Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - FDP - FDP130010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -1 March 29, 2013 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Final Compliance Submittal: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP 110018 Follows are the review comments provided by City of Fort Collins Staff. Many of the comments no longer apply due to changes in the project – primarily due to the now limited extent of the Stormwater Detention pond, and how the wetlands will be handled. Comments are addressed below in BLUE ITALICS text. Thank you for your review of this project. April 16, 2012 RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP110018, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: A walkway is needed along the private drive along the north side of the clubhouse area. This walkway must be a minimum of six feet in width since the parking stalls are only 17 feet in length. Be sure to add ramps where this walkway intersects with the parking lot drive. There is a 7’ walk along the private drive north of the clubhouse area. Ramps have been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: For the Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (including the Two Family Dwellings where there are more than three bedrooms i.e. Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride) be sure to use 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) in 2 calculating the minimum parking required. The only Houses that would apply for extra-occupancy are the 4 and 5 bedroom single family homes. None of the two-family homes have more than 3 bedrooms per unit, and now include only the Aspen and the Frisco. The Keystone and the Telluride have been removed from the housing mix. The off-street parking calculations include enough parking to meet the code for extra- occupancy rental units. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Comment number four remains open. The east-west portion of this walkway (along the north side of the future clubhouse), does not connect to anything and is, therefore, isolated. Both ends need to be extended to the drives and intersect with the drives with ramps. It appears this has been corrected. The network of walks is fairly well connected throughout the development. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Comment number seven remains open. Be sure that the architectural elevations match the site plan cover sheet and parking data table. The Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride are shown to be two-family units with more than three bedrooms and thus would become Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. But the parking table indicates that only single family detached are to become Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. Please rectify. The Aspen and the Frisco are the only 2-family attached homes, and do not exceed 3 bedrooms per unit. The only units that would require extra occupancy designation would be the Single-family homes, which have 4 and 5 bedrooms. This has been clarified in both the Site Plan data sheet and the Architectural Elevations set. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: The parking data table could be improved by deleting the word "attached." By definition, the units are attached and the term "attached," in our Code, refers to single family attached dwellings which are townhomes on individual fee simple lots which is not the case here. Also, it is not accurate to indicate that there is only one unit in the multi-family. The plans indicate that the number ranges from 3 through 6. Also, in describing the multi-family, the terms "interior" and "exterior" are extraneous and have relationship to our Code. The multi-family units will in fact be townhomes on individual fee simple lots. The table has been simplified to reflect the appropriate City of Fort Collins terminology: Single Family, Two-family, and Single- family attached. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Please add the Dwelling Unit Labels table to the Overall Site Plan, sheet 4 of 8. Dwelling Unit labels have been included on the Overall Site Plan, sheet 4 of 8. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: On the Site Plan, sheet 5 of 8, and then continued on sheet 7 of 8, note that the parking lots on the west side of Blue Spruce, do not provide for a back up maneuver for the westerly-most stalls. This will require a driver to make an excessive number of maneuvers in order to back out of the stall and head east. The lots should be extended to the west to accommodate this backing maneuver. Correction made. 3 Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Overall, the pedestrian connectivity is much improved. But, the network still has some gaps. Internal mobility by pedestrians and bicyclists would be enhanced, and thus discourage internal trips by vehicles, with additional ramps and crosswalks on Lupine. On sheet 5 of 8, note that the two north-south walks that flank the drainage channel terminate at the public walks on Lupine. These walks should be extended to the flowline, with ramps, and with provision of a crosswalk. Otherwise the internal network is incomplete. The same comment applies to the north-south walkway located approximately 185 east of the channel. Mid-block crossings of street at the classification level of Lupine is appropriate. Cautionary signage, combined with red curbing that restricts on-street parking, will add a measure of safety. 4 mid- block crossings are included along Lupine – on either side of the channel and at 2 additional locations east of the channel. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: On sheet 6 of 8, please refer to the aforementioned comment. The north-south walkway, on the west side of the clubhouse, needs to be extended to the flowline, with a ramp, with a crosswalk, to tie into the walkway on the south side of Lupine, to be similarly upgraded with an extension and ramp. At this time, these walks are off-set. This offset can be remedied with proper curvature in the walks so that the crosswalk is perpendicular to Lupine. These three additional crosswalks on Lupine will provide a measure of traffic calming and promote overall walkability within the project. Correction made as requested. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: This comments ties in with open comment number four regarding the treatment of the north side of the clubhouse tract. Essentially, the clubhouse is on a double-frontage lot. The north side is currently treated with a ramp that connects out to Conifer and the bus stop. This treatment is insufficient for this destination and the relationship to Conifer Street. At the least, the two parking stalls that flank the ramp should be removed and replaced with landscape islands. At the time of review for the clubhouse area, the north-facing area will need to feature a well-designed approach so it does not become a back door. Corrections made as suggested. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: On sheet 7 of 8, in the area of the 35-foot wide spine, the five foot walk terminates on the east into a parking stall. Again, this represents a discontinuous network. Please remove this stall and add a ramp so that the walks does not simply dead-end. Correction made as suggested. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Also on sheet 7 of 8, the same comment applies as to the termination of the north-south walkway within the 35-foot wide spine. At the southern terminus, this walk simply dead-ends into a parking stall. Please remove this stall and add a ramp so that the bicyclist or pedestrian has somewhere to go. Correction made as suggested. