Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY WEST - PDP - 30-07 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 182 Created: 5/6/2008 [5/6/08] Okay to go to hearing. Number: 184 Created: 5/6/2008 [5/6/08] Add water main connection between Barton Drive and the existing Webb Avenue. Number: 185 Created: 5/6/2008 [5/6/08] At final there is a great, great amount of detail to be added such as: Profile of 16- inch water main; Details on connections to and abandonment of the 27-inch water main; Labels on all valves, fittings, hydrants, etc; Lengths on all pipes between valves, fittings, manholes, etc; Show/label all crossings on pipeline profiles; Etc; Etc. Number: 186 Created: 5/6/2008 [5/6/08] See red -lined plans for other comments. Number: 187 Created: 5/6/2008 [5/6/08] Check existing utilities in LaPorte Avenue. There are two 27-inch mains in a portion of the street. Due to numerous significant comments, another round of review is necessary before an administrative hearing can be scheduled. Be sure and return all red -lined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Yours Truly, *tevelt City Planner cc: Susan Joy Bill Veio, Solitaire Homes, LLC Loonan & Associates, Inc. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. URS Corporation Terracon Consulting Engineers & Scientists Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. Current Planning file #33-07 Page 17.. Number: 137 Created: 3/ 19/2008 [5/7/08] There are still 3 sub -basins that the Stormwater Utility feels can be mostly detained with some changes in grading and the addition of area inlets. A meeting is advised to coordinate what will be required. [3/19/081 There are 5 or 6 sub -basins that free release in the interim condition that are not being retained and are not being treated for water quality. These sub -basins add up to around 40% of the entire site. These areas need to be retained and treated for water quality. Many of these flows enter the irrigation ditch as well, which violates the City's agreement with the ditch companies regarding any new development. A meeting may be required to resolve this issue. Number: 175 Created: 3/21 /2008 [5/7/08] Access to the site on the proposed Briarwood Road passes through the City of Fort Collins 100-year floodplain and floodway for the Southern Flow Path of the West Vine Basin. This project must meet all applicable floodway and flood fringe requirements identified in Chapter 10 of City Code. [3/21/08] Briarwood Road is a local street and any perpendicular flows overtopping the street cannot exceed 18 inches per the Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. A culvertibridge will be required to meet this overtopping requirement if flows depths exceed 18 inches above the flowline of Briarwood in any location. If a culvert or bridge is necessary, this would need to be included in the floodplain modeling and all plans and reports revised. No -rise off of the applicant's property can be shown by the modeling. A no -rise certification is also required for the construction of Briarwood. Number: 177 Created: 3/21/2008 [5/7/08] This item needs to be discussed in a meeting. It is the Stormwater Utility's opinion that some of the sub -basin boundaries will not represent the actual basin boundaries after construction. [3/21/08] Through experience with other projects, lots like the ones in sub -basins S & BB are built more like B lots where half the roof drains to the front and half to the back. If this were to happen, Sub -basin BB would get larger, resulting in a larger area not being retained and receiving water quality treatment. This would only make the situation worse, where around 40% of the site already is not being retained in the interim condition. Number: 192 Created: 5/7/2008 [5/7/08] Please revisit the proposed conditions BFE lines. There appears to be some inconsistencies between modeling and what is shown on the mapping across the southern portion of the property. Number: 196 Created: 5/8/2008 [5/8/08] The two items remaining concerning the sub -basins free -releasing (item 137) and the basin boundaries (item 177) need to be addressed before a hearing. These are big concerns and should be addressed promptly. Page 16 drainage report. Please revise the drainage report to include all pertinent floodplain information per the checklist. [3/21/08] Please revise all plans, including the Plat, Site Plan, and Drainage and/or Grading Plan to show floodplain information per the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist: For Preliminary submittals, the 50% checklist should be used. This checklist is available on the City website (www.fcgov.com). Repeat Comment. Number: 193 Created: 5/7/2008 [5/7/08] A Corrected Effective model must be created to compare the affect of new cross sections to the results from the Duplicate Effective model. The Corrected Effective model shall also be utilized to quantify the hydraulic impacts of man-made changes in topography and structures currently identified in the Existing Conditions model. a. Substantial