Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES - FDP - FDP120010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview August 06, 2012 Cathy Mathis The Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80513 RE: Legacy Senior Residences, FDP120010, Round Number 1 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, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or lex@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Based on a review of the renderings, staff has the following architecture-related comments: 1. With the cement lap siding on the fourth floor, can this be made a darker color, e.g., a desert tan or darker to blend in better with the Poudre River? (Section 3.4.1(I)(1) RWE Response: Color samples will be provided. 2. Materials - staff would like to see the brick material used on the first three floors. The belly bands could then be made of a rowlock course of the same brick material two levels deep to add more continuinity to the building. These materials would meet Section 4.17(D)(3)(e) and 4.17(D)(4)(b). RWE Response: As discussed, the siding will remain. 3. Lintels - if brick were used on the first three floors, then the lintels on the project could be simplified. For example, the lintels on the 3rd floor could use the same stone as on the first two floors. The lintels on the second floor also do not need to "dip down"; in other words, a straight horizontal lintel above the second floor windows would simplify the project's architecture. RWE Response: The lintels have been modified and are reflected on the revised elevation sheets. 4. Is there a way to align the windows on the fourth floor with the windows on the first three floors? RWE Response: As discussed, this is not possible. 05/16/2012: Prior to Hearing: Please provide renderings prior to hearing illustrating the buildings, including the materials and their colors. The images provided for the Building Height Review may be sufficient for this requirement. Note that building colors and materials should reflect both the historic neighborhood characteristics and the Poudre River, as per the PDR comments. Department: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: We've discussed the use of brown or another muted color for the roof to help meet Section 3.4.1(I)(1) of the Land Use Code. Another option is a rusted, patina roof. Please submit revised elevations to reflect that. RWE Response: Color samples will be provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Is there a way to make the roof flat instead of pitched the way it is? All staff departments agree this would be in keeping with the Historic District and the Poudre River more than the current roof design. RWE Response: As discussed, this would be cost prohibitive Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Depending on the outcome of the discussion on color and pitch of the roof, is there adapt the arcade to match these features e.g., changing the color, etc.? RWE Response: The arcade roof will be the same color and pitch of the building roof. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Did not see the note below on the landscape plan or the grading plan (sheet C400). Can the NHBZ be extended into the detention area? Additional screening on the northeast side of the detention pond is required, either in the form of trees (preferred) or shrubs. Consider removing the thinleaf alder trees and placing hackberry or boxelder in this area. Make sure there is a 10' clearance between the outlet and the trees. NE Response: The NHBZ has been revised to encompass the proposed detention pond and is shown on grading plan sheet C400. TBG Response: The NHBZ has been revised to encompass the proposed detention pond and is shown on both the site and landscape plan. The Thinleaf Alder trees have been changed to Hackberry trees. 05/14/2012: Please also label the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site, landscape, and utility plans. Add the following note to the site, landscape and utility plans, "Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." Finally, please call out the NHBZ in the Gross Acreage calculations as a separate area. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: The site plan shows two bike racks, but only one is noted in the table. Can you please update the table with the most accurate count of bike spaces? TBG Response: There will be one bike rack containing space for 6 bikes. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: There should be a note on the landscape plan about the honey locust trees on the SW corner of the parcel. I believe they were to be removed due to health and safety concerns. Please confirm with the City Forester. TBG Response: A note has been added to the landscape plan regarding the removal of these two trees. It should be noted that the trees need to be removed because of the re-grading of the site and the alley improvements. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 05/14/2012: While only two ADA spaces are required (Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)), are the applicants sure that is sufficient for the proposed use? TBG Response: We have confirmed that the two spaces are sufficient. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Please note Zoning's comments regarding the trash enclosure and the lighting plan. TBG Response: So noted. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/23/2012 07/23/2012: Sheet C200 - Please provide curve and line tables as indicated on "reserved for line and curve tables at final submittal" implies. NE Response: Line and Curve Tables have been provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/23/2012 07/23/2012: Sheet C100 - Provide note of hatching on existing asphalt denoting that it is to be removed on demolition plan. NE Response: As discussed with Andrew, Poudre Street (alley) is currently a gravel surface and therefore has no asphalt to be removed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/23/2012 07/23/2012: Sheet C100 - Note 10. Does this note imply that the utility needs to be protected only during construction or for ultimate condition. Bollards may need to be added to the details for ultimate protection. NE Response: As discussed with Andrew this note is only intended for the construction phase and permanent bollards will not be installed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/23/2012 07/23/2012: Sheet C200 - Vertical curb is an option for the alley cross section if you would prefer to use it instead of rollover. NE Response: Noted, for design reasons we will stay with rollover curb/gutter. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet C200 - The west alley approach should have truncated domes on each side of the sidewalk. NE Response: Truncated domes have been added to drawings. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet C300 - Add something similar to "and shall meet all city standards" on note 17. NE Response: Note #17 was revised to include “and shall meet or exceed all city standards”. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Prior to signing mylars we will need the adjacent property agreements or temporary grading easements recorded with this project to ensure this project has these agreements recorded if ownership of adjacent properties changes prior to construction. NE Response: Adjacent property owners “Agreement Letters” were hand delivered to Andrew from Cathy Mathis with The Birdsall Group. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet C400 - Provide a wall detail for the block wall at the southeast corner of the east alley approach. NE Response: A note has been added to “Grading Detail B” on sheet C400 to “see approved landscape plans” for detail. Detail will be shown on landscape plans provided by The Birdsall Group. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet C400 - Let's discuss further some options to "smooth" out the cross slope grades on the west end of the alley. I would like to eliminate such a high-low-high feeling while driving if possible. NE Response: Cross slopes and longitudinal slopes were revised per conversations with Andrew. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet C400 - Please provide additional detail for the cross pan on the west alley approach. Detail can be included on this sheet and similar to detail 707 of LCUASS, most importantly we need to ensure sidewalk portion is graded with 2% cross slope. NE Response: Additional spot elevations have been added to drainage cross pan and drawings have been revised accordingly for clarification as discussed with Andrew. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: C500 - Please correct scale on this sheet and increase text height on "CL of proposed drive" callout. NE Response: Bar scale was corrected and “CL” text height was increased. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet C500 - Please provide slopes on the alley in the area of the proposed driveway. NE Response: As discussed with Andrew, slope arrows were not added to the profile of the alley at the proposed driveway. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet C702 - The metal culvert detail is out of date, please update. NE Response: As discussed with Andrew, the detail is the most current for a metal culvert for drive-over curb/gutter. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/23/2012 07/23/2012: Please include an easement for the transfort bus pad on the plat and site plan. NE Response: An easement has been added to the construction drawings and plat for the transfort bus pad. Topic: Fees Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/23/2012 07/23/2012: Erika Keeton 970-221-6521 - Triple street cut fees will apply on Linden Street as it was paved in 2011 if utility cuts are made in Linden. NE Response: Noted. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Need a revised ECS to evaluate this comment. TBG Response: A revised ECS was submitted. 05/14/2012: ECS - Conflict with the ECS, which suggests not regrading the entire site, with the site's grades, this is prohibitive, but the ECS should be updated to reflect the current proposal. For example, what management strategies are suggested to address the proposed conversion of the site from a non native grass dominated area to a native grass/shrub/cottonwood landscape? In addition, as the stormwater detention area is within the NHBZ, please have the ECS address this as well. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: the trees along the Poudre River shall be surveyed prior to any construction to “confirm the presence or absence of raptor nesting activity.” Note that if an active nest is discovered, the buffer zone setbacks in Section 3.4.1 apply. TBG Response: So noted. We are assuming this task can be performed by Cedar Creek? Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 Previous concerns regarding architectural compatibility with the adjacent Old Town Historic District have been largely addressed with incorporating red brick, decorative lintels, and arch details. However, incorporation of Current Planning's comments regarding architectural details will be a further nod to the historic character of Old Town: "1. With the cement lap siding on the fourth floor, can this be made a darker color, e.g., a desert tan or darker to blend in better with the Poudre River? (Section 3.4.1(I)(1) 2. Materials - staff would like to see the brick material used on the first three floors. The belly bands could then be made of a rowlock course of the same brick material two levels deep to add more continuinity to the building. These materials would meet Section 4.17(D)(3)(e) and 4.17(D)(4)(b). 3. Lintels - if brick were used on the first three floors, then the lintels on the project could be simplified. For example, the linents on the 3rd floor could use the same stone as on the first two floors. The lintels on the second floor also do not need to "dip down"; in other words, a straight horizontal lintel above the second floor windows would simplify the project's architecture. 