HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEW PROSPECT PDP - 4-10 - CORRESPONDENCE -Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
PDP - Subdivsion Plat
Request for a 4.63 acre infill residential development with a mix of residential uses. There are 29 dwelling units proposed, consisting of 25 single
familly detached and 4 duplex homes. New Prospect is planned to include an extensive pedestrian network with connectivity to the adjacent Spring
Creek Trail and a centrally located common park area. Located at 805 E. Prospect Rd., on the south side of E. Prospect, between S. Lemay Ave. and
Stover St. The zoning is LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
Public Notice Published May 01, 2010
"New Prospect is a residential development project. As proposed, the project consists of 25 single family homes on individual lots that may be either
detached or attached. In addition, there would be four duplex units. One building would be mixed-use, featuring approximately 2,000 square feet of
office/commercial floor area and two units. The total number of dwelling units would be 31. The site contains 4.78 acres. The parcel is located on the
south side of East Prospect Road. The project also includes the southerly portions of 807 and 811 East Prospect Road. The two existing houses on 807
and 811 East Prospect Road will remain and not be a part of the project."
Project Type:
Project Desc:
File ID: 4-10 Planner: Ted Shepard DMS Project Num: CP102221
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
1 Electric [1/25/10] No comments from Light & Power. Active 1 Doug Martine 01/25/2010
2 Transportation [1/26/10] Per conversation with Terence Hoaglund, Transportation Planning
(Matt Wempe) has preliminarily approved the internal sidewalk network
shown on Tract C. This preliminary approval is contingent upon 1) homes
facing the internal sidewalk network (condition met), and 2) installation of
pedestrian crossing markings along the outer Soule Drive sidewalk in the
southeast corner of the property (condition met). No pedestrian crossing
markings are required on the west side of Soule Drive due to landscaping
and drainage requirements.
Active 1 Matt Wempe 01/26/2010
3 Transportation [1/26/10] The plans seem to show a gap in the sidewalk along Apex Drive
connecting to the development to the east. Is this correct?
Active 1 Matt Wempe 01/26/2010
4 Transportation [1/26/10] All ADA ramps must be directional Active 1 Matt Wempe 01/26/2010
5 Transportation [1/26/10] What type of shade trees will be planted along the sidewalks?
They should not be low enough to block the sidewalks.
Active 1 Matt Wempe 01/26/2010
3/7/2011 Page 1
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
6 Zoning [1/26/10] Setbacks in the LMN zone require a 8' rear setback. Typical Lot
Details are showing a 6' rear setback on lots 1-2 and 18-25
Active 1 Jenny Nuckols 01/26/2010
7 Zoning [1/27/10] Am I correct in reading that the front of the homes on lots around
the perimeter face INTO the street and the homes in the center have garages
facing the streets. Therefore the interior lots face onto the courtyard, but the
exterior lots look onto the rear yards, garages of those homes across the
street from them? Just concerned with the "view" for those homes that look
at garages and back yards from the front of their homes.
Active 1 Jenny Nuckols 01/27/2010
8 Zoning [1/27/10] Street trees are required along both sides of both drives. Active 1 Jenny Nuckols 01/27/2010
9 Fire WATER SUPPLY
One more hydrant needs to be added, for a total of three. Remove the
hydrant shown near Lot 10; add a hydrant near Lots 6 and 14; keep the
hydrant near Lot 27. While the utility plan submitted meets the requirements
for hydrant spacing, what would happen if we use the hydrant near Lot 27, is
that the supply hose would stretch across Apex Drive, cutting off all access
for later-arriving apparatus. Here's our general water supply requirements:
Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district
having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow
must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum
flow and spacing requirements include:
Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further
than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter
Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers
thereafter
Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers
thereafter.
These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic
fire sprinkler systems.
2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
3/7/2011 Page 2
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
10 Fire EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
Please show the Emergency Access Easement (private drives Ellis and
what's now shown as Soule) on the plat. Access requirements are:
Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFAs
jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of
the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus
access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building
or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and
maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for
approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already
contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the
following general requirements:
Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or
concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road
base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites.
Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and
enforceable.
Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of
the fire lane (30 feet on at least one long side of the building when the
structures is three or more stories in height).
If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic
fire-sprinkler system, the fire code official is authorized to increase the
dimension of 150 feet.
