HomeMy WebLinkAboutLDS TEMPLE (OF FORT COLLINS) - FDP - FDP130029 - CORRESPONDENCE -There appears to be down directional lighting on the outside of the steeple, where these
fixtures in the lighting plan?
Response: The down light fixtures are shown on sheets A.1 thru AA and on drawing 2 on
attached sheet E.2 — Site Lighting Plan.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 07/16/2013
07/16/2013: Do the roof flues w/ backdraft preventer have to be so tall. Why are they not
screened? What color are they to be painted?
Response: Effort has already been made to reduce the height of the flues. However, because of
code requirements they cannot be lowered. (The design strategy for the flues coming out from the
boilers in the penthouse follow the IMC code reference as follows, 'Type L vents shall terminate
not less than 2 feet above the highest point of the roof penetration and not less than 2 fee higher
than any portion of a building within 10 feet." Other options were considered to support the
aesthetics of the building, such as side penetrating flues. These options are not recommended and
could result in discoloring of the penthouse wall and roof.) So, although the roof flues will not be
lowered, they will be painted a color that will make them less visually distracting.
What color will the ladder pipe rail that is visible be painted?
Response: Even though the ladder shows up graphically on "visually flattened" elevations, it
should not be seen from the perspective view of the ground plane. However, it will be noted to
paint to match the building exterior. See revised drawings A.1 thru A.A.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/0512013
08/05/2013: The line lowering typical on sheet C.59 is to be deleted.
RESPONSE: The lowering has been deleted.
The manhole frame and cover on sheet C.60 is to be deleted.
RESPONSE: This is being allowed by Terry.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District does not allow trees, tree canopies or landscaping within the District's
easement.
Response: Trees have been removed or their locations adjusted to keep them out of the district
easement on the NE corner of the project site, east of Majestic Drive.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District requires a reduced pressure principle Back -flow -prevention device on
the fire line riser.
Response: See note on attached drawing C.15 — Overall Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The meter vault typical on sheet C.59 is to be replaced with the District typical 3
inch meter vault. The typical can be obtained in CAD format by contacting Ms. Sue Vest,
(970)226-3104, extension 107.
RESPONSE: There was no detail for a 3-inch meter vault in the aquired district details so the 1 Y2
& 2-inch meter detail was shown.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District will require another round of formal final plan review due to the nature
and number of the above comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-226-3104 ext.
104 if you require additional information or for questions.
RESPONSE: This is understood.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416.2313, nbealsd)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/16/2013
07/16/2013: Please put notes on the Title Sheet that reference the approved Modifications.
RESPONSE: The approved Modifications have been included on the Title Sheet.
Also add a note to the title sheet that details the lighting condition that the Planning and Zoning
Board placed upon their approval.
RESPONSE: The lighting condition has been included on the Title Sheet.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/16/201"1
07/16/2013: The lighting plan and Visual and shadow analysis are part of the Final Plan. The
applicant can submit these electronically before going to MYLAR
Response: See the following attached lighting plans: E.2 — Site Lighting Plan & E.3 - Site
Photometrics Plan.
RESPONSE: They have been deleted.
Comment Number: 2
08/05/2013: General note 13 is to be deleted please.
RESPONSE: It has been deleted.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
O8/0512013: Comments to be added: "all water line construction shall conform to the Fort
Collins- Loveland Water District standards and specifications current to the date of construction.
RESPONSE: The note has been added.
All sanitary sewer line construction shall conform to the Fort Collins- Loveland Water District
standards and specifications current to the date of construction."
RESPONSE: The note has been added.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District requires a minimum 30 foot wide easement, on the District's standard
easement form, for the sanitary sewer lines that are not located within public ROW. The sanitary
sewer line is to be centered in the easement.
RESPONSE: This has been verified and the Easement Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps have been
prepared or are shown on the Final Plat.
The District requires a minimum 20 foot wide easement, on the District's standard easement
form, for water facilities that are not located within public ROW.
RESPONSE: This has been verified and the easements are shown on the Final Plat.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The overflow Rundown can't be located over District facilities.
RESPONSE: This is being allowed by Terry.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Each water line lowering is to be detailed. The District requires joint restraint
systems for the lowerings. The lengths of joint restraint are to be calculated for each lowering
please.
RESPONSE: The water line has been placed at a depth to eliminate lowerings.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The need for ARVs needs to be evaluated.
