The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAPSTONE COTTAGES - FDP - FDP150046 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Comment Number: 180 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Noticing that the response was to not provide a crossing with ped refuge at the north leg of Webster and "International", I would perhaps want to chat about this further with other City Transportation staff. I really suspect that the landscaping here will become a goat path for pedestrians who would rather not cross at the roundabout with additional traffic, or further north without the benefit of the median. 01/13/2016: On Sheet C516 a couple of thoughts regarding access ramps: - There's a ramp facing east on the south side of Cottage Drive and the minor arterial. I don't believe this is needed, as there's a crossing and a receiving ramp along the north leg of this intersection. - The access ramps on the south side of the Duff Drive/minor arterial intersection don't appear to align with each other across the minor arterial. - I'm wondering if there's an opportunity and support for an access ramp on the north leg of Webster Avenue/minor arterial intersection with a pedestrian refuge island midway through the splitter island? Perhaps this crossing negate the need for a crossing at the north side of the Cottage Drive/minor arterial intersection. Comment Number: 185 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: The receiving ramp (without necessarily the sidewalk) should be built at the northeast corner of Buckingham/realigned Lemay at this time. The response on the second ramp (mid -block on Webster) indicates it was eliminated, but the plans appear to still show it. It is expected that when an access ramp is provided (as required) along an abutting public street, it is required that a receiving ramp across the street is provided. Please ensure these are provided (again ramps only, not sidewalk) on the north side of Webster to "receive" crossings from the south side. 01/13/2016: On Sheets C517 and C518 also pertaining to access ramps: - Please ensure that at the southeast corner of the Buckingham-Duff/realigned Lemay intersection that an access ramp is built heading north, with a receiving access ramp at the northeast corner of this intersection. It would seem that this could be built in the ultimate condition today within the limits of the curb and gutter section for Buckingham -Duff. - The mid -block receiving access ramp on the north side of Buckingham -Duff doesn't appear to align with the access ramp/sidewalk on the south side. - The plans should indicate that the aforementioned receiving ramps along the north side of Buckingham -Duff being built now. The sidewalk on the north side isn't required with this project, (but can be built with this project) -- in its current iteration it is confusing to discern what is being built along the north side. - Sheet C518 should be showing at least the receiving access ramps along the north side of the Buckingham-Duff/minor arterial intersection. Sidewalk again along the north side isn't required, but would be nice; what is to be built north of the curb and gutter along the north side should be clarified. Comment Number: 190 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: This response indicates this was revised accordingly, but I see no change to the profile view. 01/13/2016: On the plan and profile sheets, please ensure that the profile lines use a heavier lineweight for the 0 and 5 foot elevations, it's difficult to verify elevations without the variation of lineweight at the major intervals. Page 4 of 18 Comment Number: 125 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: This area being underneath concrete still has very minimal cover and needs further refinement. Either a realignment of the water line, or a lowering needs to occur. 01/13/2016: Sheet ST4's Storm Drain Line 3-3 has less than 2 feet of cover over the top of the roadway and is about 1.5 feet at its shallowest. While this area appears to be a concrete roadway, I'm concerned that at 1.5 feet, we may have depth concerns. Comment Number: 130 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: This area being underneath asphalt and a foot of cover is problematic. Either a realignment of the water line, or a lowering needs to occur. 01/13/2016: Sheet ST4's Storm Drain Line 5 has at its shallowest about 1 foot of cover over the top of the roadway. I'm wondering if a waterline lowering should be explored here (and in other locations as it pertains to some of the other shallow crossing noted above). Comment Number: 135 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: This will be brought up with Capital Projects for their verification/consideration. 01/13/2016: Sheet ST5's Future Storm Drain Line 7 appears to be situated to have less than the minimum cover required (showing less than 2 feet), again due in part to maintaining 18" of clearance from an existing water line. Comment Number: 140 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: The revised drawings appear to better address the issue and will be brought up with Capital Projects as an FYI. 01/13/2016: Sheet ST5's Storm Drain Line 8 shows less than the minimum cover required, and in general is the existing storm pipe that this line ties into, problematic with its elevation in relation to Lemay Avenue? Existing ground is higher than proposed as depicted on the profile view, with a cut occurring, though C502 shows a fill instead of a cut in this area. Is there a profile for this existing line shown in relation to finished grade along Lemay Avenue? C502 should be depicting this pipe under the roadway and illustrate whether the pipe itself is problematic with the ultimate Lemay improvements. Comment Number: 145 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: I'm understanding that part of the confusion on this water line is the potential that it will be turned over from the City to Elco. Perhaps at staff review we can re-engage on this discussion with City water and decide if Elco needs to be brought into the discussion. 