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 04/16/2012 4 04/16/2012: There does not appear to be any fencing along the west property line. Staff recommends a three-rail open fence that is typically found along the City's bike trails. Further, this fence could equipped with a wire mesh which would be effective for pet control and catch litter and debris from the prevailing west / northwest wind. It does not appear that such a fence would interfere with stormwater drainage capability. A fence has been included along the west property boundary. This fence will have wire mesh on the lower half. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 04/16/2012 04/16/2012: Thank you for showing the bus stop and the 12' x 18' concrete pad along Conifer and the connecting walkway. Section 3.6.5 requires not only the transit stop but other associated facilities as well. In the case of a multi-family development at the scale of Aspen Heights, a bus shelter is required as well. While Transfort has a menu of standardized bus shelters from which to choose, I recommend that the developer consider customizing a shelter that would match the architectural style of the clubhouse and residential character of the overall project. That way, the bus shelter will gain identity as the Aspen Heights stop and provide a higher level of visibility for the project. Emma McArtle, at Fort Collins Transit was contacted to discuss details for the bus shelter. Elevations and details will reflect Transfort Standards and will be provided at the time of Building Permit application. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 When you are ready to work on this let me know and we can meet to look at the proposed turn lane lengths, pedestrian refuges, turning templates, striping and aspects as we move forward. 01/20/2012: New Vine: A full design for Vine Drive will be needed. As you work on this please remember that the median needs to be designed to include a sub drain, water tap, and the landscaping for the median needs to be planned out and designed. The median will also need to be design to meet horizontal and vertical design standards. At this point, the design of New Vine Street is based on the design drawings provided to us by the City. Revisions to the design can be made, but refining the geometry of the turn lanes will require that the City also provide us with traffic projections for the turning movements. We will arrange a meeting with City representatives to obtain this information and to discuss other factors that may be applicable to the design of these improvements. The landscaping plan shows the proposed landscaping of the median, and the irrigation plan makes provision for a water tap to serve this area. A sub-drain will be included if necessary. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 I am still not sure that everything ties into the existing contours. I just can’t clearly see that proposed contours tie into existing contours within the property limits.01/20/2012: Grading Plans: I can not 5 tell if the grade lines tie into existing grades within the property lines and right-of-way lines at this time. Additional clarification is needed to show how all the grading work is proposed to tie into existing. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The grading plan has been revised to ensure that all proposed ground contours tie into existing ground contours around the perimeter of the site. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Grade lines have been provided for Vine and part of Redwood. Another grading sheet is needed to show the contours all the way to where Redwood will tie into existing.01/20/2012: Grading Plans: No proposed grade lines are shown within Vine and Redwood. This is needed to show how the grading work for these streets will work and to determine what if any off-site easements will be needed for the work. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Proposed grade lines have been added to the Plan & Profile sheets for New Vine Drive and Redwood Street. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 You have identified but not shown on the grading plan that Vine will be built short of the property line to accommodate the grading needed to tie back to existing grade. The project will need to provide funds for the frontage portion that cannot be built prior to issuance of the first building permit (local obligation only). Lupine has not been shown this way, as well as all the drainage from the street and the pans are being directed onto the adjacent property. Where is the drainage going and what grading is needed here to accommodate the street and keeping this from being a low point that just holds water. As shown grading and drainage easements on the property to the west will be needed. A letter of intent to grant these easements will be needed from the property owner prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing.01/20/2012: Grading Plans: Need to show how you plan to end the west end of Vine and Lupine. And how the grades will tie into existing grades. Also need to show Type III barricades being installed in these two locations. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Grading along the west property line will be such that all runoff is intercepted and directed to either an inlet and storm drain at New Vine Drive or to an inlet near the northwest corner of the site, and from there into the site drainage system. Details of the interim termination of New Vine Drive and Lupine Drive will include Type III barricades. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Part of this is shown, but extends beyond the limits of the grading plans that have been provided so far. 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: What grading is needed, if any, in Blondel to achieve the minimum cover over the waterline you are showing to be installed? Fill will be placed and compacted over the section of new water main in the Blondel right-of-way to ensure adequate cover over the water main. The profile of the water main connection is based on the street profile provided by the City. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 The plans are looking closer to achieving this. There is still some work (pan changes, high point adjustments, and spot elevation information added to make sure drainage goes to the sidewalk culvert) that is needed to achieve this standard, but looks like it is possible and the standard can be met by final plans. 01/20/2012: Driveways and Grading: Per LCUASS no storm flows are to flow over the sidewalk and out 6 the driveway. Understanding that no flow is not always achievable, the policy is that a maximum of 750 square feet of area is allowed to flow out a driveway. You have driveways/ parking areas that exceed that amount. For those areas you can take the drainage into a pan and out through a sidewalk culvert into the street. Grading of the driveways has been designed to direct overland flow to a low point at a low corner of the parking area, where no drainage inlet is available, and from there via a pan and sidewalk chase to the adjacent street gutter. The driveway grading is designed to limit the area from which runoff may migrate across the sidewalk to not more than 750 s.f. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 This has been done - we would just ask that the row along Redwood be tapered into the existing row or extended to Lupine rather than end bluntly.01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: As identified in the conceptual comments and shown by these plans additional row is needed along Conifer and Redwood to accommodate the standard parkway and sidewalk section, This additional row and the standard 9 foot utility easements behind the row need to be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The additional right-of-way dedication to accommodate the parkway and sidewalk will be shown on the plat. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: There are several vertical curves in which the minimum curve length is not being provided. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18 The vertical curves have been revised to comply with the LCUASS requirements. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/15/12 As requested, when the clubhouse is shown as part of these drawings the PDP fees for it will be determined and the credit applied to those fees. Agreed. 01/20/2012: Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 As indicated in response letter this New Vine name can remain on the plans for the time being and will just need to be updated prior to final approval with what ever name has been determined before that time. 01/20/2012: The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. We will defer to the City with respect to establishing a permanent name for “New Vine Drive”. Once a name has been determined, the drawings 7 will be updated accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Need to show the full connection of this. Right now the plans show where it is to start, but do not yet show how it will tie into the existing walk along Jax. 01/20/2012: A pedestrian connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off-site sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the ultimate location along this roadway. The City Capital project for North College Ave is underway and upon completion of that College Ave will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The full length of the temporary sidewalk connection will be shown on the final plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As we continue with rounds of review I will look into placement of manholes and make sure they are designed so they are not within the wheel path of the travel lance or within a bike lane. 12.2.3.B LCUASS Comment noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The utility plan check sheet that was submitted was returned - please note comments on this and items that are incomplete. I tried to repeat most of these in my comments, but this maybe helpful. Comment noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 It looks like the parking setbacks to meet that for the smaller parking lots (40 feet) was applied to all the parking lots. A variance is needed and will need to be considered if this is the distance you also wish to use for the large parking lots as well. 01/20/2012: Parking setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the distance from the flowline to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I don’t know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted. (best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers) An analysis of parking lot traffic distribution was conducted which demonstrated that all of the parking lots within the development met the criteria for a 40’ setback from the street flow line to the parking lot flow line. A copy of that analysis is attached. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: I have noted on the plans some additional details that will eventually need to be provided. Comments noted. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 The response indicated this was done and it looks that way on the plans, although I did not see the width dimensioned on the plans. With final plans the driveway location will need to be located (stations) 8 and the width will be clarified that way. 01/20/2012: The driveway widths for the private drives have been shown so far only on the site plans. In accordance with Section 9.3.2(a) of the LUCASS the driveways that serve parking areas for more than 3 units need to have an entry width of 28 feet. The driveway widths have been adjusted to provide a 28’ width at the street. The driveway entrances are then tapered such that the width of the driveway at the property line is 24’, per discussions with City staff. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012 04/15/2012: Add the street cut note to the utility plan sheets. Note: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. The requested note will be added to the utility plan sheets, where applicable. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012 04/15/2012: The corner cuts for the dedication of row at the corners can be used, but the cut needs to be back far enough that the entire sidewalk is within the row. For most of the corners the row line will need to be moved back a bit to accommodate this. The plat has been revised to show curves at the property line intersections, to accommodate the detached sidewalks. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012 04/15/2012: See redlines for additional comments. Comments noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 The language you added is close to what the easement language is, but not quite consistent. I taped a copy of the easement language on the plan set so you will have the language. 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing). Easement language was corrected per redlines dated 4/10/12. Topic: Offsite Work Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Based on the plans right now It looks as if off-site easements are needed from the property to the west (grading and drainage), property to the east of Redwood (grading and drainage). 01/20/2012: At this time I do not have enough information to know if any off-site easements will be necessary for the site or road construction. As the review progresses and additional grading and design information is provided this can be determined. Letters of intent from any property owners from which easements are needed are to be provided prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. A letter of intent is a letter from the property owner identifying its intent to grant the easement(s) necessary to accomplish the proposed design. The requirements for off-site easements remain unclear at the time of the first Final Compliance submittal. Once identified, the consultant team will pursue letters of intent and easement agreements prior to final approval. 9 Topic: Plat Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: We have plat language that was updated last May. I can email it to you if you would like me to. Just let me know what your email is. Mine: slangenberger@fcgov.com. Because so much time has passed since the last review of this project, it is unknown if the plat language remains incorrect at the time. Please provide the correct plat language: send it to Deanne@tfgcolorado.com, and I will make sure it is corrected. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to clearly identify who is to own and maintain all of the lots. The entire project will be owned and maintained by Breckenridge Group Fort Collins Colorado, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company. The ownership is shown on the plat and all pertinent documents. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As I understand it PFA is going to require that the private drives be named, as it is necessary for the units to be addressed. Once named the private drive names need to be placed on the plat and to the individual dwelling units, per the City of Fort Collins GIS department. The drives are named on the plat, the site plan, the landscape plan and all other plan sets. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/13/2012: In addition to my comments below, from my discussions with the applicant, it appears that the trickle pan can be removed and that the pond can be graded in such a way to direct flow toward the mitigation area. This would mimic the current wetland's hydrology, which is also fed by stormwater flow. However, I've asked the applicant to also look at installing monitoring wells at the site, in several different locations, to assess whether or not the proposed mitigation area could have a hydrology regime supported by groundwater. Whether or not the applicant can install these monitoring wells should be determined prior to hearing. Per discussions with City Staff the Storm water detention pond will be downsized to incorporate only the detention needed for the Aspen Heights project. The rest of the NECCO related construction will occur at a later date. Because of this the entire wetland will be impacted, and will not be mitigated on site. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the wetland is not jurisdictional. City staff has indicated that an agreement can be drafted to allow for a “cash-in-lieu” payment for impacted wetlands. It is understood that this is in progress at this time. The following staff comments no longer apply to this application: 04/10/2012: Please label the n-s spine in the center of the project as well as the mitigation area as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site, landscape, and utility plans. Please also add the following note to the site, landscape, and utility plans: "Please see Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable uses 10 within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." To be clear, while the wetland mitigation plan sheet shows graphically how the 0.30 acres will be mitigated for, a document detailing the mitigation and monitoring strategies will need to be developed and ultimately will be attached to the project's development agreement. Staff can provide you with examples of these plans. Note that at least three years of monitoring will be required, depending on how quickly mitigation success can be achieved. Who is responsible for the mitigation's success? There are several disclaimers on this sheet saying who is not responsible, but responsibility is not clearly assigned either. Also, I cannot find anything within the wetland mitigation plan sheet that indicates this site will have wetland hydrology. Please submit documentation that confirms site hydrology is present at this elevation. It appears the trickle pan may cut off the water flowing from the north, and it would be good to know how this affects the potential success of the mitigation effort. Other wetland mitigation plan comments are as follows: A. The area that is outlined as the wetland mitigation area has two different seed mixes - both wetland and upland. Why are there upland seed mixes within the wetland mitigation area? Is the area between the 54 and 55 contours really expected to be a wetland? This coincides with my comment about wetland hydrology above. B. Drill seeding will increase the likelihood of success on this mitigation effort and is highly recommended by staff. C. Staff is assuming the contours and shape of the wetland mitigation area are conceptual at this time and will be fleshed out during final plan review. A couple of my comments during that discussion will be to have a more naturalistic/blurred edge for the wetlands (increase the undulation of the topography). We'd need to be pretty clear on where the interim (this proposal) and final (regional detention pond) grades are during this discussion, so we can determine where a diversity of shrubs and trees can be planted around the mitigation area. 01/10/2012: It sounds like the mitigation and monitoring plan will be received upon the next submittal. The monitoring plan should include the n-s spine in the center of the project, which is being designed as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Also note that the City and ACOE have generally similar requirements, but the mitigation plan may need to address specific City concerns, especially if the wetlands are deemed to be non-jurisdictional. One of the critical components for City staff will be whether the proposed mitigation location has sufficient hydrology to support a wetland. Also, as per Section 3.4.1(O) of the Land Use Code, a copy of the ACOE mitigation permit will be required to be submitted to the City for proof of compliance. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/10/2012: A weed plan will need to be developed after the first growing season. As noted above, this can be incorporated into the mitigation and monitoring plan. The current note on the plan in insufficient, but this can be resolved during final plan review and in the development agreement. 01/10/2012: Noxious weeds - the Development Agreement and Mitigation Plan should include a discussion on how the site will address noxious weeds, e.g., the field bindweed and Canada thistle found on the site. The size of the detention basin has been reduced considerably. Wetland mitigation is no longer planned for the detention pond area. The detention basin will be seeded with native seed. If additional notes are needed for weed control, please provide the desired language. Thank you. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/13/2012: Based on the discussion at staff review today, it sounds like an agreement between the City and the applicant can be reached regarding off-site mitigation through the creation of prairie habitat elsewhere through the City via the City's Natural Areas Program. I will be meeting with Natural Areas staff 11 on April 19th to determine if this strategy is acceptable to them as well (as they will be the ones conducting the restoration). If this strategy is agreed upon by all parties, I can begin drafting a Memorandum of Understanding that, at the time of Development Construction Permit, the applicant will provide the City with the appropriate funds to create at least a 1:1 mitigation for the prairie dog habitat lost through this development. Staff strongly recommends considering a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio to account for the off-site nature of this mitigation effort. A Prairie Dog mitigation plan was submitted in response to PDP comments. This includes a one-week live trapping for donation to the Ferret Center. Fumigation will follow live trapping prior to construction. A copy of this plan is included in this submittal set. The applicant is aware that funding for habitat lost will be required and will be reflected in the Development Agreement associated with this project. 04/10/2012: As a relocation option for the prairie dogs has not been identified, the proposal to remove the prairie dogs and use them as a food source for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program is the next best option. Regarding the detention pond, it is unclear to me where grading will be temporary vs. permanent. In the areas that will be more permanent, is it possible to plant more shrubs and trees throughout the detention pond instead of just a native seed mix? Please review the more detailed landscape plan to determine if seed mixes and vegetation planting are now adequate. Regarding #3, staff does not see how the current management plan for the prairie dogs achieves Section 3.4.1(C) where the general standard refers to "restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community (either on-site or off-site) when a development proposal will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features." How is this project replacing or restoring the lost value? As it stands, staff can only find that the standards for prairie dog control have been met, as outlined in the Municipal Code, and not how the resource value lost at the site has been mitigated. If mitigation for this resource lost cannot occur that is at least equal in ecological value to the loss suffered by the community because of the disturbance (see Section 3.4.1(E)(2)(b)), then a modification may need to be required. 01/10/2012: As this project proposed to remove a raptor foraging area and a prairie dog colony over 50 acres, at least a three-pronged approach should be taken to mitigate the loss of these resources. 1. The applicant should verify that relocation of the prairie dogs is not an option. If it is not an option, then efforts to trap and donate the prairie dogs to the ferret or raptor center should be discussed. 