HomeMy WebLinkAboutKECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DEVELOPMENT - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2015-04-27November 20, 2013
Response to Comments:
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division (PLD) Preliminary Plat
City of Fort Collins
Department: Advance Planning
Contact: Pete Wray, 970.221-6754, pwrava.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
10/09/2013: No comments.
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224-6143, lex(�fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Originated: 10/09/2013
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Avigation easements - as this project proceeds to final plat, we will need to work
together to have an avigation easement granted to the City, preferably via the plat.
If you need an example of an avigation easement, we can help research that for you.
RESPONSE
The property owners/developers are coordinating with Jason Licon, Airport Director, to draft an appropriate
easement and/or disclosure statement.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Annexation - please contact me when you are ready to begin the annexation
process into the City.
RESPONSE
The Annexation Petition has been revised. The new signed Petition will be submitted to you the week of
November 18.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: How will the neighborhood park comply with the facilities standard in the County's
Land Use Code, which states, "Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple -use turf areas,
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 1 of 38
The typical street section has been corrected to match standards.
Comment Number: 43
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Road profiles - Have 2 location where the shown grade breaks is not meeting
maximum grade break standards.
RESPONSE:
Grade breaks within this plan set meet minimum requirements.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Road profiles - Have a couple locations where you have horizontal curves that
start or end near the top of a crest vertical curve or near the bottom of a sag vertical curve.
This is not allowed. The profiles need to be adjusted.
RESPONSE:
All VC & HC conflicts have been resolved.
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Road profiles - Need to show the existing profiles and grades being tied into.
RESPONSE:
The existing street tie-ins have been review and incorporated into the design. Additional coordination and
review may be needed.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Road profiles- Sight distance easement lines need to be shown on the utility plan
sheets as well.
RESPONSE:
Sight distance easements are shown on utility plans.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: A TIS for this project was not received.
RESPONSE:
Was not required to be updated from GDP. TIS is included with the final plat submittal.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Roundabout - This needs to be designed in accordance with the updated design
standards. Dated: March 1, 2013.
RESPONSE:
Roundabout has been design in accordance with above referenced standards.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 10 of 38
10/11/2013: Roundabout - Has a scoping meeting occurred? Is this intended to be the
conceptual design or has that already been submitted to someone. I have not seen anything
prior to this.
RESPONSE
No scoping meeting was held, however, Delich Associates did an operational analysis during the
roundabout design process.
Comment Number: 50
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Roundabout - The design notebook/ exhibits/ RODEL analysis/ turning
templates/etc. have not yet been provided to the City for the roundabout.
RESPONSE
A TIS was submitted with the Phase I Final. A round -about analysis is in -progress.
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Roundabout - A roundabout generally is designed to slope away from the center
and have drainage inlets located along the outer curb line. Your detail is showing some of the
roundabout to slope into the center.
RESPONSE:
The roundabout currently drains from the south to the north.
Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Roundabout - Will need to provide concrete joint design and details for the
concrete portions of the roundabout.
RESPONSE:
The concrete joint details will be provided with future submittals.
Comment Number: 53
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Roundabout - Sight distance easement needs seem to have been calculated and
are shown for the other intersections but it does not appear that they have been shown for the
roundabout.
RESPONSE:
In review with County, the sight distance would be established from the roundabout flowline viewing
vehicles approaching from the left. Due to the location of the approaching vehicle and the yield lines, no
sight distance easements were needed. The median and associated landscaping will be designed per
sight distance easement requirements.
Comment Number: 54
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Final plan will need to include all the detail and information on the utility plan check
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 11 of 38
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: 1 would like verification from PFA that the road section with the median Street A-3
will work for them. Has this section been discussed with them?
RESPONSE:
This has not been discussed with PFA yet.
Comment Number: 57
list — profiles, cross sections, intersection details ....
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: 1 don't know what the timing of this project is, but eventually I will need information
for the development agreement. I also need to know what your proposed phasing is.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 56
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Depending on the phasing plan, temporary turnarounds easements may need to
be dedicated. These can be dedicated on the plat or by separate document.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: A fence detail was a part of the landscape plan, which indicated that there was a
separate fencing plan. The fencing plan needs to be submitted to the City for review. A note
needs to be placed on this plan that identifies that fencing is to be placed a minimum of two
feet behind any public sidewalk and cannot be placed within any sight -distance easements.
Additional easement widths maybe needed depending on where the fences are located. The
brick fence if place along rear or a side lot line would take up 1/3 of a 6 foot easement and may
not leave enough room for the utilities to place their lines and pedestals.
RESPONSE:
The " Kechter Farm — Fencing Plan Exhibit' has been updated with the Final Plat Submittal.
Comment Number: 59
10/11/2013:
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(c_fcaov.com
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 12 of 38
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Conditions outlined in the memo from the wildlife consultant - The 9 conditions
outlined in the memo from Mike Figgs should be added to the project's development
agreement.
RESPONSE
We are discussing this with our legal counsel.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Metal fence - Can the spear tops be removed from the metal fence plan to help
allow wildlife movement across the site (specifically deer).
RESPONSE
Spear tops have been removed.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224-6152, dmartinea(ifcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013
09/26/2013: Electric utility service will be provided by Fort Collins Light & Power. Normal
electric development charges will apply. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at
(970)221-6700 to coordinate power requirements.
RESPONSE
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013
09/26/2013: The utility plan doesn't show water or sewer services to each lot. Water services
cannot be 'paired' at the corner of the lots, but must be separated toward the middle of each
lot. Electric vaults, transformers, and streetlights will be placed at the comers of the lots.
RESPONSE
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/26/2013
09/26/2013: A landscape plan showing planned streetlights was sent to Ripley Design on
9-30-13. Street tree locations will need to be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 feet from
lights (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type).
RESPONSE
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2013
09/30/2013: The utility easement along the southerly side of Trilby Rd. will need to be
increased to 15 feet wide to provide for a major underground electric line.
RESPONSE
Acknowledged
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 13 of 38
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218.2932, ischlarnAlfcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013
10/01/2013: If this was submitted for the City, more erosion control information would need to
be provided. Two standard template paragraphs that are very vague to the needs of the site;
more information would be needed. The erosion control plans that were submitted need
erosion control BMPs called out for. Redlines of suggested issues for the site have been
placed in the Stormwater engineer's documents. It would be good to know and pass on the
information that the site is >10,000 sq-ft so the SWMP will need to be applied for at least 10 day
before construction starts. The site is also close to a water way, any dredging or filling this
close might warrant the need for a 404 permit and should be inquired with Army Corps of
Engineers.
RESPONSE:
Erosion Control Plan is included. Please reference the Drainage & Erosion Control Report.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416.2418, wlamarque c0caov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: The City requires detailed lot grading plans showing building envelopes, lot
corner elevations, and break points.
RESPONSE:
It is anticipated to provide detailed lot grading plan with the next submittal. Please reference the typical lot
grading templates included for the different lot size grading intents.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: All drainage details should be inlcuded in the plan set including standard water
quality details.
RESPONSE:
Details are included.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Please include the level spreaders and the water quality ponding area behind the
spreaders in a drainage easement dedicated to the City. This project will be annexed at time
of plat recording.
RESPONSE:
Easements are dedicated
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 14 of 38
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: All hydraulics will be reviewed at final plan.
RESPONSE:
Please reference the Final Drainage Report
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
11/04/2013: Please remove "Preliminary Plat" from the cover sheet. See redlines.
Comment Number:1 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: Please revised the hatching for the project area in the vicinity map on the cover sheet.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11 /04/2013: Please correct the elevation of benchmark 18-01 on sheets 1 & 2.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: Please complete the information in note #16 on sheet 3.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: Please mask all text within the profiles. See redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
11/04/2013: Please remove "Preliminary Plat" from all sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number:10 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number:12 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
Page 8 of 12
11 /04/2013: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number:13 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
11/04/2013: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines.
Comment Number:14 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
Topic: Plat
11/04/2013: We have not reviewed the Plat at this time. Once the Ketcher Farm MLD #13-S3150 is
available, we can do a thorough review.
RESPONSE:
Technical corrections are noted and will be corrected with the Final Plat.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanford(a).fcgov.com
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 15 of 38
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 1011212013
10/12/2013: The sight distance triangles and easements look to be drafted by use of the
LCUASS Fig. 8-16. If those sight distances pose problems in some areas, the City is accepting
of the distances provided in the latest AASHTO Green Book.
RESPONSE:
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: No signing and striping plans were provided.
RESPONSE:
Signing and Striping plans are included.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: Discussions should be held regarding the sight distance issues the wide median
on Lady Moon will create once Trilby is connected to Ziegler. City Traffic would suggest
discussion on placing the the east bound left turn lane near the north side of the Trilby median
to better align with the west bound lane on Lady Moon.
RESPONSE:
The existing median is proposed to be adjusted to provide additional sight distance availability. We are
available to have additional review.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: Please provide discussion why the northwest curb return at Ziegler and Trilby is
being rebuilt removing the bulb -out.
RESPONSE:
This is to provide additional sight distance, cleaner turning movements from the south entering Trilby and
establishing a bike lane all the way to Zeigler. Ultimately reducing the physical constraints of the existing
intersection.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: The following are previous unresolved ODP comments:
10/10/2011: The study did not include any discussion of the Fossil Creek or Westchase
intersections with Timberline. Those need to be reviewed/discussed in future PDP traffic
studies.
RESPONSE
These intersections were not included in the Kechter Farm — Filing I TIS scope.
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 16 of 38
05/25/2012: To be reviewed at PDP stage.
10/10/2011: The TIS should provide some discussion related to possible traffic issues with
most of the west bound traffic from Kechter farms using Zephyr to access Timberline.
Speeding, noise, cut through, ect. will most likely be problems faced with Zephyr's main
corridor function. What mitigation may combat expected problems?
RESPONSE
Not addressed in a typical TIS.
10/10/2011: In the subsequent PDP submittals, it should be expected at the Ziegler and
Kechter Rbt that a more extensive and thorough analysis will be required much like at an
existing signalized intersection.
RESPONSE
Addressed in the Kechter Farm — Filing I TIS
10/10/2011: The Wb volumes at the Timberline & Kechter intersection do not correlate with the
volumes from the Ziegler & Kechter Rbt. I know there are driveways and a development along
Kechter but nothing was shown on the graphics or discussed to provide for the volumes not
matching up.
RESPONSE
This detail no typical in a TIS.
05/25/2012: To be reviewed at PDP stage.
10/10/2011: There was no discussion in the TIS about the Day Care or Commercial lot. I
assume they are one and the same but some clarifying discussion should be provided.
RESPONSE
Addressed in the Kechter Farm — Filing I TIS.