RESPONSE: There is a low spot in the water line on Majestic, the elevations increase to Trilby
and Timberline, thus, there are no ARV's in Majestic. A high point is located within the temple site
and an ARV has been located there.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The water lines crossing the storm sewer need to be shown in the profile.
RESPONSE: Crossings are shown in profiles.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
08/08/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please revise lane striping per the sketch sent on 8/9.
RESPONSE: The lane striping widths have been changed.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
08/08/2013: Please remove the "Existing Striping Extended South" label.
RESPONSE: The extend striping labels have been removed.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
08/08/2013: Please revise the labeling of the eastern bike/edge stripe near the northern end of
the Timberline plan (Begin & End Extended striping labels we spoke about).
RESPONSE: The labeling has been revised.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson(a-fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Irrigation plans must be submitted at time of final plan/building permit submittal.
Please see LUC 3.2.2(J)(3) for details on how to ensure you comply with the irrigation plan
requirements.
Response: Irrigation plans will be submitted for review with the final plan/building permit submittal.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Please make sure the following notes are included on the irrigation plans:
"A master shut-off valve shall be installed downstream of the backflow device to shut off water
to the system when not operating.
Irrigation controllers shall be "smart" controllers, using climate -based or soil moisture -based
technology, selected from the Irrigation Association's current Smart Water Application
Technologies (SWAT) tested products list or other similarly tested product list. Controllers shall
be installed and programmed according to manufacturer's specifications.
A rain sensor shall be installed on each irrigation controller and installed according to the
manufacturer's specifications."
Response: These notes have been added to the irrigation schedule drawing, which will be
submitted for review with the final plan/building permit submittal.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Terry Farrill, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Under general note 5, all references to the water and sanitary sewer are to be
deleted please.
08/07/2013: Please provide the reception numbers marked on sheet 2. These must be added
prior to mylars. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The Reception No.'s will be added once the documents have been recorded.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Repeat Comment: There are line over text issues on sheet SP.2. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Line/text conflicts have been corrected.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Please change the title on sheet SP.3 to "Fort Collins LDS Temple", to match the
other plan sets. See redlines.
Response: See response to comment #1.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please make any repositioned/new signs bold. The old (existing)
location can remain faint.
RESPONSE: The signs have been darkened.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove non -traffic related (signs/markings) labels and
symbols (power poles, etc.)
RESPONSE: Additional information has been removed.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove all R3-7R (Right Lane Must Turn Right) signs. Delete
the new signs and label the existing ones to be removed. We are now only using them at drop
lane locations, not on standard exclusive turn lanes.
RESPONSE: The signs have been deleted.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove the 2-way (continuous) left turn lane arrows.
RESPONSE: The arrows have been deleted.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove the Stop Bar at Timberline and Majestic. We only
use them at signalized intersections that have decorative crosswalks and at mid -block x'ings of
trails or sidewalks.
RESPONSE: The stop bar has been deleted.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Please correct the spelling of "Left" on sheet C.52. See redlines.
Response: The spelling been corrected.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Please change the title on all sheets to "Fort Collins LDS Temple", to match the
other plan sets. See redlines.
Response: See response to comment #1.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Please remove the hatching over LP116 in the Key Map on sheet LP117. See
redlines.
Response: Hatch has been removed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
O8/06/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets LP102a, LP123, LP125 & LP126. See
redlines.
Response: Line over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: There are text over text issues on sheet LP102a. See redlines.
Response: Text over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: There is text that needs to be masked on sheet LP102a. See redlines.
Response: Issue has been resolved.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 17
08/07/2013: No plans were routed to us for this review.
Response: See the following attached lighting plans
LIGHTING PLAN) & E.3 - Site Photometrics Plan.
Topic: Plat
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
E.2 — Site Lighting Plan (ES102 - SITE
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Please revise the Easement Dedication statement for the Fort Collins -Loveland
Water District & South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
RESPONSE: The language on this statement is the same as that given to us by the Districts
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The downstream owners of the irrigation easement in Easement Vacations note #2
must acknowledge the vacation, as they are the ones holding the right to the easement.
RESPONSE: On page 1 of the Final Plat there is a signature block for the previous owner of the
parcel under the Easement Vacations note. Also, the irrigation water exits the property in the exact
same structure as before, it is simply being rerouted. We will be making an effort to obtain a letter
from the property owners that draw water from this system that acknowledges the vacation of this
easement and that a new easement has been dedicated.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
08/1212013: Please see redlines for other minor comments. Redlines can be picked up at
anytime at the Dev Review Center counter located at 281 North College Avenue.