2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
11 Fire STREET NAME
After thinking about this for some time, PFA cannot approve the proposed
name Soule, based on the Larimer County "Rules of the Street." This
document states that new street names: be simple to pronounce, in the
opinion of the review jurisdiction; road names should be unique and not be
repeated in the county, with the exception of contunuation of existing streets;
and all names shall be of the commonly acceptable spelling, according to a
standard dictionary. PFA already has an existing Sol Court and there is the
potential people would pronounce this new street as "soul" or "sol" instead of
SOO-lee. Please suggest a new, proposed name.
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
12 Fire GENERAL NOTE 8: Please write: Curbs on fire lanes will be painted red,
and/or posted "No parking, fire lane" except at designated parking stalls.
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
3/7/2011 Page 3
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
13 Fire GENERAL NOTE 9: Please write: Address numerals shall be visible from
private drive and/or alley at rear of SFA/MF dwelling units.
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
14 Fire PLAT
On the plat, please label the southernmost drive, which runs east-west. It
currently is Soule but is not labeled. Also, the roadway currently named
Soule, for addressing purposes, will be considered a north-south roadway.
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
15 Fire HYDRANT CLEARANCE
Unless groundcover or equivalent height/size, landscapping must be at least
36 inches from a fire hydrant (full growth).
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
16 Fire FIRE LANE/NO PARKING
Please be aware that PFA has simialr developments in its district (Emergency
Access Easement/dedicated parking stalls) that have difficulty keeping
residents and visitors from parking along the no-parking areas. This causes
access problems for emergency vehicles. Please convey to the HOA that it
has a responsibility for not only maintaining the EAE, but also enforcing no
parking.
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/09/2010
17 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] As noted in the conceptual review comments, provide minimum of
15 foot easement on the south side of the 24-in sanitary trunk sewer.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
18 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Location of sewer south of Lots 8-10 too close to 30 inch truck line. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
19 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Add gate valves where shown on redlined plans. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
20 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Would moving the hydrant near Lot 27 to just NE of Lot 3 address
PFA's concern noted in comment No. 9?
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
21 Water-Wastewater [3/31/10]
[2/9/10] Label length's of pipe between valves, fittings, etc.
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
22 Water-Wastewater [3/31/10] Label west FH. Swivel tee at north FH is an 8x6 with an 8-inch GV
to the SE.
[2/9/10] Label swivel tees, TB's and valves at the hydrant locations.
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
3/7/2011 Page 4
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
23 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Show the N/S water mains in the west edge of Pinnacle TH
development.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
24 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Check the locations shown for the water/sewer mains in Prospect. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
25 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Is the water valve shown in the center of the access off Prospect a
curb stop? If so, add note to abandon this service at the main.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
26 Water-Wastewater [3/31/10] For consistency, show all water meters in pits. Remove inside set
detail.
[2/9/10] Will these houses have basements? If not, add the detail for the
3/4-inch meter pit. Water meters are not allowed in crawl spaces.
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
27 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Revise the alignment of the sewer services for Lot 27 and the house
east of Lot 26 to eliminate the clean-outs in the street.
Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
28 Water-Wastewater [3/31/10]
[2/9/10] Label locations of water main lowerings. Provide details with
elevations of water main and storm sewer.
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
29 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] See redlined plans for other comments. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
30 Water-Wastewater [2/9/10] Schedule a meeting to review these comments and discuss the
location of water/sewer services on the lots.
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/09/2010
31 Utility Plans [2/9/10] Please label the public street typical street section and the private
street typical street for Ellis Drive with stations and curb type to make sure
there are no confusions later. Thanks John.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
32 Utility Plans [2/9/10] Please remove the word "Preliminary" from the cover page title. Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
33 Utility Plans [2/9/10] Please call out the curb type in the typical street section for the
public street.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
34 Utility Plans [2/9/10] Please remove "Proposed Row" labeling from the private drive on
the plan sheets.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
3/7/2011 Page 5
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
35 General [2/9/10] LCUASS 16.3.1.A.2 requires that all T-Intersections shall have a
minimum of 3 access ramps in accordance with Figure 16-2. I will take this
project to Transportation Coordination this Thursday to see if this is
appropriate in this particular area.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
36 Utility Plans [2/9/10] Please list out all variances to street design standards under line 48
of the general notes.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
37 Utility Plans [2/9/10] Checklist E4 indicated that sight distance triangles and easements
would be shown at final. However, these are required prior to hearing - are
there any sight distance easements that need to be dedicated?