revisions to the HEC-RAS software have been incorporated into the program since Version 3.0.1. Please update the current analyses to V. 3.1.3 or 4.0 Beta for accuracy. The Duplicate Effective model shall be compared to the Current Effective model from the 2002 Master Plan. Number: 194 Created: 5/7/2008 [5/7/08] The concrete riser identified for the Proposed Conditions model should be added to HEC-RAS as a rating curve from an offline analysis. Raising the culvert invert elevation by 3.0 ft in HEC-RAS (per the bottom of Page 2-3 of the PDP Floodplain Modeling Report) will not provide equivalent hydraulic performance. a. Please consider modeling the retention/detention pond as a storage area in HEC-RAS for continuity with the current effective SWMM model, and for the sake of hydraulic accuracy. Number: 195 Created: 5/7/2008 [5/7/08] Please address public safety concerns associated with the low-water crossing of the Southern Flow Path floodway in Section 3.5 of the Floodplain Modeling Report. a. All proposed modifications within the floodway must be accompanied by a No -Rise Certification that is signed, stamped, and dated by a registered P.E. licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. Topic: Stormwater Number: 135 Created: 3/19/2008 [5/7/08] At Final Compliance. [3/19/08] Please provide design and details for the ultimate condition water quality ponds and outlet structures. Page 15 Number: 113 Created: 11/15/2007 [5/12/08] How were the percentages determined regarding the amount of kids expected to ride versus using the bus and walking? They seem small compared to the amount of drop off traffic we see at area schools. [11/15/07] In 2009 the District high schools are to incorporate the 9th grade level once again. Please contact PSD to gain some expectation of the additional number of students the high school will gain and do include that in your analysis of short term and long term conditions at the area intersections. Number: 114 Created: 11 / 15/2007 [5/12/08] The East bound left turn lane on LaPorte Avenue is a LCUASS policy that all arterials will provide left turn pockets at accesses. You will need to request a variance to this standard with justification as to why this development should not need to meet this policy. [11/15/071 Per Figure 8-1 of the LCUASS, this project will need to provide an east bound left turn lane at its west access. It may be negotiable to forego the left turn lane in favor of a reversible lane east of your west access to provide a 2 stage left turn capability from the west access for your residents trying to turn onto east bound LaPorte Avenue during the AM rush hour. Number: 198 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] You have two 2012 AM Total traffic HCM reports in back that differ from another two 2012 AM Total HCM report in back. One has the east bound volumes and one does not. What is the one without east bound traffic for in 2012? (LaPorte and Sunset, LaPorte and Stephens) Topic: Traffic Study Number: 205 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] Please do a revised evaluation for LaPorte and Taft Hill Road for the 2012 AM/PM Total. You show the EbRt as Free and should be Permissive. Also it sounds like the Taft construction did not get the additional south bound lane south of the intersection. On this revision do make the lane change back to one south bound lane south of the intersection. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Denise Weston Topic: Traffic Number: 183 Created: 5/6/2008 [5/6/08] The Ped LOS does not meet the Fort Collins' standards, under connectivity, for school areas. Is this met with the future trail connection? Please use the Fort Collins' standards from LCUASS and not Loveland's. In the TIA, there is no reference to Bike LOS and no mention of proposed bike lanes. Six-foot bike lanes are required on LaPorte Avenue. Please make this clear on the site plan. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Floodplain Number: 172 Created: 3/21 /2008 [5/7/08] The 50% Floodplain Review Checklist items are now adequately shown on all plans (see redlines for minor revisions), but the required information is still not included in the Page 14 Topic. Utility Plans - Utility Sheet Number: 212 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] Show all street cuts and approximate limits of construction. Add the street cut note on each applicable sheet: 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. Department: Traffic Operations Topic: General Number: 102 Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Created: 11/12/2007 [5/12/08] Please remove all non -signing and striping and surface roadway related data from the signing and striping plan. Do not need utilities and other miscellaneous information on the S&S plan. [3/24/08] LaPorte Avenue striping plan needs all lines not associated with an at -grade roadway / sidewalk feature or an at -grade feature in the ROW (hyd, pole, signage, etc) to be removed from the plan. Please include street names on all intersecting streets. [11/12/07] Please