavement detail - this detail does not
contain the dowel detail. Change the reference and provide the detail.
8. Provide the Enhanced crosswalk details.
9. Make changes to the ramp details as shown. ,
10. See plans for additional comments.
Date: Signature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO-M
_ Plat site
Utility Redline Utility
_ Drainage Report _ Other
Iandscpe
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: September 6, 2000 . TO: Public Service
PROJECT: #32-95F Registry Ridge PUD, 2nd Filing,
Prelim/Final (LDGS)
All comments must be received by.Steve Olt in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, September 26, 2000
No Comment
RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 2000
CURRENT PLANNING
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE"
t %� *z- i5 7W 7D �i0 Ai/�AG,�r idf4t55 ""79
Aua� iNu-�n'�✓ o�f /��QTE ' *as !�� Qs &A•
Pea,�aso
`Jt7"nT� s'wT'°rj — 1a AGLow s.nY31r4�thv tic csitll [ a�✓s qs
p/LppDt6o O" 4,77Li;��L4v.
ltlgg, Zo44�1,0)vs mAi AY4. .2�Z-W,s "ir37-0,6F-- XPIAW� 61
Jr&4446--
&6s
Date: /6 /ra
CHECK HERE IF YOU
Plat site
_V Utility _ Redline Utility
_ Drainage Report _ Other
>a IandsW
of Fort Collins
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: September 6, 2000 TO: Tech Svs
PROJECT: #32-95F Registry: Ridge PUD, 2nd Filing,
Prelim/Final (LDGS)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, September 26, 2000
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**
t. ?LR? LEGRL CLo��. V
Z. 11-I c- S o v-r i-t (,1 +a e- o F 13U i is 01 » 1 � N v. ,3 .AP p G A rL i TU 'BtY-
A Sotto L11-o
(SS, TN"'
3• `�a �I V-1q `�v S ��. GB(�1g5 a4.Sewjp„+ t% S �00
Date: Signature
M�K HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE (71 OF HUI=
:.
L-Fkt _ site _ Drainage Report Other _ M
Utility _ Redline UtiUty _ LmdscW
City of Fort Collins
3. Please clarify the diameter of the storm sewer in section ST-2.
RESPONSE:
4. Please review and revise the general notes on the cover sheet.
RESPONSE:
Erosion/Sediment Control Comments
1. The plan is OK.
Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review comments.
RgstryRidge2nd4.doc Page 2 of 2
REVISION
C OMMFNT .0 uF.F.T
STORMWATER
UTILITY
DATE: September 6, 2000 TO:
PROJECT: #32-95F Registry Ridge PUD, 2nd Filing,
Prelim/Final (LDGS)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, September 26, 2000
❑ No Comment
® Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**
Please provide a spill containment structure that will hold at least 150 gallons of spilt
gasoline at storm sewer line ST-IA. A Stormceptor or spill separation system like the
one shown on the sheets attached with these comments are examples. Also, please
provide a detail of the structure used in the plans and revise the storm sewer
calculations in the report to include the structure and any associated losses. If the
spill separation structure included with these comments is used, please provide all
dimensions of the structure in the detail.
RESPONSE:
2. Please call out all drainage easement on the plat (see redlined plat).
RESPONSE:
(over)
c Date: Signature: 4l�
GHK HERE IF You ' OF REVISIONS
Plat Site 4 Drainage Report .�6 Other REsFoA15E5
� Utility � Redline Utility — landscape
-rsr, i�41 City of Fort
Registry Ridge PUD, Second filing sheet 2 of 2 October 3, 2000
Plat
1. Provide a place for district signatures. You are vacating one of their easements on the plat and although you speak of
dedication, of additional easements to them on the plat there are no easements that are indicated that they are for the
district.