RESPONSE: Redlines have been addressed.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountyCcDfcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/02/2013
08/02/2013: Please change the title on all sheets to "Fort Collins LDS Temple", to match the
other plan sets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The title on all sheets has been changed to "FORT COLLINS COLORADO TEMPLE"
as coordinated by Landmark, Architectural Nexus and the City of Fort Collins.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/02/2013
08/02/2013: There are text over text issues on sheets A. 1, A.2 & A.3. See redlines.
Response: Text over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/02/2013
08/02/2013: Please mask the text marked on sheet A.6. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issue has been resolved.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: There are problems with the sheet index on sheet C.1. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Sheet index has been coordinated and corrected.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The legal description on sheet CA should read "Lot 1, Fort Collins LDS Temple &
Lot 3, Amended Plat of Leistikow M.R.D. S-21-92, situate in Section...". The metes & bounds
portion of the description is not necessary.
RESPONSE: Legal description has been corrected.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The benchmarks on sheet CAA should match the ones shown on sheet C.1. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: Benchmarks have been corrected.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Response: All redlined line over text issues have been corrected.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: There is text that needs to be masked on several sheets. See redlines.
Response: All redlined line over text issues have been corrected.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Please add a Match Line to the top of sheet C.9. See redlines.
Response: Match line has been added.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet C.22. See redlines.
Response: All redlined line over text issues have been corrected
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: BOLLARDS BLOCKING EAE
The removable bollards detailed on the site plan at the location of the north, side emergency
access drive aisle are to be omitted from the plan. A roll over curb is acceptable at this
location in place of the bollards. "Fire Lane - No Parking" signage is also required at this
location.
RESPONSE: The rollover curb has been called out.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, Lchlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/30/2013
07/30/2013: The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the
Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. The current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. See redlines for corrections in the Erosion Control Plan
on C.3 and C.56. The Erosion Control Report (Stormwater Management Control) submitted was
incomplete and not current neither for City Erosion Control Requirements nor for State SWMP
requirements please read supplied materials to ensure the Erosion Control Report addresses
the City requirements. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any
questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ Ischlam(@fc-gov.com
RESPONSE: The erosion control report has been added to the drainage report along with the
required plans.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
08/12/2013: Please provide drainage easements dedicated to the City for all detention areas
and major conveyance elements. Storm Sewers should have a 20 foot minimum wide
easement.
RESPONSE: Easements have been added to the Final Plat as directed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
08/12/2013: Please provide separation between all trees and storm sewers. 10 feet is
normally required for shade trees and 6 feet for ornamental trees.
Response: Conflicts noted in redlines have been resolved. A general note has been added to the
planting plans directing the contractor to make field adjustments as needed to avoid additional
conflicts.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
08112/2013: The construction activity that is proposed on Westchase property is being
investigated into what permission is legally needed to perform the proposed improvements.
The City will inform the applicant of any findings.
trees and sizes required to meet the mitigation requirement. It is independent of the total counts in
the legend and on the sheets, and not intended to match. Based on design intent, actual installed
sizes and quantities of upsized trees may be larger. We have added an asterisk to the symbols on
the plan to identify locations of the mitigation trees.
Comment Number: 3
08/07/2013:
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
On LP605 Under Tree Preservation Guidelines /Protect Trunk and Branches change note
number 9 to say in effect the following.
All damage to existing trees to remain shall be reported immediately to the Architect and City
Forester. Fines for damage shall range from $500 to $1,000 per incident or as assessed by a
private qualified landscape appraiser.
Response: The referenced note has been revised as requested.
Comment Number: 4
08/07/2013:
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Clarify the calculation for the 90.5 tree mitigation credit listed on LP605 by adding this statement.
(The tree mitigation credit for transplanting trees includes a maximum of 2 or the actual
mitigation value whichever is less). Please add this statement at the appropriate location on
LP605.
Response: The referenced statement has been added to the Tree Relocation Legend on LP605.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416.2283, clevinn ston(a fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: After plans are recorded, please send the final autoCAD to Terry Cox at
TCOX@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: This has been noted and will be completed upon finalization of the project.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilynxwiler(a)poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/07/2013: KNOX BOX LOCATIONS
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
The Knox Box detailed for install on the north gate may be omitted. Instead, due to the size
and interior complexity of the temple, we are requesting a Knox Box be installed at each of the
five exit doors.