provide a Signing and Striping plan of LaPorte Avenue from 500' east and west of your project accesses plus any internal street larger than a Local Residential. Topic: Traffic Number: 112 Created: 11/15/2007 [5/12/08] This project needs to provide some signage on its east access stating to residents the difficulty of making the left out during the AM rush hour. A signal can not be placed here due to the misalignment of access here. [11/15/07] The most significant difficulty the City sees at this location is the difficulty the residents of this project will experience each morning leaving for their daily commute. The current on -street conditions are a heavy west bound left turning movement at LaPorte Avenue and Impala Drive, plus significant east and west bound thru movements on LaPorte Avenue as well. The west bound left queues back into the west bound thru movement for about 20 minutes each day at Impala during the peak rush hour, effectively blocking this projects southbound left turn movements nearly completely at your eastern access. Due to the volume of east and west bound thru traffic, your western access will experience significant difficulty making left turning movements as well. The City also is concerned with this projects SbL traffic from the eastern access. Its motorists frustration with waiting to get a gap in LaPorte Avenue traffic competing with the NbL from Briarwood, especially since the separation of the two intersections is less than City standards and offset to a negative aspect regarding conflicting Left turn safety conditions. The City sees all of this as a mix for realistic safety problems due to frustrations. Please provide discussion of how this site can provide reasonable and safe outbound movement conditions for its residents during the peak AM rush hour, due to these current existing conditions. The discussion of poor LOS at side streets to arterials is not applicable here as the issue is not mere lower quantity of gaps, but nearly constant blocking of one half of your project access during the peak AM rush hour. The other half of the project access experiencing the more traditional failing condition during the AM commute. Sums up to high frustration and safety concerns for AM commuting. Page 13 Number: 217 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] Sheet 16 - please label all stationing on the profile and provide some overlap on sheet 16 and 17. Number: 219 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] Please carry the profile through to the CL of the intersecting street so that we can see how they tie in. Number: 220 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] The typical private drive sections are labeled as ROW. This is not ROW, it is private. Number: 221 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] Webb Ave - please station the end of construction. Topic: Utility Plans - Storm Profiles Number: 72 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/08] Most of the cover issues have been taken care of with the exception of two places. You may construct a 30' concrete section over Storm 5 per Rick Richter in Pavement Management. A joint detail will be required in FC for that section. Storm 5A is acceptable provided that a note is placed on the plan and profile sheet stating that Storm 5A is to be placed behind the curb. [10/30/07] Minimum cover requirements are not being met. See LCUASS 12.2.2 for minimum depth requirements (2' below subgrade or T to finish). This applies to all utilities and any structure (box culvert or otherwise). Topic: Utility Plans - Striping Plan Number: 222 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] The striping plan is showing utility pedestals in the sidewalk along LaPorte Avenue. Are these truly in the walk and need to be moved or is the symbol just too large? Number: 223 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] Please remove all unnecessary information so that the plans are more clear. Topic: Utility Plans - Typical Street Sections Number: 60 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] Just carrying the comment through until the next submittal. [3/19/08] Repeat comment and we now have the same issue with Barton and Briarwood. Suggest a utility coordination to determine how best to serve the site and where variances can be allowed. [10/30/07] Please label and dimension the 9' UE on both sides of the local street sections. There doesn't appear to be enough room to grant that along the back of the street widening at the comer of Eyestone and Barton. How will the utilities serve this side of the street? Will need to submit a variance request in accordance with 1.9.4 so that we can route to all utilities, both City and private, for their review and approval. You can do this prior to the next submittal if you wish. Page 12 Number: 68 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] (3/19/08] Missing some dimensions plus some not meeting standard. Please see figure 7-24. [10/30/07] Please call out all the dimensions shown on figure 24 for all street