01/13/2016: In general, it appears that much of the previous comments pertain to conflicts with existing water lines (and potentially an existing storm line as well). Given the reworking of Lincoln that will occur with the project, and the reworking of Lemay in the future, presumably by the City, I would be curious to understand whether some of the existing utility infrastructure should be modified and/or relocated, since the corresponding roadways will have similar realignment, which could better allow compliance with street standard cover requirements. Page 3 of 18 0 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: L6: Include boulder symbol in legend that is shown in medians. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: L7: I am not sure what the 4 blank rectangles are in the median? Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: L8: We need to confirm if the rain garden should be included in the south parkway area adjacent to Buffalo Run Apartments in regards to ultimate maintenance. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: SP 1: In Planning signature block, add CDNS "Director" in both locations. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: SP 1: General Notes #5, change duplex to "two-family". Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: SP2: Add interim one-way street connection to 10th Street with sidewalk. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: SP2/SP3: Project approved for 201 units and plan now shows 202. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: SP4: What is the symbol on Tract B? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Need to show transit stop pads and shelter area on all plans on both sides on Lincoln. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(c.fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Please Check sheets C511-0515 for some of the legend discrepancies. Ideally if the Wilson sheets can add sheet numbers on the legend, it would be easier to follow as well. 01/13/2016: In general, there are some discrepancies on sheet numbers listed in the index and the as numbered. Also discrepancies exist on the legend map. Comment Number: 115 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: This looks to meet the cover now for the crossing at "International"/Duff. The crossing at Webster is still short, but would appear to be under concrete. Is there a way to define the concrete limit on C312 to provide more definitive proof that the shallow crossing here will be under concrete? 01/13/2016: Sheet ST1 shows the 48" RCP having less than the minimum cover needed across Webster Avenue, with a depth of less than 2'. If the concern is maintaining the 18" from the water line, perhaps twin pipes and/or and elliptical pipe can be explored to get additional cover from Webster. Page 2 of 18 Fort Collins March 11, 2016 Linda Ripley RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 401 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Capstone Cottages, FDP150046, Round Number 2 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax lcgov. 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, Pete Wray, at 970-221-6754 or pwray@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray(cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Site Plan (all plans typ.) - add back in interim one-way lane connection to 10th. Street with sidewalk per Council direction? Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: C303. Add transit stop pad and shelter facility. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Grading Plan - between Maintenance building area and Tract D, show how drainage is not being directed to property line on east side. A Swale may be needed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Utility Plans: show interim street connection to 10th Street on all sheets (C200, 300, 301, 305, 400, 401 etc.). Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Utility Plan: Show transit stop pads on both sides of Lincoln. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/11/2016 03/11/2016: Redlines are available for pic up at front counter from Jeff. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/11/2016 03/11/2016: Based on extent of comments from round two review, another round is needed. Please coordinate with the front DRC office to coordinate a submittal appointment. I will provide a new routing sheet for round 3. Topic: Landscape Plans Page 1 of 18 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The plat labeled a private street as need a name drive. Is there a name yet? Page 18 of 18 Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Is there any signing and striping for the areas not including the roundabout? I may have missed it, but we'll need signing at the right in only off Lemay, etc. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Can you provide a brief design report related to the roundabout? It would be helpful to have a summary document that bullets the key components, ICD, R values, truck turning templates, etc. We'll have striping comments at the design meeting on Thursday. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The sheet index doesn't match the sheets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: What's the landscaping for the central island and splitters? Is itjust mulch? Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma Belmont, 970-224-6197, ebelmont(cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2016 03/11/2016: Based on the discussion on Wednesday, it sounds like the south side stop may be relocated if the sidewalk configuration is changed. If so please ensure that the stop area is connected to the sidewalk. I will need to review the stop again if changes are made. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson(cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbealsafcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01 /13/2016: The plans indicate that the porches are to be used for enclosed bikes space. Is this suppose to be all the porches? It does not seem that the porches are large enough. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Please place the streets in the parkway not behind the sidewalk. 01/13/2016: On sheet L5.0 Please include street trees along Duff Drive. Page 17 of 18 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: The note needs to be exactly as shown in previous comment. 01/12/2016: Please change the name & note for the "Minor Arterial" to the following. International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. 01/12/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 03/10/2016 03/10/2016: Please change the name & note on all sheets showing International Boulevard to: International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: Is there a way to tie the lines for the 10' Utility & Drainage Easement (Rec. #97070197) & 20' Utility Easement (Book 1691 Page 57) to the Lots that they cross through? 01/12/2016: Please add bearings, distances, and/or curve data as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: All reception numbers for documents recorded by separate document, must be added prior to producing mylars. 01/12/2016: All reception numbers for documents recorded by separate document, must be added prior to producing mylars. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 03/10/2016 03/10/2016: Please add a name for the Private Drive on sheet 3. See redlines. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/10/2016 03/10/2016: Please change the bearing direction along Lincoln Avenue on sheet 4. See redlines. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: The note needs to be exactly as shown in previous comment. 01/12/2016: Please change the name & note for the "Minor Arterial" to the following. International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03110/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 03/10/2016 03/10/2016: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Page 16 of 18 Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please label all sidewalk culverts that take flows off of the street as concrete and reference the detail. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please label all storm sewer on the plan & profile sheets as public or private. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please provide a 3-inch drop for the 6-foot crosspan. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, *county anfcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/1012016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 01/12/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 03/10/2016 03/10/2016: The sheet numbering is inconsistent. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/10/2016: There are still some issues. See redlines. 01/12/2016: There are titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/11/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 03/11/2016: Some sheet have this note shown incorrectly. The note needs to be exactly as shown in previous comment. 01/12/2016: Please change the name & note for the "Minor Arterial" to the following on all sheets showing the street. International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 03/11/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 01/14/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 03/11/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. 01/14/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 03/1112016: There is text that needs the size increased. See redlines. 01/14/2016: There is text that needs the size increased. See redlines. Page 15 of 18 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Pool chemistry and chemical quantities shall be provided at time of building permit. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam(a)fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 02/23/2016: Erosion Control Report (Ok'd on 12/28/2016) Erosion Control Plans have two minor Comments one of which is needing to associate construction fence with W2 Wattles as they will get run over and rendered useless. The other is needing an outlet protection structure on the detention pond) Erosion Control Escrow will need to be recalculated with the changes based on the outlet structure protection chosen. 12/28/2015: Erosion Control Report was acceptable. Erosion Control Plan will need some significant redline changes primarily based upon needing interior perimeter protection as proposed plans have shown through various other projects that not having interior perimeter protection on the site results in muddy messes almost impossible to control from being discharged to inlets. Please revise erosion control plan and calculate a escrow based upon the new changes to the erosion control plan. 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 Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Please add in the basin description text that basins 2,3,6 & 12 receive LID treatment. 