HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY - FDP - 39-94C - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)Number: 225 Created: 6/3/2003
CS300 - See redlines. Provide directional ramps at all street corners. Show how the proposed sidewalk/ramps ties into
the existing and what will come out.
RESPONSE: This has been done.
Number: 226 Created: 6/3/2003
CS302 - conflict in the crosspan notation/size among the sheets. The access ramp to the proposed park must be the
same width as the sidewalk (repeat comment).
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 227 Created: 6/3/2003
CS303 - same as above. Correct overlapping labeling. Spot elevation conflict with the intersection details.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 228
CS305 - Overlapping labeling.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 229
CS308 - Overlapping labeling.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 230
CS308 - Spot elevation conflicts with the CR52 plans.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Created: 6/3/2003
Created: 6/3/2003
Created: 6/3/2003
Number: 231 Created: 6/3/2003
CS311 - See redlines. Spot elevations don't match the intersection details. Please look at the L for Sternwheeler
Drives Right Flowline. Is this right?
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 232 Created: 6/3/2003
CS312 - Place the detail of the street widening here as requested in an earlier comment. Also, spot elevation conflicts
with intersection details. Correct overlapping labeling.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 233 Created: 6/3/2003
See redlines. Qs on stationing at the bulb out.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 234 Created: 6/3/2003
CS330 - Some of the transitions on the next few pages are pretty far back. Please transition a little closer to the
intersection. Or is there a reason that is occurring so far back? Missing a spot. Correct the ramp note detail. Name
the unnamed street. Correct the ramp width.
RESPONSE: We have shortened which transitions we could. See comment above on ramp detail.
Number: 235 Created: 6/3/2003
CS331 - See redlines and previous comments regarding this sheet. Correct the ramp detail in the Legend.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Page 8
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson
Topic: General
Number: 198 Created: 5/27/2003
My only concern is the potential pedestrian safety hazard presented by the ped connection shown on LCR 52. This
connection to the north -side sidewalk is roughly aligned with a similar ped. connection in Gillespie Farm/Maple Hill.
This might invite ped's to cross mid -block across a 2L Arterial roadway. Not a deal breaker but a situation we might
want to monitor.
Red -lined drawings are available at the Current Planning front desk. Be sure and return all
of your redlined 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) 221-6750.
Yours Truly,
Bob Barkeen
City Planner
Page 13
RESPONSE: As discussed there should be no backyard swales they drain to the front.
Call out pipe inverts and all low point elevations.
RESPONSE: We have called out the low point elevations on the grading plan
Topic: Overall Utility Plans
Number: 94 Created: 11 /19/2002
6/4/03
Please add size type of all proposed and existing facilities on the overall utility plan
RESPONSE: We put a general note on CS400 stating material types. Sizes are noted
Topic: Phasing Plans
Number: 247 Created: 6/4/2003
Please call out the size and dimensions of the proposed temporary swales on the phasing plan. Please indicate that
these will be seeded and maintained in operational function by the developer.
RESPONSE: This is done
Will the area that is outside of Phase 1 be disturbed. If yes please indicate where and add a note requiring all of that
area to be reseeded.
RESPONSE: The entire site will be overloted and the site erosion control notes will hold therefore disturbed areas will
be taken care of.
Provide a detail of the capping that will be done to the storm sewer on the phasing plan when there is no downstream
outfall connection.
RESPONSE: We have noted this on the plan and profile sheet for the future filings to the north. I don't think there
should be any others to be capped because they should be emptying into the temporary swales.
Provide erosion protection at the points where temporary swales enter the detention pond.
RESPONSE:This is shown on the plans
The inlets and storm sewers on CR 52 will be built with the CR 52 plans. Please add a note on the phasing plans
indicating that.
RESPONSE: We have removed these from the phasing Plan.
Topic: Underpass Plans
Number: 88 Created: 11/19/2002
6/3/03
Please show Baker Lateral on the plans. Done
RESPONSE: Done
It seems that the underpass in CR 11 will conflict with the relocated irrigation line. Please show an irrigation line profile
and detail how it will cross the underpass.
RESPONSE: See Baker lateral profile
Where will low flows from underpass be directed to ?
RESPONSE: As discussed TST says the Parks Department will take care of this
Owners of the irrigation line will need to sign of on the underpass plans.
RESPONSE: This will be done with Mylars
Page 12
RESPONSE: These have been corrected
Please specify when the shown storm sewers will be built on the phasing plan.