05/23/2012: To be reviewed at PDP stage.
10/10/2011: Reviewing the provided GDP plan there are numerous locations that a sight
distance easement may be required which might affect landscaping opportunities in those
areas.
RESPONSE
Acknowledged. Not a TIS issue.
05/23/2012: To be further reviewed/addressed during PDP stage.
10/10/2011: The median in the residential street in the north part of the development will need
to be eliminated, pulled back or designed in such a way that the median does not cause
opposing lane misalignments.
RESPONSE
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 17 of 38
to Lady Moon especially when contrasted with the Eb left turning volumes estimated at Ziegler
and Trilby. An item the City has concern with is the effect the Ziegler "by pass" may have on
traffic distribution to Timberline and to Ziegler. This will need some additional discussion on
PDP submittals.
RESPONSE
Acknowledged
05/23/2012: Future PDP submittals should expect to review the Timberline and Trilby
intersection with a roundabout option. There is some low level discussions seeing the
intersection as a good candidate for a Rbt versus increasing signalization.
RESPONSE
This was not included in the Kechter Farm — Filing I TIS scope.
05/25/2012: The comments shown as Active continue as such only to serve as recognition that
those items are more appropriately addressed in later, more detailed phases of the project.
RESPONSE
Acknowledged
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: No Site or Landscape plans received.
RESPONSE
Acknowledged. Not a TIS issue.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
No TIS was submitted. In the submitted documents a statement was made to refer to the 2011
TIS. That study was only for the ODP level review. LCUASS requires the ODP study to be
followed up with the level of appropriate TIS for the scale of the project. In this case a new Full
TIS should be completed and submitted.
RESPONSE
The GDP TIS was resubmitted to Larimer County.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: ODP TIS made reference to the expectation of a north bound left turn lane on
Ziegler at Trilby/Lady Moon. That is not shown in this submittal.
RESPONSE
Addressed in the Kechter Farm — Filing I TIS.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: ODP TIS stated the section of Trilby Road thru thius development will have long
term volumes greater than a Major Collector. A full TIS needs to discuss and analyze this issue
to determine if Trilby should have a classification change.
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 19 of 38
RESPONSE
Addressed in the Kechter Farm — Filing I TIS.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: Please provide the design data of the roundabout (analysis, paths volumes,
speeds, etc).
RESPONSE
Acknowledged. Not part of the TIS.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013
10/12/2013: A new scoping session should be conducted prior to the drafting of the new Full
TIS.
RESPONSE
The new scoping exercise included Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins traffic engineering staffs.
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 20 of 38
walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches, or other features for various age
groups to enjoy." Will this be determined at final plan?
RESPONSE
The proposed recreation facility will be clarified with the Final Plat.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Should the approved appeal regarding the completion date requirement being
extended from 3 years to 10 years be placed on the site plans?
RESPONSE
We will discuss this with our legal counsel and let you know where it should be documented.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: In general, many of Planning's comments were addressed during the GDP phase
of this project.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberge[ fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: A soils report with borings and water table information is needed.
RESPONSE
A geo-technical report was submitted with the Final Plat.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Are you proposing to phase the project? What is the phasing? It needs to be
shown on the plans.
RESPONSE
Project Phasing will be shown on the Preliminary Plat and the Phase I Final is submitted with this letter.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Need to provide City of Fort Collins approval blocks on the utility plans.
RESPONSE r iti, t�t� e
Our understanding from tie County staffapd our legal counsel is that this is not required. '
4t.�.�. �1�,.,il C�11 ���1'����.�- cii� iiy"r�,`r'v�:..✓ <,�2-i=,u�-�c;�(x.��.a:< � :c� � ,
Comment Nu4er: 4 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Storm profiles are need. Keep in mind that minimum cover requirements need to
met.
RESPONSE
Provided with Final Plat
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Plat — Provide a tract table that identifies who is to own and maintain each tract.
RESPONSE:
The Final Plat includes table of tract ownership and associated maintenance.
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 2 of 38
/0110'..�t�Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/devebprnenlieview
February 26, 2014
Lindsay Ex
Project Planner
City of Fort Collins
RE: Kechter Farm Planned Land Division (PLD) Preliminary Plat (Final Plat submitted 11/26/13),
CRF130019, Round Number 1
Please see the following Response to Comments from City staff.
PLANNING RESPONSE: RIPLEY DESIGN INC.
ENGINEERING RESPONSE: JVA, INC.
PLAT RESPONSE: PLS GROUP
Comment Summary:
Department: Advance Planning
Contact: Pete Wray, 970.221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
10/09/2013: No comments.
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, . lex fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/09/2013
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
02/04/2014: Please add disclosure language to the plat.
12/13/2013: Staff understands the applicants have been working with the airport and feel that
disclosure is an acceptable form of notice to the 26 lots impacted by the airport's area of
influence. However, after discussing this issue with legal, easements will be required.
10/11/2013: Avigation easements - as this project proceeds to final plat, we will need to work
together to have an avigation easement granted to the City, preferably via the plat.
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/06/14: Add a note to the plans that addresses and acknowledges that the existing irrigation
ditches and structures across the property are to be piped and relocated by the Ditch
Company prior to this project commencing. 10/11/2013: Assume that there is an existing
irrigation line that runs across the property - where is that and make sure there are notes
addressing the removal, when and how that is to be done. The irrigation company needs to
sign the sheets showing the removal of existing facilities and the installation of the new facilities.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and agreed upon. A note has been added to the Overall Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14: The underdrain in Fall Harvest Road has been shown. The profile and design
information for this needs to be provided. 12/15/13:This hasn4t been incorporated into the
plans yet. 10/11/2013: Street A-3 The median needs to be designed with an underdrain
system. The details of this will need to be provided in future submittals. Spray water systems
are not allowed on the island unless the island is designed with inflow curb and gutter with inlets
I so the plan is grass then inflow curb and gutter and inlets will need to be provided unless an
underground system is to be provided.
RESPONSE: A plan and profile sheet has been created for the underdrain in the Fall Harvest Way median.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: The trash and recycling enclosure should have architectural character consistent
with the clubhouse. Please include a note in the plans accordingly or provide an elevation of
the enclosure.
12/13/2013: Are there trash and recycling enclosures provided in the recreation center?
RESPONSE: Note has been included in the general notes on sheet L15, and also on sheet L17
accompanying the architectural perspective.
If you need an example of an avigation easement, we can help research that for you.
RESPONSE: Added Disclosure Language to the Cover Sheet.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 12/13/201.1
12/13/2013: Please label the future commercial area on the plan set so as to avoid confusion
in the future.
RESPONSE: The future commercial area is labeled as "Future Commercial Lot' on plan sheets.
Comment Number: 13
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slanaenbeWerofcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14: A hatching is shown, but please either label as concrete or provide a key that clarifies
that the hatching means concrete pavement. 12/15/13: Please make sure that the parking
areas in the cul-de-sacs are shown and labeled as being constructed in concrete. 10/11/2013:
Street D-2 The inset parking areas in the island need to be constructed in concrete and in
accordance with the cul-de-sac island with parking detail. The detail 19-1 also identifies that no
more than 6 spaces can be together.
RESPONSE: A label has been added to identify the hatching is to be concrete pavement on the cul-de-sac
detail sheets. This submittal includes the parking stall markings (In the previous submittal the layer for the
parking stall markings was inadvertently turned off).
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14: This information has been provided, but the stall depths are to be 19 feet per the
standard detail not the 18 feet as labeled. 12/15/13:Chicory Court 10/11/2013: Street D-2
Need radii and curve information. Depth and dimensions of the proposed parking stalls.
RESPONSE: The parking stall length was increased to 19.0' and labeled. Radii and Curve information is
provided in the Chicory Court Detail Sheet.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14:10/11/2013: Ziegler Road - The plans need to clearly show what is to be built and
installed and what row and or easements are needed to do so (if needed).
RESPONSE: No Additional ROW or Easements were provided along Ziegler. A 3.5' section of additional
ROW was provided with the MLD and in labeled on the plat. A saw cut will be aligned with the centerline of
Ziegler Road or the center of the travel lane.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: It appears an off -site easement will be needed for the extension of the irrigation
line. Please provide a copy of this recorded document when it is obtained.
RESPONSE: Offsite easements were provided for the irrigation lines outside of Lot 1. A copy of the offsite
easements are included in the resubmittal
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14:10/11/2013: Off -site easements are needed along the south property line to perform the
grading shown and allow for the drainage. The drainage easements need to be dedicated to
the City. The grading easements can be a private easement dedicated to the developer L 1
will just need to receive copies of the recorded documents before the plans can be signed.
RESPONSE: Toll Brothers' attorney, Carolynne White, is confirming the mechanism for the correction with
the City attorney, Paul Eckman.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14: 10/11/2013: Need to show the sleeves that are to be provided for the irrigation line
crossings. Need to see the profiles of these. These crossings need to meet the minimum
depth requirements as well.
RESPONSE: As discussed with and agreed to by staff, sleeving of the realigned irrigation ditches/pipes (a
separate project as noted in Comment No. 12 above ) will not be required if special jointing improvements
are included where the irrigation pipes cross the r.o.w. Notes have been added to the Overall Utility Plan
to reflect this requirement. A similar note is also included in the separate Irrigation Improvement Plans. A
copy of the plans in included in this resubmittal for your files
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14: 10/11/2013: Geometric information is needed on the plan and profile sheets. What are
the radii and curves?
RESPONSE: Centerline geometry is included on the street profiles.
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14:Plans need to show the x-slope to be between 1-2% along the travel path. 10/11/2013:
Roundabout - A roundabout generally is designed to slope away from the center and have
drainage inlets located along the outer curb line. Your detail is showing some of the
roundabout to slope into the center.
RESPONSE: The roundabout slopes away from the center. See related responses below.
Comment Number: 52
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14:Concrete has been shown, once the plans are cleaned up the joint detail can be seen.
10/11/2013: Roundabout - Will need to provide concrete joint design and details for the
concrete portions of the roundabout.
RESPONSE: The jointing in shown
Comment Number: 54
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
2/6/14: Still applicable. 10/11/2013: Final plan will need to include all the detail and information
on the utility plan check list 6 profiles, cross sections, intersection details 4.
RESPONSE: The checklist items have been completed
Comment Number: 61
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:No information is provided on the plans regarding the irrigation lines other than showing
where they cross over or under other utilities. And where these are shown a sleeve is not
being shown around the pipe. 12/15/2013: Profiles for the irrigation lines need to be provided.
LCUASS require that the private lines be sleeve where they run under the right-of-way. So
please make sure that this is shown that way.
RESPONSE: See response to Comment No.40 above. Landscaping irrigation sleeving is shown in the
plans.