2. The regional detention pond on the site should be designed to maximize the urban habitat opportunities, e.g., every effort should be made to design and construct the regional detention basin as a native habitat, including native grass and forb species in the design. The proposed seed mix in the landscape plan is an excellent start toward achieving this but do we think the base of the detention pond will be dry or wet? If the pond will be wet, then a wetland seed mix should be considered for the site (including the wetland mitigation area). In addition, shrubs and trees surrounding the pond should be installed to enhance the vegetation diversity (both structurally and species-specific). The detention pond is considerably smaller than shown on the PDP. The native trees on the detention pond site will not be removed, and habitat will not be impacted as originally thought. Please review the Landscape Plan to determine the appropriateness of the landscape improvements to the detention pond area. 3. In addition, because there will be a loss of raptor habitat, staff is exploring mechanisms to create additional or enhance existing prairie habitat (that could serve raptors upon restoration) in other areas across the City (mitigating for the loss of this habitat), e.g., at McKee Farm in southeast Fort Collins. Let's plan a separate meeting to discuss these comments in more detail. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 12 04/10/2012: This note also needs to be added to the site plan and utility plans. 01/10/2012: A note on all of the plans saying the following, "See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone" may need to be added in future reviews, depending on how the mitigation areas are designed. . Please clarify if this is needed. There will be no wetland mitigation areas on the plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2012 01/11/2012: Staff concurs with the ECS that a burrowing owl survey will need to be conducted, prior to construction, to determine if the owls are present on the site. Prior to releasing the Development Construction Permit, staff will need a letter of clearance from the USFWS confirming there are no known nesting sites on the property. So Noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: On sheet LS-3 that is titled "Tree Mitigation Plan," you call out that several species are cotton-bearing cottonwood species. Note that if these species are within the buffer zones, e.g., those areas in bubbles labeled G and H, then they do require mitigation as per Section 3.2.1(F)(2)(c). This standard also applies to female boxelder trees. Let's discuss how to proceed on this item. The tree mitigation plan has been revised to reflect the new detention pond configuration. All tree species that will be removed as a result of this project have been accounted for appropriately. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/13/2012: After the staff review, I talked with Eric Berg and he confirmed this area was not examined in the wetland delineation process. He indicated he will go into the field next week (the week of the 16th) and will check this area to see if it needs to be including in the delineation. 04/10/2012: From reviewing the wetland mitigation plan sheet, it appears this area coincides with some of the treed areas listed in the above comment. In addition, some of this area is depressional in nature but was not included within the original wetland delineation for this site. Please confirm that none of the proposed mitigation area is currently a wetland. Note that it also appears some of the trees discussed in the above comment are within the proposed wetland mitigation area - is there any way to preserve these trees and still achieve the mitigation objectives? The entire wetland that lies south of Conifer and extends through the Aspen Heights property as well as the city-owned property has now been surveyed and mapped. This includes the wetland area that lies south of New Vine in the Aspen Heights “triangle” and partially within Old Town North. The complete reports were reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and deemed non-jruisdictional. All reports and responses have been included with this Final Compliance submittal. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Note 6 on sheet 1 should be changed to the code requirement for soil improvement. •The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth 13 of not less than eight (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. So Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 Add these notes to address the tree permit requirement: •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. Complete. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Explore the addition of ornamental trees in the front lawn or bed space of units along public streets. These lawn areas between the building and sidewalk to be reviewed for full tree stocking. So noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Add this note: Tree removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by code. Complete Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: “Landscape tree lawns outside of the project perimeter shall be installed by the developer of Aspen Heights and maintained by the City of Fort Collins”. Contact Rodney Albers (224 6024) in Storm Water and Steve Lukowski (416 2063) in parks to discuss their requirements, and what additional statements they may require on the plan. Both parties were contacted but no additional recommendations were made. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: “Street Trees on Local Roadways, internal to the development site can be a minimum of 1.5” caliper at the time of planting". Please explain why a smaller than the required 2.0 inch caliper tree would be specified here. 2” Canopy trees will be planted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees in site distance areas should have the first branch at 6 feet. So noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please provide a statement as part of the tree mitigation information on why the existing trees on the site need to be removed. The only trees that will be removed are due to City-required roadway and 14 storm drainage improvements. No other trees will be removed as a result of the Aspen Heights project. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/201201/18/2012: Utility separations for trees: Six feet between water and sewer service lines. Ten feet between trees and water and sewer main lines. So noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Planting beds along high use and visibility walls should be 5 feet wide. So noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees should be at a 30-40 spacing. They appear to be at this spacing but there is a note that mentions 50 feet. Trees are spaced 30-40’ where ever possible. There are City-required utilities at some locations that prohibit the even planting of street trees. The landscape plan demonstrates a full tree stocking of the entire development area. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: The Following note should replace note number 6 on LS-2. •The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (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. Complete Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: The two requested notes about obtaining a planting permit for street trees and obtaining inspections on these trees doesn’t appear to have been added to Sheet LS-1. Please check and add these two notes to the general notes. The Requested note about Tree Removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by Code also appears to still need to be added to LS-1. Complete Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Scotch pine is susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle and other insect problems. The City Forester recommends using another evergreen tree such as South West White Pine. So noted. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Street Tree Selection needs to be from the City Street Tree List. So noted. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Incorporate 124 upsized mitigation trees on the landscape plan. These need to be sized as follows and identified direct labeling and it the plant list. The upsized tree requirement is considerably reduced due to the reduction in the impacts to existing tree stands within the City-owned Storm water detention pond area. The tree mitigation plan was revised, and upsized trees are clearly shown on the landscape plan. Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen Trees 8 Feet height 15 Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Use 3 inch caliper shade trees in Sight Distance Triangle Easements to provide for high canopies. So noted. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Confirm that none of the cottonwood trees shown to be removed are located in a natural area buffer. The only trees that will be removed are due to City-required roadway and storm drainage improvements. No other trees will be removed as a result of the Aspen Heights project. It is unknown if these trees are located in a designated natural area buffer. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/13/201204/13/2012: Contact Pete Wray in Advance planning to review and receive comments on the landscape design of the median to standard. So noted. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Provide a mix of tree types located in a manner that meet the requirements 3.2.1. C. D and other relevant sections of that Division. It appears that there are landscape areas that need to be addressed with tree planting that are currently not. A much more detailed landscape plan is included with this submittal. It includes full tree stocking. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Please replace the part of the notes referring trees to be limbed to 6 feet with this statement. Street landscaping including street trees shall be maintained in accordance with City codes and Policies. So noted. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Please set up an on site meeting with the City Forester and representative from the Engineering Department to review the Redwood Street and Vine Street Alignment impact on the cottonwood trees located by these proposed roadways. Forestry would like to confirm the actual location of the proposed road improvements by these trees. This meeting has not yet occurred. Please advise when an appropriate time to meet on site is, and who the appropriate representatives should be. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Final landscape plan shall provide for direct labeling of the displayed symbols for trees. The plant list should include final quantities. Quantities should provide for species diversity, with not over 15 percent is for projects with more that 60 trees. A much more detailed landscape plan is included with this submittal. Please review for appropriate compliance. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/03/2012 16 04/03/2012: A landscape plan showing proposed street lights was sent to The Fredrickson Group on 4-3-12. The lights need to be shown on the landscape plan and tree locations adjusted to provide 40 ft. clearance between light standards and trees (15 ft. for ornamental trees). This plan was received and is reflected in the landscape plan, site plan and utility plans. Appropriate tree planting is provided. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: REQUIRED ACCESS: Emergency Fire Access Easements (Fire Lanes) DEFINITION: An emergency access easement is an easement through or upon private property, properly platted and dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for the sole purpose of providing emergency access. It is intended to provide an area designed for the safe and effective deployment of emergency response services. Emergency services shall be allowed to drive, park and/or stage any emergency vehicle or equipment upon this easement at any time. The easement may be upon public streets (except arterial streets), parking lots, private streets and private drives; this easement shall not be upon any defined pedestrian walkway. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the easement unobstructed, including parked vehicles, and to maintain its visibility at all times for emergency access and firefighter safety. So Noted. DESIGN: The easement is required to meet the design specifications outlined in the locally adopted fire code, as amended by the City of Fort Collins, and in the Land Use Code. It shall be designed to withstand the imposed weights of fire apparatus, 40-ton. It is required to have a minimum width of 20 feet, with a 25 foot inside turning radius and a 50 foot outside turning radius; and it shall have 14 foot of clear air space. No canopy trees under 14 feet shall overhang into the fire lane. If the fire lane(s) cannot be provided, all buildings beyond 150 feet from the public right of way are deemed out of access and required to be fire sprinklered. This distance is measured as the hose would lay, and not as the crow flies. Please verify this distance on the site plan or the overall utility plan. Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided. Fire access is provided along the public roadway system as well as the private drives. It appears appropriate access and placement of fire hydrants have all been designed to the above standards. Please clarify how fire acces can be better demonstrated – if needed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: WATER SUPPLY: The water supply for this project shall provide a hydrant no further than 400 feet to every structure, and on 800 foot centers thereafter. The required volume is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. So noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Address numerals are required to be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background. The numerals shall be posted on the front of the building. As is currently designed, only the perimeter buildings which 17 front on a public street can meet this requirement. All other interior buildings appear to front on a walkway spine, which cannot be named. Therefore, the private drives, fire lanes, must be properly named and addressed for emergency services to locate. The private drives have been named, and an addressing plan has been confirmed. Addressing will be placed on the frontages of the buildings that are easiest identified-on the sides that face the private drives and public roadways. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 - 01/05/2012: All proposed street names shall be submitted for review and approval by LETA prior to being put in service. Street names have been submitted and approved. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: Any hazardous materials shall be declared utilizing the HMIA, as described in LUC 3.4.5. This would include the use of pesticides, and pool chemistry. So noted. Please advise the appropriate timing for this – at time of building permit? At time of CO? or immediately, as an attachment to the Final Compliance documents? Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All multi-family units shall be fire sprinklered in accordance with the IRC. The units that were previously identified as multi-family are now considered single-family attached placed on individual lots. The units will not be sprinklered, but will incorporate fire-separation walls per the appropriate building code. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Floodplain comments 1. A portion of the project is in the FEMA-designated Dry Creek floodplain and floodway. So noted. 