RESPONSE: We have removed the storm sewer in County.Road 52. It will be built with those plans
Call out and label contour elevations on the grading plan.
RESPONSE: We have change the line weights you should be able to see them
Call out pedestrian box invert on road profile.
RESPONSE: We will show in County Road 52 . Also see the profile for the box in the 700 series of sheets.
Please explain how the 54"pipe crossing of CR52 sized. According to the study completed on June 2nd by ACE the
Boxelder Creek masterplan a bridge crossing is needed for the crossing of storm flows under CR 52 in the future. The
100-year flows anticipated for this section are 810 cis of storm flows and 125 cfs of irrigation flows. The Developer shall
be required to post an escrow for half of the future bridge crossing of CR 52. Please provide an estimate of the cost of
such a crossing.
RESPONSE: We are not going to build this now and wait for things to settle down. P
Please provide ditch company signatures on the plans showing the outfall pipe into the Canal No.8 Ditch.
RESPONSE: This will be done with mylars
Please call out top of pipe elevation for the ELCO water line crossing of the storm sewer on CR 52.
RESPONSE: All the storm sewer is in the eastern portion of CR 52, The 24 Inch dia. Water line turns south out of CR
52 before it crosses the storm sewer.
Topic: Drainage Plans
Number: 248 Created: 6/4/2003
Please provide a design and a detail for the emergency spillway on the detention pond.
RESPONSE: This is shown on sheet C3223
Please design a low flow channel in the detention pond taking trickle flows from the storm sewer points of outfall
draining into the pond to the pond outlet structure.
RESPONSE: This has been done
Please consolidate all details to the detail sheets at the end of the plan set.
RESPONSE: As discussed to keep all the notes together these are in the front with the erosion control notes
Topic: Erosion Control
Number: 87 Created: 11/19/2002
3/6/03 Please add a note requiring all disturbed areas to be re -seeded and mulched.
RESPONSE: This has been done
5/28/03 Plan is OK,
Topic: Grading Plans
Number: 249 Created: 6/6/2003
Please show proposed contours on the grading plan currently only 5-foot contours are called out.
Call out block numbers on the grading plan.
RESPONSE: This is done
Avoid back yard swales that exceed 3 lots whenever possible.
Page 11
Add streetlight to the northeast corner of lot 8 - Forecastle Drive.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.
Number: 187 Created: 5/16/2003
Streetlight should be shown on plans at the intersection of Clipper Way and Sternwheeler Drive on the southeast corner
of the intersection.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.
Number: 188 Created: 5/16/2003
Eliminate streetlights should shown on plans between lots 6/7 and lots 16/17 on Bow Side Drive. Instead streetlight
should be located between lots 4/5 on Bow Side Drive.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.:
Number: 189 Created: 5/16/2003
Streetlight should be shown on plans between lots 2/3 - Block 8, Clipper Way.
4 4
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.
Number: 190 Created: 5/16/2003
Streetlights should be shown on plans to both the southwest corner of Block 12, Tract A and the southeast corner of
Block 12, Tract A along the north side of County Road 52.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.
Number: 191 Created: 5/16/2003
Streetlight should be shown on plans between lots 9/10 - Block 8 along Bar Harbor Drive.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.
Number: 192 Created: 5/16/2003
For Correct spacing requirements of streetlights, the streetlight shown near the pedestrian path at County Road 52,
should be located approximately 90-feet east, between lots 12/13.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.:
Number: 193 Created: 5/16/2003
In order to prevent future problems encountered with installation of electric lines, street trees, sidewalk, landscaping,
etc. are not to be installed along the east side of Bar Harbor Drive or along the north side of Brightwater Drive east of
Fairwater until such time as these parcels of land develop.
RESPONSE: This has been done
Topic: Site
Number: 196 Created: 5/27/2003
All electric facilities must be shown on utility plans. This includes electric line locations, vaults, streetlights, etc.
"Typical Layout" is not sufficient. Electricfacilities have been coordinated with Sear Brown and must be shown on utility
plans.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan
Topic: County Road 52 Improvements
Number: 86 Created: 11/19/2002
6/3/03
Please refer to redlined plans for comments on the CR52 plans.
Page 10
n
Number: 236 Created: 6/3/2003
CS332 - Some spot elevation problems. Correct the ramp detail in the Legend. See redlines.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 237 Created: 6/3/2003
CS333 - Correct the ramp detail in the Legend. Missing spots, problem spots.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 238
CS400 - See appendix E6
Created: 6/3/2003
RESPONSE: We have removed the typical that had the scanning Problems.
