Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLDS TEMPLE - PDP - PDP120029 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 -Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fa fcgov.com/developmentreview Landmark Response to City Comments Dated January 25, 2013 RE: LDS Temple, PDP120029, Round Number 2 Response to Comments Please see the following summary of response to comments from Landmark for the above referenced project. If you have questions about any of our responses you may contact Ken Merritt at 970-290-1900 or you can email me at merrittk@landmarkltd.com. 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 01/23/2013: We did not see an exhibit comparing the height of the church in relation to other tall structures such as Fort Collins High School, Key Bank ect. We will need to see that exhibit for our assessment. Response: A Building Height Comparative Analysis Graphic has been provided with this resubmittal. The analysis compares the proposed LDS Temple height with other familiar architectural landmarks throughout Fort Collins. 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). 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: Trash enclosure details and elevations will be included with the final submittal. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations 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: Bike rack details will be included with the final submittal. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/25/2013 01/25/2013: The code requires a 4 foot fence in section 3.8.11. The plans will need to be revised or a modification requested. The staff report for this project is due to the board by Feb. 6th. As such, I will need the revision or modification request by Feb. 1st in order to have time to evaluate and write the staff report. 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. Response: A revised Security Analysis Report has been prepared by the LDS Churches Security Department and is provided with this resubmittal. Accompanying this report is an “Alternative Compliance Request” based on the requirements outlined in Section 2.8.2 and 3.8.11 (C)(2) of the City’s LUC and as based on a demonstrated unique security need. Topic: Landscape Plans 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: Irrigation plans will be provided with final submittal. Topic: Lighting Plan Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/23/2013: Staff is having difficulty with the submitted lighting exhibits and photometric plan. There are concerns with moving forward to hearing with the lighting as proposed. 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: A phone conference was held on January 29, 2013 with the City (Ted Shepard & Courtney Levingston) and the LDS Temples Electrical Engineer, Architect, Planner and Client Rep. to discus issues related to the Steeple lighting. After the discussion the City staff seemed satisfied with our Design Teams response to the Steeple Lighting Analysis which was prepared with the previous resubmittal and approach being proposed to the Steeple and Angle Moroni lighting. Also contained in this resubmittal is a memo stating the Temple’s hours of operations and the hours of Site, Building and Steeple/Statue illumination. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Use a Type III barricade instead of "sidewalk ends" sign. Response: Plans will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: There is one cross-slope on the west side of Timberline Road that exceeds the 4% maximum standard and would need to be adjusted with the final plan review. With the west side of Timberline Road south of Majestic Drive not having curb and gutter, the information provided at this time would represent that the west side of Timberline Road south of Majestic Drive constitutes "interim" only. This is acceptable for Engineering's requirements, but if the applicant wanted to represent that the west side of Timberline Road south of Majestic constituted ultimate improvements, additional information such as cross sections with curb and gutter on the west side need to be included and demonstrate that the "finished" section would tie into the proposed cross-sections without removal of proposed pavement. Is it the intention to provide cross-slopes with curb and gutter on the west side at time of final along with flowline profiles on the west side? Please note that the offsite design for grade and groundlines includes flowline grades at time of final plan submittal. Response: The Cross Sections shown in our previous resubmittal were incorrect in regards to the 4% cross slopes. The reconstruction of Timberline Road will have 2% Cross Slopes throughout. Plans will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: With the understanding that the slopes not achieving 4:1 along Timberline Road are not within City limits, along with input from Larimer County on their position, combined with the report provided by the geotech, this item is considered resolved from City Engineering. Was the County routed the report for their review? Response: The County Engineer has been copied on the revised Preliminary PICP’s and has received a copy of the copy of the Geotechnical Engineers letter related to stabilizing proposed slopes of greater than 4:1 within the County ROW. Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012 01/23/2013: The submitted variance request had input from Ward Stanford disagreeing with the information provided in the request that the southbound right turn lane can be eliminated in the "finished" condition of Timberline. The request should be revised to address Ward's concern. 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: A Revised Variance Request has been provided with this resubmittal. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The work occurring on Lot 3 of the Lestikow M.R.D., while under the same ownership as the development plan, is technically outside of the boundary of the PDP and plat for the project and is then considered as offsite improvements. Offsite easements will need to be provided prior to approval of the final plan for the project. The plans identify a topsoil stockpile area outside of the boundary of the PDP, which if within City limits would require a stockpiling permit. It should be verified that the County does not have their own stockpiling permit/process and general coordination with the County should occur on the work occurring within their limits. Response: A “Blanket” Grading and Construction Easement will be placed over the entire Lot 3 of the Lestikow MRD this along with other off-site easement described in the previous resubmittal shall be provided by the Owner of Lot 3 of the Lestikow MRD (the LDS Church) prior to the projects final approval. 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: This will be paid at time of Final Submittal. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 01/22/2013: This comment remains as a reminder only that a mitigation and monitoring plan will be due at the time of final. Response: A Natural Habitat Zone Mitigation and Three Year Monitoring plan will be provided with the Final Submittal. 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. 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. 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. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 01/22/2013: The mixup of symbols has been addressed, but more shrubs (at a minimum) should be added to the edges of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones, specifically the southeast pond. Response: Additional shrubs from the environmental characterization report will be added to the Habitat Buffer Zone located at the northeast and to the Detention Pond edges on the southwest at time of Final Submittal. 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. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/27/2012 01/22/2013: The raptor nest to the west of Timberline cannot be removed until final plans have been approved and recorded. If the timing of this removal conflicts with the seasonal restrictions on nesting and rearing, then a temporary LOD will be established around the nest. 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. 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: The existing Raptor Nest will not be removed until Final Plans have been removed. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: The use of Autumn Blaze maple as a street tree along Trilby would provide good fall color but this species is not on the street tree list because it does not survive or thrive long term in Fort Collins soils. Please use anothe species. Response: The trees along Trilby will be replaced back with a tree from the approved street tree list. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please consider using the native Plains Cottonwood Populus sargentii or Lance leaf cottonwood Populus acuminata in the Natural Areas buffer zones. They should be specified at 2 inch caliper on sheet LP 7. Also the choke cherry for these kinds of sites is usually specified as a clump by height. Response: The cottonwood variety in the habitat buffer zones will be switched to sargentii and specified at 2” caliper. Choke cherry will be specified by clump height. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please add a landscape note that describes the kind of mulch that will be used. Response: Mulch will be gravel in all planting beds; tree rings in lawn areas will be mulched with “gorilla hair” type redwood bark mulch. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: It is recommended that the project, if it has not already, review the trees to transplant with a qualified tree transplanting contractor to verify feasibility of transplanting trees shown on the plan. The City provided measurements, tree ID and conditions but did not confirm transplant feasibility. Response: The owner’s representative has met with three tree relocation contractors and the preliminary indication is that all the indicated trees can be feasibly relocated. There is no guarantee of survival rates post-transplant, but the client will provide additional mitigation as needed for trees that don’t survive. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please clarify in the notes how the trees in the Narual area buffer zones are to be irrigated. Response: Trees in the Habitat Buffer Zone will be irrigated via point source drip. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Please consider using both Skyline and Shademater Honeylocust to provide better diversity. Response: We will introduce Shademaster honeylocust to the mix of street trees on the project. 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: A Fire Sprinkler/Fire Suppression System will be provided throughout the building. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012 01/15/2013: The electric service to the President's residence and maintenance building will both likely be served from a different (single phase) transformer to be located in an electric vault at Majestic Dr. A C-1 form will also be required for the maintenance building. Response: A C-1 form will be submitted for the Maintenance Building. 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: A C-1 form will be submitted for the Temple Building and all fees paid per the required schedule. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: HYDRANT RELOCATION Consider flipping the currently proposed hydrant on the SE corner of the turn-around for the temple staging area so that it is positioned on the north side of the same drive isle rather than the south side. Response: The Fire Hydrant will be relocated as suggested at time of Final Submittal. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/18/2013: Reminder comment 11/28/2012: If any off-site drainage easements are needed, letter of intents are required before a public hearing. Response: A signed letter of acknowledgement related to the acceptance of storm drainage sheet flows across the property located on the south east corner of Timberline Road & Rock Castle Lane has been provided with this resubmittal. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/21/2013: Sheet A.5 does not match the sheet index on sheet SP.1. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: The sheet titles on sheets A.1 - A.4 do not match the sheet index on sheet SP.1. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: Sheet A.2 has duplicate sheet numbering. See redlines. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: The bottom of sheet A.6 is cut off. See redlines. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: The sub-title & legal description on sheet C.1 should match the Subdivision Plat. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/21/2013: There are still line over text issues on sheet LS.1. All text appears to be masked, but the linework behind it is darker rather than gone. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets LS.1, LS.2, LP.1 - LP.7. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: All of the text on sheets LS.2 & LS.3 is hard to read. Please sharpen up all text. Response: The text on these sheets will be improved prior to Final Submittal.. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/21/2013: There are still issues on sheet E.1, and now on sheet E.7. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets E.1 & E.2. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/21/2013: Sheet E.6 is still missing a scale & scale bar. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: Please add a scale & scale bar to sheets E.1 & E.2. Topic: Plat Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/21/2013: If there is language on the 2001 document for the irrigation ditch, that provides for the vacation of the two easements, we could be okay with this. Otherwise(and unfortunately) you will need to get ditch owner's signatures to vacate. Please call John Von Nieda, of you need to discuss this. Response: We will add the Ditch Owners name to the Plat at time of Final Submittal in order to properly vacate the existing easement no longer needed for the abandoned above ground ditch. 