01/1312016: Please revise some of the text on page 8 of the drainage report. Basin descriptions are inconsistent in describing where they will be detained. They reference between pond and paver system for detention is inconsistent Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: The run-on area for the porous paver system is over the manufacturer recommended maximum by double. The concern is the maintenance and sustainability of these pavement systems may be compromised the the additional loading. Also, the sub -basins that drain onto the porous pavement may need some altering which may help reduce the run-on area. It appears that some of the roof tops that are planned to drain over the pavement system may not drain that way per the grading plan. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please add a site specific construction detail for the underground detention. The manufacturer's details/schematics are included, but a layout with dimensions is needed. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: In Basin 14c, the private drive is designed to drain to the detention pond. The grading plan does not show a way for these flows to drain to the pond. Please revise. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please provide and label all high point spot elevations for the grading around the structures. Page 14 of 18 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE & MARKING Fire lanes shall be signed as appropriate. This can be handled at time of final inspection if so desired, however it is recommended that a plan for signage be included in the plans at this time. Code language provided below. > IFC503.3: Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices that include the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times ad be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. > IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: FIRE HYDRANTS Private fire hydrants shall have an approved maintenance plan as per IFC 507.5.3. A plan needs to be submitted to the fire marshal for review prior to final approval. This information should be noted on future plan sets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: HYDRANT SPACING A hydrant is required within 300' of any commercial or multi -family building. As has been previously noted, hydrant spacing does not meet minimum standards in all areas. The NE and SE corners of the site will require another hydrant. > IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: PLAN FOR WAYFINDING While addressing may not yet be assigned, a plan for wayfinding within the site shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval. Unless all internal streets are named, this may include monument signage at intersections along with a plan for posting building addresses. Code language provided below. > IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/0912016: FIRE PITS & GRILLS Fire pits and grills fueled by natural gas are allowed. Wood burning or smoke producing fire pits are prohibited. Fire pits and grills require a 10' clearance to combustible construction and/or vegetation. The 10' clearance shall be measured as both a horizontal and vertical distance. Page 13 of 18 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Drawings show an electrical line along the north side of Lincoln, just south of the development. This needs to be double checked since our maps do not show any electrical on the north side of Lincoln, but rather on the south side. This could be telephone line since the drawings show telephone being feed in the area. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: If any existing electrical lines need to be relocated to accommodate the round -a -bout, modification charges will apply. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/1212016: Street lighting and electrical design will be done for the existing Lemay Ave. Once the new Lemay Ave is installed, modification charges will apply for the relocation of street lighting and electrical infrastructure. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Distinguish between City street lighting and private lighting on the landscape drawings. Some proposed City street lights are missing from the drawings. Contact Todd Vedder if a copy is needed for proposed street lighting. Local residential streets shall have one light at each intersection. If the intersection lights would exceed 320 feet apart on a straight street, mid -block lights shall be added so lights do not exceed 320 feet spacing. If the street has a curve, judgment shall be used to reduce the spacing to less than 320 feet. Shade trees are required to maintain 40 feet of clearance with street lights and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of clearance with street lights. (clearances is from the trunk of tree to light) Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: In regards to comment #5, it will be the responsibility of the developer/electrician to provide the secondary service from the transformer to the meter. This pertains to any single family attached units and where there is ore than one meter on a lot. Please contact Todd Vedder with any questions. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: On sheet L2.0 there is a proposed street light on the northwest corner too close to an existing trees. Street lights need to maintain 40' separation from shaded trees and 15' separation from ornamental. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler(cilpoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: KEY BOXES REQUIRED Per the fire marshal, a Knox Box will be required on every building. Page 12 of 18 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: The tree inventory and mitigation plan did not appear to the in the landscape plan set. Email this plan to the City Forester and also include the tree inventory and mitigation plan in the landscape plan. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Not all of the medians along Lincoln or new landscape area on the south side of Lincoln show up on the Landscape plan. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: The locations of the Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry's closest to the round -about appear like they will cause a line of site problem for pedestrians crossing the street. Review and remove these from the plan if necessary. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: To provide more tree diversity in the medians (not the round -about) explore the use of some Red Baron Crabapple or Chanticleer Pear. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder(cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: New development and system modification charges may apply. A link to our online electric fee estimator is below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-de velopment-fees/electric-development-fee-estimator?id=3 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Transformer and meter location needs to be coordinated with Light & Power. It is preferred to have the meters gained on one side of the building opposite from gas meters. Coordination is important since this is a congested site and power lines need to be separated by 10 feet from water lines and 3 feet from gas lines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: A C-1 form needs to be filled and a one -line diagram needs to be provided for the clubhouse in order to size the transformer properly. It is preferred to serve the clubhouse with single phase if possible. A link to a copy of our C-1 form is below. http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWikimikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please provide breaker panel sizing for each unit. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: For any multifamily units, it will be the responsibility of the developer/electrician to provide the service from the transformer to the meter. Page 11 of 18 Comment Number: 700 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: It was previously discussed of having the utility easement behind realigned Lemay on Tract G also as a grading easement. This is reflect on the civil drawings but is not depicted on the plat. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple65ftgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 03/08/2016: On sheet L7.0 there is some text overlap in labeling the NHBZ. Please correct and also remove the redundant "the buffer zone", which comes after "the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone". The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) will be referred to in the Development Agreement and will be used for purposes of the DA, future inspections, and for evaluating the overall establishment of the wetland and buffer; therefore, it should be labeled consistently and clearly on all plans. 01/11/2016: On all plans showing the mitigation wetland and associated buffer, please label more clearly to indicate the entire upland area around the wetland is the NHBZ. A logical boundary would be the gray -dashed existing stormdrain line. Please also provide a table of the area of the mitigation wetland, as well as the buffer. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 01/11/2016: Please see redlines on landscape plans for replacing the non-native species with natives, specifically GSD, QSR, ASG, ARM, and some PSP. Also, the 17 SXE in the northwest corner appear to be mislabeled. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 01/11/2016: As discussed, a mitigation and monitoring plan will need to be finalized to indicate how the wetlands will be installed and monitored to ensure success. This document will be attached to the development agreement. A letter of credit to ensure the wetlands and buffer can be replaced, should the success criteria not be met, will be required. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 03/08/2016: A note should be added to the landscape plan regarding the seed mixes proposed on the wetland enlargement may change based on what species respond best. All seed mix changes shall be approved by the City's Environmental Planner. 01/11/2016: What is the proposed seed mix for the wetland area? I will email a suggested mix, as well as a mix to replace the dryland seed mix that includes more forbes. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Thank you for providing a photometric plan with this PDP submittal and that no light spillage is shown within the buffer area. Please also consider the 3000K option for the light fixtures, in order to limit the amount of blue light in the night environment. Both LED and metal halide fixtures contain large amounts of blue light in their spectrum, and exposure to blue light at night has been shown to harm human health and endanger wildlife. Please also consider fixtures with dimming capabilities so that light levels can be adjusted as needed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Please add an Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans that show the NHBZ. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan(abfcgov.com Page 10 of 18 Comment Number: 525 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: 1 did find the detail for this on C706 of the civil, on sheet C200 please have the references refer to the detail.. I'm not sure I'm finding it being referenced on the site and landscape plans, but should be added as well. 01/1312016: Carrying forward a PDP comment as unresolved, looking to have "Being Private Maintenance" informational signs at the entrances to the site off of the public streets. A detail should be added to the civil detail sheets, and their locations referencing the detail should be shown on the site/landscape and civil plans. Comment Number: 530 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: We've received comments from the business property owners to the east (who have also contacted Larimer County, being not in City limits) regarding construction build -out of the project. They are looking to have the following occur with the construction of the project: "A barrier installed at the ends of Webster and Duff (and Link if necessary) prohibiting vehicle and pedestrian access through the FCBA subdivision. Perhaps a 4' orange fence across that entire area would work." "No Construction Access"sign installed at Lincoln and Link." The City is OK with their requests and would want to verify if the Developer is amenable to these items, and their placing in the development agreement. Larimer County Engineering has indicated support of the items listed above as well, and with the second item occurring outside City limits, they are OK with the following input: "County is fine with a "No Construction Access"sign being installed at Lincoln and Link, We would expect the Developer to install it. The sign should conform to MUTCD requirements and mounting posts need to meet break away requirements. They should also be required to obtain utility locates before installing the posts. We would not require it to be on plans. But if City requires it to be on the plans, it is not necessary for me to sign the sheet. Any questions at the time of installation can be directed to Bill Gleiforst, Larimer County Traffic Operations Manager at (970) 498-5707. There are no County permits required for the installation. " Comment Number: 535 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Seeing that work is occurring within the County's jurisdiction of Lincoln Avenue east of the site, we should have Larimer County Engineering's signature on the cover page of the utility plan set, and we can then look to have the sign noted in the previous comment added to the set. Comment Number: 640 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: At the last streetscape team meeting, it was brought up that perhaps the amount of sidewalk added on the south side of Lincoln Avenue could be reduced and intend to operate more with the existing sidewalk, to reduce the parallel sidewalk scenario. We'd like to brainstorm this further with the design team as there could be some overall cost savings, while still trying to balance providing the bike bypass needs around the roundabout. Comment Number: 545 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: At the last streetscape team meeting, it was brought up that Parks would want a pull out into the median along Lincoln west of the roundabout in order to better maintain the median. This does not appear to have been accounted for in the plans. Topic: Plat Page 9 of 18 Comment Number: 228 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: In reference to #225, on needing left and right flowline profiles, please consider how information on Sheet C915 coordinates with C508 for coordination of "International" road design information. C508 shows centerline, left and right profiles, C915 provides a centerline profile. The termination of the centerline on C508 is at STA 12+39.45, there's a matchline on C915 at 12+38.91, where the plans don't seem to coincide. There isn't corresponding information on the Wilson set that I'm able to find that shows how the left and right flowline profiles of Northern's on C508 are tied into. Can the two sets show some overlap of each other's information to partially address this, in addition to getting left/right profiles on Wilson's design? On C915 is the vertical curve grade using a 1 % centerline approach grade taken from C508? Comment Number: 229 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: For the newly added sheets C916-C922 referenced in Comment 225, there are vertical curve lengths and corresponding K values that don't meet the requirements for the arterial roadway classification. Perhaps that's okay though, upon getting further understanding where these areas are in relationship to a plan view, correlating these locations with the centerline and left/right profile designs, etc. Need additional information/clarification on these sheets. Comment Number: 237 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: The additional phasing plan sheets are appreciated and I will coordinate additional review with Engineering construction inspection folks for additional input. I'm having a little difficulty in understanding how the phasing of the asphalt work will ultimately result in asphalt seams that are in accordance with our patching standards of being on a lane line, or half way into a lane, parallel and perpendicular to the lane of travel. Might there be a need to ultimately perform a mill and new top lift to address this for the asphalt? Comment Number: 241 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: The cross section sheets should show tying into existing on the south side at STA 40 and 40+50. Also, please look to specify the elevations at the left and right flowline of the cross sections instead of the gutter edge, which will be reviewed in coordination with the left and right profiles reference in #225. Topic: General Comment Number: 500 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: The placement of two trees at the southwest corner of the roundabout and perhaps 4 trees at the northwest corner of the roundabout appear to conflict with the low growth exhibit areas specified on the Wilson roundabout design report. Please have the low growth areas from the report specifically shown on the Landscape plan for coordination and verification on tree placement. 