Number: 239 Created: 6/3/2003
CS401 - Correct the street cut note to read:
Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All
repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 240
CS402 - Add the street cut note.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 241
CS601 - Correct the term Alley to read Private Drive
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Number: 242
CS700 - Correct the ramp detail in the legend.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected.
Created: 6/3/2003
Created: 6/3/2003
Created: 6/3/2003
Number: 243 Created: 6/3/2003
CS703 - Provide a curve table for the other two legs of the sidewalk connections so that they can be laid out in the field.
Only the information for the one leading to the underpass on CR11 was given.
RESPONSE: Done
Number: 244 Created: 6/3/2003
CS704 - Overlapping labeling. Correct the ramp in the legend.
RESPONSE: These have bee corrected
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore
Topic General
Number: 185 Created: 5/16/2003
Show all street lighting on landscape plan and utility plans. Streetlights must maintain minimum clearances to
streetlights..
RESPONSE: This has been corrected with the new redline from Monica Moore
Number: 186 Created: 5/16/2003
Page 9
Number: 215 Created: 6/3/2003
CS115 - Remove all references to alleys and put Private Drive (or ?) instead.
RESPONSE: This has been done( I hope we go them all)
Number: 216 Created: 6/3/2003
CS116 - Relabel Alley as Private Drives, all instances, all sheets. Do not ghost the proposed barricades. Will need to
contact Ward Standford or Eric Bracke to see if they have any comments on the striping sheet. They usually prefer to
have the interim and ultimate striping shown on two separate sheets. If they are ok with this as shown, then please.
relabel sheet as "Interim and Ultimate Striping" and label the interim flowline or edge of pavement so that it is as clear
as possible.
RESPONSE: Eric is ok with this
Number: 217 Created: 6/3/2003
CS131 and all others that apply - the proposed ramps and sidewalks need to show how they tie into existing ramps and
sidewalks along the west side of CR11. Show your removals so that it is very clear what is staying and what is coming
out. This will help Street Oversizing bid out and construct this road in the future.
4
RESPONSE: This has been done. The only remaining ramps are on Brightwater.
Number: 218 Created: 6/3/2003
CS132 - See redlines.
RESPONSE: These have been addressed
Number: 219 Created: 6/3/2003
CS200 - See Appendix E6 for scanability requirements (min font size, overlapping, etc). This sheet is a little difficult to
read and/or reproduce.
RESPONSE: We have done our best
Number: 220 Created: 6/3/2003
CS221, CS222 - Same comment as sheet CS200. Also, a 12' crosspan is labeled as 6'.
These have been addressed
Number: 221 Created: 6/3/2003
CS225 - See redlines.
RESPONSE: These have been addressed
Number: 222 Created: 6/3/2003
CS260 - See redlines. Overlapping labeling, correct the term "alley", correct note 4, show barricades.
RESPONSE: These have been addressed
Number: 223
CS261 - See redlines. Overlapping labeling.
RESPONSE: These have been addressed
Number: 224
CS280 - Overlapped label, change the term "alley" to "private drive".
RESPONSE: These have been addressed
Created: 6/3/2003
Created: 6/3/2003
Page 7
Topic: Utility
Number: 13 Created: 11/5/2002
See 16.3.1 for access ramp requirements. Provide directional ramps at all intersections. Access ramps must line up
with the ramp across the street on all T-Intersections. Must provide a separate access ramp where rollover curb is
used. A driveway will not suffice.
3/11/3: Repeat comment. In addition, an access ramp shown lining up with a sidewalk connection must be the same
width as the sidewalk it connects to. Remove the access ramp shown at the street widening. See redlines.
5/30/3: Repeat comment. The access ramp shown lining up with the sidewalk on Brightwater Drive must be the same
width as the sidewalk it is providing access to.
RESPONSE: According to your detail the notes say to match the sidewalk for width. So the contractor should follow
that instead of the drawing as the handicap ramps in the drawing are never to scale.
Number: 54 Created: 11/12/2002
See detail 7-24 for all street widening requirements. Those proposed do not meet standards.
3/11/3: Repeat comment. Still not meeting the min PC to PCR. Show and label R1, R2, R3, W and flowline as
required by 7-24. 4
5/30/3: Repeat comment. Please provide a detail (per 7-24) and show/label RI-R3, W.