2. Checking on some additional language that you have added to the statements with the attorney office.
3. Add the additional paragraph to the repair guarantee. And update the notice of other documents.
4. Provide and show a 9 foot utility easement adjacent to Enterprise Drive and the utility easement adjacent to all other
streets. If don't wish to do that then need to show that you are meeting this dimension in all locations. Show that you
have 9 feet from the property line to the building envelope.
5. The building envelope 12 is shown differently on the site plan.
Site Plan
1. Show how you are going to strip the loading zone/ fire lane area on this plan. Need to be striped out or have Fire lane
No Parking painted on the pavement. This needs to be shown on the site plan.
2. Building envelope shown for the retail site doesn't match that shown on the plat or the utility plans.
3. Showing some utilities going thru the building envelopes. Need to check with the utility that you are showing going
thru the building envelope to determine if this is acceptable. PSCO was routed so hopefully they will comment on this.
May still want to verify with them before you try to construct it that way. L&P was not routed the plans so please
check with them.
• Tools for Accommodating Chz
i� Enrollment
6691511C
Tool: Some Indications for Use Are:
■ School Closure There has been long-term low enrollment; building in poor condition and is
uneconomical to repair
■ Site -based space reallocation Determined by individual school priorities and programs
cnmr cAnnle ,re tnn full while others are below caoacity
- 1]UUIIUVI UU UZt&AIVI.•
'Active' ad'usunent — affects manv students; im acts existing neighborhoods
'Passive' adjustment — affects few or no students; mainly impacts future development
■ Installation of portable classroom
All classrooms on site are fully utilized.
•, Bussing to another school
Some schools are too full while others are below capacity.
• Modified daily schedule
Determined by individual school.
• Off -campus classes in non -school locations
The enrollment exceeds the capacity provided by other options and no
bonds for new construction have been passed.
• Multi -track year-round use
All other options have been exhausted and no bonds for new construction
have been passed.
• Construction of a new school or an addition
to an existing school
Public passed bonds for new construction.
These tools do not affect class size or services available to students. The student -to -teacher ratio is based on per pupil funding,
which is determined by the State of Colorado legislature.
School Capacity Service Levels
Service Level A (Below capacity): 75-100% of designcapacity
The building contains fewer students than it was designed
somewhat higher than desirable. High schools may not be
for and it has 'room to grow'. Excess classrooms may be
able to offer a full range of elective courses. This level is
utilized for specialized purposes (i.e. publishing centers) or.
typical of the period after new buildings have been opened.
to house district -wide special programs. Operating costs are
Service Level B (Desivn capacity): 100% of design capacity
The number of students and the intensity of room use match:
point from which all other service levels are measured and
exactly the building design parameters. This is a
compared.
momentary condition and should be considered as the ideal
Service Level C (Extended utilization): 100-125% of design
capacity*
The building contains more students than it was designed.
schools may need to modify schedules but are able to offer a
for and some areas intended for other purposes may be used
wider variety of courses. The number of students in a class
as classrooms. Portable buildings may be utilized to house
and the quality of educational experience are minimally
special programs or as additional classrooms. The cafeteria
affected. Operation is very efficient (fixed costs per student
and playgrounds may be scheduled in shifts. Secondary
are low). This level is typical of a growing district.
school halls may be crowded between periods. High .
Service Level D (Over capacity): over 125% of design capacity*
No more portable buildings are feasible. Many spaces
areas (cafeteria, media center, gyms) are overburdened.
intended for other purposes are being used as classrooms.`
Operation is generally efficient but maintenance needs rise
Some classes may be held in nontraditional locations.
rapidly. Staff and students feel stress. General quality of
Building capacity is increased by scheduling more hours of
the educational experience may decline. This level is
school (i.e. split sessions, more periods in a high school day,
typical prior to passage of a bond issue or in districts that
night classes, multi -track year-round use). High schools
are unable to pass bond issues.
may have more class offerings. Halls and other common
Service Level U (Underutilized): less than 75% of design
capacity
Attendance is so low that fixed costs (utilities, support and
grade classes or teachers in school only part of the time than
administrative staff, special teachers) are disproportionately
other schools. This level is typical in shrinking districts or
high and must be subsidized, reducing funds available to
attendance.
serve students in other schools. May have more combined-
*This range varies and is dependent on the configuration of the individual school site.