Comment Number: 62
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:A letter was received, but as per requirements in LCUASS a subsurface report needs to
include the following which were not addressed or provided with this letter: a. Discussion
regarding any water rights or wells in the area that maybe impacted by the subdrain; b.
groundwater quality (contamination or other undesirable characteristics; c. cone of influence; c.
the type of filter fabric to be used needs to be identified; d. typically a underdrain layout is
provided with the report, so that we know what is shown in the plans is the same system
(layout, sizing and number of pipes) as was evaluated in the report. At minimum in the report
the street names need to be provided as I do not know which streets are E-1, E-2, and
E-6.12/15/2013: A subsurface exploration report is needed. Please provide this with the next
submittal.
RESPONSE: Per discussion with Sheri on 2/20 the study is required by virtue of the inclusion of an
underdrain beneath the ROW. The study is in progress but, per Sheri, will not delay signing mylars.
Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:Still applicable. The design information (pipe size, slopes and what happens to the
underdrain when there are drop manholes — is there such a thing as a drop underdrain and
whould that design be)has not yet been provided on the plans. 12/15/2013: Notes and
information on the design of the underdrain need to be provided on the plans. Underdrain
mains are to be a minimum of 8 inches in diameter. Overall will need to see the report for the
overall sizing of each branch of the system. It typically gets bigger as it collects more flows
and smaller systems have ended in bigger pipes than are being shown here. Need to provide
information on the location and placement of the cleanouts and how often they are to be
provided. What is the pipe type and what slope is each section of pipe? There are several
drop sewer manholes that the system follows 6 what does the underdrain do at these
locations?
RESPONSE: The details and profiles for underdrain drops at manholes was reviewed with the reviewer.
Adequate information is on the plans and profiles (see SS Main profile A-1 and related UD detail sheets.)
Comment Number: 66 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:The City will not accept the underdrain clean outs attached to the sanitary manholes.
Attached to the manholes is not the City standard. All other subdivisions within the City that
have underdrain systems have cleanout installed so that they are located 15 from the manhole
as per standard. The City does not allow concrete collars around manholes or cleanouts. The
connections to the right and connections to the left details can be used as they are in
compliance with our standards and detail. A plan view detail can be provided as long as it is
modified to reflect the clean out location away from the manhole. 12/15/2013: The underdrain
details to be used are to be from Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for Fort Collins.
RESPONSE: The clean -outs have been moved per the city detail.
Comment Number: 67 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:Based on what is being shown - I assume that improvements to the property line will be
made in all situations. The only one that still needs clarification is north piece of Fall Harvest
Way. Is a portion of that island to be built now? It may make sense to just pull that island back
so that it doesn't start until after the curb return (so it can all be constructed with the future
phase). 12/15/2013: Show the type III barricades at the end of the stub streets and show where
you are proposing to end the asphalt. I need information on where the end of the asphalt will
be in relation to the property line for the development agreement as funds will be collected for
the portion of the street not being constructed to the property line prior to the issuance of any
building permit.
RESPONSE: The center island nose has been moved and is not part of Phase I.
Comment Number: 68
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:Showing a turnaround, but per standards (LCUASS 7-26) at temporary turnaround needs
to be a 50 foot diameter turnaround. The plans also need to identify what the intent is for this
area — roadbase? 12/15/2013: A temporary turnaround (including easement for turnaround) will
be needed at the end of Eagle Roost Drive if you wish the lots at the South end of Eagle Roost
Drive and Heronry Place to be eligible for building permits. All frontages adjacent to a lot have
to be constructed for a lot to be eligible for a building permit, but no access to lots is allowed
off of a street stub without a turnaround.
RESPONSE: The temporary turnaround is shown as requested.
Comment Number: 73 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:Still a couple that still need labeled. They are noted on the plans. 12/15/2013: Storm
pipe 6 Overall the design looks good from a depth under the ROW perspective. There are a
couple of places where you are close to minimum cover requirements. Please label the cover
in these locations.
RESPONSE: Labels have been added to the areas that are close to the minimum cover.
Comment Number: 75
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Still Applicable. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 4 Need PCR stationing and elevation
information shown on the plan and profiles.
RESPONSE: Per discussion with the reviewer, the direction is to follow a sample of the approved
construction documents for Maple Hill Subdivision. PCR stationing is shown for the returns as aligned with
the alignment stationing.
Comment Number: 76 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Still Applicable. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 6Need curve information provided.
Centerline, flowline, and median.
RESPONSE: JVA has used line and curve tables for the flowlines in the plans. Centerline geometric
information has been added to plans. As discussed with and agreed to be the reviewer, median profiles
are not provided for Fall Harvest Way, instead a detail plan has been created with spot shots representing
cross sections of the street including the median.
Comment Number: 77 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:The plans so far do not include any station equations or information on the actual lengths
and true slopes (grades). The designs shown are as if the roads are straight. Need to provide
information identifying the true lengths and information for the vertical curves in these locations.
Once this information is provided the profiles, intersection details, cul-de-sac details and the
cross sections will need to be reviewed due to the changes that will occur in the slopes in
these areas. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 4Per the general notes you are proposing to
use centerline stationing for the profiles. With that you will need to provide station equations,
actual flowline lengths and slopes and identify how the stationing works for the cul-de-sacs,
roundabout and medians. I think it would be easier to do flowline stationing, but it is your
choice as long as you can show the profiles correctly and provide the information that is
needed. So far you have not provided any station equations so other than some of the
centerline the profiles couldn6t be checked since the grades will change once actual flowline
lengths are identified and used.
RESPONSE: The true length/true grade information is shown based on the format used for a previously
approved project as directed by reviewer. There are a few relatively short tangents where the true
lengths/true grades are not shown (due to space issues to preserve the graphical presentation of the
profiles, and due to the fact that this true lengths/true grades do not change significantly from the length
and grade of the center line.
Comment Number: 81
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:Overall great job on this. Lake View Place still needs work, as shown a .3% cross
slope will exist from the high point in the cul-de-sac to the high point along the curb line.
12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 6Cul-de-sacs. Need to show the crown line location in the
cul-de-sac and where this goes to. In order to balance the x-slopes in the cul-de-sac the
location of the high point will vary depending on the cul-de-sacs and the grades.
RESPONSE: The high point on the Lake View Place cul-de-sac has been fixed to increase the cross slope.
The crown line location has been added to all the Cul-de-sac details. All of the redline comments on the
cul-de-sac details have been addressed.
Comment Number: 82 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Note is not yet on plans. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets � Spruce Creek Drive. Make
sure there is a note on the plans that the project shall tie into existing curb and gutter if it exists
4 if not the project shall construct the curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement to the property line.
RESPONSE: A note is shown on the plans
Comment Number: 85 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: This is not yet shown. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 4At low points along the flowline
need to make sure that the minimum of .5% is maintained into the sump. Many times this
means that a vertical curve is not used along the flowline of the street in this condition.
RESPONSE: Grade breaks and vertical curves have been adjusted to show min 0.5% grade in -out
of inlets (with one percent grade break in sumps where applicable)
Comment Number: 87
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:1 have identified several locations at the end of streets that drain into the undeveloped
areas where rip rap needs to be provided at the street ends to prevent undermining of the cur,
gutter and pavement section. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 6At the temporary ends of
streets that end with flow flowing off the end of the street rip rap needs to be shown and
provided so that undermining of the curb, gutter and pavement does not occur over time.
(the second part of this comment related to Chicory Court) What is the intent of this area 6 is it a
pond, a rain garden, a water quality pond? I need additional information before I can provide
comments on the design and what the requirements are going to be. Likely the street here will
need to be constructed in concrete and cur off wall provided behind the curb. An outside
edge profile and an island profile will be needed.
RESPONSE: Erosion protection is provided on the noted streets at the Phase II area. As discussed, the
City Stormwater Engineering staff requested Scour stop instead of riprap.
Comment Number: 88 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Still applicable. 12115/2013: Road Profile sheets Jrilby Road. What is the tangent
length between the curves? It is not on the profile sheet and I cant find it on the plat.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 92 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Not sure if this is shown or not. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 6Great Horned Owl
Drive. Show the profile to the point it ties into the exiting curb and gutter.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 93
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Still not clear what is going on here. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets LZiegler and
Great Horned Owl intersection. As shown the low point will be in the intersection not at the inlet.
A Directional ramp needs to be provided at the corner.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 94 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Sill needed. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets 4Ziegelr/ Trilby. Need profile design
and intersection detail information for the proposed changes shown. Also need to show the
repavement limits, x-slopes, grades, spot elevations.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 95 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Still needed. 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets lliegler Road. Need to show the
repavement limits and how this is proposed (mill, saw cut and remove?).
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 97 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: now Just seem to be missing a detail for Trilby/Ziegler. 12/15/2013: Intersection Details
L Missing details for several intersections.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: 1 again higlighted what matched and didn't match. 12/15/2013: Intersection Details
4Since most of the PCR information and curb return information was not provided yet on the
profile sheets I could not verify that the details matched the information on the profiles. I did
highlight most all of the elevations that either were not shown on the profiles or did not match
the profiles.
RESPONSE: The highlighted areas have been addressed.
Comment Number: 104 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Still true. 12/15/2013: Intersection Details ZAdditional comments are provided on the
plans.
RESPONSE: Additional details have been added.
Comment Number: 106 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14:The geometry has been provided but curb type has not be identified. 12/15/2013:
Cul-de-sac details 6Need to provide geometry for the islands and identify what curb type is to
be used on the islands (outflow, barrier?)
RESPONSE: The curb type callouts and detail reference location has been added to the cul-de-sac detail
sheets.
Comment Number: 108 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Spot elevations still needed. 12/15/2013: Cul-de-sac details jor the cul-de-sac with
islands enough spot elevations around the island need to be provided so they can be
constructed and that the x-slope can be checked around the islands.
RESPONSE: Additional spot elevations and slope callouts have been added to the Cul-de-sac detail
sheets.
Comment Number: 109 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: This has been visually shown, but information on the colors and/or finish types needs to
be provided on the plans. 12/15/2013: Roundabout 61dentify any proposed differences in
concrete pattern, texture, color or type.
RESPONSE: Concrete information has been provided.
Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: 12/15/2013: Roundabout 4Additional spot elevations need to be provided around the
islands.
RESPONSE: Additional spot elevations have been added.
Comment Number: 111 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: 12/15/2013: Roundabout 6Identify what curb and gutter is inflow and which is outflow
and where the transitions are to occur.
RESPONSE: Spill and catch gutter has been labeled.
Comment Number: 112 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: 12/15/2013: Roundabout 6Provide CDOT M details for concrete joint construction.
RESPONSE: CDOT details have been added to the Street Details section of the plans.
