Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH SECOND FILING - FDP - FDP120005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)1 Spring Creek Farms North Filing Number 2 Final FDP Submittal Responses to Comments Dated August 8, 2012 Submitted: Electronically 8/29/12 Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Please include heights on final elevation plans. Per the Land Use Code, building height is measured from average finished ground level to the highest point of the roof structure (not the eave). Response: Additional dimensions have been added to the elevations. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Along Drake some of the street trees are at 50 foot spacing. Add ornamental trees 15 feet from the lights and adjust spacing down between trees to around 30-35 feet between trees along Drake. Ornamental trees should not be used in the site distance triangle. Response: Per the August 23, 2012 conference call, ornamental trees have been added between the street lights and canopy trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Green Ash is not on the City of Fort Collins street tree list, but can be planted on the private property portion of the project. Response: Green Ash along the perimeter streets have been changed to an approved species. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/21/2012: On page SP-1 (site plan) the first note should be "Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District" additionally, on the signature block, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director signs off as opposed to the Current Planning Director. Response: The notes have been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/21/2012: There is a change in the number of exterior parking stalls. Where did that parking space go? Response: In response to prior comments, a few diagonal parking stalls nearest Joseph Allen and Timberline had to be removed in order to comply with required setbacks; therefore, the parking count has changed slightly, but still meets minimum requirements. 2 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Although this plan meets the standard in terms of bike parking, it is relatively underserved as compared with recent similar development proposals in the area. That being said, after speaking with Ron Gonzales with Poudre Fire Authority and our Chief Building Official, Mike Gebo, we see no reason not to allow additional bike parking spaces in racks under the open stairs. Please detail this on the plans and update the plans accordingly (zoning inspections) if the applicant desires. Response: Additional bicycle parking within the breezeways is now planned to be included for this project. An updated bicycle parking count is shown on the site plan. Update: There are now 10 bike racks indicated under open stairs, all at the largest 36 unit buildings. There are three spaces at each rack, which adds 30 additional bike parking spaces to the project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Please add the residential units/ rooms in the mixed use building to the parking data table on the site plan. Response: The parking spaces allotted for the residences in the club house (“penthouse units”) have already been included in the parking count and have also already been shown on the Parking Data table. However, the Parking Data table now clarifies that the “penthouse units” are included in the count. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: I think that there might be just one of these, but it is not labeled and a similar looking mark is shown on Joseph Allen right behind the inlet, but that doesn’t make sense as a sidewalk chase. 02/28/2012: Need to show proposed sidewalk chases out to existing and proposed streets. Response: Sidewalk chases have been cleaned up on the drawings. The one along Joseph Allen was eliminated in lieu of a small area drain atop the storm pipe, and the one along Charles Brockman was moved to the appropriate location. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: 07/27/12: Unless there is several feet of extra width on the existing bike lane the cut and match line for the curb along Drake will need to be the stripe between the bike lane and the travel lane. I spoke to Rob Mosbey, Engineering Project Manager who along with the Engineering Inspector who will make the decision regarding the limits of patching briefly about this. And the bike lane line seems to be the edge for the patch. If you have questions about the patching limits I would ask that you talk to him since he will be the decision maker on this in the field. 02/28/2012: Drake Road design; See standards for saw cutting existing asphalt; sawcut at lane line or center of a travel lane. Two foot from the existing edge of asphalt isn’t adequate unless it happens to fall along the existing lane line. Response: The asphalt patch along Drake Road is now shown to be along the bike lane/travel lane stripe. 3 Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: The storm drain in Joseph Allen Drive does not appear to have adequate cover at the low point in the street. A minimum of 3 feet from top of pipe to top of asphalt is needed to meet minimum cover requirements. 02/28/2012: Drake Road design; When cross sections are provided you will need to show the storm drain pipe elevations and the cover over it. Need to verify it meets minimum cover requirements. Response: The low point in Joseph Allen Drive has been raised to provide 36” of cover over the storm pipe at the lowest elevation of the roadway. In regards to cross-sections for Drake Road: the north tributary storm sewer system is 7’ deep where we tie in at Joseph Allen Drive, and the depth of the pipe along Drake Road is significantly greater than 3’, so there should be no concern about inadequate depth over the storm sewer along Drake Road where the new westbound right turn lane is proposed. Thus, we have not gone to the extensive effort to show this on the cross-sections because it can be seen on the storm plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Please see the couple of comments on the general notes. Response: The plans have been revised per the comment. Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Please place the couple of notes I added on the grading plan indicating what sidewalk is to be built with this plan. I think I know what you are intending to do, but these notes will help to make it clear what the intent is. Response: The notes have been added to the plans per the comment. Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: For the stormline that will run under the future extension of Charles Bockman Drive please show the planned roadway elevations so I can verify that minimum cover is being provided. I assume that the prior project showed a preliminary design for this extension - that can be used, you do not need to design the road. Response: The stormline that is proposed to run under the future extension of Charles Brockman Drive will be no less than 7’ from the existing grade, and somewhere close to 7’ from the future roadway grades. (Based on street design criteria, it will be impossible to design the future extension of Charles Brockman Drive that would have less than adequate cover over the pipe.) Thus, we have not gone to the extensive effort of showing this on the plans. Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Please provide the existing slopes that are being tied into for the extension of Joseph Allen Drive. Response: Existing slopes have been provided per the comment. 4 Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Need to identify the location of the Loop Drives on Joseph Allen Drive. You can id the centerline and label the width of the drives or sta each side of the drive. Either works. Response: The information has been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Showing a curb return grade that doesn’t meet minimum grade at Drake/ Joseph Allen. The profiles and intersection detail also do not match. Response: The curb return grade has been fixed and is now only shown on the Drake Road profile. Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Need to provide a detail for the changes to the east median that you are proposing. How are you proposing this to be done? Will want enough of the section replaced that it is a solid mass. Response: Spot elevations, line and curve data, and asphalt patching is now shown on the plans to provide a clearer picture of what needs to be done to construct the new median nose. Comment Number: 61 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Where is the existing crown line in Drake? Does it change with the removal of the median and/ or with the change to the east median nose? Please show and label it on the plans. Also provide a centerline profile for the area where you are removing the median. Response: The existing and design contours were inadvertently left off the plans for the last submittal. These have now been added to the plans to illustrate the location of the crown. The location of the crown has not been changed for the proposed design. Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Add the street cut note to the Drake Road plan and profile plan. Response: The note has been added to the plan per the comment. Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: The limited pavement patch you are showing for the median removal maybe possible if the contractor is really carefull and doesn’t have any edges that break or ravel. It is quite possible that the patch will have to go out to the middle of the lane. At the west end you will have a patch out to the middle of the adjacent lane since the minimum patch width is 6 feet. Response: Correct asphalt patching per City standards have now been shown for all areas affected by construction on Drake Road. Comment Number: 64 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Need a detail for how you are going to end the west median. What are you proposing to do? Is there any landscaping that will be left? The landscape plan does not show this area. Response: There will not be any landscaping left in the west median, as the proposed median nose is further to the west than the existing landscaping extends. Therefore, the cap on the median will be a concrete cap, consistent in slope and texture to what is existing, and following the LCUASS standard detail 704-B. 5 Comment Number: 65 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Will need to add a note to the Drake Road plan and profile sheet regarding the existing water service to the median, what needs to be done with that and how. I have sent an email to Parks to find out what this note should say. Obviously the note will be different depending on if there is any landscaping or not to remain, so if you could let me know the plan that would be great. Response: There will not be any landscaping remaining in the median, so the water service extension to the median will need to be capped and abandoned in place. Comment Number: 66 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Please label the limits of the concrete at the Drake/ Timberline intersection. If it is not right at the PC where you are tying in it will impact the tie in and pavement patch. Response: The proposed curb and gutter along Drake Road will tie into the existing curb at the PCR at the northwest corner of Drake and Timberline. Comment Number: 67 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: For the left turn lane and the right turn lane I need the taper length and storage/ bay length labeled so I can check the design. It looks like you may have intended to do this on the cross section sheet, but the numbers are too small for me to read. Response: The storage and taper lengths have now been provided on the Drake Road plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 68 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Drake Road Cross sections. Need to provide elevations for the flowlines (medians and edges) and existing and proposed slopes on all sections. As part of the cross section review I am going to be looking at is what the overall x-section will be when the street is milled and overlayed and we ideally get one slope from median or crown to gutter. Without knowing what the elevations of these points are and doing the manual calculations I can not fully determine that. Response: Elevations at the flowlines