The standard level of service for the Thompson School District is Service Level C or better.
669151IC
Thompson Scl A District R24 DevelopmE Impact Report
#32-95 Registry Ridge PTJD, 2n° Filing, Prelim/Final (LDGS), dated 9-26-00 with 84 dwelling units, is located
within the current attendance boundaries of Centennial Elementary School, Lucile Erwin Middle School, and
Loveland High School. Construction is estimated to start in 9 months and build at an annual rate of 42 dwelling units
per year resulting in an expected growth in enrollment of 23 elementary, 13 middle school and 15 high school
students by 2003.
According to Master Plan 2000's five-year projection, the estimated student population from this development,
and others that have received final plat approval, should not cause district enrollment to exceed service level C.
Five years is the longest projection time frame considered reliable.
Capacity Compared to Student Enrollment for. Current Year (2000-01) and Five -Year Projections
District -wide Enrollment Local Area Enrollment
Elem MS HS
2000 Enrollment
Elem Ms HS .
2004 Enrollment"
CEN EMS LHS
2000 Enrollment
CEN EMS LHS
2004 Enrollment
The standard level of service for the Thompson School District is Service Level C or better
Q A (Below Capacity) M C (Extended Utilization) ® U (Underutilized)
na B (Design Capacity) = D (Over Capacity) O Student Enrollment
Comments:
■ Centennial Elementary is currently at service level.A. and is expected to move into service level C during the next
five years. Lucile Erwin Middle School is currently at and is expected to remain at service level A for the next
five years. Loveland High School is currently at and is expected to remain at service level C for the next five
years. We expect this area to experience some of the highest growth in our district during the next five years.
■ The District's citizen -based Master Plan Committee (MPC) monitors capacity levels at each of the district
schools and makes annual recommendations for responding to projected enrollment changes. In consideration of
the probable impact(s) of this development, the MPC may recommend using one or more of the tools described on
the back of this report. The selection and timing of the most appropriate tool(s) will be determined by the Board
of Education. These tools do not affect class size or services available to students. The student -to -teacher ratio
is based on per pupil funding, which is determined by the State of Colorado legislature.
■ The size and location of this development indicate that the school district land dedication requirement should be
made in the form of payment -in -lieu -of land dedication as per our intergovernmental agreement.
• The current attendance areas will require bussing at all levels.
0 We recommend street lighting at all bus pick-up points to assist wintertime safety.
Thompson School District R2-J
535 N. Douglas Avenue
Loveland, Colorado 80537-5326 FAX Response
To: Kate Browne, Planning Specialist From: Staff Contact Person
Planning & Communication Resources
Fax: 970-613-5087 Pagese
Phone: 970-613-5048
Re: Planning Review Results Date:
Please: Following your review meeting for this proposal, we ask that you mark the appropriate
responses below and send this form to the above fax number. This will help us maintain a factual record of
development activity within our school district and provide an accurate Impact Report Form for you to use
with future proposal reviews.
Proposal Name: Registry Ridge-2"dFlling Your File Number: 32-95
R2J Comments Due: Sept 26, 2000
Meeting Type: Prelin /Final
Meeting Date: Sept 26, 2000
Staff Contact: Steve Olt
R2J ID Code: 6691511C
Jurisdiction: City ofFt Collins
Number of dwelling units proposed: 8_ 4_ ❑ Were approved as proposed
❑ Changed to: units
❑ Denied
❑ Other,
When is actual construction estimated to begin?
Month Year
Additional Comments:
Please confirm the date construction is expected to, it is critical for us to project future enrollment issues
and when we will exceed Service C.