Response: The FD Knox box for the north gate shall be omitted. Additionally, Knox boxes will only
be installed at the three keyed exterior entry doors. The other non -keyed exterior doors are exit
only. See general note on revised drawings Al, A2, A3, & A4.
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan()fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08107/2013:
Tree Sizes:
Review the installed size of conifer trees to be sure the intent of the applicant is to provide
specimen trees larger than code requirement. There is not a restriction in providing larger
trees but availability and other issues should be considered. Some conifer trees are listed at
10-16 feet height. Upsizing beyond what is in the code is not a City Requirement.
For mitigation trees these are the minimum size requirements.
2.5 inch ornamental
3 inch shade trees
8 foot heath conifer trees
Standard minimum size requirement
2.0 inch shade tree
1.5 inch ornamental tree
6 foot heath conifer tree
Spring Snow Crab, Thunderchild Crab and Chanticleer Pear are listed as 3 and 4 inch caliper in
the plant list.
Response: The design intent is to provide larger -than -required installed sizes on selected trees.
Sizes in legend and on plans are intentional. The minimum upsized trees needed to meet the city
requirement are noted on LP605 to ensure that this requirement is met if availability becomes an
issue.
Comment Number: 2
08/07/2013:
Tree Mitigation Count and sizes:
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Trees listed on LP605 in the list of the quantities of trees upsized for mitigation do not coincide
with those on the plant list. For one example there are 25 Spring Snow Crabs 2.5 inch caliper
listed on LP605 but on the plant list there 42 Spring Snow Crab listed as 3 inch. Also on the
landscape sheets where it shows the symbols of actual trees to plant the caliper is placed by
the mitigation trees. Cross check all three of these so that the sizes and numbers coincide.
1. Liston LP605
2. Plant List
3. Direct labeling of mitigation trees on the sheets with caliper or height listed by the symbol.
Larger than mitigation size can be listed at the discretion of the applicant if that is the design
intent of the project but is not a code requirement. If additional upsizing is the intent of the
applicant then the upsized list on LP695 could say (Installed Size or Greater).
Response: The notes and titles on LP605 regarding mitigation trees have been revised in an
attempt to clarify the purpose of the tree mitigation list. This list documents the minimum upsized
Response: To be handled in development agreement.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Excellent work on the shrubs around the NE and SW Detention Ponds - this is
exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.
Response: Thank you. However, please be aware of the environmental consultant's concerns
regarding the sustainability of the shrub plantings as proposed for these areas. below.
"The project goal is to create native self-sustaining habitats around ponded storm water runoff
from developed areas around the Temple. Most of the habitat should be a short -grass prairie as
it can persist on the native precipitation. Wetlands and tall grass prairies must persist on the
impounded water provided by the storm water runoff. Most of the trees and shrubs are riparian in
nature and in order to be healthy they need the extra water provided by the storm water runoff.
There is limited habitat around the ponds suitable for planting the trees and shrubs.
The Natural Habitat Buffer Zones Mitigation & Monitoring Plan provided recommendations on the
number of shrubs and trees to plant at the Northeast and Southwest Natural Habitats. Western
Ecological Resource reviewed the Planting Plans prepared by Architectural Nexus and noted that
per the request of the City, the number of shrubs to be planted almost doubled. We have two
concerns: 1) there may not be suitable habitat for the extra shrubs and they may die when the
irrigation system is turned off; and 2) the expanded shrub community drastically decreases the
size of the short -grass prairie, a habitat important to numerous insects, birds, reptiles, and small
mammals. More shrubs do not necessarily create a better habitat.
We highly recommend that the City review the request for additional trees and shrubs, and base
their recommendations on the ecological requirements of the trees and shrubs., including suitable
habitat and available water.
THE PROJECT TEAM IS AWARE THAT LINDSAY EX HAS VERBALLY AGREED WITH DAVID
JOHNSON, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT, ON THE NEED TO REDUCE THE SHRUB
COUNTS TO BE IN LINE WITH HIS REPORT. THOSE CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO THE
PLANS AFTER THE FINAL REVIEW SO THE CITY CAN DOCUMENT THEIR ACCEPTANCE
OF THIS CHANGE.