Comment Number: 113
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: 12/15/2013: Roundabout 6Need design information, dimensions, x-sections and
details.
RESPONSE: Dimensions and a standard cross-section has been added to the plan.
Comment Number: 114
Comment Originated: 12/15/2013
2/6/14: Is it really always 2.0% cross slope? Per the intersection details it is not. 12/15/2013:
X-sections 6 This will be checked once enough information is provided to check them and they
are readable.
RESPONSE: Cross -slopes vary and are labeled.
Comment Number: 115
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: 1 met with Joe Olson and Martina Wilkenson and discussed the walls proposed in
the roundabout. The point of both chevron shapes needs to be more curved and rounded
(without the point. This will also bring that portion of the wall further away from the apron edge.
RESPONSE: Walls have been modified to be curved.
Comment Number: 116 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Roundabout - a horizontal control plan needs to be provided that shows the layout
information (curves, lengths, dimensions) and shows that this design is in compliance with Erics
design.
RESPONSE: A horizontal control plan has been added.
Comment Number: 117
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: The last annexation plat copy I have doesn't per say match the plat boundaries.
Can you provide me a copy of the plat boundaries with the annexation plat boundaries
overlayed onto it. They may match, but I need to understand what portions of the property are
being annexed.
RESPONSE: Provided an exhibit with this re -submittal.
Comment Number: 118 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: A portion of the drainage system that you are constructing will lie in future streets,
but they are not in street right-of-way at this time with this plat. In order for it to be clear what
portions of the stormwater system will be inspected by, accepted by and maintained by the
City I am going to need an exhibit for the Development Agreement identifying what stormwater
lines are to be inspected and maintained by the City. Typically a statement that the City will be
responsible for the maintenance of stormdrainage facilities in the right-of-way is sufficient, but
that will not work in this situation. This is assuming you would like the City to inspect and accept
the stormwater system that will be located in the future rights -of -way.
RESPONSE: An exhibit showing all storm system in the r.o.w. was prepared by JVA, delivered to the
applicant and has been made a part of the development agreement.
Comment Number: 119 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: If not already identified by comments from Stormwater the Erosion Control Escrow
calculations need to be completed and provided to the City for review. Per discussions with
Larimer County staff the City will do the erosion control enforcement for the entire site, so the
erosion control amount should include the entire site.
RESPONSE: An Erosion Control Escrow calculation sheet is included in the resubmittal.
Comment Number: 120
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: If not already identified by Stormwater a Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for
the maintenance of the developments stormdrainage system that will be maintained by the
Development needs to be provided for review and will be attached to the City Development
Agreement.
RESPONSE: The SOP was previously submitted. No comments were received from Stormwater
Engineering. A copy is provided for this resubmittal as well.
Comment Number: 121
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: 1 received a copy of the fencing plan. How is access to the storm outfall
achieved? Is there to be a gate someplace? Also I understand from discussions with County
Staff that the plan is to keep farming the south area. How is the farming access to this land
going to occur? So far there is not anything shown on these plans to indicate access would be
from any of the streets in or surrounding this development. If there is to be a driveway we
need to see that.
RESPONSE: A fence plan sheet was added to the set, sheet L19. Gate locations are identified on the
plan. Gates are located along the wildlife fence at each of the drainage tracts. Also, access gates are
located on the east and west ends of the wildlife fence. A farming access driveway will extend south near
the intersection of Ziegler and Zephyr. Civil plans reflect rollover curb and concrete pads on either side of
the detached walk to allow farm equipment to pull off the road to open gate. The remainder will be
compacted road base up to the access gate.
Comment Number: 122 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: The fencing plan —I don't think the latest layout is used for this. Just south of the
pool the streets and lots don't match the proposed plans.
RESPONSE: Plan has been updated.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Plat — Need to identify who the irrigation easement is dedicated to and they will
need to sign the plat.
RESPONSE:
Coordination is on -going and agreements are currently being negotiated with the irrigation owners. We
understand that they will need to sign the plat.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Plat — What will occur on Tract Q? Assuming you are planning a building on this
parcel you may not want to dedicate the entire Tract as easements.
RESPONSE:
The previous Tract Q is anticipated to the community (Kechter Farm) clubhouse and recreation center. It
has been revised to be a lot rather than a tract, Lot 1 — Block 13.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Plat — Need to identify what the existing width of the row is along Ziegler adjacent
to the plat boundaries.
RESPONSE:
Please reference the email sent to Rob Helmick & Clint Jones on 10/28/13. The existing Zeigler ROW is
described/dimensioned on the plat.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Plat — the plat language looks to be old City dedication language.
RESPONSE:
The plat language is current with the County Plat language. The plat is to be approved in the County with
anticipation of being annexed into the City post plat approval.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Notes need to be placed on the site and landscape plan that indicate the
development is responsible for the maintenance of the median in Trilby (in the Trilby Ziegler
intersection adjacent to Lot 1), the roundabout and splitter island landscaping, medians in Street
A-3 and any cul-de-sac medians.
RESPONSE:
Note has been added.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: The following note regarding patching standards shall be added to the utility
sheets in which pavement cuts and utility be in's will occur. Limits of street cut are approximate.
Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be
in accordance with City street repair standards.
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 3 of 38
Comment Number: 123
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Plat— There seem to be a bunch of little unlabeled tracts between Tract Sand
Spruce Creek Drive.
RESPONSE: Tracts are now Labeled.
Comment Number: 127 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Plat — there is a lot that now has a sign easement on it. Need to identify who is to
own this easement and what it actually means. This needs to be a private easement.
RESPONSE: Sign Easement is now shown to be dedicated to the Kechter Farm HOA.
Comment Number: 128
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Plat — the acceptance of the irrigation easement statement. Just note that the City
will only inspect the portion of the irrigation lines that cross the right-of-way and do not fall under
the City's warrenty and maintenance statement since they are not City facilities.
RESPONSE: Revised per comment.
02/06/2014: Plat — there are more tracts than are in the tract table on the cover sheet. All tracts
should be included in this table.
RESPONSE: Tract Table is updated.
Comment Number: 124
Comment Number: 125 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Plat — There is some extra text in the Notice of Other Documents statement.
RESPONSE: Text was removed.
Comment Number: 126
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Plat — there needs to be a Tract inside Chicory Court. The edges of this Tract
should be 3-5 feet behind the curb line. This needs to be a tract to allow for the sign that is
identified on the landscape plans. Signage cannot be placed within public right-of-way.
RESPONSE: A Tract has been added.
Comment Number: 129 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Plat— the temporary turnaround easement is not large enough. Per standards
(7-26) a temporary turnaround is to have a 50 foot radius.
RESPONSE: New geometry has been provided.
Comment Number: 130 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Plat — why is there right-of-way being dedicated south of Great Horned Owl/ Rock
Park? The street is not planned to be continued and we have no need for this to be
right-of-way. Rather it not be dedicated at right-of-way, so we don't have to follow the plat with a
vacation of right-of-way.
RESPONSE: This is existing Row that allows access to the south / Lot 2 of the MLD, no additional ROW is
being dedicated with this Plat.
Comment Number: 131 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Are you planning on constructing the sidewalk along both sides of Spruce Creek
Drive? The project is not required to construct the sidewalk along the north side of Spruce
Creek Drive. The plans seem to show it is to be constructed if this is the Ian re t th 1'i4
, a mi s
of construction need to be clarified on the plans. pg a,
RESPONSE: No, the sidewalk will not be installed with Filing 1. Ripley confirmed with Tim Buchanan and
Lindsay Ex that the turf parkway and street trees could be installed at the time of the walk (Filing 2).
Comment Number: 132 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: The utility plan sheets need to show the Type III barricades at the end of the street
construction. The barricades need to either go from sidewalk edge to sidewalk edge or
separate barricades provided for the roadway ends and the sidewalk ends.
RESPONSE: Type 3 barricades have been extended to go from sidewalk edge to sidewalk edge and are
labeled on the Street Signage and Striping Plans. LCUASS Drawing 1413: Temporary Dead End
Barricades has also been added to the Street Details sheets.
Comment Number: 133 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Need to show the proposed patching limits for cuts into existing streets
someplace in the plan set. The utility plan sheets would make the most sense.
RESPONSE: Proposed patching limits for utility and storm trenches have been added to the Utility Plan
sheets. LCUASS Drawing 2201: Trench Detail has also been added to the Street Details sheets.
Comment Number: 134 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: On the grading plans none of the proposed contours are labeled.
RESPONSE: Elevations have been added to the proposed contours on the grading plans.
Comment Number: 135 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Sheet 58 — Some portions of the plans show the construction of this line. If this is
what you are proposing to build it will need to go further into the site as the pavement edge
extends into this hole.
RESPONSE: This line will not be be built at this time. Revisions have been made.
Comment Number: 136
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Street Profiles. Identify on the plans the STA location and elevation for end of
construction. Note that this is end of construction.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 137 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: 1 don't see any irrigation taps into the island/ medians. What is the plan for getting
irrigation water to these areas?
RESPONSE: Irrigation water will be provided to the Fall Harvest Way medians via (2) — sleeved 2" PVC
irrigation lines from common area Tract H.
Comment Number: 138
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Names of the streets need to be provided on the plans — I spent a lot of time
trying to figure out what street it was that was shown. Also you provide a great key map in the
corner, but you are not using it to shown where the items on the page exist in the subdivision.
If you are doing something it doesn't show up.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 139 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Chicory Street — Per discussions I believe it is the intent that this section of
roadway is not crowned but slopes to the island in the center. A cross section showing the
proposed section needs to be provided. We also don't have a outfall roll curb detail, so you
will need to provide one for review if you intend to have the outside curb line be outflow curb.
If it is inflow you will need inlets along here even if the roadway slope to the middle. Cross
pans from the entry street to the island are needed since no inlets and low points are provided
and we do not allow all the flowline water to be dumped across the asphalt pavement. The
profiles need to show the cross pan slopes and need to meet minimums. Need to show
where and how the inflow roll curb will transition to the outflow roll curb. Will the island have
vertical curb or is that proposed to be vertical. Flowline profiles are needed for this circle
(outside edge and median edge). What are the size of the proposed curb openings? Provide
a detail — the concrete needs to extend into the island and/or there needs to be grouted rip rip
at these points. As discussed we do not want the flows coming off of the street and soaking
into the ground right behind the curb line (the concrete extensions were in lieu of providing a
barrier curb behind the curb line).
RESPONSE: Outer and inner flowlines have been provided. An outfall curb detail for the outer flowlines
has been added to the Street Details. Crosspans have been provided. Vertical C&G is proposed for the
inner island. Two -foot wide curb cuts are provided.