widenings so that I can determine whether or not they meet standard. Will verify when the information is provided with the next round of review. The one under most question is the one located at the east end of Barton. Number: 69 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/081 Just carrying this comment through until FC. [10/30/07] Suggest placing the typical street sections on the cover sheet so that there is more room on the P&P sheets. These are going to get pretty busy in Final Compliance when the FLs are added. Number: 70 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/08] [10/30/07] Heads up for FC - CL stationing is required and would require station equations on all horizontal curves. However, you may provide separate FL stationing as long as you do one of two things: either provide a cross section at all PCs and VCs (beginning, middle and end) or spot elevations on the plan view in the same location. Label the cross slopes to at least one decimal point in those areas. That is the only way we can see that the minimum / maximum cross slope requirements are being met. Number: 162 Created: 3/20/2008 [5/5/08] [3/20/08] Typical street sections need to be identified by street name as the sections are not typical and change from street to street with the different curb types. Curb types can change at the end of blocks but may not occur in the middle of a block. Missing a typical section for Webb Avenue. Number: 163 Created: 3/20/2008 [5/5/08] [3/20/08] Please dimension all crosspans. Number: 214 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] Please label the curb and gutter type on the plan view as well so that it is very clear which type of curb is being installed and where. Number: 215 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] The street widening detail at the corner of Barton and Eyestone does not match what is shown in the street profile or what is shown on other sheets. Number: 216 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] Local streets require a 20' radius at the intersections per LCUASS Table 8-2. Page 11 Number: 224 Created: 5/ 14/2008 [5/14/08] I am returning both sets of red -lines from this round and the previous round of review so that all comments can be addressed for the next round. I think that when the plans come back in with both the legibility and scannability issues addressed, it will be quite clear whether or not the comments have been. addressed sufficiently to go to hearing. Please meet with me prior to submitting the next round so that we can go through the plan set really quick. The goal is to get you to hearing as soon as possible. Topic: Utility Plans -Grading Number: 57 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] The line weights continue to be a problem with the set. Comments will follow with the next round. [3/19/08] Repeat comment. The line weights are too similar and it's almost impossible to distinguish what line stands for what. This is a problem throughout the entire set. [10/30/07] The existing and proposed contours are indistinguishable. Sidewalks aren't shown or they are there but in the same line weight as the contours. Need to dimension and label all sidewalks. Please see LCUASS for other information that must be shown on the utility plans. Number: 64 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/08] [10/30/07] Label all slope ratios. Number: 159 Created: 3/20/2008 [5/5/08] [3/20/08] Off -site grading may be required to construct the Webb street stub. The plan and profiles indicate that you'll need an interim grading design to tie into existing from the end of the proposed construction. As previously stated, an estimate for the completion of your street stub to the property line including fill, sidewalks, curb & gutter, landscaping, irrigation and road will be required for our review and approval. Number: 210 Created: 5/ 14/2008 [5/14/08] Proposed grading must tie into existing grading. See sheet 9, west side of Barton Drive and east side of Briarwood. Slope and construction easements required for all offsite grading. Number: 211 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] The floodplain information is making an already busy sheet even harder to read. Can this information be presented on its own separate sheet? I am open to suggestions. Topic: Utility Plans - Plan & Profiles Number: 65 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/08] [10/30/07] Please remove all unnecessary layers (storm water, utilities, etc). It will help make these sheets more legible and scannable. Remove all unnecessary sight distance triangles, all sheets. They are only required where they fall outside of ROW. Page 10 time whether or not the trees along LaPorte Avenue will be planted now or later. We'll determine that in Final Compliance. Topic: Utility Plans -General Number: 39 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/17/08] Repeat comment. Please meet with John Pedas in Technical Services for suggestions on how to bring up your plans to standard. The plans are still extremely