Topic: Reports -Soils, Subdrain
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Thank you for the timely submittal of the mitigation and monitoring plan. I have the
following comments:
1. The success criteria outlind on page 5 of the document are a good start, but we typically
require 80-90% vegetation cover by the third season. Please revise or provide a justification. In
the past, we've required 50% cover at the end of the first year, 75% at the end of the second
year and 85-90% at the end of the third year.
2.On Section 5.2, please include that the City will be invited to attend at least one site visit per
year with the consultant.
3. On Section 5.5, please include a timing for delivery of the report, e.g., on or around
December 1 of each calendar year. Also include in the report any suggestions for addressing
concerns/needs on the site.
RESPONSE: Discussion regarding success criteria is ongoing. Once final success criteria is
agreed upon, Report will be updated as necessary.
Department: Forestry
Easement needing to be dedicated to the City? I'm not sure where "Access" is needed and
"Irrigation" as well? A "Natural Habitat Buffer Zone" if dedicated to the City, may need
clarification language from our standard easement dedication form, explaining what this
easement is.
RESPONSE: This easement is not being dedicated to the City.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: There's been further discussion and coordination with PFA on the design of
emergency access off of public streets on projects as a whole. Pending verification from PFA,
Engineering would prefer to see that instead of a driveway cut for the emergency access onto
Trilby, that the vertical curb and gutter is replaced with driveover curb for the emergency
access and the bollards are placed behind the right-of-way. We've looked to implement this
design on other projects for the aesthetic value of the streetscape not having bollards and the
driveway cut. In addition the bollard placement in right-of-way is of concern.
RESPONSE: Driveover curb has been labeled.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: [This comment is no longer applicable and has been resolved. It is left here for
reference.] The connection of Majestic out to Trilby needs to have an access ramp for crossing
Trilby on at least one location, and a receiving access ramp tying into the sidewalk on the north
side of Trilby Road. T-intersection are required to have at least one access ramp crossing
traversing the through street.
RESPONSE: Comment has been noted.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(a)_fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: The comments related to the raptor's nest are continued and will be included in the
Development Agreement.
01/22/2013: The raptor nest to the west of Timberline cannot be removed until final plans have
been approved and recorded. If the timing of this removal conflicts with the seasonal
restrictions on nesting and rearing, then a temporary LOD will be established around the nest.
11/27/2012: As per the ECS, the recommendations found on page 7 regarding the raptor nest
to the west of Timberline shall be a condition of this project's approval. In addition, the Siberian
elms on site shall be surveyed prior to construction for any raptor nests.
If a raptors nest is found during the pre construction surveys, then a temporary Limits of
Development shall be applied in accordance with Section 3.4.1(N)(5) of the Land Use Code.
Response: To be handled in development agreement.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: A landscaping bond for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones will be required at the time
of C.O. for 67% of the construction value - this language will be included in the development
agreement.
Comment Number: 28
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Line and curve horizontal information provided on Sheet C53 should be shown for
the flowlines and centerlines of the street plan and profile sheets. Additional information such as
the curb return radii for Timberline and Trilby (both sides) and the west side of Majestic at
Timberline is also needed.
Response: Line and Curve data has been included on street plan and profile sheets.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Many of the comments previous pertaining to concerns with the information
provided on the construction plans are part of the requirements in LCUASS, notably Appendix
E-4, Requirements for Utility Plans. Please use Appendix E-4 to ensure general conformance.
Additional comments/concerns may be raised with the additional information/clarification to the
plans.
RESPONSE: E-4 information has been added.
Comment Number: 30
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Coordinate with Stormwater on the details for combination inlets. I believe there
are City of Fort Collins specific details that can be used instead of City of Loveland.
RESPONSE: OK.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
08/08/2013: A concrete joint pattern design for Timberline Road is required. Information
provided should be in a manner similar to CDOT's M-412 standard.
RESPONSE: A joint pattern design has been included.
Topic: Easements
Comment Number: 31
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: For the easement indicated as a grading and construction easement across Lot 3,
please provide a picture exhibit of the easement.
RESPONSE: Exhibit Map has been prepared.
Comment Number: 32
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: For the 20 foot private sanitary sewer easement, I'm assuming that this easement
will be reviewed and approved by SFCSD, and not the City. Likewise for the 30 foot SFCSD
easement over a portion of Lot 3.