Comment Number: 140 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Need to identify inlet locations (station and elevation) on the profiles.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 141 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Trilby at Westchase and Zephyr — the vc curve information is great. You need to
identify what are existing grades, where the construction is to start and if there is any portion of
the existing roadway that is to be removed. I can't tell exactly in the profile where the
connection to existing is to occur.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 142
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Trilby and Zephyr— as these profiles approach the roundabout I cannot tell what
they are following and where the other profiles (flowline profiles) tie into these.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 143 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Cul-de-sac profiles — need to clearly note which profiles are based on Flowline
Stationing since the general note states that all profiles are based on centerline stationing
unless otherwise noted.
RESPONSE: Additional labeling and notes have been added to the Cul-de-sac details and profiles as noted
here and in the redlines to identify the flowline stationing and the street centerline stationing.
Comment Number: 144 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Zephyr Road - there is a portion of this roadway at minimum grade along a
horizontal curve. Once you account for the additional length on the outside edge minimum
grades will not be met. The design here will need to be adjusted.
RESPONSE: The design has been adjusted.
Comment Number: 145 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Need to identify where the transition from vertical curb and gutter on Trilby and
Zephyr will transition to roll over curb and gutter. This can be done by providing typical details
(Two + typical details can be provided one with a curb return with 2 ramps and one where only
one ramp is provided) or by providing a note where every transition is to occur and how.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 146 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Need to show the striping that needs to occur on Trilby adjacent to the school. I
believe Ward will have some comments for you on this. If there is not a parking lane to be
provided as I assumed existed then the transition from the narrower section to the wider section
will need to be modified.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 147 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: A few additional details need to be provided - they are noted on the plans.
RESPONSE: Information has been added.
Comment Number: 148
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Landscape Plan — at several of the street corners plantings are shown extending
out over the sidewalk.
RESPONSE: These areas have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 149
Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Landscape Plan — the sight distance easement lines need to be shown. I saw a
couple of labels but could not see a line that they were pointing to. The sight -distance
easement restrictions also need to be included in the notes.
RESPONSE: Line is shown, and sight -distance easement note has been added to sheet L15.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, lex fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Conditions outlined in the memo from the wildlife consultant - The 9 conditions
outlined in the memo from Mike Figgs should be added to the projects development
agreement.
RESPONSE: Noted
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
12/13/2013:
Please provide a typical street tree detail for a 60 foot lot showing street tree placement in
reference to the required utility tree separation standards. Show the water and sewer service
lines and driveway locations. Street trees should be shown at 6 feet from water and sewer
service lines and 8 feet from the edge of the driveway and centered in the middle of the lot to
the extent feasible.
RESPONSE: A typical detail has been provided on the Water Line Detail Sheets that shows the street tree
locations on 60' or smaller mid -block lots.
Comment Number: 14
12/13/2013:
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
Please review locations where street trees may be placed over storm drains such as on sheet
L7, L14 and possibly on other sheets. Shift trees where necessary.
RESPONSE: Trees have been shifted away from storm drains.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/03/2014
02/03/2014:
The 64 upsized mitigation trees are recorded on sheet L18 and marked very clearly with a M
on the various landscape sheets to show which trees are mitigation trees. Also please list the
number of upsized trees in the plant list on sheet L16. This will record the number of upsized
mitigation trees by species. In some cases for one species some may be specified as the
standard size and some upsized.
RESPONSE: The number of upsized trees is identified by species below the plant list on sheet L16.
Comment Number: 18
02/03/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/03/2014
The following location appears to have street trees that may not be labeled by species.
Sheet L4 the street trees along Ziegler
Sheet L7 by lot 27 there appears to be only one pear tree but two are indicated.
RESPONSE: Trees have been labeled.
Comment Number: 19
02/03/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/03/2014
The streets and lots shown on L5 do not appear to be accurate for this area compared to the
Key Map. Currently L5 appears to have locations shown on L6 and L7 as duplication. Please
review and confirm and if needed include streets and lots shown in the Key map for L5 on
sheet L5. With this adjustment check to see if plant quantities also need to be adjusted.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 02/03/2014
02/03/2014:
A very small quantity of Northern Red oak Quercus rubra is used on private property. Often this
species needs more acidic soils than found in Fort Collins to thrive and grow well.
RESPONSE: All Northern Red Oak have been switched to different species.
Comment Number: 21
02/03/2014:
Comment Originated: 02/03/2014
Previous comment number 6 is continued, if it has not already been addressed. This comment
is to provide a typical 60 foot or smaller lot in reference to the required utility tree separation
standards. Show the water and sewer service lines and driveway locations and the street tree
in the parkway. Street trees should be shown that meet separation standards. Please show a
mid -block and corner lot typical with a stop sign and the 20 foot sign tree minimum separtion.
RESPONSE: These have been created and included on the Utility Plan Water Line detail sheets.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 02/03/2014
02/03/2014:
Please review these locations where street trees appear to be over or very close to storm
water inlets or lines.
The following is a partial list of some to review:
Sheet L1 at the corner of Zephyr Road and Fall Harvest way.
Sheet L3 along Trilby there is a Chanticleer Pear close to the utility.
Sheet L8 along Trilby on both sized just to the east of the intersection
Sheet L9 along Trilby just to the east of Sunset Terrace Drive
Sheet L10 on Saker Court by lot 7
Sheet L10 at the end of Barbary Place by lot 1
Sheet L10 along the south side of Sunset Terrace drive three Bur Oak trees.
Sheet L11 along the south side of Zephyr just west of Ziegler three Honeylocust
Sheet L12 along the north side of Sunset Terrace Drive across from lot 11
Sheet L13 along the south side of Sunset Terrace Drive three bur oak trees by lot 15. May be
the same trees mentioned on L10
Some trees on sheet L14 appear to be over or in the storm water channel or line.
RESPONSE: These have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/03/2014
02/03/2014:
Comment number 14 is continued for some locations.
Please add this sentence to note number 5. This phase inspection of street trees is not the final
City of Fort Collins Forestry Division acceptance of maintenance inspection. See note number
18.
RESPONSE: Note added.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224.6152, dmartine(&_fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2014
01/22/2014: The utility plan now shows the sewer services 'paired' at the lot lines. The sewer
services will need to be separated and toward the center of each lot.
RESPONSE: As discussed with the reviewer, the paired services are for the two -lot duplex units that
share a common lot line. Accordingly, the reviewer agreed that the paired sanitary services are
acceptable as shown.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218.2932, jschlam fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/01/2013
02/04/2014: After reviewing the Plans Inlets need to be protected and Perimeter controls need
to be more effective. The legend should also match what is in the plans. Please See Redlines.
The erosion control Report was acceptable. The erosion control calculations need to be
included for the project. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any
questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
10/01/2013: If this was submitted for the City, more erosion control information would need to
be provided. Two standard template paragraphs that are very vague to the needs of the site;
more information would be needed. The erosion control plans that were submitted need
erosion control BMPs called out for. Redlines of suggested issues for the site have been
placed in the Stormwater engineer's documents. It would be good to know and pass on the
information that the site is >10,000 sq-ft so the SWMP will need to be applied for at least 10 day
before construction starts. The site is also close to a water way, any dredging or filling this
close might warrant the need for a 404 permit and should be inquired with Army Corps of
Engineers.
RESPONSE: Additional erosion control measures have been added based on discussions with city staff.
Revisions to the legend have been made. Sedimentation traps are used on the plans; therefore
sedimentation basin calculations are not needed. The need for State and Armey Corps of Engineer permits
is acknowledged.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com
ALL OF WES LAMARQUE'S COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED AT THE LAST ROUND OF REVISIONS
Note: JVA made plan revisions based on recent discussions with Mr. Lamarque. The topsoil layer at the level
spreader outfall was increased in thickness. Riprap was removed at most project areas and replaced with
Scour Stop product. Lot grading revisions were provided.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
12/16/2013: This is still needed.
10/11/2013: The City requires detailed lot grading plans showing building envelopes, lot
corner elevations, and break points.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013
12/16/2013: Please set up a meeting with City Stormwater staff to review the level spreaders
and the details. A better understanding is needed to determine if the design will be
sustainable.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013
12/16/2013: Please provide the drainage easements that are being recorded by separate
document.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013
12/16/2013: The City would like to sit down with the applicant and look over the landscape plan
to see if more separation can be obtained between some of the storm sewers and trees in
several locations.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013
12/16/2013: Is a PLD being proposed in the northeast landscape island located within the
culd-a-sac? If not, this would be a good location for one.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013
12/16/2013: The landscape plan has not been updated to match the utility plan set.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 12/16/2013
12/16/2013: The development also needs to meet the City's water quality and LID
requirements. Pleaae refer to these requirements and a meeting can be scheduled to discuss
alternatives in meeting these. The development may be close to meeting these requirements,
but needs to quantify what measures are being met.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounty�fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: Please revised the hatching for the project area in the vicinity map on the cover
sheet. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: Please correct on sheet 2.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: Please correct the elevation of benchmark 18-01 on sheets 1 & 2.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: Please complete the information in note #16 on sheet 3.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 7
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: There are cutoff text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on several sheets. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11104/2013: Please mask all text within the profiles. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: There are still many issues that haven't been addressed. Please see our redlines
from the previous review, and make the changes we show. Please make any changes to the
new sheets that were added to this plan set.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made to the plans.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
02/04/2014: There are still issues. See redlines.
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrected per redlines
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrected per redlines
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on several sheets. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrected per redlines
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013
12/13/2013: Repeat comment.
11/04/2013: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrected per redlines
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: The key map on sheet L5 does not match the area shown on the sheet. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: Corrected per redlines
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: All has been addressed, but the lienholder. If there is a lienholder or it is not
known at this time whether there is one, please add a signature block. It can be removed if it is
found that there is none. If it is known that there is no lienholder, add a note stating such.
12/13/2013: Please add signature & notary blocks for the Owners and Lienholders per City of
Fort Collins format. If there are no Lienholders, add a note stating that there are none.
RESPONSE: A note has been added that there is no Leinholder
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: This has not been added.
12/13/2013: Please add a title commitment note per C.R.S. 38-51-106(b)(1).
RESPONSE: An updated Title Commitment has been provided.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: Please revise the statement as noted. See redlines.
12/13/2013: Please add a Basis Of Bearings statement on sheet 1. Please State Board Rules
for appropriate Basis Of Bearings statements.
RESPONSE: Revised per redlines.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: This has not been done. Please make sure that the information that is added, is
labeling the correct property. See redlines.
12/13/2013: Please label all surrounding properties as either unplatted or subdivision name.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised per redlines.
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: This has not been done. Please remove the typicals also. See redlines.
12/13/2013: All easements must be labeled & locatable. See redlines.