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). Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 11/28/2012: The boundary and legal description close. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: Please correct the spelling of Church in the client field of the titleblock on sheet 1. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: Please correct the 1/16th corner description shown on sheet 2. See redlines. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: The easements being dedicated by the Plat for the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District & South Fort Collins Sanitation District, will require language & signature blocks. Response: The required Water and Sanitation District dedication language and signature blocks will be added to the Plat at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: Please add reception numbers for all easements. See redlines. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/21/2013 01/21/2013: Please dimension the easement as shown in Detail B. See redlines. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/18/2013: This has been added, but it does not match the Subdivision Plat. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: Please add a legal description for the property to sheet SP.1. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/18/2013: There are still some issues on sheets SP.2 & SP.4. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets SP.2, SP.3 & SP.5. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/18/2013: This is still an issue, but on sheet SP.4 now. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: There are text over text issues on sheet SP.5. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/28/2012 01/18/2013: This is still an issue, but on sheet SP.4 now. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/28/2012: There is text that is doubled over itself on sheet SP.5. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 01/23/2013: Sht C10 (and any others): The extension lines indicating the bike lane moving left of the right turn lane should be labeled as dotted lines with a 3' segment and 9' gap. 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: We have striped this Bike Lane in accordance to the MUTCD requirements. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 01/23/2013: Sht C10 (any others): Please remove all "ONLY" stencils in turn lanes. 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: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 01/23/2013: Revisions confirmed except please move the R4-4 sign at Sta 92+40.75 (?) to the beginning of the SbR turn lane on Timberline, Sta 93+44.66. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 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). Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 01/23/2013: Plan provided. Please remove the Stop Bar preceeding the decorative crosswalk. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 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. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 01/23/2013: Revision confirmed except please remove the "ONLY" stencils in the turn bays. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 11/29/2012: S&S Plans: Reflect the above S&S comments on the Ultimate S&S plans also. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Sht C10 (others as needed): The Saw Cut Line overshadows the lane striping. Please improve visibility of lane line under the Saw Cut line or add notes at the sta 93+44.66, Begin 4" dotted white line (3'segment, 9' gap) and at sta 96+77.42, Begin solid white stripe. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/23/2013 01/23/2013: Sht C17 & C18: Please remove "ONLY" stencils from all turn bays. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 01/23/2013: No Landscape Plans received. Please submit with next submittal. 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: Landscape plans were submitted. Please coordinate with Planning Staff to review. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2012 01/23/2013: No Landscape Plans received. Please submit with next submittal. 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: Landscape plans were submitted. Please coordinate with Planning Staff to review. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The district ddoes not allow trees or landscaping within the District's easement or 10 feet of District facilities. Response: Tree locations have been coordinated with water and sewer locations to keep them 10’ away from mains and 6’ away from service lines, per district code. Any trees in the 30’ sewer easement will be moved outside of the easement. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/22/2013 01/22/2013: The meter pit for the north 3/4 inch water service needs to be located closer to the main in a non-traffic, non-pedestrian area similar to the 3/4 inch service immediately south. Response: This will be revised at time of Final Submittal. 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. 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. 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. 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. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/26/2012 01/18/2013: The applicant provided a letter from Owner's security department addressing the need for an increased fence height, however the letter does not explain how this security need is unique to the owner as opposed to other places of worship or simlar uses. Response: A revised Security Analysis Report has been prepared by the LDS Churches Security Department and is provided with this resubmittal. Accompanying this report is an “Alternative Compliance Request” based on the requirements outlined in Section 2.8.2 and 3.8.11 (C)(2) of the City’s LUC and as based on a demonstrated unique security need. 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) Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: The lighting plan did not provide information on the lighting hours. When and what lights will be turned off or dimmed? Response: Provided in this resubmittal is a memo stating the Temple’s hours of operations and the hours that the Site, Building and Steeple/Statue will be illuminated. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/18/2013 01/18/2013: There is possibility of a required 2nd exit from the basement that is not currently shown, if this is required by building code then this will need to be on plans for Final Plan. Response: A second basement exit has been added to the Temple and will be shown on Final Submittal.