RESPONSE: Easement to be reviewed by SFCSD.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: For the 50 foot drainage easement, I'll need confirmation of the design of the
easement from City Stormwater before Technical Service's review of closure of the legal
description.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 34
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Is the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, Drainage, Landscape, Irrigation and Access
occurring within a vertical curve.
RESPONSE: The curve has been redesigned.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: On Sheet C42 for the Trilby/Majestic intersection please label the streets, correct
the north arrow orientation, and provide existing flowline grades to the west and east of the
south side of Trilby to show how the .50% and .83% grades are matching into existing.
RESPONSE: The streets have been labeled and the North arrow has been corrected. Sloes to be
provided at time of Majestic Drive regrade.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: I'm unable to find road design information for the interim condition of Timberline
Road north of Trilby. Sheet C31 indicates that the interim is on Sheet C42, which has no
designs for Timberline.
RESPONSE: There is now a sheet for this in the set.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Cross sections weren't provided for Timberline Road north of Trilby.
RESPONSE: X-sections have been created.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The labelling on the sheets of the cross sections as interim for Timberline and
Majestic should be modified accordingly as all of Majestic should be ultimate and the majority
of Timberline should also be presumably be ultimate.
RESPONSE: Labels have been revised.
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: In general, the cross sections can't easily be reviewed for verification against the
plan and profile sheets with the lack of labelling elevations on both flowlines and the centerline.
Please provide this information with the next submittal.
RESPONSE: The information has been added.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The Timberline Road ultimate design north of Trilby Road contradicts the ultimate
design shown on the Westchase plans, as the Westchase plans indicate the shifting of
Timberline Road to the east (requiring the removal of the curb and gutter on the east side of
Timberline Road in front of Westchase). The intention of the road shift was to avoid large
existing trees on the west side of Timberline Road across from Westchase. The plans should
incorporate the road shift shown with the Westchase plans as the likely design scenario with the
corresponding signing and striping, centerline profile, and horizontal alignment information.
RESPONSE: The West Chase Plans have been included.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Similar to a previous comment, on Sheet C49 I'm unsure of what the .52%
centerline grade is conveying within a prescribed vertical curve.
RESPONSE: The curve has been redesigned.
the flowline is intended to be built with a vertical curve or a series of grade breaks in these
areas. I'm not sure how the algebraic differences were calculated and based upon what I'm
thinking the algebraic differences are, the vertical curves and K values would need to be much
larger.
RESPONSE: The curves have been redesigned.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Indicate Rock Castle Drive as Rock Castle Lane.
RESPONSE: Lane has been added.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C34 needs to show what percent grade is projected past the vertical curve
around Rock Castle Lane (along with grading contours) in order to ascertain how the flowline
grade around the curb return transitions to existing.
RESPONSE: The information has been added.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C34 shows a 1.32% grade going into a 6.36% grade. A grade break of up to
3% is allowed in "extreme circumstances" and a grade break of 5.04% here would not be
allowed.
RESPONSE: The grades have been redesigned per standards.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Spot elevations at intersections need to be provided in accordance with Figures
7-27 and 7-28 of LCUASS.
RESPONSE: Intersection details have been updated pre LCASS detail drawings 7-27 and 7-28.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/0712013: The flowline designs are showing grades that result in access ramps not being
ADA compliant with cross -slope intersecting public streets. With the providing of spot
elevations noted in the previous comment, additional review would be needed.
RESPONSE: Curb return grades have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: On Sheet C38 it shows a .64% centerline grade indicated also as a grade break
that's going into a vertical curve. Not sure of the appearance of what seems to be an
instantaneous grade and grade break here.
RESPONSE: The curve has been redesigned.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheets C38 and C40 indicate "Interim" for Majestic Drive?
RESPONSE: Interim has been removed.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C40 shows the presence of a .58% flowline grades and a grade break
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The sanitary sewer sheets should have FCLWD/SFCSD signatures on the sheets.
It's awkward to have only City approval blocks on sheets that mainly represent FCLWD/SFCSD
facilities.
RESPONSE: Signature block has been provided.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: 3 feet of cover over pipe is required for City roadways. In general, sheets C19,
C20, C24, C29, C30 have instances of storm pipe crossing public streets with insufficient
clearance.
RESPONSE: Pipes within the City Roadways have been provided with 3-feet of cover.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: On the plan and profile sheets, please add grading plan contour information on the
plan view in order to provide additional cross-check with the roadway design information
shown. Proposed grading contours within roadways demonstrating tying into proposed grading
should be evident.
