Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLDS TEMPLE - PDP - PDP120029 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONS (5)Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview Response to City Comments RE: Original City Staff Comments for the LDS Temple, PDP120029, Including Temple Design Team Response to City Comments The following is the LDS Temple Design Team/Applicant response to of City comments made by staff and outside reviewing agencies related to the November 7, 2012 LDS Temple submittal. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: It would appear as though to the top of the "painted fiberglass statute" is about 112 feet. That seems quite high given the context of the surrounding neighborhoods as it relates to compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Section 3.5.1(G)(4) speaks to compatibility and neighborhood scale in this manner. It may be difficult for staff to find compliance with Section 3.5.1 as proposed as it appears out of scale with the neighborhood and community. At the next round of review, Staff suggest providing exhibits comparing the height of the proposed structure with other tall structures in the community (the Key Bank building, for example). Response: The height of the temple’s steeple is a direct derivative of the buildings’ proportions which are sympathetic to the Romanesque design of many prominent and historic buildings in the area. It has a robust proportioning appropriate to that of Romanesque buildings. In comparison to other religious facilities, including most other Latter-day Saint temples, the height to width ratio of this steeple is minimal, which means that the height was kept to a relative minimum in comparison to what was felt to be an appropriate width . This ratio very nearly approaches that of the golden mean. The proportions begin with the relationship to the building below. The base of the steeple is a tool which visually transfers vertical loads from the tower into the supporting structure of the lower building. The visual transfer of a structure’s gravity loads is essential in classical design. The base makes a physical connection to the building below then tapers back to the pedestal of the steeple. The main mass of the steeple pick up on vertical lines from the building below setting the mark for its overall width. The steeple terminates in a steeply sloped eight sided gabled roof, also a characteristic of Romanesque buildings, and is capped by a statue which is essential to the buildings religious purposes. Emphasis was placed in the design process to view the steeple from actual human perspective and to think beyond that which can potentially be misleading in two-dimensional elevations. Sensitivity was paid to ensure that elements viewed in elevation would actually be observed in human perspective and not be obscured when experienced in built form. Elements were scaled to the human perspective but not to exceed that which was necessary to perform its visual role. Particular attention was paid to the height of the base of the steeple. With the tower’s deep setback from the sides of the building, this element which is critical to the visual support of the steeple would all but disappear behind the parapet walls if it did not extend to a critical height. Once the base extended to a height appropriate for a visual connection it was capped. The steeple was viewed often in the design process from street perspectives to determine the minimal acceptable mass that would be appropriate to a building mass. Beyond aesthetic appropriateness, the interior volume of the steeple plays a critical role in housing the mechanical conditioning systems of the building. A vertical air handler fills the interior space of this structure. Any reduction to the size of the tower could potentially require additional building floor area to relocate this unit. It should be noted that the mass of the steeple is significantly minimized above the ridge of the sidewall gables at 87’. Beyond this point the roof tapers down to a single point and is capped by a statue with minimal mass. All efforts have been made to present a design that is architecturally tasteful, respectful to existing and future neighbors, and that is accommodating to its religious purposes. Please refer to Sheet A.8 for perspectives from critical viewing points surrounding the LDS Temple site. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: I do not see the trash enclosures on the elevations. Please include and note materials and the trash enclosure should be on a concrete pad. This can be done at time of final plan submittal. Response: Full elevations and construction details, including construction materials, will be included in the final plan submittal. A full Architectural Materials Board will be prepared for all the proposed structures on Lot 1 Block 1 and submitted to the City for review prior to the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. . Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012 11/14/2012: Please provide bike rack detail on elevations. Bicycle parking should allow the bicycle frame and both wheels to be securely locked to the parking structure. The structure shall be of permanent construction such as heavy gauge tubular steel with angle bars permanently attached to the pavement foundation. Fixed bicycle parking facilities shall be at least 2 feet in width and 5 1/2 feet in length, with additional back-out or maneuvering space of at least 5 feet. This can be submitted at time of Final Plan. Response: The bike parking area on the site plan has been enlarged to provide 2’ of space, side to side, for each bike, and this revision is included with the preliminary submittal. Bike rack details/elevations will be provided with the final plan submittal. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: The build-to line modification request is not necessary due to exceptions to the build-to line standards contained in Section 3.5.3(B)(3)(d). The formal garden/plaza area between Timberline Road serves as an outdoor space in this respect and meets the exception criteria. Response: It is understood that a Modification of Standard is not required for the build-to- line. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: Lowering the 6 foot wrought iron fence could assist and reinforce meeting the build-to line exception standard in Section 3.5.3(B)(3)(d). Woodward Governor has a similar 4 foot wrought iron security fence that meets security needs at the lower height. This lower height would provide a better connection between the building and the street. Response: A request to allow for the 6 foot high ornamental fence in the ”Front Yard” of the Temple is included in this resubmittal based on a unique security need. The request is for the “Front Yard” portion of the Temple security fence in order to allow the fence to be 6 foot high between the east face of the Temple and the Majestic Drive ROW. This request to deviate from the standard 4 foot allowed height is made based upon the unique security concerns of the LDS Church and is based on the recommendations and analysis made by the Church’s Security Team. The intent is to build a 6 foot high ornamental metal fence around the entire perimeter of the Temple as shown on the site plan, SP.2 in order to insure a level of security needed by the Church. The 6 foot high metal fence has been redesigned so as to be more transparent as viewed from the public ROW. A letter assessing the security issues for the Temple are outlined in an attachment from the Church’s Security Assessment Team. Response: The placement of the fence has been pulled back from the edge of sidewalk towards the building and planted with shrubs on both the front and back side of the fence to minimize the feel of a heavy metal fence. The elevation along both public streets drop down from the sidewalk and then build up to a similar height as it approaches the building. This puts the fence starting at a lower elevation than the sidewalk thus minimizing the feel that the fence is towering above the pedestrians. The design of the fence has been revised from the original submittal and is a very simple and transparent picket fence to fit in with the aesthetics of the building and does not create a visual barrier. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012 11/20/2012: On sheet LS1, (hydrozone) there is approximately a 50,000 square foot area along Trilby that is included as very low water usage that is not part of the project boundary. Please subtract this from the 92,803 square feet identified as very low water use on the water budget chart and recalculate the totals/annual water usage. This can be updated at time of Final Plan. Response: The area along Trilby Road has been removed from the calculations and the Hydrozone Plan. All calculations have been updated accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: There is a 160 foot street tree gap along Timberline Road and 145 foot street tree gap along Majestic. The Land Use Code states in Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) that, "wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees shall be planted at 30 foot to 40 foot spacing in the center of all such parkway areas. Such street trees shall be placed at least 8 feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys, and 40 feet away from any streetlight and to the extent reasonably feasible, be positioned at evenly spaced intervals." Canopy trees should be added in these areas to fill in the gaps. This will need to be updated prior to going to Planning and Zoning Board. Response: The referenced gaps in the street tree plantings have been filled in with canopy trees, and all tree plantings coordinated with the appropriate spacing from city street lights, traffic signals, intersections, and driveways. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: The intersection of Trilby and Timberline is signalized and the canopy trees need to be spaced 40 feet from the streetlight per LUC Section 3.2.1(K). At the non-signalized intersections of Majestic and Trilby, there should be 20 foot on center spacing. Please update prior to Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Response: Street tree locations have been adjusted in accordance with the guidelines above. Trees at non-signalized intersections have been moved back from stop signs in addition to the 20’ o.c. from the intersection. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: The interior of the parking lot features landscape islands with ornamental trees as opposed to canopy trees. The intent of the standard was to provide comfort and visual relief. While a case could be made that the generous ornamental plantings are in essence equal to compliance with the standard, a formal modification request should be made. As a friendly suggestion, modification requests should be submitted in the following format: 1. Standard at Issue: state the code section (text citation) you are requesting the modification for. 2. Describe your modification request. 3. State a justification for the modification request based on the criteria outlined in Section 2.8.2 of the LUC and then go into the reasoning behind that selected criteria. We would need this prior to hearing. Response: A request for a Modification of Standard has been submitted along with this resubmittal for consideration by City staff related to this LUC requirement. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: Please note the visual clearance standard in 3.2.1(D)(5)(a) as it relates to driver sight dstance at driveway intersections with Majestic. Response: Plantings have been adjusted to provide a visual clear zone at driveways to Majestic Drive per Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(a), and a general note has been added to the plans requiring the contractor to maintain this clearance. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: There is a bit of confusion with the plant species list (numbers) and what is shown on the landscape plans. Please correct this upon resubmittal. Response: Only tree quantities have been included for the preliminary submittal, and these quantities have been checked to confirm that they accurately reflect what is shown on the plan. The final plans shall also include the total quantity of Shrubs to be provided throughout the entire site area. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/30/2012 11/30/2012: Irrigation plans must be submitted at time of final plan/building permit submittal. Please see LUC 3.2.2(J)(3) for details on how to ensure you comply with the irrigation plan requirements. Response: Outlots A & B will be fully irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. An irrigation plan will be included with the final submittal. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please provide a lighting detail sheet for the proposed illumination of Angel Moroni in addition to your 3.2.4 alternative compliance submittal. The intent of this Section is to prohibit uplighting and to prevent an adverse effect on adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhoods. While uplighting is prohibited, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code allows for alternative compliance. By providing additional lighting detail, the extent to which the proposed lighting of the steeple/Angel Moroni and the affects of the lighting will be evaluated while considering the light source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need for illumination in relation to the potential negative impacts of the lighting on adjacent property owners and/or the neighborhood. Staff has compared the proposed uplighting with that of a City of Fort Collins Street Light and suggests that the proposed uplighting be reduced so that the illumination levels are generally equivalent. As currently proposed, the watts (26 x 4) is 104 where as one City street light is only 70 Watts. The lumens proposed are 8000 (2000 x 4) where as a City street light is 6300. The Kelvins of the proposed lamp are 3000 and a City Street light is closer to 2500. In terms of reflectivity, asphalt is not reflective at all where as the gold painted Angel Moroni is highly reflective. In so much, suggests a lower watt, and possibly a high-pressure sodium lamp due to its warm appearance when looking to meet alternative compliance. On the lighting plan update, please call out which fixture and the quantity will be used to light the Angel Moroni. This issue should be addressed prior to scheduling the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Response: In order to address the concerns of the City as it relates to the lighting of the Temple Steeple a steeple lighting analysis has been prepared. City staff has referenced the proposed lighting compared to a City street light. There are a few differences that should be noted when comparing a single point source street light with accent lighting. The experience differs in the following ways: 1.GLARE - A Street light offers very limited glare protection. a.Street lights are highly visible single point sources by nature. If a viewer is within view of the light, glare produced by the light source will be visible. b.In the case of the proposed lights, it is intended that a viewer will see the effects of the light on the object, but the light sources themselves will be hidden from view, therefore producing very little, to no glare. 2.WATTAGE and LUMEN VALUE - City staff has referenced the proposed lighting compared to a 70 Watt High Pressure Sodium City street light with 6,300 lumens. a.The proposed lighting design uses (4) 26 watts lamps for a total of 104 watts and has (4) 2,000 lumens for a total of 8,000 lumens. It should be noted that only two uplights lighting Angel Moroni will be visible from any angle because of the 360 degree angle of light lighting the angel; therefore, there will be less visible light on Angel Moroni from any viewing angle than the street light produces as a translucent light source. b.While the above values hold true, the wattage and lumen values of the proposed sources is a mute point because of the issue of glare mentioned above. What really should be analyzed is the luminance (brightness) of both the street light and the proposed sources (see below). 3.LUMINANCE VALUES – City staff did not mention the luminance values, but these should be looked at because luminance relates directly to brightness and in turn, glare. a.Luminance value of a 70 Watt High Pressure Sodium City street light: 12,000 CD/m2 (Candelas per square meter). b.Luminance value of the proposed lights: 39.04 CD/m2. c.The street lights will be 738 times brighter than the lit Angel Moroni statue. This is because of what was described above in the GLARE section; a city street light is not being lit; it is an actual source of light, which produces a tremendous amount of glare. The Angel Moroni statue is a lit object, which will never be as bright as an actual light source. See the prepared study of the proposed lighting provided with this submittal for more information. 4.COLOR TEMPERATURE - The proposed lamps have a color temperature of 3000 Kelvin. Whereas City Street light is closer to 2500, or lower. a.3000 Kelvin was chosen to match the other lighting in association with the temple structure. To choose a different color temperature would cause an inconsistent look and feel to the different areas being illuminated. b.If the city is concerned with the temple lighting having an inconsistent color temperature with the city lights one possible option would be for the city to use the LED version of the chosen street light. This would also provide added value of environmental and economic payoff. 5. COLOR RENDERING INDEX (CRI) – The CRI of High pressure sodium lamps are significantly different to the proposed LED Lamps a.The high pressure sodium lamps being suggested have a CRI of 22. This means that they are very poor in rendering differences in color. High pressure sodium lamps have the worst CRI of all light sources available on the market today. b.Light sources with a CRI between 80-100 tend to be considered acceptable sources of quality light. The lights being proposed fit within this category. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Staff has determined that resubmittal and another formal round of review is necessary prior to going to Planning and Zoning Board. Response: A Steeple Lighting Analysis has been prepared with this resubmittal to allow for necessary reviews prior to going to Planning and Zoning Board. Our revisions include the above stated changes described in Comment Number 1 above. Department: Engineering Development Review Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: The street design plans did not provide an ultimate design of Timberline Road abutting the property (between Trilby Road and Rock Castle Lane) to ascertain how interim and ultimate improvements are intended and how these improvements align across intersections. Response: The demarcation of where interim and ultimate improvements begin and end has been more clearly added to each plan and profile sheet. Specifically, with respect to the portion of Timberline Road that is adjacent to the west boundary of the Temple property, interim and ultimate build-out is one and the same with one exception; the ultimate condition west tree lawn and sidewalk will not be constructed with this project. The ultimate west side of the parkway, from the back of curb to the right-of-way, will be constructed per LCUASS two lane arterial standard, if the City decides that the need arises in the future. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: The plan and profile sheets need to show indication that when tying into existing roadways that the flowline/centerline grades shown on the drawings match to existing centerline/flowline grades (such as on Sheet C17, extend existing profile grade to the west to indicate that the existing grade is 3.81%.)\ Response: The centerline profiles of all proposed streets have been shown extended to existing roadway centerlines and the proposed centerline grades have been labeled. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: Please ensure that signing and striping plan sheets do not split information across intersections, the plan sheets need to have the complete intersection shown for verification of alignment. \\ Response: The street improvement plan and profile sheets have been updated to show complete intersection design on one sheet, with matchlines at or beyond the outer point of tangency of curb returns. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: Please label the plan and profile sheets in terms of stating that the profile lines are centerline. \ Response: The centerline profiles have been labeled as such on the P & P sheets. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: 7.4.B.8 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requires offsite design along Timberline Road to be continued 1,000 feet from the property. Response: This comment has been addressed offline with Mr. Virata and in an email dated December 6, 2012, Mr. Virata expressed that he was satisfied with the information presented in order to go to hearing. More information will be shown during Final Design. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: The landscaped median within Majestic Drive will need to provide an underdrain system underneath the median to mitigate subsurface water from the median irrigation. It appears the proposed storm sewer crossing Majestic Drive can be utilized for this subdrain system. Response: A Majestic Drive median underdrain system has been added to the Overall Utility sheet. This underdrain will connect to the southwest storm drain system and will adhere to LCUASS standard detail 705a “Landscaping and Drain Details for Raised Medians”. Full design details will be included in the FDP submittal. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: The use of enhanced crosswalks mid-block across Majestic Drive won't be allowed and need to be removed. The use of enhanced crosswalks at the intersections of Timberline Road and Trilby Road are acceptable (though not required), along with the enhanced crosswalks that cross the private driveways. The enhanced crosswalks that cross the private driveways should ideally be built in a manner that has the back of crosswalk correspond to the right-of-way. Response: The enhanced mid-block crosswalks have been removed from Majestic Drive. The client would like to upgrade to the enhanced crosswalks at Majestic and Timberline and Majestic and Trilby. These remain on the plans. The Temple driveway crosswalks have been moved to align with the Right-of-Way. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: Majestic Drive's cross sectional width does not match the typical connector standard in Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) with wider sidewalk and parkways than the standard requires. Please be aware that the additional sidewalk width (from 4.5' feet 5') will not be reimbursable by the City as would a typical 5' sidewalk on City designated collector roadway. Response: It is noted that the choice of the owner is to keep the wider improvements and understood that the City’s standard reimbursements will apply as stated in the comment. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: LCUASS 16.6.4 requires that a street crossing of greater than 56 feet requires the construction of pedestrian refuge. This standard would require pedestrian refuge on Majestic Drive at the Timberline Road intersection as well as Timberline Road at both the Trilby Road and Majestic Drive intersections. In discussion with City transportation staff we've interpreted that the median in Majestic Drive accomplishes the intent of the requirement even though the median is not physically extended into the pedestrian crossing area. The lack of pedestrian refuge island(s) on Timberline Road at both Trilby Road and Majestic Drive is left as an unaddressed issue. City transportation staff can see the potential support for a variance for the lack of a pedestrian refuge island on Timberline at Trilby due to the signalized intersection allowing the timing of pedestrians to cross the intersection. For Timberline Road at Majestic Drive the unsignalized nature of the intersection leaves potential support of a variance request less clear. The present roadway design indicates that there is additional right-of-way behind the proposed sidewalk such that the excess right-of-way could be utilized to provide pedestrian refuge. The status on potential pedestrian refuge will need to be addressed prior to hearing. Response: It is noted that the Majestic median at Timberline meets the intent and is understood to remain as shown. We have submitted variance for both of the crossings mentioned as outstanding. Please refer to the variance requests submitted by Delich & Associates with this submittal. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: The southeast corner of Trilby Road and Timberline Road needs to be constructed with split directional ramps for designating the westbound and northbound crossing movements. A receiving ramp will also need to be added on the southwest corner of the Trilby/Timberline intersection to receive the crossing movement (the proposed signal pole on this corner may need to shift location as a result). Response: Directional ramps have been added to all said corners on Timberline at the south curb returns of Trilby. The light poles have also been moved to accommodate the ramps and continue to satisfy the vehicular movements. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: Please coordinate the title of the plans to be consistent. The site plan and civil construction plans share the same title, however the subdivision plat has a different title. Response: Site plan, Utility plan and the Plat now have coordinated titles. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: The plat indicates that a 15' ditch easement and 10' irrigation easement are to be vacated by the plat. Who are the owners of these easement interests that would be vacated? They would need to be signatories on the plat approving the vacations. \\ Response: The 15’ and 10’ irrigation easements are obsolete, as the stakeholders of those easements have already received a valid recorded replacement easement along the north east and east Lot 3 property lines that were recorded on the Leistikow M.R.D. Annexation Plat, which currently contains the only legitimate irrigation delivery system physically capable of serving those stakeholders. Thus, since the 15’ and 10’ obsolete easements were never dedicated to any particular party, and being non-exclusive or non-prescriptive right-of-way, they now serve no other stakeholder than the LDS Church and thus can be abandoned on the LDS Church Plat. See pertinent note added on Plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: The dedicating of landscape easements to the City isn't required and should be removed from the plat as their intent isn't understood. Response: Noted and no reference for a City landscape easement remains on Plat. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: Please change the "emergency vehicle access" dedication to "emergency access". Response: The word “vehicle” has been removed from all “emergency access” easement descriptions on Plat. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 11/19/2012: Why is the right-of-way dedication along Timberline providing for a 1' area of right-of-way behind the sidewalk instead of dedicating right-of-way to coincide with the back of walk? To the extent possible, we would prefer to see right-of-way coincide with the back of walk. Response: The Right-of-Way on the east side of Timberline that is adjacent to the LDS Temple site, is now located on the back of walk. The Right-of-Ways now shown on the Temple site all coincide with the back of sidewalk. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: An additional $47.50 is due for the TDRF PDP fees for this project. This can be paid at such time as Final fees are paid. Response: The additional $ 47.50 will be paid at time of Final Plan submittal.. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: A letter from the Army Corps of Engineers has been provided that indicates the site's wetlands are not jurisdictional (dated October 30, 2012). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: As per the ECS, the site has 17,775 sq ft (or 0.41 acres) of wetlands within the elevated lateral ditch. As these wetlands possess little ecological value, e.g., they are only 1-2' wide in most places, and are only associated with the elevated ditch, the applicants have proposed that the wetlands be mitigated on-site. The applicants have proposed wetland mitigation within two bioswale/water quality areas at the northeast and southwest corners of the site. Is there groundwater data to support the selection of these sites and so the planting can be better tailored to the different groundwater levels expected? Staff suggests installing piezometers to measure the groundwater in this area prior to finalizing the mitigation sites. In our discussion at staff review, it was indicated that the wetlands will largely be supported by stormwater runoff from the site and not by groundwater. Success criteria will need to be developed in the monitoring plan, see below, to address this. Response: Please see Addendum to ECS for information regarding this comment. When finalized, the areas proposed for mitigation should be labeled as "Natural Habitat Buffer Zones' in compliance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code (in some places, I've seen them labeled as Natural Area Mitigation Boundary, this should be changed to Natural Habitat Buffer Zone). These labels should be applied to the site, landscape and utility plans. Note that no lighting can spill over into these buffer zones. Response: Labels have been coordinated and updated to match this language. A mitigation and monitoring plan will be due at the time of final plans, if the PDP plans are approved. The monitoring plan shall include a plan for three years of post-construction monitoring, e.g., groundwater and plant success monitoring to achieve the success criteria that will be established at the time of the Development Agreement. Response: A mitigation & monitoring plan will be developed and submitted at time of Final Plan submittal. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: The landscaping proposed in the wetland mitigation areas do not reflect the recommendations from the Ecological Characterization Study. Please amend the species selected or provide a justification for why the species proposed are more suitable. Or is this just a mix-up in the symbols used on the detailed landscape pages? In addition, more trees and shrubs should be added to these areas for increased vertical diversity. Response: The hatches have been adjusted so that the wetland mitigation and detention basin plantings use different hatches from plants in the ornamental planting legend. Also, proposed tree and shrub plantings have been added to the wetland areas selected from the species in Table 6 of the Ecological Characterization Study. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: As per the ECS, the recommendations found on page 7 regarding the raptor nest to the west of Timberline shall be a condition of this project's approval. In addition, the Siberian elms on site shall be surveyed prior to construction for any raptor nests. Response: Please see Addendum to ECS for information regarding this comment. If a raptors nest is found during the pre-construction surveys, then a temporary Limits of Development shall be applied in accordance with Section 3.4.1(N)(5) of the Land Use Code. Response: It is understood that if a raptors nest is identified at the time of our pre-construction survey that temporary limits of construction shall be applied in accordance to the City’s LUC. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: As a heads-up, staff is proposing an amendment to the Land Use Code that would require mitigation of non-native trees, e.g., Siberian elms, if they are found to have habitat value. Though the ECS suggests these species do not have value, I have observed raptors perched on the trees and the trees certainly provide the only cover in this portion of the site. Thus, staff would strongly encourage mitigation of these trees in the project's overall tree mitigation plan. Adding the vertical diversity (trees and shrubs) into the wetland mitigation areas will achieve this. Response: The project team has agreed to add mitigation trees to the project planting plan in anticipation of the Land Use Code amendment mentioned. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: The grading on the southwest mitigation area should undulate more to reflect a more naturalistic mitigation area. The northeast mitigation area should do the same. Response: The grading of this area has been revised to be more naturalistic in addition the landscaping of this area has also been modified to reflect the changes in grading. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/30/2012 11/30/2012: In the updated ECS, please also reflect on how the lighting on the temple's tower could or could not affect the area's bird populations. Response: Please see Addendum to ECS for information regarding this comment. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add a list on LP9 listing numbers by species of upsized mitigation trees. On Sheet LP7 put an asterisk or foot note on species that are included for mitigation with an explanation at the bottom of the page that says in effect- see sheet LP9 for upsized mitigation tree numbers. Also on sheet LP9 identify what the abbreviations for Transplanted Trees is BS=Blue Spruce and SP= Scotch pine. Response: These notes and tables have been added to the referenced sheets. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add additional General notes: Place trees and include in a note the tree utility separations found in 3.2.1 K 1-5 plus that trees shall be placed at least 8 feet away from driveways and alleys. Forty feet between shade trees and City streetlights. Fifteen feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. Twenty feet between shad and /or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. Ten feet between trees and water or sewer mains. Six feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. Four feet between trees and gas lines. All plant material shall be to the most current AAN standard for Nursery stock number one grade. The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than 8 inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. All trees shrubs and perennials and lawn areas will be irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system. Tree pruning or removal shall be performed by a City of Fort Collins Licensed arborist as required by code. Response: These general notes have been added to the enlarged planting plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Echoing Current Plannings comment, please provide a continuous row of street trees along Trilby and Majestic. Response: As noted earlier, the street tree plantings have been filled in along Timberline and Majestic. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Some cold hardiness issues have been observed in Sterling Silver Linden in Fort collins by the Fort Collins Forestry Division. As a suggestion, Redmond Linden could be considered as a substitution that has done well in Fort Collins. Response: Sterling Silver Linden has been changed to Redmond Linden. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: What form of irrigation will be provided to trees planted in out lots A&B? Response: This will be addressed in the final submittal. . Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please include the existing tree analysis and matrix information as a landscape sheet or other method. This is currently referenced on the landscape sheets and the Statement of Planning Objectives to include location; species; size; condition; intent to remove; keep in place or transplant. Each tree is assigned a number. Response: The existing tree analysis and matrix has been re-sequenced to be included in the LS landscape series sheets. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please review tree placement and selection for site distance and stop sign clearance at entries and intersections. Staff will be providing the applicant some additional comments on this. Response: Tree locations have been adjusted at intersections to provide visual clearance. Trees at the entries into the site have been adjusted to provide clear sight lines to stop signs. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please provide a detail of transplanted trees to include such things as, guying, mulching and staking. Include notes about tree transplanting that addresses methods time of year, tree spade size, post planting irrigation. The City Forestry Division can provide some information on these items. Response: This will be addressed in the final submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Consider increasing the diversity of street trees used. These are some suggestions to consider: Along Trilby use three Chinkapin Oak in the middle of the row of Hackberry between the two sidewalk entries to the project. Response: Instead of adding three oak as suggested, we have added two--one on either side of the crossing ramp on Trilby to differentiate that connection. By way of information, the trees along Trilby have been changed to Accer x freemaniis ‘Jefersred’ for greater fall color at the request of the client. Along Majestic west of the west entrance to the parking lot consider using Chinkapin Oak in place of Honeylocust. This is the area between Timberline and the west entrance to the lot. Response: Chinkapin Oak has been added to the planting plan in the area indicated. Along Timberline just to the south of Majestic consider the use of Kentucky Coffee Tree. Response: Kentucky Coffee Tree is too messy with seed pods to plant along a walkway. Have chosen to keep the proposed oaks in place. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Consider using Fat Albert Blue Spruce at the corner beds in place of Black Hills Spruce. It has excellent color and form and has much better availability. Its uniform shape provides a nice formal effect. Response: Agree with the comments about form and availability. However, based on all the sources I have access to, Fat Albert Spruce tends to be a smaller tree than Black Hills, and will not meet the design intent in some areas where it is proposed. That said, Fat Albert has been introduced where it will not detract from the design intent in order to limit problems with availability. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please put a note by Bur Oak in the schedule on LP7 that says "Bullet Gall Resistant Trees" Response: This note has been added to the planting legend. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russ Hovland, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2012 11/14/2012: This A-3 Occupancy is too large for V-B wood non-rated construction. Fire Sprinklers are required. Please see attached letter for additional information. Response: Noted. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012 11/15/2012: A landscape plan showing existing and planned streetlights was sent to Landmark Engineering on 11-14-12. These lights need to be shown on the landscape plan, and tree locations adjusted to provide a minimum 40 feet of clearance between shade type trees and lights (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type). Response: The lighting plan has been incorporated into the plan set and the street tree locations adjusted to provide the required clearances. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012 11/15/2012: It is assumed that a fire booster pump will not be installed. If one will be installed, please contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700 to coordinate service and metering requirements. Response: A fire Booster pump is not required based on available water flows and pressures. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012 11/15/2012: By City Code, the residential house on the site will need to be metered and served separately. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012 11/15/2012: Light & Power Engineering will need a Commercial Service Information (C-1) form completed relative to the service to the temple building, and the name/address of who to invoice for the Light & Power electric development charges. There will be two invoices issued, each for 50% of the Light & Power charges. The 1st 50% will be payable before we can schedule installation of the Light & Power facilities. The 2nd 50% will be payable before the electric system can be energized. Once the plan is final, an AutoCad (version 2008) drawing of the utility/site plan will need to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012 11/15/2012: The electric transformer will need to be located within 10 feet of an all-weather surface that is accessible to a utility line truck, and it will need a minimum of 8 feet unobstructed clearance in front, and 3 feet on the other 3 sides. If the transformer will be screened (ex. fenced in), please contact Doug Martine in Light & Power Engineering at (970)224-6152 to coordinate specifics. Also, contact Doug with any questions. Response: The electrical transformer will be located within the mechanical enclosure shown on the site plan and is within 10’ of the parking lot in order to provide for access as may be needed. All required setback from the public ROW have been met. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012 11/15/2012: The utility plan shows electric utility facilities to be installed east of the sidewalk along Timberline Rd. The electric facilities will be placed between the curb and the sidewalk. The established utility installation sequence specifies that utilities will be installed from deepest to shallowest, with electric to be installed after curbs (excluding the radii), but before the sidewalks. Response: All of the proposed electrical lines are shown schematically between the back of curb and the sidewalk. Deeper utilities will be installed first. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width* & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. > Be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. > Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. *NOTE: For structures three stories or more in height; required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D Response: Main Fire Lane on south side of the Temple includes a 30’ Access Aisles and the Dropoff/Staging Area. This entire easement has been labeled as “Emergency Access Easement”. The requirement of 20’ minimum unobstruction and 14’ minimum overhead clearances have been met on both Emergency Access points. Each Fire lane proposed are flat, rigid asphalt driving surfaces, capable of bearing 40 tons distributed amongst all axles of the vehicle. These lanes are marked with signage and intended to remain clear of obstructions at all times. PFA / LDS Church maintenance agreements shall be included in the Development Agreement during FDP approval. Note: The 30’ cleared, unobstructed fire lane on this project is provided on the south side of the Temple and both the north side and south side fire lanes have been extensively coordinated with Jim Lynxwiler with PFA. The northern access provides for ladder trucks with a boom arrangement. Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: TURNING RADII The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. International Fire Code 503.2.4 and Local Amendments Verify this has been achieved at turn around at passenger drop off on south side of temple and show this in the drawings. Response: The turning radii on all parts of the fire apparatus aisles meet these requirements. The turn-around area for the Temple staging area in the south has an inside radius of 16’ and an outer radius that is 50’. These dimensions are labeled on the overall utility plan. All drive entrance accesses comply. There will be rollover curb instituted where the north emergency access area takes ingress from Trilby Road. Comment Number: 04 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: FIRE LANE PROXIMITY Buildings or portions of buildings exceeding 30 foot in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Fire lanes shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 30 feet and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. Fire lanes shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D Response: There is a fire apparatus access road provided on the north side of the Temple. The location, width and length of this concrete access has been coordinated extensively and approved by Jim Lynxwiler at PFA. The concrete mat shall be 20’ wide, has been extended to meet the pedestrian walkway near the Temple and has been moved easterly to be more near the higher mass of the structure. The Ladder Truck will be able to successfully stage close enough to the highest part of the Temple, the tower and the steeple portions. Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: FDC Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. The location of the FDC shall be discussed and approved by the fire department. 2006 International Fire Code 912.2 Response: Following discussions with Jim Lynxwiler on this project, we relocated the Fire Department Connection to sit on the northeast side of the round-about, between the outer gate and the staging area mat itself. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: SECURITY GATES The installation of security gates across fire apparatus access roads, trails, or other accessways, shall be approved by the fire chief. When security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. Further discussion with the fire department on this issue is required. 2006 International Fire Code 503.6 Response: The gates on the north side fire access lane shall be tied to the fire alarm system and automatically unlock and open when an alarm is triggered. Knox box style key boxes shall be installed at the pedestrian gates on the south of the building. Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: KEY BOXES REQUIRED Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20 Response: Noted. A “knox Box” shall be located at an agreed location on an entrance to the building. Comment Number: 08 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 Response: Noted. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: Emergency access easement on south side of temple to include the turn around @ passenger drop off. The emergency access on the north side of the temple is under review. Response: The Emergency Access location in the south has been shown to have meet all of the requirements preferred by the PFA at this time. Additionally, we believe that all of the northerly issues that were outstanding have now been addressed. Following coordination with Mr. Lynxwiler, we believe that this submittal satisfies the requirements of the the PFA at this time. If there is anything that needs to be discussed prior to the Public Hearing, please let us know. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The drainage design meets the necessary requirements for a PDP submittal except for the following items which need to be addressed before a public hearing. Response: The comments below have been addressed by closely coordinating with Wes Lamarque and the comments are addressed through corrections or additions to the drainage report and drainage and erosion control plans. A drainage acceptance agreement will be supplied by the owner of the private property located at the southeast area of the project outfall on Timberline. For further details, refer to the responses below. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: If any off-site drainage easements are needed, letter of intents are required before a public hearing. Response: A letter of intent for the drainage changes that occur on the southeast edge of Timberline Road has been reviewed by the affected land owner. Unfortunately, the owner has been ill and we have not been able to meet to have them sign the letter of acknowledgement. The drainage acceptance agreement will be submitted as soon as the owner recovers; that having been said, the executed agreement shall be submitted prior to the P & Z hearing and PDP approval. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The release rate for the detention pond located at the southwest corner of the project is high compared to similar scenarios. The calculations were also hard to follow and not based on historic basins. This will need to be reviewed. Response: Wes Lamarque has been contacted and the outstanding issues on the release rate and clarity of the calculations have been addressed and agreed to as shown in the drainage report that is included with this submittal. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The increase of flow from the widening of the east side of Timberline Road needs to be analyzed downstream. The increase is minor, but capacity downstream needs to be shown. The conveyance for these flows also needs to be shown stable and not result in additional erosion. Response: We have now analyzed the affects of the addition of roadway and private improvements, as they pertain to an increase of storm flow rates, capacities and erosion control needs. The additional roadway pavement added on the west side of Timberline only increases the storm runoff very slightly, and the analysis now included in the drainage report shows the ability of the western borrow ditch to carry the 100-year flows and the recommended erosion control measures to take. The west Timberline outlet receiving channel and foreground are currently sized and protected properly. The eastern outlet works have also been analyzed. The increase in storm water caused by the public and private improvements proposed by the LDS Temple project on the eastern edge of Timberline Road, has been studied, and the provided drainage report, drainage plans and erosion control plans provide the appropriate measures to take. The point release from the storm sewer on the east side of Timberline Road and south of Rock Castle Lane switches to overland flow due to the flattening of the drainage way as it transitions from the public Right-of-Way onto the first private property. This flattened flow regime removes velocity and erosion threats as the ground naturally transitions to a field-like overland flow. Thus, we have detained the flows (Outlot A Detention Pond), per the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual, provided drainage & erosion control implementations and received a storm water acceptance agreement from the private downstream owner. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The sheet titles on sheets A.1 - A.4 do not match the sheet index on sheet SP.1. Response: The sheet index on sheet SP.1 has been revised to match the titles on the Architectural sheets. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The description on benchmark 9-02 does not match the City's Vertical Control Network. There is a typo in the description of benchmark 10-96, and the elevation has changed to 4915.12. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Benchmarks and control items have been resolved. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Is the Larimer County Engineering signature block needed, since this is annexed into the City of Fort Collins? Response: The Larimer County signature block is placed on the Title Sheet of the Utility Plans, only during the PDP stage of approval. It is needed for the portion of the Timberline design that is in the County. The signature block will be located on all of the sheets that need review by the County at FDP stage. During the PDP approval process, it is our understanding that only the cover sheets need to have outlying jurisdictional sign off. During the Final Development Process, it is our understanding that we shall then place signature blocks for each entity on those sheets affecting their interest. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets C.2, C.3, C.9 & C.17. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Lines over text issues have been resolved. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please darken or mask the lighter text on sheets C.12 - C.14. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Lighter text has been made more prominent on the sheets. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets LS.1, LS.2, LP.1 - LP.7. Response: These issues have been addressed as far as the technical constraints of AutoCAD layering and x-referencing it has also been addressed by using wipeouts where applicable. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: There is text that is too small on sheets LS.2 & LP.1 - LP6. Please increase the size. Response: The text size has been increased to a point that balances legibility of the text with legibility of the tree symbol in all locations on the plan and maintains consistency in text size in symbols. Landscape Architect symbols are computer blocks that have limitations. The smaller tree symbols we use would become graphically indiscernible with larger text. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The sheet numbering in the key map and the matchlines does not match the actual sheet numbers on sheets LP.1 - LP.6. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Sheet numbering in key map now matches. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please remove the boundary information(bearings & distances) and any other information not important to these sheets. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Bearings & distances have been removed. Topic: Lighting Plan Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets E.1 & E.2. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Lines over text issues resolved. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add a scale & scale bar to sheets E.1 & E.2. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Scale and Bar are now present on sheets. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The text on sheet E.1 is too small, please increase the size. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Text is now enlarged. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The sheet titles on sheets E.4 & E.5 do not match the sheet index on sheet SP.1. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Sheet titles and sheet index now match. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add "Replat of Lot 2 of the Amended Plat of Lots 1 -4 of the Leistikow M.R.D. S-21-92, and being a" to the sub-title. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Text has been arranged as such. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please correct the legal description, and increase the text size. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add a blank & title to the Owners signature block. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Blank and title has been added. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add the Lienholders signature block. Response: The LDS Church owns the property and there are no Lienholders.. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add the Sight Distance Easement language. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Sight distance easement language added. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add "as shown on the Amended Plat of Lots 1 -4 of the Leistikow M.R.D. S-21-92," to the Basis Of Bearings statement. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Wording added to Basis of Bearing. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please show all right of way widths, and how the rights of way were dedicated. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Right-of-Way widths and dedication defined. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please move around the bearings & distances along Timberline Road. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Labels have been moved. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add the distances along Timberline Road as indicated. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Distance added. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Are Outlots A & B intended to be easements? Response: Outlots A & B are variously dedicated easements, including: Drainage, Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, Irrigation, Landscape & Utilities. They are labeled on the plans Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The easements shown on sheet 2 for vacation can only be vacated with an acknowledgement from the easement holder/ditch owners(shown here and signed by the ditch owners). Response: The 15’ and 10’ irrigation easements are obsolete, as the stakeholders of those easements have already received a valid replacement easement along the north east and east Lot 3 property lines that were recorded on the Leistikow M.R.D. Annexation Plat, which currently contain the only legitimate irrigation delivery system that serves those stakeholders. Thus, since the 15’ and 10’ obsolete easements were never dedicated to any particular party, and being non-exclusive or non-prescriptive right-of-way, they now serve no other stakeholder than the LDS Church and thus can be abandoned on the LDS Church Plat. See pertinent note added on Plat. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please show a detail for the area at the southeast corner of Trilby Road & Majestic Drive. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Detail enlarged on sheet. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please change the seconds on curve C3 to 28". Both the Amended Plat of Lots 1 -4 of the Leistikow M.R.D. S-21-92 and the Leistikow Annexation show this as 28". Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. C3 is now 28”. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The boundary and legal description close. Response: Noted, thank you. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please remove the "Being a Project Development Plan fo approximately 15.7 Ac of the Leistikow Annexation". This is a development plan for the property being platted as Fort Collins LDS Temple. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. The “Being a Project Dev..” verbiage is removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please add a legal description for the property to sheet SP.1. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Legal description added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets SP.2, SP.3 & SP.5. Response: Line over text issues have been addressed on all SP sheets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: Please correct the sheet numbering on sheet SP.4. ` Response: Sheet numbering and index has been revised to account for revisions to plan set. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: There are text over text issues on sheet SP.5. Response: Line over text issues have been addressed on all SP sheets. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: There is text that is doubled over itself on sheet SP.5. Response: This has been addressed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S plans C10: please remove the dotted/dashed lines at the opening of the turn bays (lefts/rights, TWLTL), except where a right turn lane moves right of a bike lane. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans C10: Please remove the ONLY in the short South bound left turn (SbL) lane on Timberline at Trilby. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans C10: Please add an R4-4 sign at STA 103+16.05 (start of the SbR turn lane taper at Timberline and Majestic), and at STA 105+64.04 (start of NbR turn lane at Timberline and Trilby), and at STA 92+40.75 (start of SbR turn lane at Timberline and Trilby). Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans C11: Please remove the back-to-back arrows in the TWLTL on Timberline at the south side of the Majectic intersection (near CL STA 109+00) and the north side of the Rock Castle intersection (near CL STA 113+00). Maintain the ones shown at CL STA 111+00. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans C10: Please label the new R1-1 with street name sign at the outbound lane on E. Majestic at Timberline. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans C10: Please add/label new R1-1 signs at the exits from parking areas on to Majestic. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans: Please include a signing/striping plan for the intersection of Trilby and Majestic providing R1-1 with street name signage and a stop bar. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans: Please remove the stop bar on the approaches at Timberline and Trilby where crosswalks exist or will be added. Typically we don't include stop bars at signalized intersections Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: S&S Plans: Reflect the above S&S comments on the Ultimate S&S plans also. Response: Comment has been addressed on plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: Project will need to plan a minimum of 12 weeks in advance for ordering the new traffic signal pole at the NW corner of Timberline and Trilby. Sixteen weeks has been required on recent orders. Contact Traffic Operations for the signal changes and the specifications of the products being changed/new. Response: Noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: Trees and other plantings in sight distance easements must maintain a minimum 30" clear visual window, measured from the street flowline. Also the trees along the north side of E. Majestic should be verified to not be creating a picket fence effectively blocking sight of west bound commuters and south bound commuters entering Majestic from the parking lot access points. See LCUASS section 7.4.1.C. 5 thru 7. Response: Shrub plantings have been adjusted to provide 30” clear site zone. Street trees have been located and adjusted to conform to Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) of the LUC. City staff has been notified of the apparent conflict between that section of the code and LCUASS in this comment. Awaiting clarification from city staff. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: Please verify sight distance north and south at the E. Majestic and Timberline intersection. With the quantity and spacing of tree planting shown on the plans Traffic has concerns with sight distance at Timberline and Majestic between high speed vehicles on Timberline and vehicles exiting from E. Majestic. Response: Street trees have been located and adjusted to conform to Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) of the LUC. City staff has been notified of the apparent conflict between that section of the code and this comment. Awaiting clarification from city staff. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: An east bound right (EbR) turn lane and a SbR turn lane was utlized in the short and long term analysis, but the EbR does not exist and as far as I know none is planned to be built with this project. The SbR is planned to be built with this project. The inclusion of the EbR altered the results but the only significantly affected movement is the Eb left turn in the Friday PM drops to LOS E, both in the ST background and the ST Total. Please revise the Friday PM analysis without the EbR turn lane to verify the movement will still meet LOS standards without causing other movements to fail. Response: Please see attached detailed response letter to Comment Number 1 prepared by Delich Associates. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 11/29/2012: The TIS states a discussion was held regarding similar locations only produced approximately 60% of the traffic the use could generate at 100% capacity. I'm unable to recall or find notes about the discussion, nor is it noted on Attachment A. I would like to discuss this item with the Consulting TE. Response: Please see attached detailed response letter to Comment Number 2 prepared by Delich Associates. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Aaron Iverson, 970-416-2643, aiverson@fcgov.com Topic: Variance Request Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2012 12/03/2012: As proposed, the project does not meet LCUASS 16.6.4 pedestrian refuge for South Timberline Road at Trilby Road and Timberline Road at Majestic. Two LCUASS variance request will need to be submitted with the next round of review and will be evaluated at that time. Response: Please see attached Variance Request letter prepared by Delich Associates Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Terry Farrill, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: Terry Farrill, District Engineer, with The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District reviewed the LDS Temple project and have the following comments. Please contact Terry at 226-3104 ext. 104 with questions. Response: Noted. Responses are as follow. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: The District will require easements on the Districts standard easement form, for all facilities that are not located within the public R.O.W. The District requires minimum 30 foot and 20 foot wide easements for the sanitary sewer lines and water lines, respectively. Response: The plat has had the District’s easement language added to it for those District easements that will be dedicated on the plat; Namely the 30’ waterline easement that travels through the main drive of the Temple parking lot and others. The off-site easements on the Leistikow M.R.D in Larimer County will be performed by separate instrument according to the District’s own forms. All District lines private property easements are sized appropriately and their characteristics have been discussed with Mr. Farrill. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: The District requires a Reduced Principle Back-Flow -Prevention Device with on the riser of the fire lines needs to be added. Response: Noted. We have shown a Back-Flow Prevention device on the fire riser line. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Terry Farrill, , Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 11/27/2012: An 8 inch water line was stubbed to the existing fire hydrant along the north property line for a future extension. The fire hydrant will need to be re-installed to the end of the 8 inch water line. Response: The fire hydrant assembly in question will be relocated to the PFA preferred location west of the 20’ Emergency Access Easement directly west of its current location. The existing 8” water pipe that extends into the property will be reduced to 6” in-line with the current pipe and it will be utilized as the connection of the 6” Fire Suppression Pipe to the building. This will eliminate the need to disturb Trilby Road at these locations. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/21/2012: Signs and their locations are not approved in the PDP/FP. Signs and their locations are permitted through a separate sign permit once the project has been recorded. If the applicant wants to keep the sign locations on the plans for reference a note should be included that it will be permitted through separate sign permit. (Proposed Development Plan) Response: A note has been added to plans. Project Identification Sign locations and details are shown for information only and the applicant recognizes that the signs are not entitled/permitted with this PDP and/or FDP approval. The applicant shall submit to the City a separate signage permit request related to the two signs proposed for review and approval by the City prior to the their construction. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/21/2012: Please label the dimensions of the trash and recycling enclosure on the plans and the distance it is from the public sidewalk. (Final Plan) Response: Noted. A detail of the Trash Enclosure has been added to the Site Plan, sheet SP.2. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/21/2012: The Single Family dwelling does not meet the garage standards in which the garage doors are to be recessed behind the house at least 4ft facing the public street. ( (Proposed Development Plan) Also the house would associate better with future neighborhood if the front entrance was oriented to the street. The driveway can still take access off the private drive. Response: The plan of the Presidents House has been modified to include a 4’ bump out on the south side elevation in order to conform with the Garage Door requirement. The orientation of the house has remained internally focused towards the Temple in order to provide for the management and caretaker functions required by the Temple President. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/21/2012: The accessibility parking spaces require to be signed. (Final Plan) Response: The site plan now shows the accessibility parking signage. Sign locations and details will be provided with the final submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/26/2012: The proposed lighting plan indicated less than the required minimum of 1 foot-candle in some of the parking areas. Please review plan and adjust plans accordingly. (Final Plan) Response: The one (1) Foot-Candle minimum for parking lot lighting is not intended to be a minimum of 1 Foot-Candle is required for each point on the parking lot. The intent of the Code is to insure that an average of 1 Foot-Candle is achieved across the entire parking lot which has been properly accomplished per the LUC. Also the uplighting on the Statue is not allowed. To deviate from this standard there are two ways to make the request 1.) is through the alternative compliance found in section 3.2.4(E) or 2.) through a modification to the standard. (Proposed Development Plan) Response: A Steeple Lighting Analysis has been preformed in order to demonstrate the minimal impact to the Dark Sky objectives fostered by the City’s LUC. It is the intent of this Photometric Analysis preformed on the sky above the Steeple to provide the information needed for the City to consideration a Modification of Standard related to the Steeple Lighting. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/26/2012: In the UE zone the minimum lot size is 1/2 an acre. Lot 1 of Block 2 is less then the 1/2 acre minimum. This lot will need to meet the 1/2 standard or request a modification at this time for the reduce lot size. (Proposed Development Plan) Response: The size of Lot 1 Block 2 of the proposed plat has been increased to meet the ½ acre minimum lot size requirement in the UE Zoning district. Also this lot should include a building envelope on the site plan. (Final Plan) Response: A Building Envelope has been added to the Site Plan, sheer SP.2 Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/26/2012: The Landscape plan indicates some work to be done outside the recently annexed area. The city can not permit this work at this time please contact the county for any work that will need permits. Response: Landscape plans have been sent to Matt Lafferty at Larimer County Planning for his review, no response has been received as of the time of this resubmittal to the City. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 11/26/2012: Fencing height is limited to 4ft between the front property line and front of building. Assuming that the front property line is Along Majestic the fencing between the front of the building and the property line is required to be 4ft in height. LUC 3.8.11(C)(2) This section allows to deviate from the 4ft height limit if the there is a demonstrated unique security purpose. The other option is to request a modification to LUC 3.8.11(C)(1) (Proposed Development Plan) Response: A request to allow for the 6 foot high ornamental fence in the ”Front Yard” of the Temple is included in this resubmittal based on a unique security need. The request is for the “Front Yard” portion of the Temple security fence in order to allow the fence to be 6 foot high between the east face of the Temple and the Majestic Drive ROW. This request to deviate from the standard 4 foot allowed height is made based upon the unique security concerns of the LDS Church and is based on the recommendations and analysis made by the Church’s Security Team. The intent is to build a 6 foot high ornamental metal fence around the entire perimeter of the Temple as shown on the site plan, SP.2 in order to insure a level of security needed by the Church. The 6 foot high metal fence has been redesigned so as to be more transparent as viewed from the public ROW. A letter assessing the security issues for the Temple are outlined in an attachment from the Church’s Security Assessment Team.