RESPONSE: NEED TO CHECK.
Number: 56 Created: 11/12/2002
Sheet CS350 - see redlines. Since the proposed alleys are actually private drives, figure 71-12F should not be
included. A simple cross-section would be sufficient or at least remove the term "alleys". Call it Shared Residential
Driveways or something to that effect.
3/11/3 and 5/30/3: Repeat comment but now sheet CS116. Please remove all reference to the word "alley' as they are
not being dedicated as public alleys.
RESPONSE: This has been removed.
Number: 169 Created: 3/13/2003
Please provide some grading/spot information that I can tie into the CR52 road plans so that 1 can make sure that these
two projects will work together.
5/30/3: As of our pre -submittal meeting, you had the good suggestion of adding spot elevations at the PCs to make
sure the two sets of plans line up. Unfortunately, the PCs are showing two different spot elevations - see CR52 and
Forecastle for example.
RESPONSE: These have been checked and modified.
Number: 175 Created: 3/13/2003
See redlines and Appendix E4 for other comments.
RESPONSE: This is an old comment I think we are past this now.
Number: 213 Created: 6/3/2003
Cover Sheet, Note 14 - Add the variances to the street separation. List the code section, the standard and then what
the variance was granted for.
RESPONSE: We have done this
Number: 214 Created: 6/3/2003
Cover Sheet - Add note #10 from the CR 52 plans here.., .
RESPONSE: This has been done.
Page 6
Topic: Street Sections
Number: 151 Created: 3/12/2003
The typical street sections provided are not correct. List each street under each cross section by stationing because
some streets have more than one cross section. Label each section with N/S/E/W and move this sheet up behind the
cover sheet or the site plan.
5/30/3: Please label each typical street section with the N/S/E/W direction.
RESPONSE: This has been done and type of curb labeled on Plan and Profile sheets.
Number: 167 Created: 3/13/2003
Remove all reference to "alley". See redlines.
5/30/3: See redlines, sheet CS116 - just one more alley word to take out.
RESPONSE: This has been done.
Topic: Striping Sheet
Number: 137 Created: 3/11 /2003
Provide an interim striping sheet and label the ultimate as "ultimate."
5/30/3: Now the striping sheet is labeled as "Ultimate" but the sheet has added the interim condition as well. Please
split the sheets into interim and ultimate.
RESPONSE: As discussed we have changed the note to Striping Sheet with more notes regarding interim and final
Number: 176 Created: 3/13/2003
Please contact Eric Bracke (224-6062) for comments regarding the signing and striping sheet.
5/30/3: Have you contacted the City Traffic Engineer for comments on this sheet?
RESPONSE: I have contacted Eric, he has no comments on both the site and County Road 52
Topic: Traffic Study
Number: 28 Created: 11/12/2002
Please contact Eric Bracke at 224-6062 regarding the TIS. A roundabout analysis must be provided for all
arterial/arterial intersections. Additional ROW may be required to accommodate a dedicated northbound right turn lane
on CR 52, to be built now or in the future. Please see LCUASS Chapter 8 for intersection requirements and Chapter 4
for TIS requirements: The TIS must be detailed enough to sufficiently address any modification and/variance requested
by this development.
3/11/3: Repeat comment.
5/30/3: The roundabout analysis was received and accepted by Eric Bracke. However, the long-range analysis is still
missing from the TIS (only the short range was provided). Please provide the long-range analysis in the TIS.
RESPONSE: See Matt Delich Responses
Topic: Underpass
Number: 245 Created: 6/3/2003
See detail 1108 for City railing/parapet wall requirements for the bridge/underpass for CR11 and add it to the detail
sheet. Also, see the city guidelines for pedestrian facilities and AASHTO for railing requirements. The wooden fencing
shown does not meet any of these standards, design or safety.
RESPONSE: We are providing this as discussed. On the west side we have raised to the retaining wall to
approximately 27 inches above proposed grade and on the east side of county road 11 we have provided a railing.
Page 5
Number: 206
From Technical Services - Additional ROW notes.
RESPONSE: Done
Number: 207
From Technical Services - Show County Road 52 on sheet 3
RESPONSE: County Road 53 is shown
Created: 6/2/2003
Created: 6/2/2003
Number: 208 Created: 6/2/2003
From Technical Services - Show distances, section corner plat to S1/4 Section 29.