RESPONSE: Grading information has been added.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C32 shows an algebraic difference of 1.29 that appears to be 1.69. The
corresponding K value is 88 instead of 116 and the required K value/length of vertical curve is
substandard.
RESPONSE: The curve has been redesigned.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: In general there are plan and profile sheets that are identified as centerline in the
middle of the page that are either left or right. Ideally the center, left, and right profiles would all
be on one sheet to be able to review the plans more cohesively and more easily ascertain the
roadway design rather than splitting these out on three different sheet.
RESPONSE: The vertical grade change is too large to fit all three profiles on one sheet even with
only a 5x vertical exaggeration. The profiles will remain on separate sheets.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: On Sheet C33 an elevation at STA 4+63.45 is not identified consistently between
plan and profile view.
RESPONSE: The elevation has been corrected.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Flowiine sheets for road design seem to show and label centerline stationing,
however the indicated points along the flowline profile are flowline stationing. The information is
hard to follow, and it would seem that the stationing identified along the profile view should be
flowline, not centerline.
RESPONSE: The stationing has been revised.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: In general, the plan and profile views should look to be aligned to the extent
possible.
RESPONSE: Profiles have been aligned and stationing has been corrected.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C34 shows various flowline grades with grade breaks occurring within
vertical curves. Not sure on the intent of the design, as it seems to be ambiguous as to whether
RESPONSE: Note has been removed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Under General Development Notes on page SP1, note number 8 should be
revised removing "excluding temple steeple lighting".
RESPONSE: Note has been revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Please note that the title should be changed on SP1 from Project Development
Plan. Project Development Plan is the previous process.
RESPONSE: Title of 'Project Development Plan' has been removed.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Repeat comment from Feb.
02/10/2013: Please have a note on SP1 noting that the utility meters, conduit, vents and other
equipment attached to the buildings will be painted to match (LUC 3.5.1(1)).
Response: See revised drawing SP1 (which includes the following note: "Utility meters,
conduit, vents and other equipment attached to the exterior building walls shall be painted
to match the exterior building walls. Contractor shall submit paint color for approval by
architect. ").
Additionally, on the elevations please call out/note where these items are to be located,
painted to match and screened.
Response: See new drawings E1 & E4 and general note #1, on revised sheet A.5.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C15 and C30 depict storm line E-1 and its location outside of Timberline
Road right-of-way, is this requiring an off -site easement from Wayne Lesitkow? With the
information shown I'm not sure whose property this storm line enters and whether any
easements for the construction are already in place. The various off -site easement legal
descriptions did not appear to include this area. If an existing easement is already in place,
please label this on the plans.
RESPONSE: Easements and/or letters of approval are being aquired.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Similarly to the previous comment, on Sheets C15 and C16 there appears to be
storm utility work on what's identified as Tract N of Westchase. Please identify the existence of
easements on the plans for confirmation on the ability to construct the work without requirement
additional easement/permission. Note that the Westchase plat indicates a 30' wide utility
easement along the southern boundary of Tract N at this location. However the overall Tract N is
identified as a "drainage tract" owned and maintained by the Westchase HOA (and not a
drainage easement dedicated to the public). Verification from Stormwater should be made on
the legal ability to install (and maintain) the work on Westchase property and whether additional
drainage easement is perhaps needed.
RESPONSE: Information has been provided to Glen Schlueter.
City of
F6rt Collins
August 22, 2013
Jeff Olhausen
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
3721 West Eisenhower Blvd
Loveland, CO 80537
RE: LDS Temple, FDP130029, Round Number 1
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
9/18/13
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/developmentreview
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Courtney Levingston, at
970-416-2283 or clevingston@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston()fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Comment repeated as a reminder.
02/08/2013: For the single family residential, please make sure to contact Marcus Bodig in the
City's GIS department at 416 2050 or Todd Reidenbach at 416 2483 to coordinate addressing
for the single family residence. Our GIS department assigns addressing once the plat is
recorded.
RESPONSE: Coordination on addressing will occur at such time the plat is approved.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Under General Development Notes on page SP1, please add note 15: " As a
Planning and Zoning Board condition of approval, the lighting on the tower and steeple will be
turned off at 10 p.m. The balance of the building lighting will be turned off at 11 p.m."
RESPONSE. Note has been added.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Under General Development Notes on page SP1, general note number 2 should
be removed/revised, as Spring 2013 has passed.