RESPONSE:
Note has been added to the utility plans in reference to County standards.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Assume that there is an existing irrigation line that runs across the property - where
is that and make sure there are notes addressing the removal, when and how that is to be
done. The irrigation company needs to sign the sheets showing the removal of existing
facilities and the installation of the new facilities.
RESPONSE:
The irrigation installation and removal is to be completed by others under separate agreement prior to
development activities.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street A-3 The street width at the intersection with Zephyr Road needs to match
that of Street B-1 across the street. So the median and section needs to be moved north and
transitions meeting standards for the design speed provided.
RESPONSE:
The street width for Street A-3 on the north side of Zephyr has been adjusted to match the street width
south of Zephyr. Street tapers are within LCUASS taper standards to the street speed and lane transition
width.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street A-3 Need to provide turning template exhibits that show that a passenger
vehicle can make the u-turn between the median gaps without encroaching into the parking
lane. If not we need to look at the designs of this optional median and make sure it will work
and people will not try to short cut through the opposite side to get to their house and if it
doesn't work the gaps should not be provided.
RESPONSE:
Please reference the attached vehicle turning exhibit. Passenger vehicles are able to make an U-turn
without impeding on the parking lane.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street A-3 The proposed landscaping in the median will need to be reviewed to
make sure that sight distance at the intersection remains acceptable. Need to see the bikes,
peds, and cars approaching the intersections and gaps on the other side of the street.
RESPONSE:
The intersection of Street A-3 and A-5 is proposed to be a 4-way stop.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 4 of 38
RESPONSE: Revised per redlines.
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: All curves require chord bearings & distances. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised per redlines.
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: This has not been done. See redlines.
12/13/2013: All lines must be dimensioned & locatable. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised per redlines.
Comment Number: 29
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: All street rights of way must show width & dedication information. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised per redlines.
Comment Number: 31
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: There are still a few line over text issues. See redlines.
12/13/2013: There are many line over text & text over issues on sheets 2 & 3. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised per redlines.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat Comment. Who is it dedicated to?
12/13/2013: To whom is the irrigation easement to be dedicated? If it is an entity other then the
City, an acceptance will be needed.
RESPONSE: A note has been added stating that all irrigation easements other than the ones noted are to
be dedicated and maintained by the HOA. All other easements are to be recorded and transferred by
separate document.
Comment Number: 39
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: Repeat comment.
12/13/2013: Please correct the spelling on "Ziegler". See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/04/2014: Also show the reception numbers for them.
12/13/2013: There are several easements by separate document that appear to be on the
Kechter Farm M.L.D Plat. If so, please label these as being from that plat. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Now that it is approved, provided.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: Please change all 2013 dates to 2014. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: The redlines shown on the Plat are not all of the corrections necessary. There are
still too many lot lines, ROW lines, Tract lines & easements that are not labeled sufficiently for
us to do a complete review. Please be certain these are complete.
RESPONSE: Revised per discussion with City Surveying Dept.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: All street names must be labeled on each sheet.
RESPONSE: Provided
Comment Number: 45
Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: What are the provisions for vacating the easement at the south end of Eagle Roost
Drive? If replat is the trigger, it should not be labeled "temporary".
RESPONSE: It would be triggered as a re -plat so temporary has been removed.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: Please make all text larger.
RESPONSE: This was discussed with City Surveying Department and has been waived.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: Show & label the extents of the right of way per Fossil Lake P.U.D..
RESPONSE: Labeled
Comment Number: 48
Comment Originated: 02/04/2014
02/04/2014: Please add the road book number & reception number for the existing right of way
of Ziegler Road. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Additional Information has been added.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221.6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/07/2014: Sorry but I've got to ask to have some S&S items previously requested removed
from the Rbt. We made some recent Rbt signage policy changes. Delete the R4-7 and OM1-2
on the splitter islands. Remove the "Yield" pavement markings and the "Sharks Teeth" Yield
line on each approach.
12/13/2013: Sht 120/126: Use the following on the Rbt: R4-7 & OM1-2; W11-2 & W16-7P at ea.
X-walk; R6-1 & R6-4; 12xl8 Yield line (shark's tooth) past YIELD stencil; R1-2 both sides of
lane; others (provide email and will send PDF of Rbt redline).
RESPONSE: The R4-7 and OM1-2 signs have been removed from the roundabout splitter islands.
"Yield" pavement markings and "Sharks Teeth" yield lines on each approach have been removed.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
The
02/06/2014: Requested revisions have not been made. Comment continues.
12/13/2013: Sht 2/126: Please revise the Signing and Marking Construction Notes to state the
Local Entity Traffic Engineer at all instances which currently state the Local entity Engineer. This
is a permanent revision to the Fort Collins S&M notes. Please revise your NOTES file to reflect
the revision.
RESPONSE: "Local Entity Engineer» has been replaced with "Local Entity Traffic Engineer" at all instances
in the Signing and Marking Construction Notes.
Comment Originated: 02/05/2014
Comment Number: 25
02/05/2014: Sht 125: The S&S plans do not show how the new striping will tie-in with the
existing striping. Please show the tie-in on the west end of Trilby.
RESPONSE: New striping has been added to tie-in with the existing striping on Zephyr Road and Trilby
Road.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: With the Trilby connection being made with this project the existing east end of
Trilby by the high school will need to be restriped. The S&S plans need to show Trilby striping
to the east end of the median. The striping should be 2 travel lanes, a center turn lane and 2
bike lanes. This would be from the east end of the median west to the new section of Trilby.
Traffic believes the transition shown on the plans between stations 34+50 and 35+00 needs to
be designed according to lane taper/transitions standards, but check with City engineering staff
to confirm the transition requirements. These striping changes will require removal of the curved
section of the current double yellow striping at the school access and a taper section
terminating the center turn lane as it transitions to the narrower street section west of the school.
RESPONSE: Revisions were made based on discussions with city staff.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Sht's 125-129: Please revise the R1-1 labels to state R1-1 & D3-1.
RESPONSE: "R1-l" labels has been revised to state "R1-1 & D3-1".
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Sht's 125 & 126: Please indicate an R4-7 sign above an OM1-2 sign on each end
of each median on Fall harvest Way.
RESPONSE: "R4-7 & OM1-2" signs have been added to the north and south ends of the Fall Harvest Way
median.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: S&S plans: Please indicate R2-1 (25 mph) signs on Trilby at the west tie-in with
existing Trilby (1 sign each direction). Also on Zephyr at it's west tie-in (1 sign east bound), and
about 200' west of the Ziegler intersection, 1 sign westbound only.
RESPONSE: "R2-1" signs have been added on Trilby Road at the west tie-in with existing Trilby Road in
both the eastbound and westbound directions. "R2-1" signs have been added on Zephyr Road at the west
tie-in with existing Zephyr Road in the eastbound direction only, and near the intersection of Zephyr Road
and Ziegler Road in the westbound direction only.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: S&S plans: Please remove the concrete joint lines and the concrete hatching and
other non-S&S information on the Rbt S&S sheet. The current image is too congested to be
adequate.
RESPONSE: The concrete joint lines and concrete hatching have been removed from all Street Signage &
Striping Plans.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Sht 127: Please add W2-6 (circular Rbt sign) signs on each approach to the Rbt
about 400'-500' feet away.
RESPONSE: W2-6 signs have been added on each approach to the roundabout.
Comment Number: 34
Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: S&S plans: please add R3-17 (Bike Lane) signs on Trilby and on Zephyr at their
west tie-in with existing Trilby and Zephyr. Also add the R3-17 signs about 100' downstream of
the Rbt on each departing lane. Add the R3-17 on Zephyr about 100' west of the Ziegler
intersection.
RESPONSE: R3-17 signs have been added on each departing lane from the roundabout. R3-17 signs
have also been added on the eastbound lanes of Trilby Road and Zephyr Road at their west tie-in with
existing Trilby Road and Zephyr Road. A R3-17 sign has been added on the westbound lane of Zephyr
Road near the intersection of Zephyr Road and Ziegler Road.
Comment Number: 35
Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: S&S Plans: On Trilby and Zephyr, revise the bike lane label to state 6" solid white
Bike Lane stripe. On Trilby only, revise the bike lane label to state 6" solid white Bike Lane
stripe. Please label the 4" solid white Parking Lane stripe on Zephyr also.
RESPONSE: The "6' Bike Lane" labels on Trilby Road and Zephyr Road have been revised to state "6"
Solid White Bike Lane Stripe". The parking lane pavement markings on Zephyr Road have been labeled
"4" Solid White Parking Lane Stripe".
Comment Number: 36
Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: Please add signage at the Rbt where the sidewalk ramps down to the bike lane
stating "Alternate Bike Route". The signage will be 18" x 24", white letters on green background
(MUTCD Guide sign style). They should be placed adjacent to or just preceeding the ramp
area behind the sidewalk.
RESPONSE: "Alternate Bike Route" signs have been added at the roundabout where the sidewalk ramps
down to the bike lane.
Comment Number: 37
Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: Sht 128,129, S. Ziegler S&S: Please remove unecessary lines to allow the
remaining and new striping to show clearly. The labeling of the Sb bike lane is shown in the
parkway strip on sht 128. Please revise.
RESPONSE: Unnecessary lines such as existing contours, and existing utility and tree symbols have been
removed from the plans. Ziegler Road southbound bike lane label have been revised to state "6" Solid
White Bike Lane Stripe" and point at the pavement striping.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: Please do not pull back the west median on Trilby at Ziegler. The City wants to
maintain the ped refuge in the median.
RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to maintain the existing configuration of the west median at the
intersection of Trilby Road and Ziegler Road.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: Do not remove the bulb -out at the NW corner of Ziegler and Trilby. This will keep
the west side N/S ped crossing a little shorter. Scaling from aerial maps and the submitted
plans that the current narrowest width is about 17'-18' between the bulb -out and the median. That
basically meets standards for a travel lane and bike lane. Please contact us if the dimensions
are inaccurate.
RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to maintain the existing configuration of the bulb -out at the
intersection of Trilby Road and Ziegler Road.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: Sht 117: please remove any signing and striping information in the Rbt image.
RESPONSE: All signage and pavement markings have been removed from the roundabout detail drawing.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 02/07/2014
02/07/2014: Please stripe a NbL turn bay in the existing street section at Ziegler and Trilby.
Better a short turn bay than a gore motorists will use for a turn lane anyway.
RESPONSE: A 12 ft wide northbound turn lane bay has been added at the intersection of Trilby Road and
Ziegler and labeled I" Solid White Turn Lane Stripe".
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
02/06/2014: The Sight Distance Easement label is provided on the plans but the line
delineating the easement si missing. Please revise to show the easement on sheets L1, L2
and L6.