RESPONSE: This is now shown
Number: 209 . Created: 6/2/2003
From Technical Services - Solid lines, separate tracts from ROW.
RESPONSE: This has been done.
Number: 210 Created: 6/2/2003
From Technical Services - Curve table has incorrect info (this effects lot dimensions). Please review.
RESPONSE: This has been changed
Number: 246
Incorrect radii shown, see redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been changed
Created: 6/3/2003
Topic: Site
Number: 131 Created: 3/11/2003
Remove all incorrect sight distance triangles.
5/30/3: Label the remaining sight distance triangles and add the sight distance restrictions note to the Site plan.
RESPONSE: See Vignette Studios comments
Number: 195 Created: 5/23/2003
Remove all reference to the word "alley". Use private drive instead.
RESPONSE: See Vignette Studios comments
Topic: Soils Report
Number: 147 Created: 3/12/2003
Please provide a Soils Report as required by LCUASS.
5/30/3: Repeat comment.
RESPONSE: Will be provided
Topic: Street Names
Number: 134 Created: 3/11/2003
Is it Flagstaff Drive or Flagstaff Place? Not all the plan sets are consistent.
5/30/3: Please correct sheet CS116 of the utility plans. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected to Flagstaff Place
Page 4
5/30/3: Repeat comment.
RESPONSE: See Vignette Studios comments
Number: 212 Created: 6/3/2003
See Appendix E6 for scanability requirements (min font size, overlapping labeling, etc).
RESPONSE: See Vignette Studios comments
Topic: Plan and Profiles
Number: 51 Created: 11 /12/2002
Provide intersection details per 7-27, 7-28 and 3.3.4.
3/11/3: Repeat comment. What's shown is incomplete.
5/30/3: Some of the intersection details do not match the elevations shown on the plan and profile sheets. Some
details show spot elevations that create a low spot. See redlines.
RESPONSE: We have corrected the Intersection Details
Topic: Plat
Number: 16 Created: 11 /6/2002
Provide all easements and vacations by separate document as stated on the plat.
3/11/3: Repeat Comment.
5/30/3: Repeat Comment.
RESPONSE: The client is aware of these requirements and is obtaining them. The existing sanitary sewer easement
will be abandoned through the development agreement. The irrigation easement is being worked on now.
Number: 125 Created: 3/11/2003
From Technical Services: Many bearing and distances missing. Please review before the next submittal.
5/3013: Repeat comment.
RESPONSE: These have been addressed per redlines
Number: 127 Created: 3/11/2003
From Technical Services: Separate document reception number vacations need to be shown on this plat.
5/30/3: Repeat comment.
RESPONSE: These will be provided when the documents are recorded
Number: 203
From Technical Services - North arrow on sheet 2 is wrong.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected
Number: 204
From Technical Services - Boundary and Legal close.
RESPONSE: Thanks
Number: 205
From Technical Services - In Block 6, is it an alley or tract?
RESPONSE: It is a Tract
Created: 6/2/2003
Created: 6/2/2003
Created: 6/2/2003
Page 3
RESPONSE: The client is aware of this and is obtaining these easements. When it is recorded we will put the
reception number on the plat.
Topic: General
Number: 27 Created: 11/12/2002
Approval of these plans is contingent upon the approval of the design of CRs 11 and 52. This development must be
coordinated with the Gillespie development (Maple Hill) to the south. All streets at CR 52 must align with Gillespie's
proposed streets. In addition, this developer is responsible for the interim design improvements to the Vine and Lemay
intersection. In the event that the transportation tax is approved, the money is appropriated by the city, and the
improvements are scheduled for construction, this developer will no longer be responsible for any improvements to the
Vine and Lemay intersection. However, it could be years before this happens. If this development wants to go to
construction before then, then the developer would need to design and construct the interim improvements to Vine and
Lemay.
3/11/3 and 5/30/3: Keeping this item open
Number: 37 1 1 . Created: 11/12/2002
Coordinate the comments given under various sections so that all of the plan sets present the same information.
3/11/3 and 5/30/3: Repeat comment.
RESPONSE: The grades are now coordinated.
Topic: Intersection Details
Number: 161 Created: 3/13/2003
The midblock crossing shown on CS331 must be a minimum 12' wide. See 7.7.5 for depth requirements. Identify the
transition length from outflow to inflow curb and gutter on the crosspans and label that it is to go to outflow C&G.