01/13/2016: A landscape plan for the medians pertaining to the roundabout (including approach medians) is needed. Comment Number: 510 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: The plans appear to have added with this round, a rain garden in right-of-way at the southwest leg of the roundabout. I'm understanding that this can go away is intended to do so. 01/13/2016: The placement of rain gardens within utility easements behind the right-of-way does not constitute Engineering approval for its placement, though the slope and material type immediately behind the public street sidewalks need to be verified for being gradual, and not a "hole" or with rough media behind the walk. I would question the implications on the integrity of the rain gardens being maintained over time with any utility installation work occurring in the future within the general utility easement. Page 8 of 18 Comment Number: 222 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please have the Wilson plans overlay the plat information on Sheet C908 through C911 in order to provide verification that the right-of-way dedications delineated on the plat coincide with the road designs. I'd want to see the curve and line data along the right-of-way, discerning existing and proposed right-of-way, as well as showing the intersecting lot lines. Comment Number: 223 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Related to the previous comment, this additional information will help provide further clarity on the right-of-way vacation that has been proposed. In looking at past submittals of the legal description for this right-of-way vacation, it's apparent that the area to be vacated has shrunk over time as the roundabout design has been further refined. The 5/7/2014 legal had 3,578 square feet proposed for vacation, the 12/9/2014 legal had 918 square feet, and now the 2/19/2016 legal has 601 square feet. Seeing that area defined on Wilson's plans with the corresponding plat/right-of-way/lot line information provided in the previous comment will help finalize the approach on potential right-of-way vacation, but it's perhaps worth noting that the overall area has been reduced by a factor of almost 6 over time. I would perhaps then question whether the 601 square feet at this point is worth pursuing a right-of-way vacation, since the area isn't buildable and would encompass a utility easement any way -- would the time for two readings before Council prior to plat and plan recordings make the effort worth it? Comment Number: 224 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: The removal plan sheets and road plan and profiles in Wilson's set provides existing features to show how removals occur in proximity to existing conditions. Please have the existing conditions also evident on the paving detail and signing and striping plan sheets. Comment Number: 226 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Additional pavement removal is needed for the westbound Lincoln approach at the eastern end of the tie-in point into existing. The patching limits should expand further south to depict the patch extending to at least half the lane line in the westbound movement. Comment Number: 227 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: The south side of eastbound Lincoln along the eastern limits of the work show that there would be additional unused pavement width on the south side. I wonder if there's value in now having a defined right turn lane created onto 12th Street, and would want to ensure that there's no confusing the excess width as a second lane, parking lane, etc. Comment Number: 236 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: On C928 the sign on 1.14 1 think we should discuss further, as I believe this would typically be used to show a street name for the south leg of this roundabout, but in this case is the entrance to Buffalo Run apartments. Minimizing unintended entering onto Buffalo Run should be considered. Comment Number: 241 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: The cross section sheets should show tying into existing on the south side at STA 40 and 40+50. Comment Number: 242 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: STA 42+50, STA 43+00 and STA 43+50 should be showing the additional pavement widening that's being proposed along the north side of Lincoln Avenue. There should be a 4 foot recycled asphalt shoulder past the edge of pavement to help contain the new asphalt and provide some shy distance for the bikelane edge. Behind the shoulder should be 4:1 grading to tie back into existing. Page 7 of 18 Comment Number: 225 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Please add a key map for the newly added sheets (C916 - C922), and show a plan view as well, I can't find where these are located as the station information doesn't coincide with the stationing used overall in the plans (stationing generally has been from 32+00 to 43+00, but these sheets start at around 111+50. In general these sheets by labelling as EOP Island Profiles may appear to be profiling the "flowlines" from the center median, but I'm not seeing where left and right flowline profiles for the roadways (in addition to the provided centerline profiles) are depicted. 01/13/2016: It appears that Sheets C911 through C914 is profiling the centerline. Please add flowline plan and profiles as well. Ideally instead of profiling the centerline, there would be a flowline profile against both "flowlines" of the center median. Comment Number: 230 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Thanks for this information. Please also have proposed grading shown for the area east of STA 42+93 to understand the extent of grading needed along the county portion of Lincoln. 