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
38 General [2/9/10] Proposed sidewalks along Ellis must connect into the existing
sidewalks. In other words, no gap can be left between the two systems. It
also appears that the existing Apex Drive was not constructed to the property
line and this development is responsible for tying into the existing
improvements. Please show the approximate removals and street cuts
required to tie the two sections of street together.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
39 Utility Plans [3/30/10] :) I didn't mean to add the design detail, lol. I meant to show a
bubble or detail for your widening at Ellis and Apex calling out the dimensions
shown in 7-24. Can you send me a pdf so I can verify you're meeting the
minimum requirements and get you to hearing? You can add the information
to the plan sets at final :)
[2/9/10] Please provide a detail in accordance with Figure 7-24 that calls out
all dimensions as shown so that we can determine if the street widening is to
standard and that the correct row has been dedicated.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/09/2010
40 General [2/10/10] Please show the Limits of Development, all plan sets. Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/10/2010
41 Utility Plans [2/10/10] Lot 18 and 811 E Prospect are showing the driveway placed over
the storm inlet. Please provide a detail with the intended inlet so I can see
how this will work. Thanks :)
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/10/2010
42 Plat [3/25/10] The boundary & legal close.
[2/10/10] The boundary & legal close.
Active 1 Jeff County 02/10/2010
43 Plat [2/10/10] The "P.U.D." needs to be taken out of the title & ownership
statement.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 02/10/2010
3/7/2011 Page 6
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
44 Plat [2/10/10] Is the "loop" (Ellis & Soule Drives) publisc or private? According to
the site plan, this is a 20' Private Drive/Emergency Access.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 02/10/2010
45 Plat [2/10/10] The "Sight Distance Easement Restrictions" statement is not
needed, if no sight distance easements are on the plat.
Active 1 Jeff County 02/10/2010
46 Landscape Plans [3/30/10] [2/10/10] Lot 26 has a street tree placed right at the edge of the
driveway and may cause a problem for the future homeowner. Other trees
along the west side of the private drive need to be placed further west to
allow people to open their car doors.
Active 1 Susan Joy 02/10/2010
47 Site Plan [2/10/10] Please add the "less" to the legal description on the site plan. Resolved 1 Jeff County 02/10/2010
48 General [2/10/10] Please show all driveway locations in addition to the utilites for the
homes located off the private drive so that we can determine how and if
everything will fit. Several of the lots are less than 50' and if trees are
required by Zoning, then there may be an issue.
All driveway locations will need to be dimensioned off the property line so that
in the future, they are constructed in the exact location approved.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/10/2010
49 Floodplain [2/10/10] Please see redlined plans and 50% Floodplain Checklist for all
floodplain comments.
Active 1 Wes Lamarque 02/10/2010
50 Stormwater [2/10/10] The quantity detention volume claculated in the drainage report is
low compared to calcs done in our office. The detention volume required
should be around .75 ac-ft, not .55 ac-ft.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 02/10/2010
51 Stormwater [2/10/10] The outfall needs to be determined before a hearing can be
scheduled.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 02/10/2010
52 Stormwater [3/31/10] At final.
[2/10/10] Are the pipes and storm sewers sized for the 100-year storm? If
not, a conveyance needs to be designed for these flows to the detention pond
including safely conveying these flows and erosion protection.
Active 1 Wes Lamarque 02/10/2010
53 Utility Plans [2/10/10] We were not routed an utility plan set. We will need to review them
before they go to mylar.
Resolved 1 Jeff County 02/10/2010
3/7/2011 Page 7
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
54 Stormwater [3/31/10] At final.
[2/10/10] The swales may erode the landscaped surfaces. Some have
supercritical flow.
Active 1 Wes Lamarque 02/10/2010
55 General [2/10/10] Please remove the utility easements shown in the public row at the
intersection of Prospect and Ellis as we do not grant easements on City
property or row (strange, I know, but its a "legal" thing).
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/10/2010
56 General [2/10/10] No structures of any kind are allowed in utility easements including
overhangs, footings, fireplaces, etc. Lots 2 and 17 are showing the utility
easement placed over the lot lines (which is fine) but need to place a note on
the plan sets indicating this restriction so that future homeowners and
builders have no misunderstanding.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/10/2010
57 General [2/10/10] Applicant needs to schedule an on- site meeting with the City
Forester to determine the condition of existing trees and suitability for
retention.