difficult to read and will not meet scanning requirements. [10/30/07] The plans do meet the scanning requirements in Appendix E6. They are extremely difficult to read as too many similar line weights are used, existing matches proposed and much information is missing. Please bring the plans up to speed with the next round of review so that a more detailed review can be provided. Number: 54 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] Please define all abbreviations. [3/19/08] Thank you for adding the Horizontal Control sheet but there is quite a bit of missing info on it. All easements must be labeled for what they are, as in "9' utility easement". Can not just label it as 'V easement". Please dimension all sidewalks, etc. Once this sheet is complete, then you will not need to call out this info on any other sheet. [10/30/07] Would it help to add a separate Horizontal Control and Demo sheet? It might help clear up the plan set a little bit and make it more legible and scannable. Number: 92 Created: 11 /2/2007 [5/5/08] Repeat comment. I did not receive a checklist with this round of review. Please submit a completed checklist with the next round of review. [3/19/08] Please submit the checklist with the next round of review. I did not receive one with this round. Please be sure that all highlighted design requirements are included in the plan sets so that another round of review is not required. [ 11/2/07] Please see the redlined checklist E4 for other comments. Several items were marked off as complete but in fact, were not and in some cases, not even required. Please go through the highlighted items required to go to hearing and make sure that they have been properly addressed on the plans and then resubmit the checklist with the next submittal. Number: 93 Created: 11 /2/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/08] [11/2/07] See red -lines for other comments. Number: 154 Created: 3/20/2008 [5/5/08] [3/20/08] Please provide key maps on all sheets where the project is broken up. Number: 207 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] All variances must be listed under line 48 of the general notes stating the section of LCUASS, what it requires and the variance granted. Formal variance requests prepared by a licensed engineer in accordance with 1.9.4 may or may not be required depending on the variance being requested. Page 9 plans just need to reflect the option you are going with and all appropriate letters of intent received prior to scheduling the hearing. [3/20/08] Off -site ROW, slope & utility easements are required for Barton through the school property. Off -site slope easements may be required for the Webb Ave street stub depending on where the 4:1 slope ends. Off -site slope and utility easements are required to complete the Briarwood connection to LaPorte Avenue. An off -site access easement will be required for the sidewalk through the small lot on the north side of the large detention pond. In order to go to hearing, only letters of intent from the affected property owner is required. The actual easement itself will be required during FC and prior to plan approval. Topic: Plat Number: 29 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] Repeat. The tract table is still incorrect. [3/17/08] Drainage, utility, access, pedestrian access and emergency access easements are dedicated to the City, not the HOA. Tract D needs an access easement. Need to define what a public park easement is. [10/30/07] Provide a tract table which states who owns and maintains each tract. Number: 153 Created: 3/19/2008 [5/5/08] From Technical Services: 1. Boundary and legal close. 2. Line -over text issues on the Site and Landscape Plans. (From Susan Joy/Engineering - Tech Services is not routed the utility plans so they are not able to comment on the scannability issues until mylar. The utility plans have gotten progressively worse in both scannability and legibility and this issue needs to be addressed immediately.) PLEASE DO NOT RE -SUBMIT the plans until the line weights have been corrected and Appendix A satisfactorily addressed. 3. Sheet index is the same on all plat sheets. Number: 165 Created: 3/20/2008 [5/5/08] [3/20/081 The plat was red -lined within the utility plan set. Topic: Traffic Study Number: 22 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/081 Please see Denise Weston in Transportation Planning regarding this comment. [10/30/07] The Traffic Study needs to address the Pedestrian Level of Service requirements to and from the site. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for this and other requirements. More than likely some sort of sidewalk along LaPorte Avenue will be necessary to get the kids back and forth to school. This could be either in concrete at the ultimate location if you want reimbursement for the oversized portion OR it can be in asphalt with no reimbursement. The sidewalk along this development's frontage along LaPorte Avenue must be constructed at the ultimate with an escrow for the curb, gutter and possibly the parkway landscaping. It is not known at this Page 8 Number: 51 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] Just carrying this through to Final Review so that I don't forget. [3/19/08] Building permits can now be issued for the lots on the north side of the street because the street frontage will be complete. Lot 1 on the south side does not have a complete street frontage so no building permit can be issued for that one. [10/30/07] No building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 1 at the east end of Kruse will be issued until the street frontage along those lots are complete. A note on the Site and Utility Plans indicating this is required and it will also be stated in the Development Agreement. (Could adjust the turnaround to get 2 more lots and just restrict Lot 1, Blockl). Number: 58 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] This issue continues to be a problem with the set. Please do not re -submit until we meet to make sure that the utility plans are legible and clearly show what is being proposed with this development. [3/19/08] The utility plans are not clearly showing this information. A dashed line weight is used to show everything from edge of asphalt to driveways and it's not clear what is being shown. [10/30/07] Existing features must be shown for a minimum of 150' beyond the project limits. Number: 85 Created: 10/31 /2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/08] [10/31/07] Site/Landscape/Utility/Plat - Please review comments under all topics and coordinate the plan sets so that all plan sets present the same information. Number: 208 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] All letters of intents from affected property owners off -site are required in order to schedule a public hearing. Number: 209 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] Easements and rights of ways do not match from plan set to plan set. This information must be presented the same on all plan sets prior to scheduling a hearing. Number: 213 Created: 5/14/2008 [5/14/08] The sidewalk in Outlot E is terminated prior to the property line. This development will be responsible for escrowing the remaining dollars needed to complete the sidewalk to the property line so that when the neighboring property develops, they will have the money to tie into it. An estimate will be required in Final Compliance for our review and approval. The agreed upon figure will be put into the DA and paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Topic: Offsite Easements Number: 160 Created: 3/20/2008 [5/5/08] Barton row needs to be dedicated all the way to the existing property line so that a separate tract of land isn't dividing the ROW and Sanctuary West. Conversations with Vignette Studios indicated that the school district was going to dedicate this area to the development to be owned and maintained by this development. Either solution is fine, the Page 7 responsible for dedicating an additional 12' of ROW plus the 15' LE. Currently the plat is showing an additional 20' of ROW dedicated on your side of the centerline. Number: 21 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] I did not receive the County's design with this submittal. [3/17/081 Repeat comment and update. The county is doing some widening improvements to LaPorte Avenue that you may be able to coordinate your project with. Please contact Kyle Arnt (sp?) with Larimer County to see where his project is starting to the east of you. You will need to tie into his plans (please submit a copy of his design so that we can see that yours ties in) and you might even be able to give him the money to build your portion of the improvements if it's not too late. If you can still do that, we will need some sort of letter from Kyle indicating that you have done so. If the County can't include your frontage with their project, then you will need to construct the improvements with this development. We (the City) will be taking cash in lieu of constructing the ultimate street connections for Barton and Briarwood where this development leaves off in the interim. [10/30/07] Per Conceptual Review, this development is responsible for improving LaPorte Avenue to 36' (2-12' travel lanes and 2-6' bike lanes) in the interim to Taft Hill. A preliminary design (including 500' of offsite design) is due prior to going to hearing. Keep in mind minimum cover requirements over any structure. The final design will be due in Final Compliance. Number: 42 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] Repeat. [3/19/08] The Site and Landscape Plans do a good job of showing this information but the utility plans are still lacking. The information shown needs to match on all plan sets. [10/30/07] Need to show existing streets, driveways, sidewalks within 50' of the project limits and show how this development's proposed improvements are tying into the existing, all plan sets. This would be for the neighborhoods to the north and across the street on LaPorte. Number: 45 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] I