01/13/2016: Similar to #195, please have sheets C911 through C914 show (and label) existing and proposed contours. Sheets 915 and 916 should be showing this information as well with the indication of elevations on the sheet. Comment Number: 260 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: I'll look to get additional peer review of the joint pattern and may have follow-up comments on this. From my limited perspective, it appears fine, I just perhaps wonder about the acute angles being created north of the crosswalk along the Buffalo Run frontage. 01/13/2016: A concrete joint pattern and reinforcement detail is needed for the concrete used for the roundabout and its approaches. Comment Number: 265 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Can the report "Lincoln & International Roundabout Design Criteria and Calculation Package" please be signed and stamped as a document we can retain for the project? 01/13/2016: I'm presuming a report on the parameters used for the design of the roundabout will be provided and further discussion will occur on the Thursday morning meeting. Turning templates for emergency and WB-50 vehicles should be provided in the report, and how does a WB-67 track through the intersection? Comment Number: 280 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Carried over to show to Capital for any comments or concerns. 01/13/2016: There are some general concerns with the location of manholes in relation to the public streets, such as for ultimate Lemay on C502 showing manoles in flowlines where the bikelane along Lemay would be, as well as against the median flowline. A manhole in the Lincoln flowline median is shown as well. We'll want to ensure that manholes aren't located in bikelanes, and aren't in conflict with median flowlines, either placed in the median, or in the middle of the adjacent travel lane. Comment Number: 201 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Note that Sheet C518 is missing information on the cross sections. Comment Number: 206 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: On sheet C507, there's a concern with a grade break exceeding .4% from 4.79% to 2.75% and 4.22% to 2.75% in the flowlines of Duff east of "International". Additionally, the cross slopes at the access ramps here would exceed 2% and not result in an ADA compliant crossing. Page 6 of 18 Comment Number: 195 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: The response indicates concern with providing this information. I believe this should be provided at least for the areas that are not abutting the development, it is helpful for areas such as the north side of Duff for the next few comments below. It would also be helpful for the south side of Lincoln on Wilson's set, as well as the north and south sides of Lincoln east of the development. 01/13/2016: On the plan and profile sheets, please ensure that existing and proposed contours are shown and labeled in plan view. Comment Number: 200 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: The response indicates the plans have been revised accordingly, but the information was not provided (except for ultimate Lemay, which isn't to be built with this project). 01/13/2016: On the cross section sheets, please provide flowline elevations to cross check against the specified cross slope and the plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 205 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: The response indicates the grading has been revised to be within right-of-way or within a grading easement. Is a grading easement specifically being identified as the grading plans don't appear to depict an easement. The grades within right-of-way are not meeting at least a 4:1 slope however and would need to be revised (which would likely then require the grading easement). The cross section at 31+50 again shows the need for some sort of grading easement from the property owner to the east. 01/13/2016: The cross sections for Duff Drive show grading past the platted right-of-way for Duff Drive along the north and would require an offsite grading easement. Note that the right-of-way from STA 27+50 on is not depicted for the north side as well as the south side east of the new minor arterial. Offside grading easement might be needed for the south side of Duff Drive east of this property. Comment Number: 210 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: Please see comment 700, looking to have the plat show the 15 foot utility easement also as a grading easement. 01/13/2016: The ultimate Lemay Avenue design shows the need for offsite easement to construct Lemay Avenue on the west side. This is just for reference to Engineering Capital for the future construction. Comment Number: 220 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 03/09/2016: With the spot elevations not provided, some general concerns: On the west leg of Duff and International (C516) along Duff, the flowline grades shown on the spot elevations do not coincide with the plan and profile deisgn (grades of 5% and 20% when the plan and profile show in the .5 to 2% range,) Flowline grades shown on International's spot elevations also do not match the International flowline plan and profile (2.3% instead of .6%). Along Lincoln in front of South Clubhouse Drive the grades within the flowine are at .3% below the .5%, similarly along International at Cottage Drive, flowline grades fall below .5% There appear to be exceed of 2% cross slope for ADA at access ramps, such as crossing Webster at International, also at Cottage Drive at International, and the midblock private drive at Duff Drive. 01/1312016: Intersection spot elevations are needed for the public streets intersections in accordance with Figure 7-27 and 7-28 of LCUASS. Page 5 of 18