Any response will be appreciated, even if you can only state "NA " or unknown at this time ".
• PMT's and Renderings due ,Tuesday, October 17th
• 8 sets of full size plans (folded) due Friday, October 20th
If this item requires another round of review then it is subject to the 90 day
plan revision submittal time -frame mandated by the City. The 90 day
turnaround period begins on the date of the comment letter (October 4,
2000) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning
Department.
At this point in time it is appropriate to resubmit plans with any revisions
made necessary by these comments so that staff can be assured that concerns
are addressed prior to the Planning and Zoning Board's public hearing. The
number of copies of revisions for each'document to be resubmitted is on the
attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please return all drawings red -lined by
City staff with submission of your revisions. Please contact me at 221-6341
if you have questions or concerns related to these comments.
Sincerely,
teve Olt
Project Planner
xc: Engineering
Zoning
Stormwater Utility
Poudre Fire Authority
Transportation Planning
Traffic Operations
DALCO LAND, LLC
TST Engineers
Project File #32-95F
The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff
Review meeting on September 27, 2000:
Engineering (Sheri Wamhof )
10. There are utility easements shown going through building envelopes on
the subdivision plat. This is not permitted.
11. This development request is ready to go to a Planning and Zoning Board
public hearing for a decision on the project.
Stormwater Utility (Donald Dustin)
12. There is a proposed gas station 'on the site. This requires some form of
spill containment. Donald has called TST Engineers to make them aware
of this requirement.
13. This development request is ready to go to a Planning and Zoning Board
public hearing for a decision on; the project.
Transportation Planniny, (Kathleen Reavis)
14. Can there be a direct sidewalk connection from the daycare facility to the
sidewalk along South Shields Street?
15. This development request is ready to go to a Planning and Zoning Board
public hearing for a decision on the project.
This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could be
forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing
agencies.
City staff has determined that this development request is ready to be
scheduled for a Planning and Zoning Board hearing date for a decision. It is
being put on the November 2nd Board agenda. However, the Fort Collins -
Loveland Water and.South Fort Collins Sanitation Districts comments are
significant enough to possibly warrant additional review. Please contact Terry
Farrill directly to discuss his concerns. Terry must contact me no later than
Friday, October 13th and inform me that it is acceptable to keep this item
on the November 2nd Board agenda. The dates to submit necessary items to
Current Planning for the agenda are as, follows:
8. Representatives of the Technical Services (Mapping/Drafting
Department) offered the following comments:
a. The south line of Building Envelope 3 appears to be a solid line.
This is confusing.
b. Hatching for the South Fort Collins easement is too light to
reproduce.
C. The property boundary and legal description on the subdivision
plat do close.
Please contact Jim Hoff, at 22176588, or Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, if
you have questions about their comments.
9. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire 'Authority offered the following
comments:
a. Access appears to be in accordance with the 97 Uniform Fire Code.
Fire lanes shall be shown on the subdivision plat as emergency
access easements.
b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the
property, and also from the fire lane, and posted with a minimum
of 6" numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze
numerals on a brown brick are not acceptable).
C. The proposed day care and retail buildings exceed 5,000 square
feet in size. They must be fire contained or fire sprinklered.
d. Fire hydrants are required; with a maximum spacing of 600' along
an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering
1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi.
No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire
hydrant.
Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these
comments.
4. Jenny Nuckols and Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department offered the
following comments:
a. Handicapped spaces are being shown at the commercial buildings
but no handicapped ramps are being shown. Please show and
label.
b. Please be consistent and label all handicapped ramps throughout
the site.
C. Plant Note #4 on Sheet 3 of 8 of the Landscape Plan - add "...prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy."... to the end of the
sentence. This was on the previous plan and should not have been
removed.
d. ID signs on the residential portion of the project can only be
located at a driveway entrance into the project, as set forth in
Section 3.8.7(C)(1)(f of the.LUC. THIS IS A REPEAT COMMENT.
e. Show building height on the day care elevations.
f. Since the dwelling units in the residential buildings aren't on
individual platted lots, they are not townhomes. They are multi-
family dwellings. The term. "townhomes" should not be used.