Trees (including street trees) need to be direct labeled on the plan as to type.
Active 1 Tim Buchanan 02/10/2010
58 Traffic [2/11/10] The counts in the TIS at Ellis may be low due to the time of year of
the counts and changes this Fall in Lesher's transportation plan providing
parental drop-off/pick-up on Ellis. The possible low count gives concern from
the proposed offset of the south leg of Ellis and the possible left turn conflicts
an offset intersection can have. Reviewing the increase in traffic volumes on
Prospect in the morning shows Prospect traffic rising significantly during the 7
AM hour. Recent Travel Time studies show traffic flow impediments in the
vecinity of Stover. Being a signalized ped crossing this indicates crossing ped
and/or vehicle activity near the school as early as 7:05 AM and as late as
7:50 AM. I believe it's beneficial to get a good picture of the current vehicular
activity at Ellis to help make an informed decision on the proposed Ellis
offset. Please re-count Ellis and Prospect between 7:15 AM and 7:45 AM.
(3/28/2010) Reviewed the TIS memo addressing the concern and am
satisfied with the memo discussion. I spoke with Matt regarding any queue
concern due to the 25% south bound left turning traffic from Ellis to prospect
and he witnessed little queuing due to the left turn movements and had no
concerns.
Resolved 1 Ward Stanford 02/11/2010
3/7/2011 Page 8
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
59 Traffic [2/11/10] The offset of the proposed south segment of Ellis with the existing
north segment is of concern. Offset intersections are problematic due to
possible left turn conflicts. Closely spaced ped crossings are not expected by
motorists. Stover Street just west of Lesher is an offset intersection and has
been a source of traffic and pedestrian problems for many years. To accept
another offset intersection on the school's east side is difficult to reconcile.
The Variance process in the LCUASS has a Justification section (1.9.4.d) that
does not seem to be met by this proposed offset intersection on a high
volume, constrained arterial. Please provide further discussion and options
for aligning Ellis.
Resolved 1 Ward Stanford 02/11/2010
60 Traffic [2/11/10] Following the previous discussion of difficulty in agreeing with the
proposed offset to Ellis, please provide discussion and options for reducing
the negative aspects of the proposed offset intersection.
Resolved 1 Ward Stanford 02/11/2010
61 Traffic [2/11/10)Disregard. Resolved 1 Ward Stanford 02/11/2010
62 General [2/17/10] The private drive needs to be called out as a tract on the plat, etc. Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/17/2010
63 Plat [3/30/10] (FC) It looks like the SDE is all offsight now that I see it on paper
and just as John explained on the phone. Should we label the SDE as
"offsite, by separate document" for clarity? Also, I might be blind, but I could
not find the tract table stating who owns and maintains the tracts.
[2/17/10] Please provide a tract table and remove the sight distance
language if no SDE is proposed.
Active 1 Susan Joy 02/17/2010
64 General [2/17/10] All sidewalk connections to private homes must be shown where
they are to be built or remove them entirely and handle them as an as-built
later. Please check with the Planning Department to see how they want to
handle the site and landscape plan changes later as I'm not sure if there's an
additional process involved with that.
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/17/2010
65 Utility Plans [2/17/10] Please show offsite grades for a minimum of 50'. Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/17/2010
3/7/2011 Page 9
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
66 Utility Plans [3/30/10] (FC) Any detail that pertains to private improvements on private
property, need to be labeled as "private" or "on-site". This is to ensure that
they won't be accidently used in public row. City details are to be used only
for public improvements in public row.
[2/17/10] Please label all onsite details as "on site".
Active 1 Susan Joy 02/17/2010
67 Utility Plans [2/17/10] A culvert and flared end section is shown off site at the southeast
property line. Are there existing easements in place to allow for this
construction or will you need to obtain those?