12/13/2013: Sht 7: Plat indicates a sight distance easement on the NE corner of Fall Harvest &
Zephyr. Landscape Plan does not indicate the easement and it's relationship to the plantings.
Please indicate the easement and provide the species of canopy shade tree and ornamental
trees are being proposed.
RESPONSE: Line now shows up on these sheets.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/06/2014
02/06/2014: Sheet L4: the east -west medians do not match the same medians shown in the
construction plans. Please coordinate the two plans.
RESPONSE: This area has been coordinated between plans.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970.416.2355, pbarnes ar7fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013
01/22/2014: Original comment has been resolved. However, the'sub-neighborhood signs'
depicted on the sign drawing must also comply with the sign code. For residential
subdivisions, only one sign per entry into a subdivision or housing project is allowed. The
location of these signs will need to comply.
12/13/2013: Signage depicted on Ripley Design drawing dated 11-18-13 doesn't comply with
the City's sign code. Wall is taller than 6', only the letters can be illuminated - not the entire
wall.
RESPONSE: The sign locations have been reviewed with County code by the County Planner and
determined to be allowable.
Kechter Farm October 10, 2013
Color Code —
Black text — from October 10, 2013
Purple text —from December 15, 2013
Green text —from February 6, 2014
Brown text - From March 15, 2014
Comments:
31. Ziegler Road - The plans need to clearly show what is to be built and installed and what row and or
easements are needed to do so (if needed). Thanks for the additional information it was very helpful.
The west profile still needs some work in order to meet standards. Slope information (proposed on each
side of the crown and existing cross slope is needed, especially since a crown line profile is not being
provided, which is typically required. Where is the sidewalk and the row line located on the x-sections.
From what I see it looks like grading will need to occur behind the sidewalk to tie into existing grade. If
this is the case a grading easement or a letter identifying permission is granted to do this will need to be
provided.
34. Still applicable. It appears an off -site easement will be needed for the extension of the irrigation
line. Please provide a copy of this recorded document when it is obtained.
52. Some work is still needed on this so that small angle pieces do not exist. Also is it to be a monolithic
curb and gutter or what is the intent? Concrete has been shown, once the plans are cleaned up the joint
detail can be seen. Roundabout - Will need to provide concrete joint design and details for the concrete
portions of the roundabout.
62. This report will need to be received and reviewed before mylars are signed. I indicated it would not
hold up additional rounds of review, but the information is needed prior to final plans being signed. A
letter was received, but as per requirements in LCUASS a subsurface report needs to include the
following which were not addressed or provided with this letter: a. Discussion regarding any water
rights or wells in the area that maybe impacted by the subdrain; b. groundwater quality
(contamination or other undesirable characteristics; c. cone of influence; c. the type of filter fabric to
be used needs to be identified; d. typically a underdrain layout is provided with the report, so that we
know what is shown in the plans is the same system (layout, sizing and number of pipes) as was
evaluated in the report. At minimum in the report the street names need to be provided as I do not
know which streets are E-1, E-2, and E-6. A subsurface exploration report is needed. Please provide
this with the next submittal.
75. This has not been shown on the plan views, but not all the profile view. Although required, I will let
it slide on this project. I will expect to see it provided on future projects. Still needed. Road Profile
sheets — Need PCR stationing and elevation information shown on the plan and profiles.
77. Still a few locations where additional information is needed for the station equations. The plans so
far do not include any station equations or information on the actual lengths and true slopes (grades).
The designs shown are as if the roads are straight. Need to provide information identifying the true
lengths and information for the vertical curves in these locations. Once this information is provided the
profiles, intersection details, cul-de-sac details and the cross sections will need to be reviewed due to
the changes that will occur in the slopes in these areas. Road Profile sheets —Per the general notes you
are proposing to use centerline stationing for the profiles. With that you will need to provide station
equations, actual flowline lengths and slopes and identify how the stationing works for the cul-de-sacs,
roundabout and medians. I think it would be easier to do flowline stationing, but it is your choice as
long as you can show the profiles correctly and provide the information that is needed. So far you have
not provided any station equations so other than some of the centerline the profiles couldn't be
checked since the grades will change once actual flowline lengths are identified and used.
81. The cul-de-sacs with islands the crown transitions shown are not acceptable. Overall great job on
this. Lake View Place still needs work, as shown a .3% cross slope will exist from the high point in the
cul-de-sac to the high point along the curb line. Road Profile sheets —Cul-de-sacs. Need to show the
crown line location in the cul-de-sac and where this goes to. In order to balance the x-slopes in the cul-
de-sac the location of the high point will vary depending on the cul-de-sacs and the grades.
85. There are a few situations yet where this needs to be done. This is not yet shown. Road Profile
sheets —At low points along the flowline need to make sure that the minimum of .5% is maintained into
the sump. Many times this means that a vertical curve is not used along the flowline of the street in this
condition.
93. Profile has been shown. But not sure if it matches with the intersection detail, is the crown in Ziegler
transitioning out? Still not clear what is going on here. Road Profile sheets —Ziegler and Great Horned
Owl intersection. As shown the low point will be in the intersection not at the inlet. A Directional ramp
needs to be provided at the corner.
94. Intersection detail still needed. Also profile doesn't yet follow all curb being replaced. Still needed.
Road Profile sheets —Ziegelr/ Trilby. Need profile design and intersection detail information for the
proposed changes shown. Also need to show the repavement limits, x-slopes, grades, spot elevations.
97. This detail is still needed. Just seem to be missing a detail for Trilby/Ziegler. Intersection Details —
Missing details for several intersections.
100. Still a few points that don't match and need clarification. I again highlighted what matched and
didn't match. 12/15/2013: Intersection Details Since most of the PCR information and curb return
information was not provided yet on the profile sheets I could not verify that the details matched the
information on the profiles. I did highlight most all of the elevations that either were not shown on the
profiles or did not match the profiles.
110. Need at least one additional spot on one of the islands to show that portion adjacent to the circle
will drain. See plans. Roundabout —Additional spot elevations need to be provided around the islands.
112. 1 did not see these details on the plans. Roundabout —Provide CDOT M details for concrete joint
construction.
1113. Some information still needed. Roundabout —Need design information, dimensions, x-sections
and details.
118. The exhibit provided looks great to me. Once I know what exhibit # it will be I will let you know and
then if you can provide me a copy with that number on it that would be great. A portion of the drainage
system that you are constructing will lie in future streets, but they are not in street right-of-way at this
time with this plat. In order for it to be clear what portions of the stormwater system will be inspected
by, accepted by and maintained by the City I am going to need an exhibit for the Development
Agreement identifying what stormwater lines are to be inspected and maintained by the City. Typically
a statement that the City will be responsible for the maintenance of stormdrainage facilities in the right-
of-way is sufficient, but that will not work in this situation. This is assuming you would like the City to
inspect and accept the stormwater system that will be located in the future rights -of -way.
120. You have identified that this was provided. Please send me an electronic copy of this as I will need
to attach it to the development agreement. If not already identified by Stormwater a Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) for the maintenance of the developments stormdrainage system that will
be maintained by the Development needs to be provided for review and will be attached to the City
Development Agreement.
121. No issues with the fencing plan. Last time we met, we did discuss that two driveways would be
needed. One on Trilby and one off o Zephyr to access the proposed gates. The driveway onto Trilby has
not been shown. Since Trilby is vertical curb and driveway cut will need to be installed for this access.
An access onto Zephyr may be shown. I think that is what I see, but it is not labeled. I received a copy of
the fencing plan. How is access to the storm outfall achieved? Is there to be a gate someplace? Also I
understand from discussions with County Staff that the plan is to keep farming the south area. How is
the farming access to this land going to occur? So far there is not anything shown on these plans to
indicate access would be from any of the streets in or surrounding this development. If there is to be a
driveway we need to see that.
126. Plat — There seem to be a bunch of little unlabeled tracts between Tract S and Spruce Creek Drive.
As I understand it these are not extra tracts, but instead a line that is intended to define the utility
easement being dedicated along here. If this is the case this line needs to be dashed not solid.
136. Street Profiles. Identify on the plans the STA location and elevation for end of construction. Note
that this is end of construction. There are still a few sheets where this needs to be added.
138. Names of the streets need to be provided on the plans — I spent a lot of time trying to figure out
what street it was that was shown. Also you provide a great key map in the corner, but you are not
using it to shown where the items on the page exist in the subdivision. If you are doing something it
doesn't show up. Still applicable. I had to get out the plat constantly to figure out what street was
what.
139. Still issues with this design. See streets comments below. Chicory Street — Per discussions I believe
it is the intent that this section of roadway is not crowned but slopes to the island in the center. We also
don't have a outfall roll curb detail, so you will need to provide one for review if you intend to have the
outside curb line be outflow curb. Not sure if the detail provided is for this or the roundabout, since the
detail shows concrete attached to the back of the curb head, which will not exist on this street, and
would not be the typical tie situation for driveways. The profiles need to show the cross pan slopes and
need to meet minimums. Not quite sure if the profiles go to this point. Flowline profiles are needed for
this circle (outside edge and median edge). Please see comments on this design. What are the size of
the proposed curb openings? Provide a detail — the concrete needs to extend into the island and/or
there needs to be grouted rip rip at these points. As discussed we do not want the flows coming off of
the street and soaking into the ground right behind the curb line (the concrete extensions were in lieu of
providing a barrier curb behind the curb line).From what I saw on line the proposed mat does not meet
this requirement.
142. Still applicable. Trilby and Zephyr — as these profiles approach the roundabout I cannot tell what
they are following and where the other profiles (flowline profiles) tie into these.
14S. Comments indicated that this was provided/ identified on the plans. I did not find where this is at.
Need to identify where the transition from vertical curb and gutter on Trilby and Zephyr will transition to
roll over curb and gutter. This can be done by providing typical details (Two + typical details can be
provided one with a curb return with 2 ramps and one where only one ramp is provided) or by providing
a note where every transition is to occur and how.
147. The CDOT concrete joint details still need to be added to the plans. A few additional details need to
be provided - they are noted on the plans.
Plat - In comparing the proposed plat and the annexation plat that was submitted there are a few items
that do not completely match within the tolerances of rounding. I discussed this with John VonNeida
and for the parameters that are not due to rounding the documents need to be corrected so that they
more closely correspond. I did highlight in purple on the annexation map the items that didn't exactly
match.
Plat — L236 is not in the plat table (labeled on sheet 3)
Plat — Block 7 label currently doesn't exist.
Overall my remaining comments on the street designs are:
Missing grades/slopes
Intersection elevations that don't match
10/11/2013: Street A-3 The median needs to be designed with an underdrain system. The
details of this will need to be provided in future submittals. Spray water systems are not
allowed on the island unless the island is designed with inflow curb and gutter with inlets — so
the plan is grass then inflow curb and gutter and inlets will need to be provided unless an
underground system is to be provided.