Please contact Jenny or Peter, at 221-6760, if you have questions about,
these comments.
5. A copy of the comments received from Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments
may be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Sheri, at 221-6750, if you have questions about
her comments.
6. AT&T Broadband (cable television) stated that they would like to see
the wording on the utility easements to say "public utility easements".
7. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater
Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be
found on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Donald,, at 416-2053, if you have questions
about his comments.
0
Commt 'y Planning and Environmental xvices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
October 4, 2000
VF Ripley Associates, Inc.
c/o Louise Herbert
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Dear Louise,
Staff has reviewed your revisions for the Registry Ridge PUD, Second Filing -
Preliminary & Final that were submitted to the City on September 6, 2000,
and would like to offer the following comments:
1. A copy of the comments received from Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins -
Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation
District is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Terry, at 226-
3104 - ext. 14, if you have any questions about his comments.
2. Kate Browne of the Thompson School District R2-J has submitted a
new Thompson School District R2-J Development Impact Report
(attached to this comment letter) Please note that elementary school
attendance would now be at Centennial Elementary, not Cottonwood
Plains as previously stated. There are no changes to the previously stated
middle school and high school attendance locations. According to Master
Plan 2000's five-year projection, the estimated student population from
these 84 townhome, 2-bedroom units, and other developments that have
received final plat approval, should not cause district enrollment to
exceed (drop below) service level C.
3. Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations stated that the enhanced crosswalk
on Enterprise Drive, just north of the proposed retail building, is to be
smooth, colored asphalt in the center with the City's standard white bars
painted diagonally in the center area also. Each side of the center area
can have a border, 2' wide, of colored and stamped asphalt. A white Stop
Bar should be painted 2' in front of the stamped asphalt and span the
appropriate approach lane. Please provide a detail of the enhanced
crosswalk and adjacent access ramps.
28'1 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
South Fort Collins
Sanitation District
September 25, 2000
Mr. Steve Olt, Planner
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO' 80525
RE: #32-95F Registry Ridge P.U.D.
2"d Filing — Preliminary/Final (LDGS)
Dear Mr. Olt,
The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed
the above mentioned project and submit the following comments.
Easements are required, on the District's standard easement form, for facilities that are not located
in public ROW. Sanitary sewer easements are to be a minimum of 30 feet wide.
Note # 1 on sheet 5 of 13 is to be corrected to indicate the water line bury depth between 5 and 6
feet.
The length of the water line to be deflected under. the storm drain line is to be identified.
The thrust block typical is to be corrected to indicate a test pressure of 150 psi.
The proposed connection to the existing manhole is to be core drilled.
Please do not hesitate. to contact me at 226-,3104, ext: 14, if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Respectfully,
Mr. Terry W. Farrill
Systems Engineer
xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager
Mr. Eric Fuhrman, TST Consulting Engneers.
5150 Snead Drive. Fort Collins, CO W25 Office (970) 226-1104 Fax (970) 2 (i-0196
Please call if you have any questions regarding the above. Thank you for your
consideration and we look forward to working with you further during the development
review process.
Sincerely
VF Ripley Associates
14VA01ex<
Louise Herbert
TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers
a lwOu SkWft-q1h N 0.9)
Sharlene A. Shadowen, P.E.
h
v
6) AT and T Broadband (cable television):
Please see the plat. The utility easements now say "public utility easement."
7) Stormwater Utility:
1) A spill containment structure has been specified as stormcepter or
equivalent, capable of holding greater than or equal to 150 gallons of
spilled gasoline. Calculations have been revised.
2) All drainage easement have been- labeled.
3) Done.
4) Done.
8) Technical Services:
g) The south line of Building Envelope 3 has been corrected.
h) Corrected.
i) Acknowledged.