Resolved 1 Susan Joy 02/17/2010
68 Utility Plans [2/19/10] Add the Environmental Planner signature line to Sheets 3-6 on the
Utility Plans set.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
69 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] For lots 23-25, address how Sections 3.4.1(I) & (L) of the Land use
Code are being met. Of major importance will be how the three homes fit
into the landscape. Design guidelines addressing bulk, massing and colors
shall be developed. For the public hearing a draft of proposed guidelines
shall be developed. Landscape improvements shall also be depicted within
the design guidelines.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
70 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] On all plans show the trail connection to the existing trail. Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
71 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] Add the Limits-of Disturbance (LOD) line to all plans based upon
the final location per the Site Plan.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
72 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] On all plans the buffer zone is to be labeled as" Natural Feature
Buffer Zone." Add label for the buffer line also.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
73 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] Natural Resources Department staff are calling for a 3-rail, open
fence with wire mesh along the south property line that abuts the City's
natural area.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
74 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] Show a detail for the fence. Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
75 Landscape Plans [2/19/10] Add native landscape material in Tract F to integrate and blend the
open space with the adjoining natural area.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
3/7/2011 Page 10
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
76 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] Add note to Plat, Site, Landscape, Demolition, Grading and Erosion
Control plans: "Refer to Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable
uses within a buffer zone."
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
77 Environmental
Planning
[2/19/10] You will need to work with Natural Resources and Parks staff to
allow the trail to cross the natural area and tie into the existing trail.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
78 Plat [2/19/10] Add notes to Plat per redlines regarding conservation measures
and buffer zones.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/19/2010
79 Plat [3/25/10] Please add "City of Fort Collins" to the plat subtitle. Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
80 Plat [3/25/10] Please darken the easement lines on the subdivision plat. Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
81 Plat [3/25/10] The point of commencement is missing some text. (See plat) Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
82 Plat [3/25/10] Please add a dividing line between Ellis Street & Sprocket Drive.
(See plat)
Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
83 Plat [3/25/10] Please change Ellis Drive to Ellis Street. Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
84 Landscape Plans [3/25/10] The landscape plan has minor line over text issues. Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
85 Utility Plans [3/25/10] Sheets 3, 4, 6, 9 & 11 of the utility plans have line over text issues. Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
86 Utility Plans [3/25/10] The wattle installation detail on sheet 6 of the utility plans has very
small text. This may not copy or scan well.
Active 2 Jeff County 03/25/2010
87 Traffic [3/28/10] No further comments. Resolved 2 Ward Stanford 03/28/2010
88 Water-Wastewater [3/31/10] Provide a x-section at north end of detention pond showing pond
grading and the 24-inch and 30-inch trunk sewers.
Active 2 Roger Buffington 03/31/2010
89 Plat [3/31/10] Make easement lines along the 24-inch and 30-inch trunk sewers
more distinct so that potential buyers understand the impacts on the property.
Active 2 Roger Buffington 03/31/2010
3/7/2011 Page 11
Project: NEW PROSPECT PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
90 Water-Wastewater [3/31/10] The narrow lots do not provide adequate space for utilities,
driveway, tree, etc. Schedule a meeting of all involved to see if a solution can
be found.
Active 2 Roger Buffington 03/31/2010
91 Stormwater [3/31/10] Stromwater is ready for a hearing. Active 2 Wes Lamarque 03/31/2010
92 Utility Plans [3/30/10] (FC) Please provide signature blocks on sheets 7 and 9. Active 2 Susan Joy 03/30/2010
93 Fire STREET NAME: The street that lines up across Prospect Road is Ellis Street,
not Ellis Drive. Please correct all sheets to reflect the correct name: Ellis
Street. (There's an Ellis Drive on CSU campus and I don't want to create
more confustion.) Also, thanks for general notes 6, 8, 9 and 10 and for
addresing all my comments.
Active 2 Carie Dann 04/01/2010
94 Water-Wastewater [4/2/10] Provide individual water/sewer services to each duplex unit on Lots
26 & 27.
Active 2 Roger Buffington 04/02/2010
95 Floodplain [4/2/10] Please see redlines and checklist for all floodplain comments.
Please contact the floodplain administrator regarding the foundations of the
structures within the floodplain.
Active 2 Wes Lamarque 04/02/2010
96 General [4/5/10] Engineering is ready for hearing with the cautionary note that lot
lines may have to adjusted in Final Compliance if the utilities can not serve
the narrow lot(s) as currently shown.
Active 2 Susan Joy 04/05/2010
97 General [4/5/10] Detailed review and comments to follow in Final Compliance. Active 2 Susan Joy 04/05/2010
98 General [4/5/10] Please label "Private Drive"after the private drive street names on all
plan sets.
Active 2 Susan Joy 04/05/2010
3/7/2011 Page 12