HomeMy WebLinkAboutCREEKSIDE AT THE LANDINGS - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-07-31DATF-9F°°� 1989 DEPARTMENT:
0
ITEM. 44-79G THE LANDNGS, FAIRFIELD PUD - Preliminary & Final
No Problems
— Problems or Concerns (see below)
Z:y
10
r
Date Signature
l
Deve -,ment Services
City or 1.0rt U"Itins
T0:
GARS' HUETT
PUBLIC SERVICE
FR0,1. Mi k,� rerzi Ceve i c:..en. Ccarci na cr j
CAT t : February 7, 1989
pE. Sut(7;V' iC� I 41 iliy�
i'1 -----
SUS^i" .. ' :ir VOL;r "/' anQ CO'"'"e7 e i !' c.i C1 Gnc ',cr
44--79G FAIRFIELD at the Landings
Please recnCn,Q L';':
Friday, February 17, 1989
,00 LaPorte A%enue • 1.0. Box 5,�O • Fort Collins, CO ,�052 -0580 • (303) 221-6750
Message'
Subject: Creekside
Sender: Dede CRABILL / CFC52/01
TO: Mike HERZIG / CF052/01
Part 1.
FROM: Warren JONES / CFC52/01
TO: Paul ECKMAN / CFC/01
Mike HERZIG / CFC52/01
Ted SHEPARD / CFC52/01
Part 2.
Dated: 03/23/90 at 1056.
Contents: 2.
I have reviewed the Creekside documents and have the following comments:
1' Paragraph (ii) of Section E must contain language which insures adequate design. I suggest continuing the first sentence with "capable
of supporting fully loaded fire apparatus."
2 The south end of the access lane must be provided with some form of
s^curity and signage. Posts with a chain and sign would be sufficient.
3^ The indentation of the gate on the north end of the access lane provides aossibility of its use for parking or vehicle storage. The legal
documents should include some reference to the possibility of requiring
�gate to be moved to the street if parking enforcement becomes a
the
problem.
4 �e have modelled the proposed designs and prefer the shrub/privacy
f'nce option. If the split rail fence option is selected, the fence
must be moved out an additional foot on each side. Our tests showed
t~at during any turning movement the vehicle overhangs will entangle
'' the fence. This would require a 16' easement. The fence itself must be
a minimum 3' in height and have reflectors on post tops.
End of Item 3.
Intray >