9) Poudre Fire Authority:
j) to d). Acknowledged.
10) Engineering:
See response comments above.
11) Acknowledged
12) Stormwater Utility:
See response comments above.
13) Acknowledged.
14) Transportation Planning:
A direct sidewalk has been added from the Day Care to the sidewalk on
Truxtun Drive which is accessible from South Shields.
15) Acknowledged.
e) The building height has been added to the Day Care elevations.
f) , Acknowledged.
5) Engineering Department (separate comment sheet):
Utility Plans:
1) This note has been changed.
2) Acknowledged. At this time the utilities that are shown as existing have
been installed. This should be shown as an as -built condition, to be
submitted by Northern Engineering since it is an adjustment to their
approved plans.
3) The south crosswalk has been changed to an enhanced crosswalk
adjacent to the commercial area. A detail of the enhanced crosswalk
is shown on detail sheet #11.
4) We had meetings with both Public Service and Light and Power to discuss
the layout of these utilities. This layout is acceptable. I spoke with Janet
McTague at Light and Power and she has no problems with electric as
shown inside building envelopes. We have addressed all of Public
Service's comments from the Sept. 6, 2000 comment sheet.
5) The building envelope on the site plan has been corrected.
6) Done.
7) Done.
8) An enhanced crosswalk detail is shown on the Site Plan and Engineering
Detail Sheet #11 of 13.
9) Done.
10) Additional redline comments throughout the plan set have been addressed.
Plat:
1) We will be providing district easements by separate document
2) Acknowledged.
3) Done.
4) Done.
5) The site plan has been corrected.
Site Plan:
1) Figure 902.2.3-C from Poudre Fire Authority shows how the fire lane
Areas will be striped and signed. This is shown on the Emergency Access
Plan.
2) The building envelopes have been corrected.
3) Building envelopes and utilities have been corrected.
4�
November 6, 2000
Steve Olt
Fort Collins Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: Response to staff letter
Registry Ridge PUD, Second Filing — Preliminary and Final.
Dear Steve:
VF RIPLEY
ASSOCIATES INC.
Landscape Architecture
Urban Design
Planning
401 West Mountain Avenue
Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2604
PHONE (970) 224-5828
FAX (970) 224-1662
We have reviewed the staff letter dated October 4, 2000 and have the following
comments:
1) Fort Collins Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation
District:
Please see attached response letter to Mr. Terry Farrill.
2) Thompson School District R2-J:
Acknowledged.
3) Traffic Operations:
The enhanced crosswalk on Enterprize Drive, north of the retail building has been
changed to an enhanced crosswalk as per the City's standards. A detail is shown
on both the Site Plan and Engineering Detail Sheet #11 of 13.
4) Zoning Department:
a) Handicapped ramps are shown at all the commercial buildings.
b) All handicapped ramps are labeled throughout the site.
c) Plant note #4 on sheet 3 of 8 on the Landscape Plan has been revised.
d) ID signs have been removed from the site plan.
3
u
November 6, 2000
Mr. Terry Farrill
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District
South Fort Collins Sanitation District
5150 Snead Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Registry Ridge PUD, Second Filing (Final-LDGS)
Project No. 890-001
Dear Mr. Farrill:
This letter is in response to your comments of September 25, 2000 regarding the above
referenced project. The response numbers correspond in order to the comments
received.
1. Noted. Easements have been provided by separate document.
2. Corrected.
3. Done. Please see revised Utility Plans.
4. Corrected.
5. Noted & shown on sanitary sewer sheet.
Should you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
TSST, Inc. Consulting
Engineers
`
lfibi�* 'tif` dw�Natalie M. Dickinson
TST, INC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D
CFort Collins, CO80525
Consulting Engineers
(970) 226.0557
Metro (303) 595-9103
Fax (970) 226-0204
Email info@tstinc.com
www.tstinc.com