2. Please include the floodplain and floodway boundaries on the all the plan sheets for which the floodplain is mapped. The currently mapped floodplain boundary has been included in the drawing base, so it should show up on all drawings pertaining to that area of the site. 3. The plat shows the Redwood St. and New Vine Drive roads are shown to be constructed in the Dry Creek floodway. Because these roads will change the floodway boundary, a CLOMR and a LOMR will be required. In addition, this CLOMR/LOMR will need to reflect changes in the hydrology due to the construction of the pond. Please contact Marsha Hilmes-Robinson at mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com or 970-224-6036 to arrange a meeting to discuss the CLOMR/LOMR process and the timing of improvements. Several discussions have been had with Ms. Hilmes-Robinson and work is ongoing regarding the CLOMR/LOMR. In addition, we have been advised that the City does not want us to proceed with an expanded interim detention basin as part of the Aspen Heights project. Once the road configuration (horizontal and vertical) is established, and the final size and configuration of the interim detention basin is confirmed, we will proceed with the CLOMR. 4. The floodway is not correctly identified on the plat. Please identify and distinguish between the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. The plat will be corrected to properly delineate and identify the floodplain and floodway. 5. Please include further discussion in the drainage report regarding the existing location of the floodway 18 and floodplain and the proposed floodplain mapping changes. Further discussion of the existing and proposed floodway and floodplain will be included in the drainage report once the revised delineation of the floodplain in determined. 6. Any vegetation placed in the floodway must be documented to be of a type and quantity such that upon maturity it will not increase the base flood elevations. No vegetation will be place in the floodway that will impede flow. 7. A floodplain use permit is required for any work in the floodplain or floodway. The permit fee is $325 which includes review of the hydraulic modeling for the CLOMR/LOMR. A floodplain permit will be obtained prior to commencement of construction. 8. Please see the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists for additional items needed on the plans and in the drainage report. All floodplain regulations can be found in Chapter 10 of City Code. The requirements of the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists will be incorporated into the plans and the drainage report. 9. The floodplain use permit, and development review checklists are available on our website at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is the responsibility of the Developer. Appropriate updates to the City’s master plan model hydrology will be made, prior to finalization of the drainage regime for the project. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The hydraulic (including inlets, storm sewers, street capacity, etc.) and erosion control design for this Development will be reviewed during final compliance after a public hearing. Agreed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: Please show all the capital improvements to be built with this development on the plans that was agreed upon in the letter dated March 20, 2012 by Owen Consulting. All agreed upon capital improvements will be shown on the drawings for this project. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: All off-site drainage flowing onto the site needs to be direct through the site safely and per City's criteria. The western edge of the site looks like it needs more detail to determine if this will occur and if off-site easements are required. No offsite drainage flows onto the site, except that from Conifer St., which is collected at the northwest corner of the site and routed through the site drainage system. Runoff from the vacant property immediately west of the site will be diverted to the south and into a storm main along the north side of New Vine Drive and through the interim detention basin. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 19 04/12/2012: For all off-site easements that are required for this development, letter of intents are needed before a public hearing. It is not expected that any offsite easements will be required. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: Please investigate if the temporary outfall can be connected into the inlet at the northwest corner of Vine Drive and Redwood Street. This will reduce another crossing under Redwood Street and eliminate the manhole that is very close to the transmission line pole. A revised alignment for the temporary outfall piping has been developed and is presented on the revised project drawings. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: Please see the attached Erosion Control requirements for a guideline on the first submittal of the Final Plan Review process. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Jeff: The Building elevations, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Plat and Engineering drawings have all been re- worked. Redlines are returned with this response letter and submittal of the Final Compliance documents. Efforts have been made to make sure there are no line over text issues, match lines are correct, etc. In the future it is not necessary to list each error. A redline set will be sufficient. Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/10/2012: There is still one line over text issue on sheet A-2. 01/19/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/11/2012: There are still line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22. 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23 & 25. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/11/2012: There are still mislabeled matchline issues on sheets 10, 14, 18, & 22. 01/19/2012: There is a mislabeled matchline sheet number on sheet 9. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/11/2012: Please remove the duplicate "Vine Drive" on sheet 11. 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 13 & 20-24. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The sheet numbering jumps back & forth between 27 and 26 sheets. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The Blue Spruce Drive centerline plan & profile sheet and the Street Details sheet are listed 20 on the title sheet, but are not in the plan set. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The City does not use the Black Bolt Survey anymore. Please call Technical Services @ 970-221-6588 to get a current copy of the City of Fort Collins Vertical Control. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: There are text over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 8, 9 & 20. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: There are profile values that are not known on sheet 19. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Is sheet 21 the correct sheet for Vine Drive, or is sheet 22? Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The keymaps on sheets 21 & 22 are incorrect. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Please label Vine Drive on sheet LS-2. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets LS-3 & LS-4. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Sheet LS-5 has an incorrect "10" in the sheet number. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There are matchline issues on sheets LS-5, LS-6, LS-7, LS-8 & LS-9. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: The boundary & legal description close. 01/18/2012: The boundary & legal description close. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: This has not been corrected. 01/18/2012: The record bearing for the south line of Section 1 is incorrect. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: There is still missing information on sheet 3. 01/18/2012: There are easements that need to be labeled. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: Please add the ")" to the note. 01/18/2012: Please add "See Sheet 1" to Detail "A" on sheet 2. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There is a text over text issue on sheet 3. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There is cut off text on sheet 2 Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 21 04/10/2012: The corner cuts on the right of way of Blue Spruce Drive create a problem with the sidewalk design shown on the Site Plans. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: We would prefer that the 3' of right of way to be dedicated along Redwood Street be extended all the way to Lupine Drive. This will create a consistent right of way width, rather than 2 different widths. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: This has not been corrected. The proper spelling is "Principal" in Land Surveying. 01/19/2012: Please correct the spelling of "Principal" in the legal description on sheet 1. Corrected. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/10/2012: This has been addressed. 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 9 & 11. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There are text over text issues on sheet 5. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 8. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: The corner cuts on the right of way of Blue Spruce Drive shown on sheets 5 & 7 will need to change, so that the sidewalk is completely inside of the right of way. All chamfered corners have been rounded to match the back of sidewalk alignment. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: The right of way lines at the north end of Blue Spruce Drive on sheet 5 & at the east end of Lupine Drive on sheets 6 & 8 don't match the Subdivision Plat. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2012 03/12/2012: Please include signing and striping plans with subsequent submittals. This has not yet occurred, but will be included in the next submittal set. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/12/2012 03/12/2012: Looks like a small sight distance easement may be necessary at the SW corner of Redwood and Conifer. Please verify. Site distance easements are shown on the Landscape Plan and on the plat. These appear to be in compliance with the standards as set forth in LCUASS. Topic: Traffic Impact Study 22 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/08/2012 02/08/2012: The TIS analyzed the College and Conifer intersection with a north bound right turn lane. Unfortunately one does not currently exist at that location. It is being built with the current improvements so analyzing it in the short and long term is appropriate. Please revise the TIS appropriately. This was addressed in a memorandum from Delich and Associates dated 3-16-13. This memorandum is included with the submittal materials. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: The bus stop is shown on the landscape plan but not the other documents. Please show and label the bus stop on the site plan as well. Please re check dimensions, the stop does not appear to be 12' x 18'. The concrete pad is 12’ x 18’, shown on all plans. The shelter itself will be detailed at a later date. 01/10/2012: Routes 8 and 81 serve this area of the city along Blue Spruce Drive and Conifer Street. An improved north bound stop is located on the north side of Conifer, just west of Redwood Street, but a south bound stop needs to be integrated into this site. Applicant shall locate a 12' x 18' pad approximately 50'-80' west from the intersection of Redwood and Conifer Streets. Exact location should be coordinated with site plan to provide direct access into the site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: Keep in mind if you do off site improvements. 01/10/2012: The existing stop located at the food bank is in rough condition, if off site improvements are proposed in this area, Transfort requests providing an accessible pad for a bus shelter. A bus stop at the food bank is outside of the scope of this project. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: Revise as noted on the redlined utility plans. 01/10/2012: Water main valving will be evaluated with next submittal. It appears that some valves can be eliminated. Agreed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: Include at final. 01/10/2012: Plan and profile sheets(s) will be required for the 12-inch water main. Plan and profile sheets have been provided for all wet utilities. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: The connections to the existing water mains in Conifer and Redwood will be made with a 23 tapping saddle. Revise notes accordingly. Agreed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Label the tees for all fire hydrant connections as swivel tees. Agreed Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: At final, pothole the ELCO water main in Conifer to determine if a lowering of the 8" line is required. If yes, provide a complete design, a detail and include a steel casing. This existing line will be potholed prior to finalization of the design, and the proposed design revised, if necessary. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: On Sht 2 under Waterline Notes, add "Water mains shall be DIP with polywrap or PVC with tracer wire". This note will be added. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Add the Std Details for tracer wire and locator stations. This standard detail will be added. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Add steel casing at the location where sanitary crosses below the three culverts on Lupine. Will water main be above or below these culverts? If below, add casing. Steel casings will be added. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Label all water main lowerings on the project and provide a detail of each with pipe elevations noted. Include casings on all water/sewer lines crossing below storm lines 24" or larger. These will be added, as necessary. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: See redlined utility for additional comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Show water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans and adjust plantings to comply with the required separations. Complete. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.5 There shall be enough areas provided for the Trash/Recycling needs of the project and residents. There are only eight trash/recycling enclosures identified on the plans this is not enough to meet the needs of the project neither is the location convenient for all the tenants. The project needs more trash/recycling enclosures and more locations to be conveniently accessible for all tenants. There are 13 trash enclosures shown on the revised plan. These include 3 CY dumpster and 2-96 gal. recycling bins. 24 Discussions with the local trash collection companies confirmed this should be sufficient. If not, then trash collection can occur more frequently. 04/05/2012 With the addition of the trash enclosure locations the Land Use Code requires them to be setback at least 20 ft from a public sidewalk. Some locations seem to be closer than 20 ft to sidewalks along Lupine Drive and Blue Spruce Drive.Also please provide a detail of the trash enclosure with elevations. Trash enclosures have been placed at least 20 ft from public sidewalks. Plan view and elevations are shown on the Site Plan. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: Where are the site plan details and elevations for the clubhouse? Are there any structures in the recreation area? Site Plan and building elevations are provided on the site plan, landscape plan and building elevation sets respectively.