4. Is there a way to align the windows on the fourth floor with the windows on the first three floors? RWE Response: Please see responses above. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 Concerns regarding height and massing compatibility of a four-story building adjacent to single family homes that have been determined eligible for the national, state, and local registers of historic properties, the applicant is addressing these concerns by placing restrictions on the parcels of land fronting Linden Street, to act as somewhat of a buffer and help in maintaining both the streetscape and historic character of Linden Street. These parcels will be restricted to ensure that they are one to two stories, and developed in character with the adjacent historic buildings in size, scale, materials, and design, to be determined by staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission. The restriction will be approved by the City's Historic Preservation Planner and City Attorney's Office and will be documented on the plat prior to recording. Staff will arrange a meeting with applicant to find best way to record this on the plat. RWE Response: We are working with staff to determine the language to be placed on the plat. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/16/2012 07/16/2012: No comments. NE Response: Noted. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: John J. Little, , Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/24/2012 07/24/2012: Poudre R1 has no comments. NE Response: Noted. Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Comcast - Don Kapperman: Comcast would like to see an eight foot easement on the northwest side of Linden and on the east/south side of Pine Street. Poudre Street site plan needs to show 8' easement on property. Any questions, please call me at 970.567.0245. I will need to review the plat, site, and landscape plans in the future. NE Response: A 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement has been provided along the west side of Linden Street as discussed with Don. An 8-foot wide utility easement is already shown along the north side of Poudre Street. No utility easement will be required along the east side of Pine Street. Contact: Lindsay Kuntz, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/17/2012 07/17/2012: I couldn't find any reference to the full boundary of the landscaping/drainage easement area on the plat between the trail and the development site - please add this boundary. Please contact Lindsay Kuntz at 221-6275 if you have any questions. NE Response: Plat has been revised accordingly. Contact: Russ Hovland, , Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/24/2012 07/24/2012: From Russ Hovland: 1. Building code requires a 1-hr building if constructed with wood. 2. Fire-sprinkler required. 3. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire sprinkler. 4. State statute CRS9-5 requires project provide accessible units per that code. 5. New Green Code requires: a. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 minutes if building located within 1000' of the train tracks. b. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. c. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixutres (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural drat gas appliances. e. Low VOC interior finishes. RWE Response: So noted. Questions contact Russ at 416-2341. Contact: Todd Reidenbach, , Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/24/2012 07/24/2012: GIS has no comments. NE Response: Noted. Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/24/2012 07/24/2012: No comments. TBG Response: Noted. Department: PFA Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: 08/29/2011: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Poudre Fire Authority charges a fee for submitted development review plans. Cost for this review is $250. For more information, contact Hayley Spurrier at hspurrier@poudre-fire.org. TBG Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: 05/18/2012: 08/29/2011: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be installed in the following locations: 1. New buildings greater than 50,000 SF in size or addition(s) to an existing building that cause the building to be greater than 50,000 SF. For the purpose of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. 2. All new basements greater than 10,000 SF where the designed occupant load is greater than 50, regardless of the occupancy classification. 3. Existing buildings meeting the criteria of Items 1 and 2 of this section undergoing alterations exceeding 50 percent of the aggregate area of the building. Public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by Poudre Fire Authority. PFA Fire Prevention Bureau Administrative Policy 07-01 RWE Response: We are providing this. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 08/06/2012: 05/18/2012: Addressing: The customer wishes to have the building addressed off of Linden. This will only be honored if all fire department panels and services can be provided in a room for fire dept use only, or the lobby. There must be a paved walk from the dedicated fire lane to said room or lobby. RWE Response: So noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 05/18/2012: A full 13 fire sprinkler system is required to offset the lack of emergency access to the rear of the building. RWE Response: So noted. We acknowledge that we have to do the full 13 system. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 05/18/2012: Please do not lose sight of the associated Fire Pump requirement that accompanies the Standpipe System. RWE Response: We will provide a fire pump. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 05/18/2012: A remote fire dept connection is not necessarily required, but can be provided if already planned. RWE Response: So noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/06/2012 05/18/2012: Because the fire lane is contiguous from Linden to Poudre St (alley), Poudre Street shall be improved to be a hard deck which is designed to support 40 ton. NE Response: Poudre Street will be paved with an asphalt pavement section. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: There needs to be some sort of sediment protection for the outlet structure on the WQ basin until the site has been stabilized. WQ basins are not designed to take sediment loads from a constructions site. If there is the plan to use the basin as a sediment basin before it has changed over to a WQ basin, a description of that process should be discussed in the report and a detail of a sediment basin should be fallowed. A rock pile and/ or wattles are decent choices, but there needs to be some description of the protection. NE Response: A sediment trap has been added as shown on sheet C600. Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: 1. Drainage Report – please see edits on P. 3 and 4. 2. Drainage Report – P.6 - – Discuss the floodplain issue for the outfall pipe and the rundown and that a floodplain 3. Drainage Report P. 9 – Section V. A. 3 – Please clarify that the outfall rundown is in the floodplain and floodway. 4. Plan Sheet C400 and C 600 – Please see revisions to floodplain notes. The outfall rundown is what is in the floodway. The survey tolerance is rounding to 0.00. 5. Storm Sewer Rundown evaluation – Please add revised floodplain notes from Plan Sheet C400. NE Response: Drainage report was revised accordingly. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Please add a drainage easement through the property to provide a possible future outfall for the property to the south. Easement needs to be 20 feet wide and not in conflict with the site layout. NE Response: A 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement has been provided along the west side of Linden Street. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Storm Sewer Rundown comments: 1. Provide calculations in English units. Flywater Response: Calculations will be provided in English units. 2. Design the riprap rundown for culvert outlet flows per the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. There is no reference provided for the current riprap design procedure. Flywater Response: Riprap sizing was re-calculated using the procedure outlined in the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This procedure was appropriated from the UDFC methods. See provided rundown calculations. 3. Provide documentation using standard accepted riprap design procedures that the riprap is designed to withstand the forces of the 100-year event in the Cache la Poudre River. Flywater Response: Existing riprap on-site appears to be D50=1.5’, this is being supplemented with new riprap having D50= 1.5’. It is assumed that the existing riprap, which was installed with the Linden Street Bridge is adequate to withstand the 100-yr event. Since the additional riprap will be of equal size or larger than the existing, it is assumed that this will withstand the 100-yr event as well. Notes have been added to the plan set to this effect. 4. Correct several spelling errors on Sheet 1 of 2. Flywater Response: Spelling errors have been corrected. 5. Ensure that the color of the new riprap blends seamlessly with the color of the existing riprap. Flywater Response: A note has been added to the drawings specifying that riprap color should match existing material. 6. It is unclear whether or not the existing riprap is being re-used. Please specify if the existing riprap is being re-used or replaced. Flywater Response: Using City of Fort Collins/UDFCD methodology the recommended riprap size is D50=1.5’. The majority of the existing riprap appears to be D50=1.5’. Therefore, the intent is to reuse the existing riprap as well as provide new riprap in order to obtain the proper depth. 7. Section A-A on Sheet 2 shows a 4-foot top width dimension. What does this dimension reference? Flywater Response: The 4-foot dimension indicates the width of the flared end section. The overall width of the riprap rundown will extend 2-feet on either side of the end section, bringing the total width of the riprap area to 8-feet. Notes have been added to the plans for clarification. 8. Section A-A on Sheet 2 shows removing existing geo-fabric and replacing existing geo-fabric 1.5-feet below existing grade. Please revise the lower callout to specify new, not existing geo fabric. Flywater Response: Note has been revised to specify “new” geotextile. 9. Provide calculations and specifications on the new geo fabric. Flywater Response: Notes and specifications have been added to the plans calling for Drainage Class A or equivalent geotextile as specified in CDOT Construction Specifications. See provided rundown calculations. 10. Provide a detail for the proposed cut off wall. Design the cutoff wall per the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Flywater Response: A detail for the concrete cutoff wall has been added to the drawings. Depth of the cutoff wall was designed per City of Fort Collins (UDFCD) drainage criteria. See provided rundown calculations. 11. Show existing trees on the plan in relation to the proposed riprap mat area. Flywater Response: Existing trees have been included on the drawings. 12. Explain the grid pattern on the plan in the riprap replacement area. Flywater Response: Longitudinal lines on the plan view of the riprap area indicate the approximate centerline, edges of flared end section (dashed), and extents of riprap to be placed. Notes have been added to the drawings for clarification. 13. Provide notes and/or details on how the transitions will occur between the existing and proposed riprap areas and the overlaps of the geo fabrics. Flywater Response: Notes and standard details have been added showing overlapping of geotextile and riprap interface. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Riprap pads need temporary stabilization. Please include and add notes where needed. NE Response: As discussed with Wes Lamarque, riprap pads are not intended to be buried. Detail 5 on sheet C705 has been revised. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: The water quality volume calculation did not include the 1.2 factor for sedimentation. Please factor in and revise design. NE Response: The water quality volume has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Finalization of the off-site drainage easements is required before signing of mylars. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: A 5 year warranty period will be required for the proposed drainage outfall to ensure the riprap rundown functions per the design. Add notes to the site and grading plans. NE Response: As previously discussed the 5 year warranty was being requested if the existing riprap rundown was going to be used with no improvements. Now that the existing rundown is being replaced and improved the 5 year warranty is no longer valid. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/17/2012 07/17/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet A2.2. RWE Response: Fixed. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/17/2012 07/17/2012: No comments. NE Response: Noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/17/2012 07/17/2012: There is one line over text issue on sheet LS 2. TBG Response: Fixed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/17/2012 07/17/2012: The Plat boundary & legal description close. NE Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/17/2012 07/17/2012: Please add name & title to the lienholder signature block. NE Response: The sale of the property is pending and therefore the property ownership/lien holder has not been determined. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/17/2012 07/17/2012: There is one line over text issue on sheet LS 1. TBG Response: Fixed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 07/25/2012: Sheet 200 shows a Preformed plastic stop bar on the exit lane at the alley access. City will not install it nor maintain it, so if desired it should be understood it will be the developments responsibility. NE Response: Noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 07/25/2012: Continue previous comment but now only one tree to move, a Linden Greenspire. TBG Response: The Linden has been moved to the north as requested. 05/19/2012: Please locate both Honey Locust trees at the alley access 3-4 feet further north than shown on sheet LS2. Reviewing the sight triangle here provides the possibility that the trunk could be in the line of sight of someone attempting to pull out into the alley. Granted its just one tree trunk but I would like to give cyclists and the senior residents as much unobstructed visibility of each other in that area as possible. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/24/2012 07/24/2012: As discussed prior to hearing, a bus stop has been located just north of the driveway proposed with this project. To meet Transfort's ADA requirements for a new bus stop we need to be able to pull a bus up to the curb for the ramp to meet slope maximums, this means the 3 parking spaces will need to be removed on Linden. The alternative would be to move the stop to the north end of the site and the bus would stop on the bridge, which is not our preferred option. If that is your preference we will need to discuss where exactly the stop can go to make this work. TBG Response: We believe this issue has been resolved by staff and the parking spaces can go away. An easement has been added to the construction drawings and plat for the Transfort bus pad. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/24/2012 07/24/2012: Please include a transit easement on the plat where ever the bus stop pad is not in the ROW. NE Response: Plat has been revised to show transit easement. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/24/2012 07/24/2012: No comments. NE Response: Noted. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Revise note on the connection point for the 3" water service as marked-up on the redlined plans. NE Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: At locations where the storm drains are passing over the water main, all storm drain joints within 10 feet of the water main must be encased in concrete or wrapped with EZ-Wrap. NE Response: Drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: See redlined plans for other comments. NE Response: Noted. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/16/2012 07/16/2012: Sheet A8.2 has details for a monument sign since no signs nor their locations are approved through the PDP/FDP review process this needs to be removed. Signs and their locations are approved through a separate sign permit. TBG Response: Sheet A8.2 has been revised to remove the monument sign. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/16/2012 07/16/2012: Sheet A8.2 Has the details of the trash/recycling enclosure though the site plan does indicate the the pedestrian access the details on this sheet do not. Please adjust these details to match the pedestrian access on that is identified on the site plan. Also at six feet in height and over the trash/recycling and utility screening will need separate building permits. RWE Response: Sheet A8.2 has been revised to show an opening for pedestrian access. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/16/2012 07/16/2012: I did not see the lighting plan included in the FDP, this needs to be included. RWE Response: We are providing a revised lighting plan with the resubmittal. The revised plan also reflects the revised NHBZ which now encompasses the proposed detention pond Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: If a modification was received a note on the plans needs to reference the approved modifications. RWE Response: A note regarding the Modifications has been added to the site plan.