will need a letter of intent from the appropriate City department prior to scheduling the hearing for this easement. [3/19/08] [10/30/07] There is a sidewalk shown crossing another lot on the north side of the drainage channel. An easement is required from the affected property owner in Final Compliance, a letter of intent from that owner to grant this easement is necessary in order to go to hearing. Number: 48 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] [3/19/08] Please see Denise Weston regarding this comment. [10/30/07] Aped connection is more than likely going to be required from Tavelli to the sidewalk in the park site if going around up or down the block doesn't meet the ped level of service requirements. The TIS will need to look into this. See the Site Plan red -lines for the area in question. Page 6 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Site Plan Number: 125 Created: 3/18/2008 [5/12/08] This note has been added (as General Note 13); however, it references Section 3.5.2(B) of the LUC. The reference should be to Section 3.5.2(E). [3/18/08] A GENERAL NOTE 14 should be added describing how the single-family detached houses will satisfy the Garage Door standards set forth in Section 3.5.2(E) of the LUC. Number: 190 Created: 5/7/2008 [5/7/08] On the Site Plan, General Note #13 should reference Section 3.5.2(E), not (B). Number: 191 Created: 5/7/2008 [5/7/08] There are still some overlap of information issues relating to scannibility on the Site Plan. Topic: Utilities Number: 200 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that they have no problems with this latest round of review of the project. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Utility Plans - Grading Number: 138 Created: 3/19/2008 [5/9/08] Not shown on Grading Plan drawings. [3/19/08] The wetlands have to be shown in their entirety in each location. Additional fieldwork is needed to inspect the wetlands boundary. Please contact Dana Leavitt after the wetlands has been delineated in the field to coordinate the field visit. See the red -line notes on the Site Plan and the Grading Plan. Number: 141 Created: 3/19/2008 [5/9/08] [3/19/08] Resolve the discrepancy of information between the Site and Landscape Plans with the Grading Plan. The Grading Plan labels the wetland as a "saturated area" due to seepage from the adjacent pond. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 20 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/5/08] Repeat comment. There is an existing 60' right-of-way (ROW) and the plat is only showing 30'. The utility plans are still showing the ROW dedication incorrectly. [3/17/08] The plat is showing the dedication incorrectly. Need to label how the existing ROW was dedicated (book, page) and then label the additional 12' to be dedicated by this plat. The utility plans are still showing a 20' dedication. [10/30/07] LaPorte is a 2-lane arterial according to the Master Street Plan. A total of 84' of ROW, plus a 15' UE, is required. There is an existing 60' ROW so this development is Page 5 [3/19/08] A Limit of Development line shall be determined and shown on the following plan drawings: Site Landscape Erosion Control Grading Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 201 Created: 5/12/2008 (5/12/08] Laurie D'Audney of the City's Utilities/Water Conservation department indicated that they have no problems with this latest round of review of the project. Department: Current Planning Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 146 Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Created: 3/19/2008 [5/9/08] Will be addressed during Final Plan review. [3/19/08] Water tolerant plants are needed in the drainage basins. A meeting with Dana Leavitt will be beneficial to determine the extent of additional plantings. Topic: Plat Number: 143 Created: 3/19/2008 [5/9/08] Note shall read: Refer to Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within a buffer zone. [3/19/08] Add a note to the plat for allowable uses within the buffer. Refer to the redline note on the plat for the wording of the note. Number: 170 Created: 3/21 /2008 [5/9/08] Show on plat by Final Plan review. [3/21/08] In order to promote compliance with Sections 12-120, 12-121 and 12-122 of the City Code related to Resource Conservation, a note must be placed on the Project Development Plan (PDP) site plan and the Plat alerting future Homeowner's Associations of private property owner rights to use resource saving devices or techniques under certain conditions. The note shall read: Private Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's), or any other private restrictive covenant imposed on landowners within the development, may not be created or enforced which has the effect of prohibiting or limiting the installation of xeriscape landscaping, solar/photo-voltaic collectors (if mounted flush upon any established roof line), clothes lines (if located in back yards), odor -controlled compost bins, or which has the effect of requiring that a portion of any individual