RESPONSE:
The underdrains within the medians are anticipated and will need to be detailed in future submittals. It is
anticipated that the median/landscape underdrain will with tie to storm drain or connect to the underdrain
associated with the sanitary sewer pipe.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street A-3 Profiles of the medians will need to be provided — A center line profile
for this sheet is usless and does not need to be provided. You can certainly use it for your
design parameters, but I don't need to see it in future submittals (except at the intersection)
RESPONSE:
The centerline for Street A-3 is still shown for this submittal. We anticipated to show left and right median
profiles on the next submittals.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street D-2 The inset parking areas in the island need to be constructed in
concrete and in accordance with the cul-de-sac island with parking detail. The detail 19-1 also
identifies that no more than 6 spaces can be together.
RESPONSE:
The parking areas in Street D-2 will be constructed in concrete as shown in detail 19-1. The parking has
also been adjusted to only provide 6 parking spaces in each parking group.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street D-2 Need radii and curve information. Depth and dimensions of the
proposed parking stalls.
RESPONSE:
Curve information is show on the plat. Curve tables for streets will be added on future submittals.
Reference the intersection details for curb return radi
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street D-2 Where are the inlets to be located on this street? Current profile shows
several sumps. With these small lots need to show how the driveways and the inlets will work
— doesn't necessarily look like you have room for both in places.
RESPONSE:
Street D-2 is anticipated to drain towards the center landscape area with runoff captured by the inlets within
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 5 of 38
OP
STA equation information needed
The 20 feet between outside curb line and median needs to be provided. Need to modify median or the
flowline location.
Angle point vs radii
Label median curb on Fall Harvest cross section as outfall.
Fall Harvest medians — looks like there are several low points in the medians. Areas are highlighted in
blue
Need to clean up the slopes where you have station equation information. Just need to label the true
slope. Remove the label that reflected the non -adjusted slope.
Spruce creek drive — the curve table needs to be placed back on the sheet and a PT label point on the
plan view is gone.
STA end of construction information still needed on a few of the profiles.
It is standards for the PCR information for all intersections to be shown on the profile. You are not
providing this on several of the profiles. I will give you a pass on this project, but make sure you provide
this on future projects.
Have a couple of places were the slopes exceed allowed grade break. Design needs to be adjusted, so
grade breaks are not exceeded.
Where the Centerline profiles end and tie to the flowline profiles. ID and show these station locations
on both plan view drawings. This also applies to the roundabout and Chicory Court where the two
different profile types tie together.
Chicory Court —
The profiles need to extend to the end of the cross pans.
We need to talk about this profile. It doesn't tie in. The low points don't match what is shown on the
plan view. Need to show the .5% into the curb openings. The profile doesn't reflect the pans and the
street crown.
The curb openings need to look like the detail I drew on the plans. Also as was previously identified in
my comments a concrete or grouted cobble run off of 8 feet needs to be provided. From what I looked
up the mat identified does not meet this criterion.
Grades into inlet at to be .5%
Have a two VC on Trilby Road and one on Zephyr that don't meet the minimum curve length now that
you have calculated the true curve length information.
I can't see how the centerline stationing profiles ties to the flowline profiles for the roundabout. I can
find no elevations that match, nor are any of the station points identified as matching.
IF
I guessed at which side of the roundabout is NW, NE, etc.. I don't know if I got it right or not since there
is really a north side, east side and I couldn't get the elevations between the two to match up. This
needs to be clarified.
Ziegler/ Zephyr are you proposing a curb opening? Not clear what is occurring. Additional Intersection
information is needed to show how this intersection is to be built.
The cul-de-sacs with the islands. The crown transitions as shown will not work.
Roundabout —
The north splitter island needs a highpoint; otherwise it is flat and will not drain.
Need additional dimensional (horizontal control) information on the splitter islands. The curb facing the
roundabout also needs to be catch curb. This needs to be labeled someplace.
CDOT concrete joint details are needed on the plans.
Suggest adding this note to the plans: Angled concrete ramps (outside of the circle) are proposed so
bicycles can use sidewalks. Ramps are 6 feet wide with 2 foot wings. These are not handicap ramps and
do not require truncated domes. There is no maximum grade.
The inner circle radius needs to be provided (to id the apron width).
Need a detail for the center median. What type of curb is proposed? How thick should the apron
concrete be?
Splitter islands how are they to be constructed? Monolithic pour for noses are needed, but what about
the rest? Is it mounded?
Roundabout flowline profiles. These don't tie to the other profiles and don't seem to match the spot
elevations shown. One profile shows a low point in the roundabout, which the spot elevations don't
show.
Concrete joint pattern needs a little work to eliminate the pieces with small angles.
The pedestrian ramps (not in the splitter island, but the others) need to have 6 foot flares rather than
the curbed edge in order to meet ADA standards. The hardscape parkway is considered a walkable
surface.
Need verification from the district on what they are agreeing to in regards to the improvements for the
model homes.
The exhibit for the interim improvements. Will it be an attachment to the DA or a part of the plans?
the landscape median. Additional information will be provided showing the grading detail (including left and
right profiles) in future submittals.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street D-2 The median needs to be designed with an underdrain system. The
details of this will need to be provided in future submittals.
RESPONSE:
The median is proposed to be a depression and surface drain to inlets shown.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street D-2 How is possible to have a lot with less than 20 feet of frontage? That is
the minimum lot frontage required by City codes to have a legal lot. Lot 12, block 24
RESPONSE:
Street D-2 and the associated lots have been revised to provide additional lot frontage for utilities. The lots
within this area are anticipated to be attached single family dwelling units with shared driveways
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street A-5 Assuming that Mail Creek plans are approved prior to these the design
for the tie in will need to match their plans.
RESPONSE:
Street A-5 has been coordinated and designed (vertically & horizontally) to match the proposed design of
Mail Creek.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street B-5 Need radii information, so design parameters can be verified.
RESPONSE:
Street B-5 detail will be addressed in future filings and is not a part of this first filing plat.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Street B-5 Site plan and any signing and striping plans will need to show that no
parking signs are to be installed on the lot side of this street.
RESPONSE:
Street B-5 detail will be addressed in future filings and is not a part of this first filing plat.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Trilby Road - West end — If you are not going to continue the vc that was designed
to the west you need to show how that curve calculates out and that it meets standards.
RESPONSE:
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 6 of 38
The current design of Trilby was intended to tie the existing grades. Additional review and design is
needed to be sure that the intended design for Trilby is continued into Kechter.
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Trilby Road - East end — the transition from a section with parking to a section
without parking needs to be done as a bump out rather than a transition to better define the end
of the parking area.
RESPONSE:
The east end of Trilby has been designed with a bump rather than a transition to define the end of on street
parking.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Zephyr Road - Need to show tying into the existing improvements.
RESPONSE:
The Zephyr design has been updated to tie to existing.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Zephyr Road - The western most vc needs to be longer. It is not meeting the
minimum length for the design parameters. As shown the crest of this curve is also within 2 feet
of the beginning of a horizontal curve.
RESPONSE:
The Zephyr vertical design has been updated.
Comment Number: 30
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Ziegler Road - How are you proposing to end this street at the south end? If the
street is not going to extend (which seems to be the case) it makes sense to extend curb
across and install a driveway. The street needs to have a permanent end.
RESPONSE:
The end of Zephyr has been updated
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Ziegler Road - The plans need to clearly show what is to be built and installed and
what row and or easements are needed to do so (if needed).
RESPONSE:
Detail design of Zeigler is provided.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Ziegler Road - Need to show the grading contours for this road on one of the plan
sheets. Need to see how grades will tie in.
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 7 of 38
RESPONSE:
The tie in at the south end has been updated.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Ziegler Road - On the typical cross section what is meant by `travel lane
(adjusted)'?
RESPONSE:
`Adjusted' has been removed and existing/proposed cross -sections have been provided to clarify
improvements.
Comment Number: 34
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: It appears an off -site easement will be needed for the extension of the irrigation
line. Please provide a copy of this recorded document when it is obtained.
RESPONSE:
Irrigation improvements are to be completed by others under separate agreements. All necessary
easements will be obtained.
Comment Number: 35
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Off -site easements are needed along the south property line to perform the
grading shown and allow for the drainage. The drainage easements need to be dedicated to
the City. The grading easements can be a private easement dedicated to the developer — I will
just need to receive copies of the recorded documents before the plans can be signed.
RESPONSE:
Offsite easements are shown. Temporary construction easements will be obtained by separate document
and are shown on the plat.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Add the following note to the utility plan sheets: All sleeves across public streets
shall be installed per City of Fort Collins requirements.
RESPONSE:
Note has been added to the utility plan, referencing the county
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Note #7 on the utility plan sheets needs to reference City of Fort Collins rather than
Larimer County.
RESPONSE:
The project is being approved in the County with anticipation of being annexed into the City upon final plat
approval.
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 8 of 38
Comment Number: 38
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: At T intersections — make sure that the appropriate number of ramps are provided.
At some intersections you are showing directional ramps going both directions when you do
not have a receiving ramp across the street. There are some T intersections in which you are
not showing a ramp across the T. Ramps are to be provided at at least 3 legs of the
intersection.
RESPONSE:
Ramps have been provided.
Comment Number: 39
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Several of the cul-de-sacs do not meet the parking standards per the LCUASS. If
you cannot show that a parking space per lot in the cul-de-sac bulb is provided in the bulb
using the parking dimensions then an island with parking will need to be provided in order to
meet this standard. I see issues with Street A-4, B-2, and A-1.
RESPONSE:
The cul-de-sacs have been update to provide parking to satisfy parking requirements.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Need to show the sleeves that are to be provided for the irrigation line crossings.
Need to see the profiles of these. These crossings need to meet the minimum depth
requirements as well.
RESPONSE:
Irrigation crossing are shown. The lines are proposed to be RCP and are anticipated to not have sleeves.
Comment Number: 41
Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: Geometric information is needed on the plan and profile sheets. What are the radii
and curves?
RESPONSE:
Future submittals will include geometric information. For this submittal, please reference the plat for
geometric information.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013
10/11/2013: The typical local residential street. The row width for a street with roll-over curb
and gutter is 53 feet. The plat and the plans are correctly showing the streets as being
dedicated with 53 feet, but your typical cross section needs to be corrected. The typical
section is also identifying that there are two travel lanes of 8 feet each. This is incorrect — it is
considered a single lane width of 16 feet. The typical section should be changed as well.
RESPONSE:
Response to Comments
Kechter Farm Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat
November 21, 2013
Page 9038