and/or street crowns have been added to the cross-sections. Comment Number: 69 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Drake Road Cross sections. Why doesn’t this stationing match the design stationing? All three plans have different stationing. This makes it incredibly difficult to compare things between sheets. It all needs to be the same stationing or at least if not numbered the same start at the same point. Response: The stationing of the roadways are based on flowline and match the limits of construction for each project. The stationing of the cross sections is along the centerline to avoid distorting the cross slopes when the curb is not perpendicular to the overall roadway. The elevations of the curb and gutter shown on the plans by Aspen Engineering has been added to the cross sections along with the future cross slope. The cross slope along Drake from Joseph Allen to Timberline matches existing. Therefore the cross slope shown will not change when it is milled and overlaid. 6 Comment Number: 70 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Drake Road Cross Sections. I know that you are two different firms doing the design, but I need to see the north flowline and curb location on these cross sections. As much as I can match things up the slopes shown on the cross sections do not always seem to match those shown on the north drake curb plan by Aspen Eng. Response: The elevation of the proposed curb and gutter along the north side of Drake Road, west of Joseph Allen Drive has been added above the cross-sections for your easy reference. Comment Number: 71 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Intersection details. For the Loop Drive details. The grades shown are okay provided you realize that these driveways will need to be built per drawing 707 and the maximum slope across the walk area is 1:48 and it will work with the elevation points you have provided. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 72 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Intersection details. For the Timberline Driveway. With this detail it looks like all the drainage from Timberline is going to be coming in this driveway across the sidewalk. Is that the intent? If so the drainage needs to be brought into the site using sidewalk culvert not in the driveway over the sidewalk. If that is not the intent then just make sure that a pan is clearly shown on the cross section of the driveway that you provide. Since this will not match the standard section shown on the driveway cut a section is needed to show what the grades are and how this works. Response: The design has been revised to match the standard. Comment Number: 73 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Intersection details. For the Joseph Allen/ Drake intersection. Additional elevations are needed, the transition point (distance and elevation is needed) and additional information on the changes at the center of the road are needed. Response: Additional spot elevations have been provided. The proposed crown of the road matches the location of the existing crown. Comment Number: 74 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Additional details are needed for the median work. #703 for the curb type and then 704-B, 705, or 705a as appropriate. Response: Details have been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 75 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: The Drake Road plan by Aspen. In addition to the comments already noted that also apply to this sheet. This sheet is not correctly showing the removal of the median in the roadway. Response: The plans submitted by Aspen were from their preliminary design; however, their plans now represent TST’s most current design. 7 Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: The connection is shown on the UP as the permanent sidewalk, but is labeled as temporary asphalt sidewalk on the site plan. It can be either, just make sure the plans match. 5/10/12: This connection is now being shown as a detached asphalt path. With final plans we will need to see the tie in point shown as well. 02/28/2012: An off site pedestrian connection is needed to connect this site to the Power Trail. This connection can be a temporary asphalt path or can be the concrete sidewalk built in the ultimate location. If it is to be built in the ultimate location the design for Drake will need to be done to verify location and elevations. Response: This walkway will be a permanent concrete sidewalk. All labels are now consistent. The design for this walkway will be provided in Aspen Engineering’s plans. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: 07/27/12: The radii on the entrances are shown larger than allowed. The radii need to be in accordance with table 8-2. Which identifies a 15’ radius on the driveways off of Joseph Allen and 20 feet for the entrance off of Timberline. 02/28/2012: Provide 15’ radiuses on approaches to driveways along Joseph Allen and min. 20’ radiuses on approaches to the driveway along Timberline Road. Response: 15’ radii have been provided at the two intersection locations on Joseph Allen Drive and a 20’ radius has been provided at the intersection on Timberline. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: Garage 1 based on the building envelope on the plat is not within the building envelope (guessing either the envelope or the garage location changed at some point). This also means that as shown the water main runs through the building envelope and is not within an easement. Response: The building envelope shown on the plat has been shifted to the correct location. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: In addition to the utility easement along the west side of Joseph Allen that is identified on the plat to be dedicated by separate document, easements by separate document also need to be dedicated for the storm drainage pipes and ponds, the water and sewer stubs that extend west past the row and for the grading along Drake and any grading that may need to be done west of Joseph Allen Drive row that is outside of the utility and drainage easements that need to be dedicated. Response: All required easements for utilities and drainage will be dedicated by separate instrument, prepared by Aspen Engineering. Once these easements have been recorded, the easement lines and recordation information will be provided on the Spring Creek Farms North Filing No. 2 final plat (prior to recordation of the plat). Topic: Plat Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: These easements are still needed and have not been shown on the plat or the plat. Because this property is no longer included in the boundary of the plat these easements 8 will need to be dedicated by separate document. There is a processing fee of $250 plus recording fees for each easement to be dedicated. Due to the boundary change the project will have a credit on the fees I have not had a chance to calculate what that is yet, but do not pay for the easement dedications until I can get that calculated. 05/10/12: Per the utility plans drainage easements are still needed on the east side of Joseph Allen and are not yet being shown. 02/28/2012: At the northwest corner of East Drake Road and Joseph Allen Drive where the drainage pipes extend into Outlot A a drainage easement(s) are needed. Response: See response to comment 54 above. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 07/27/2012: 02/28/2012: If Poudre Fire Authority requires the private drives to be named, those names will also need to be placed on the plat with private drive or street like private drive in parenthesis after. Response: Understood. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: For City street trees between the sidewalk and curb the City Forester asks that Bur Oak be used in place of English Oak. Response: The species have been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sensation Maple should be listed with Shade trees and specified as 2.0-inch caliper. Response: Sensation Maple is now listed with the shade trees. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Frontier Elm has experienced some cold hardiness problems in Fort Collins. Designers are often using Accolade Elm when one of the new elms is used. Response: The species have been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: White Fir often does not do well in the high clay soils on the east side of Fort Collins. Fat Albert Blue Spruce would be a good substitute. Response: The species have been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: There are a couple of gaps in the row of street trees along Joseph Allan Drive that could receive street trees. It appears that an additional street tree could be added along Charles Brockman close to Timberline. Response: The street trees along Joseph Allan Drive have been adjusted. 9 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Green Ash is a still used as a street tree at different location on the project so they should be changed to a species on the City Street Tree list such as Bur Oak and/or Honey locust. Lindens are now used as street trees but we ask that they not be planted along arterials due to road salt issues. Using Catalpa for the two lindens on Drake would address this. Response: The species have been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Is it possible to use additional conifer trees along the buildings that front on Timberline and Drake? A greater mix of deciduous and conifer forms could be beneficial in these areas. Response: Conifer trees have been added to these areas. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Street trees would be required between sidewalk and curb along Timberline. Is the water line prohibiting planting street trees in this section to meet the required separation distance? Are there any alternative options? A possible alternative would be to see if some ornamental trees could be planted in the parkway. Project Planner would first need to review this with the Utility to see if this was even possible. If street trees cannot be placed in their standard location then try to maximize tree planting in the area between the building and sidewalk along Timberline. Response: Per August 29, 2012 phone conversations with Planning and Utilities, an 8’ separation is required between trees and the water main. An additional tree was added to north of the bus stop where space allows. Department: Internal Services Contact: Todd Reidenbach, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2012 08/09/2012: In terms of the addressing, The address numbers will be changing and I'm in the process of determining a layout. It is on an odd-numbered side of the street and they will be moved more closely in line with the rest of the range. Response: An addressing scheme was received from Todd Reidenbach and we will proceed based on his direction. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/13/2012 07/13/2012: Paper copies or a pdf of the recorded plat and the final utility plan will need to be provided to Light & Power Engineering (Doug Martine). Also, after the utility/site plan is complete and approved, an AutoCad drawing to the plan needs to be sent to Terry Cox 10 (TCOX@FCGOV.COM). No further comments. Response: Noted Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/30/2012: Megan Harrity, with the Larimer County Assessor's Office, commented that a portion of land on Joseph Allen Drive, is still owned by SC Residential LLC, parcel number 87194-23-002. In April deeds of conveyance were recieved, except the above mentioned portion. This is after the deed made the changes and all of Lot 1 came under DTMF Investments (everything except Joseph Allen Drive). Megan Harrity can be contacted at 970-498-7065 or mharrity@larimer.org Response: This issue was fixed by SC Residential and should no longer be an issue. Contact: Don Kapperman Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/06/2012: Any relocation of Comcast utilities is at developers expense. Additionally, Comcast currently has plant on west side of Timberline and on south side of Charles Brockman Drive. Response: Understood. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-416-2864, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2012 08/09/2012: Here's the PFA opinion regarding addressing: 1. the unit signage is about the right size. We would like to know how this will provide the required visibility as it is posted on a contrasting background--what will that look like, or is it to be black and white as indicated herein? Response: The signs will be contrasting with Dark on Light. We anticipate black or very dark brown lettering on an off-white or beige background. 2. regarding the building signage, the 6 " minimum honestly is too small, and also is not architecturally pleasing, as it gets lost in the trees and the mass of the edifice. An 8" is recommended, but 10" is preferable. Also, since these buildings don't all front on Timberline, the building address should be visible from the street side and the fire lane side of the building. Response: We had previously done mock-ups of signage lettering size and found the largest sizes too commercial in appearance. 8" letter will be acceptable. We agree the signage should be on both fire service side and street side and we had indicated the signage on both frontages. 3. One more item for discussion regarding the monument signs--it would be most helpful to post the range of unit numbers found in a specific building, especially if units are also 11 approached from the rear, and are not seen from the "front"side of the building. Response: Directional signage at one or both entries to each parking group and couplet of apartments indicate the apartment numbers service in that area and directions to the balance of apartments. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: 1. Please meet the require criteria in the Erosion Control Report, section 3.3 in the submitted drainage report has not met the report requirements. 2. Straw Bails are no longer a valid BMP in Fort Collins, please use a different and adequate BMP. 3. On the Initial Erosion Control Sheet, the water lines do not need to be shown, and the perimeter protection needs to be addressed. 4. On all three sequences of the Erosion Control Plan VTC needs to span the whole access points, not just half. (Also double check the dimensions, they look off.) Response: A Storm Water Management Plan has been prepared and submitted to the City for their information and review. Straw bales have been removed from the erosion control plans. The initial stage BMP erosion control sheet shows the wet utilities because they are initial stage of construction along with earthwork. During the initial stage of construction, the site is several feet lower than the existing roadways, so perimeter control is not needed until the contractor is ready to import enough dirt to the fill the site to final grade. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: The detention pond has slopes of 3:1 all around the perimeter. The minimum slope is 4:1. Please revise. Response: The detention pond grading has been revised to have 4:1 side slopes, some undulating slopes, 0.50% slope across the pond bottom, wetland plantings are shown for the pond bottom, significant screening of the pond with trees has been provided, and maintenance access down into the pond is now provided. The pond has also been reviewed with Wes Lamarque on 8/14/12 and he agreed that the revised concept is acceptable. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: The water quality capture volume is required to be in addition to the quantity detention. This would make the total required detention around 4.6 acre feet. Response: The water quality capture volume is provided in addition to the 100-year storm volume. This is more clearly discussed in the resubmitted drainage report. 12 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: The detention pond needs to meet the Landscape standards. The grading looks changed since the last PDP submital and the natural features look to have been reduced significantly. This issue needs to be discussed. Response: See response to comment #2 above. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: The pond spillway needs to be better defined and labeled on the detailed grading plan with spot elevations. Please better describe in the text of the drainage report how the flow will spill east onto Timberline Road. Response: The pond spillway is now more defined on the grading plan with spot elevations and is described in the drainage report text. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Please provide street calculations for the private streets. Response: The calculations have been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Please calculate the c-factor and percent impervious for the entire site including off-site arterial streets. Response: The calculation has been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Please remove Basin 2 from the detention pond release calculations since this basin is not draining to the pond. This will reduce the pond release to 8.20 cfs. Response: The information has been updated per the comment. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: In several location, the HGL is very close to the manhole lids and the EGL may be higher than the lid. These lids need to be locking. Response: We have reviewed the EGL elevation for all storm lines and have found that the EGL elevation is below the rim elevation in all manholes. The EGL’s are provided in the UD sewer analysis in the Drainage Report Appendix for your reference. Locking lids do not need to be provided anywhere. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: The run-down located at Timberline and Drake needs to be designed per the Urban Drainage Manual. Response: Understood and provided. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Riprap details need to be included in the plan set. Temporary erosion control is also needed until vegetation matures. City required the riprap to be buried. Response: The details have been provided in the submittal. 13 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Please provide a pond summary table on the drainage plan. Response: The summary has been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: The SWMM model has 19.42 acres instead of 19.52. Response: The SWMM model acreage has been corrected. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Please include the HGLs for all the storm lines. Response: HGL’s have been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: No Landscape Plan was received. Response: Noted Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: The sheet title shown on sheet A-9 & A-1 does not match. Response: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: There is a text over text issue on sheet A-10. Response: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Where did the addresses on sheet A-12 come from? Response: An addressing scheme was received from Todd Reidenbach and we will proceed based on his direction. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets C.3, C.14 - C.21, C.25, C.26, C.28, C.29 & C-001. Response: Line over text issues have been corrected. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: There are text over text issues on sheets C.10, C.12, C.13, C.25, C.26. Response: Line over text issues have been corrected. 14 Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please correct the sheet title on sheet C.21 & C.30. Response: The sheet title has been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please add a north arrow to sheet C.28. Response: The north arrow has been added per the comment. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please correct the detail on sheet C.42. Response: Detail has been corrected per the comment. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: There are many line over text issues on sheets L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-6, I-1, I-2 & I-3. Response: The issues have been corrected. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please correct the title of sheet L-3. Response: The title has been corrected. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: These plans were given to us this morning, and the plans look good. No comments. 08/01/2012: We were not routed these plans. If these plans are to be filed, we will need to review them prior to mylar. Response: Noted. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: The legal description closes. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: The boundary on sheet 2 is missing curve data. Response: Curve data has been added. 15 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: The area shown in the legal description is the same as the area of Lot 1 shown on sheet 2. Please show the total boundary area. Response: The total boundary area is now shown per the comment. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please correct note #7 on sheet 1. This should be Outlot A. Response: The note has been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Why is the west line of Outlot A, Spring Creek Farms North not shown on this plat? It is the basis of bearings, and is tied to in the legal description. Response: The information has been added to the plan per the comment. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please spell out SCFN in the ROW dedication notes and all other notes on sheet 2. Response: The plans have been changed per the comment. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Building Envelopes A & 5 need another tie to locate them. Response: This information has been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please add dimensions for the Emergency Access Easement where shown. See redlines. Response: Dimensions have been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please change the chord bearing for the curve at the southeast corner of the boundary. It does not match the legal description or the Spring Creek Farms North plat. Response: The changes have been made per the comment. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please add a curve # to the curve on building envelope L. Response: The information has been added per the comment. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: There are 2 lines on building envelope L that need line data. Response: The information has been added per the comment. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please hatch the utility easement to be vacated on Joseph Allen Drive. Response: This area has been hatched per the comment. 16 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: What are the 2 dashed lines near the northwest corner of the boundary. See redlines. Response: The 2 dashed lines depict easements. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: There are text over text issues on sheet 2. Response: Text over text issues have been corrected. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please add EAE Emergency Access Easement to the legend. Response: The information has been added to the legend per the comment. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please correct the spelling of North along the north side of Charles Brockman Drive. See redlines. Response: The plans have been corrected. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please consider adding a light hatch for the emergency access easement. It would make the viewability of the plat much better. Response: The plans have been updated per the comment. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: Please change the sheet numbering. Response: The plat sheet numbers have been changed to 1 and 2. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/01/2012 08/01/2012: There are 2 line over text issues on sheet SP.2. Response: Line over text issues have been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Comment (below) not addressed from PDP phase. 5/18/2012: Please provide the data used to design the Eb Left turn lane on Drake at Joseph Allen (DHV's, taper and storage length determinations, etc.) Response: There is only 350’ from the west flowline of Joseph Allen/Sagebrush to the Railroad ROW; so the desirable and minimum design lengths shown below cannot be met. Based on the long range total analysis, the 95th percentile queue is 7’ in the morning and 11’ in the afternoon peak hours. 17 Assumption: Design Speed = 45 mph (40 posted +5); DHV = 60 Using Figure 8-2 the length should be: Desirable = total length 450’ (375’ decel and taper; 75’ storage) Minimum = total length 370’ (320’ decel and taper; 50’ storage) Therefore, it was decided that the deceleration/storage lane should be maximized, to the extent possible, at 195’ with a taper of 155’. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2012 08/07/2012: Comment (below) not addressed from PDP phase. 05/17/2012: Please label the signs shown on the Drake Rd. medians and parkway strip near the Joseph Allen intersection (sheet C-12). Response: Labels have been provided per the comment. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: As noted during PDP, schedule a joint meeting with PFA and myself to discuss number and placement of hydrants and the locations of the4 FDC’s. Response: TST met with Roger and Ron on 8/15/12 to review proposed hydrant locations on the site. All previously proposed hydrant locations have stayed the same, per the agreement in the meeting. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Label the tees for fire hydrants as swivel tees. Response: Labels have been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Valving in table on lower left of sheet C.14 does not always correspond to plan view. Response: The information has been updated per the comment. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Development Construction Standards require thrust blocks at certain locations. Label/note thrust blocks on C.14. Response: The notes and labels have been added to the plans per the comment. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Water services must be the same size as the meter to a point 5 feet downstream of the meter pit. Response: This note has been added to the plans. 18 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Move gas lies or meter pits to avoid having the gas line between the curb stops and meter pits. Response: Gas lines have been moved to the other sides of the buildings where this conflict occurs. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Are all the water services 2”? Response: No, the Plumbing plans have been updated and now there are 1 ½” services shown to the 24-unit buildings and the club house, and 2” services shown to the 36-unit buildings. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: HDPE (DR9 with stiffeners at compression fittings) can be used for 1½” and 2” water services from the water main through the meter pit. Response: This note has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Consider serving Bldg 2.1 and Bldg 2.2 from the water main in Charles Brockman or from mains in Joseph Allen and the N/S drive. This would save over 500 feet of 8” water main. Response: Buildings 2.1 and 2.2 are now serviced differently. The water and fire services for these two buildings now come off of the water main in Joseph Allen Drive and the main stemming from Charles Brockman Drive. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: There are labels or text boxes covering water/sewer lines in several locations on the plans. Response: These have been fixed as much as possible. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Fire line valves shall NOT have locking lids. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Call out/label curb stops. Response: The plans have been updated per the comment. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Add manholes at the end of sewer stubs west of Joseph Allen. Response: Manholes were added per the comment. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Label drop manhole connections and add drop manhole detail. Response: Labels have been added per the comment. 19 Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Show storm crossings on sanitary sewer profiles. Response: Crossings have been shown per the comment. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Why is the sanitary sewer between MH3 and MH7 so deep? Response: This line has been raised and a drop manhole is now required and shown at MH 3. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Add steel casings on water mains and sanitary sewers at all locations where these pipes are crossing below storm drains 24” or larger. Include the casing diameter and thickness. Show casings on overall utility plan and all sanitary and storm plan and profile sheets. Response: Information has been provide per the comment. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Add steel casings on water mains and sanitary sewers at all locations where these pipes are crossing below storm drains 24” or larger. Include the casing diameter and thickness. Show casings on overall utility plan and all sanitary and storm plan and profile sheets. Response: Information has been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: The fire line sizing needs to be finalized prior to signing mylars. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Joint encasement or wrapping on storm drains greater than 15” is at joints only. Response: Note on storm sewer sheets has been adjusted. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Show all service lines and fire lines on the sanitary and storm plan and profile sheets. Response: The information has been provided per the comment. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Response: Comment have been addressed per the redlines. 20 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 07/30/2012 07/30/2012: Add a note on Sheet L-5 outlining required separation distances from water and sewer lines. Adjust trees and shrubs to provide these separation distances. Response: Note 14 on Sheet L-5 has been added outlining the required separation distances and the plant material has been adjusted accordingly. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Sheet L6 should be removed. Reminder All signs and their locations are not approved in the FDP process. Approval for signs and their locations are approved through a separate sign permit. Response: The sheet has been removed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Was the modification request submitted and approved concerning the parking standards? If so a note on the plans should reference the Modification approval. Response: A note has been added to the Site Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/31/2012 07/31/2012: Accessibility parking shall be designated by a sign. Response: Handicap accessible parking areas will be designated by a sign. These are now shown on the Site Plan.