lot be planted in turf grass. Page 4 Stormwater / Brian: a. There is not much discussion in the drainage report about the proposed low water street crossing through the floodway. This raises some public safety concerns. The floodplain modeling report should address this. PFA / Carie: a. The proposed 2 private drives can go with only 1 street name for each, even though there are 90 degree turns in these private drives. b. PFA can live with the proposed school street names. Water -Wastewater / Roger: a. This item is OK to go to public hearing. There will be lots of stuff that must be addressed with the Final Plan review. Light & Power / Rob: a. There is nothing to hold up the item going to public hearing. Alan Rutz is reviewing these plans for Light & Power. Engineering / Susan: a. This round of review took a little while to get routed to City departments. b. The street rights -of -way and easements are not matching from plan set to plan set. C. The utility plans are still lacking some information. There is lots of overlapping that creates scannability issues. d. Revisions must be submitted for review before this item can be scheduled for public hearing. Current Planning / Cameron: a. Is there a possible conflict with the proposed school street names? Current Planning will check with Emergency Services (police, fire) and GIS to make sure that they are OK with the names. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: General Number: 147 Created: 3/ 19/2008 [5/9/08] Will be determined during final plan review. Page 3 Number: 189 Created:' 5/7/2008 [5/7/08] Why is Outlot C, the narrow I P wide strip along the south side of Barton Drive at Briarwood Road, being included as part of the public park? Can it not just be a utility easement? Number: 199 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/081 Gene Fischer, the attorney for the New Mercer Ditch Company, indicated that they have no problems with this latest round of review of the project. Number: 202 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] Bonnie Ham of the U.S. Post Office indicated that they have no problems with this latest round of review of the project. Number: 203 Created: 5/12/2008 [5/12/08] Current Planning's concerns have been sufficiently addressed to allow this item to go to an Administrative Public Hearing. There are just a few comments on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Number: 204 Created: 5/12/2008 (5/12/08] The following comments were expressed at staff review on May 7, 2008: Transportation Planning / Denise: a. A better analysis of the bicycle/pedestrian connections in and around the development site is needed in the TIS. The route to school criteria was not properly addressed. b. A 5' wide bike lane on LaPorte Avenue is not sufficient. A 6' lane is needed. Transportation Planning is willing to meet with the applicant to further discuss this issue. Stormwater / Wes: a. The biggest outstanding storm water issue is related to the ditch. b. Stormwater has no objection to the item going to public hearing at this time. Stormwater / Shane: a. The floodplain checklist is missing from the drainage report. At the PDP stage it is a 50% checklist. b. Stormwater does not agree with the developer's engineer about the modeling for the proposed new outlet structure. Page 2 Vignette Studios c/o Terence Hoaglund 144 North Mason Street, #2 Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Date: 5/14/2008 Staff has reviewed your submittal for SANCTUARY WEST, PDP - TYPE 1, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Architectural Elevations Number: 206 Created: 5/ 12/2008 [5/12/08] As a reminder (since no building elevations were necessary as part of the 3rd submittal) please add the word "Duplex" in front of Elevations since these are for the duplex buildings only. Topic: General Number: 10 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/12/08] The attorney's most recent comment is "no problems". [3/18/08] The most recent comments received from the attorney for the New Mercer Ditch Company are: a. Written agreements must be signed and fees paid. b. The natural buffer area must provide for 20' in width from the top of the ditch bank. C. The New Mercer Ditch will only accept the historic run-off of storm water. Provision must be made for the increased run-off that will occur when there are roofs, driveways, and streets. [10/30/07] A copy of a letter received from Gene Fischer, the attorney for the New Mercer Ditch Company, is attached to this comment letter. It says that there are potential ditch crossings and storm drainage issues that must be addressed. Also, there must be a 15' maintenance easement measured from the ditch bank. Number: 17 Created: 10/30/2007 [5/12/08] Current Planning will be checking with Tim to verify that the school street names are OK and that no conflicts exist. [10/30/071 Tim Varrone of the Geographical Information Systems Department indicated that all of the proposed new street names have been verified and reserved in the Larimer County Street database. Page 1