Perhaps the better design would be to have Sternwheeler the through street without mid -block crosspans since the stop
condition is at Clipper Way.
5/30/3: Please identify the transition length from outflow to inflow curb and gutter on the crosspans and label that it is to
go to outflow C&G.
RESPONSE: We have provided this on the intersection detail as discussed
Number: 162 Created: 3/13/2003
Crown the transition in accordance with detail 7-28 from Clipper Way to Sternwheeler Drive.
5/30/3: See sheet CS331. Still have some problems with the elevations.
RESPONSE: These have been corrected
Topic: Landscape
Number: 74 Created: 11/14/2002
The developer must provide any needed irrigation to the medians of the roundabout, and will be responsible for the
maintenance of landscaping in these areas. This landscaping must also meet sight distance requirements (please add
a note to the plans).
3/11/3: Repeat comment. Please provide and show on the plans.
5/30/3: Repeat comment.
RESPONSE: See Vignette Studios comments
Number: 75 Created: 11/14/2002
Landscape medians include must include drainage facilities to handle sprinkler runoff and nuisance flows. Refer to
Appendix C.
3/11/3: Repeat comment. Please show on plans.
Page 2
9
IS EM-6-
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Coffins
VIGNETTE STUDIOS Date: 6/9/2003
TERENCE HOAGLUND
144 N. MASON ST. #2
FT. COLLINS, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for LIND PROPERTY PDP - TYPE I (LUC) AND FINAL
COMPLIANCE #39-94B/C, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Bob Barkeen
Topic: Site
Number: 250 Created: 6/9/2003
The applicant and mineral extraction company have agreed on a future locatioq for an oil well. The location of this well
is not included within this phase of the project, rather within phase II of the project, next to the designated neighborhood
center. This future center will serve the overall Lind development. It is very likely the well location will prohibit the
development of the neighborhood center, making the Lind project out of compliance with the LMN zone district
development standards. The second phase of the Lind PDP will need to include a minor amendment to the Lind ODP,
showing the relocation of this neighborhood center, most likely northwest of the intersection of Bar Harbor and
Brightwater Drives. I
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Details
Number: 59 Created: 11 /12/2002
Update all'the old details to the new. Provide these details and any other as required by the design:
16-2
710
1606
701
711
1607
702
713.1 F
1609L if required by Transportation Planning or -
703
713.21F
1611
706
803
1612
707
1601
1613
708
1602
1413
709
1603
3/11/3: Repeat comment. Still missing 711, 713.11F, 713.21F, 1607, 1612, 1613, 1413, 7-26 and CDOT m-609-1 curb
and gutter type 2. Also, remove 1604 - it's not correct.
Provide the Greeley standard for stamped concrete at access ramps (until the LCUASS detail is updated) and the
CDOT standard for truncated dome access ramps for design and construction. See attached.
5/30/3: Please provide detail 1607 and remove the duplicate 16-2.
RESPONSE: We have provided 1607 and removed the duplicate of 16-2.
Topic: Easements
Number: 46 Created: 11 /12/2002
The plat needs to include the detention pond or provide all offsite easements (off -site grading and construction) that
occur outside the platted boundary. Off -site grading and construction easements are required for any work occurring
on neighboring properties. The plans currently show off -site construction occurring on all sides.
3/11/3: Repeat comment. There is off -site grading and construction occurring outside of the platted boundary. Please
extend the platted boundary limits or provide all necessary off -site easements.
5/30/3: Repeat comment.
Page 1.
to
SEAR BROWN
June 26, 2003
Susan Joy
281 N. College
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Lind Property, Phase I FCP
Dear Susan,
Please find attached the response to comments.
ARCHrrF=u RE 209 South Meldrum
ENGINEERING Fort Collins, CO 80521
PLANNING 970.482.5922 phone
'CONSTRUCTION 970.482.6368 fax
www.searbrown.com
The largest fundemental change regards County Road 52. Please, note that we have stopped the
construction of County Road 52 at the Section Line and have provided a transition by striping the road
section to the west rather that extending the transition to the east over the No. 8 Ditch. The transition to
the west does meet LUCASS Standards therefore a variance is not being requested for this.
I believe we should be in good shape with the reply to your comments. Any Questions please call.
Sincerely,
SEA -BROWN
/Jimllen-Morley
Attachment
CC: Yvonne Seaman Centex Homes
Terrance Hoaglund Vignette Studios
1