Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPATEROS CREEK - FDP - FDP130034 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -May 30, 2013 Craig Russell Russell Mills Studios 141 S. College Ave. Ste. 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Pateros Creek, PDP130011, 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, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or lex@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/19/2013 05/28/2013: Thank you for the revised set of planning objectives. When I asked for adding the UE standards, I meant the policies outlined in City Plan, not the specific code standards. I also did not see a construction schedule. Please update and resend. 04/19/2013: In the Statement of Planning Objectives, please also address the Poudre River Corridor Overlay principles in City Plan. The Statement should also address the U-E Neighborhood standards. How does the project comport with the Northwest Subarea Plan as well? Also, I did not see the development schedule in the written statement; please provide. Planning Objectives have been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/19/2013 05/28/2013: Thank you for the updated modification request. In general, staff is supportive of the request as the consistency of the streetscape is still preserved. However, the project does not appear to comply with Section 3.5.2(D)(2)(b) which requires that driveway width not exceed 10' in width. In the modification request, you say the widths will be 10' or more. Please reconcile this difference to gain staff support for this modification. Also, each of the commitments regarding picket fence height, opacity, porch floor area, etc. must be explicit on the site plans. Please add notes on the plans to reflect the commitments addressed in the modification. Please also add a note that in addition to being 20' from back of ROW, the garages must also be a minimum of 4' behind the house. 04/19/2013: Modification request - as per my discussion with the applicant, staff will need to see a revised modification justification that addresses the standards in Section 3.5.2(D)(2) of the Land Use code regarding front porches that encroach into the setback. Images/sketches that illustrate how the project would appear if the standard were met and how the project would appear as proposed shall also be provided. The plans will also need to illustrate where the driveways are to comply with this standard as well as with Section 3.5.2(E). Modification requests have been updated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/19/2013 05/28/2013: Driveways, roads, any improvements associated with public roads, e.g., the sidewalk, park strip, etc. cannot be counted toward the open space areas (see Section 4.1.(E)(3) of the Land Use Code. Please revise these calculations to reflect only the open space area on the east of the property and the common area in the center of the property. With these updated calculations, please also provide revised modification and statement of planning objectives documents. 04/19/2013: Open Space Area of 57.4% - can you clarify how you came to this number? The calculations on the site plan are unclear. Also where do you outline the purpose and acreage of each tract (per submittal requirements)? The calculation only encompass those requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/19/2013 05/28/2013: This is getting better - my only concern is that you cannot see the existing trees well on the landscape plans - can those be a darker lineweight than the groundcover? 04/19/2013: Lineweights - I'm struggling to read some of the various lineweights on the plan. Can this be fixed? The existing trees have been made darker on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: The City Limits still needs to be shown on all vicinity maps. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Lot 21 is less than 50' in width. Please revise or submit a modification or alternative compliance request pursuant to Section 3.5.2(D)(4) of the Land Use Code. When measure this lot is right at 50' in width. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/21/2013 05/28/2013: Please remove the Parking designation from the Wood Street cross section and show two 15' travel lanes instead. 04/21/2013: CS1 - The cross section of Wood Street appears to be shown "looking south", please revise to "look north". Addtionally please show all the dimensions for the Connector local on the cross section and feel free to add additional "existing" or "varies" comments to the cross section. The parking designation has been removed, and the cross section updated. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/21/2013 05/28/2013: I did not see any additional language regarding the sanitary easement for the lots that back up to it. Did you include language or discuss with Roger? 04/21/2013: U1 - Fences and Decks are not permitted within the existing sanitary sewer easement in lots 14 - 21. Please coordinate with Water Wastewater and additional language may need to be added to the site plan, plat and development agreement. We have added an irrigation lateral along the southern property line, and anticipate further discussions regarding the easement will occur throughout the final compliance process. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 05/28/2013: The letter of intent has been recieved from Helen Matson in Real Estate services. 04/24/2013: U1 - Easement/Right of Way will be required from City of Fort Collins for end of sidewalk on the north side of Harts Farm where it ties to Wood Street. Please contact Helen Matson in real estate services for a letter of intent. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 05/28/2013: This will be discussed in more detail during final design as engineering is still awaiting further input from streets department. 04/24/2013: G1 - The street neck downs shall be designed to a minimum radius to allow for proper street maintenance and not impede the flow of runoff in the gutter. The minimum radius on the curves should be 15'. Details for the neck down have been provided, and will hopefully provide the needed information for internal discussions amongst the various city departments. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Sheet U1 - The Sidewalk on the north side of Wood and Harts Farm should extend along the squared off right of way as well. The curved sidewalk should also be incorporated to allow for both options in the future. The pedestrian ramps on the curve may need to be relocated at Final to get them off the curve. Due to excessive grades on the trail north of the knuckle, and the desire to keep the existing tree that the trail passes, we would like to keep the typical detached sidewalk as is. We are of course willing to talk about this as needed if this solution is unacceptable to the city. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Sheet G1 - Additional discussion will need to occur at final regarding the detached sidewalk along the west side of wood street. Stormwater has mentioned that this swale actually operates as a detention pond so consideration to water surface elevation, volume, trail grade, elevation and alignment will need to be considered. The new cross section with a 5’ attached walk has been utilized as directed by the city. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Sheet R1 - How are the flows on wood street that drain south of the High Point being dealt with on both the east and west side of the road? Interim or temporary improvements may be required to ensure they don't inundate adjacent properties. As discussed with city staff, the west curb and gutter will be constructed across the existing facilities entrance to the existing inlet. Flows from the east side of the road will continue to follow their historic path, which is to drain to the west flowline. A future design has been provided for the centerline and flowline showing how a typical crown will be achieved in the future. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Sheet R1 - Show the storm sewer inlets and storm pipe as future on the roadway plan and profile on wood street. The storm inlets have been added to the profile. As no vertical information exists on the future design of the storm drain, we have not shown it in the centerline profile to reduce confusion. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Sheet R1 and DR1 - Show the drainage basins for Wood Street to demonstrate where and how much water is draining from it. The drainage basins have been included. Topic: General Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Many of the lots being proposed are narrow and in some cases are less than 50 feet in width. Consideration should be taken to the layout of street trees, driveways, and utility services. These may need to be shown in specific details at Final Submittal. Utility services are now shown on the plans. We are willing to provide additional detail as needed. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Prior to public hearing, A letter of intent will be required for the right of way dedication on Karan Livingston property. Acknowledged. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Tract C and a portion of Tract D need to have public access allowed to satisfy the pedestrian connectivity requirement. Consider changing the Tract designation on the cover or overlaying a pedestrain access easement. The change has been made. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: The Right of way to be dedicated on the City's property should be enough to encompass the full street cross section with a standard detached sidewalk. This will ensure that in the future there is adequate right of way if the sidewalk or property are changed. The change has been made. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: The 30' sanitary sewer easement that is being vacated and rededicated on the plat appears to be moved a couple feet further south than it exists currently. Please verify with Roger Buffington that this can be vacated and rededicated as well it's new location. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/19/2013 05/28/2013: I still need data on where the groundwater hydrology is on the site, but the plantings look excellent. I need this prior to hearing. 04/19/2013: Prior to hearing, we'll need to discuss further the wetland mitigation requirements for the small wetlands that range from 53-2587 sf. How will the City know if the forebay wetland mitigation is successful? Pre-construction hydrologic monitoring is necessary to establish the likelihood of the success of this area. What plantings are proposed? This has been confirmed through a letter from Steve Long (Cedar Creek ) dated June 3rd addressed to Lindsay. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Add a note that addresses tree pruning and removal using a licensed arborist if it is not already on the plan. All tree pruning and removal work shall be performed by a business holding a current Fort Collins Arborist License. Note has been added. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Provide the required number of up-sized mitigation trees at the bottom of the table. That number of trees should be up-sized on the project or planned for off-site if necessary. Up sized trees should be to the tree size standard in LUC 3.2.1 F. Information has been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Provide the completed tree inventory table on LP100 that was developed in the field with City Forestry staff. Provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Show all the trees proposed to be preserved on LP103 to see how they are sited on the landscape/site plan in reference to buildings, roads and proposed trees. Place the identification number by these existing trees to retain on LP 103 so they can be referenced to the table. Updated per request. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Label and delineate Zones A &B on sheet LP 101. Labeled. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Provide a statement by a private certified arborist that the trees shown to be preserved (not zones A & B) have a likelihood of surviving construction (grade changes, locations by hardscape, locations by buildings etc.). Provided. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Provide a statement by a private certified arborist that the trees to retain have been reviewed for health and structure in terms of their suitability for retention. Incorporate this information as needed into the plans. Provided Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Please add to Landscape Note #14 that street tree planting shall be performed by a qualified landscape contractor. Added. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: The use of Bigtooth Maple at the SW corner of the entrance off Wood street will tend to cause site distance problem. Use a species that will have a higher canopy. Updated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Provide percent of total for proposed new trees and check that it meets the minimum species diversity in LUC 3.2.1 D 3. Provided. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 04/24/2013: Street tree by lot 31 appears to be closer than 40 from the street light. A ornamental tree could be used at this location as long as it is 15 feet away from the street light. Corrected and moved. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Forestry will need to receive the information requested as follows from the certified arborist prior to hearing, and guidance from this evaluation will need to be incorporated in to the plan. For example if a tree is not recommend for retention by the certified arborist and requires mitigation then the plan will need to incorporate that change with additional mitigation. Provide a statement by a private certified arborist that the trees to retain have been reviewed for health and structure in terms of their suitability for retention. Incorporate this information as needed into the plans. Provide a statement by a private certified arborist that the trees shown to be preserved (not zones A & B) have a likelihood of surviving construction (grade changes, locations by hardscape, locations by buildings etc.).A statement has been provided by a certified arborist. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Add information in Note number 11 about not performing deep cultivation within drip lines of existing trees. Cultivation over 2 inches depth shall not occur within the drip line of existing trees to preserve. Added. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Does landscape note number 20 pertain only to private trees. It seems unclear so editing for clarification might help. This note has been deleted and another note added. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Clarify which trees are upsized on sheet LP103 by marking them as upsized mitigation trees with direct labeling. Upsized trees labeled in legend with symbol. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Please specify Honeylocust as Skyline Honeylocust on the plant list. Changed. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: The use of low branched ornamental trees at the intersections at the entrance to the project and at the cross walk entry by lot 32 appear to possibly cause site-distance issues. Please review and address. Consider the use of higher branched ornamental trees or canopy shade trees for some or all of these trees. Trees adjusted. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Existing tees shown on Sheet LP103 are very light and difficult to see on the review plans received. Can they be darkened? Would like to see this sheet with darker delineation before final. Trees have been made darker. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: On landscape note 14 add Builder/Developer to the text. The work developer is added. Added. Department: Internal Services Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/18/2013 04/18/2013: GIS has the following comments (contact Todd Reidenbach at 416.2483 or treidenbach@fcgov.com with any questions): 1. Hart Farms Ln and Peregoy Way have been added to the Larimer County Street. Inventory System as approved street names. 2. please also see the GIS redlines emailed on 4/18/2013 to Ralph and Craig. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/18/2013 04/18/2013: From Helen Matson: The 30' sewer easement commitment (item 19 comment on the plat) - the City obtained an easement in 1986. I need to know if this is the same easement. This easement was obtained by the City in 1986. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/18/2013 04/18/2013: Jim Colburn, Neighborhood Services, and Russ Hovland, Building Services, have no comments. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2013 04/10/2013: Normal electric development charges plus costs to remove the existing electric facilities, will apply. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2013 04/10/2013: A landscape plan showing planned streetlights and preliminary locations of electric vaults was sent to Russel+Mills Studio on 4-10-13. Street tree locations must be adjusted to provide 40 feet minimum clearance between trees and lights (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type). All trees must be a minimum of 3 feet from electric vaults. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2013 04/10/2013: After the plans are final, please send an AutoCad (version 2008) drawing of the site plan to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2013 04/10/2013: The developer will need to coordinate electric service sizes and locations to each lot with Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/18/2013 04/18/2013: Comcast (Dennis Greenwalt at 970-484-7166) has the following comment: -Comcast Cable will need to have all utility easements labeled on the plat map not just noted on the cover sheet including the Tracks. Comcast would like to install facilities in a Joint Trench manner with other utilities which will need to be worked out with developer for cots of trench. Comcast will supply the materials and the labor to install it.All easement are appropriately labeled. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/18/2013 04/18/2013: Ed Holder (Poudre School District) has no comments. Department: Park Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/18/2013 05/28/2013: From Craig Foreman (May 21, 2013) - thanks for widening the trail easement area to 14' by lot 1. 04/18/2013: From Craig Foreman (cforeman@fcgov.com):-Plat should show a 20' public trail easement from the end of the Wood Street north to the Poudre Trail. -Parks would also prefer the easement to be greater than 10' for the trail near Lot 1. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/16/2013 04/16/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com An Erosion Control Report has been provided with the final plans. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 04/23/2013: 1. Please include the floodplain and floodway boundary for both the Poudre River and West Vine on the necessary drawings including – Plat, site plan, grading plan, drainage plan. The Poudre River Floodway and West Vine flood fringe are missing. The requested info has been provided. 2. The benchmark should be on the plat. 3. Site Plan – Please identify and show a detail for the fence that will be used in the floodway areas. The fence must be break-away. 4. Grading and Drainage Plan – please include cross-section and BFE lines. Please identify the datum shown for the cross-section and BFE elevations and the conversion (NGVD 1929 + 3.0 ft = 1988 NAVD). A separate floodplain plan may be used if the grading and drainage plan becomes too busy with all the required information. A floodplain exhibit is now provided depicting the requested information. 5. Please provide more detail regarding grading in the floodway, vegetation, etc. Please provide a detail how the paths are to be constructed (i.e. excavated and paths at or below existing grade. There can be no fill placed in the floodway. A no-rise certification will be required for all work in the floodway. A note has been added to the grading plan describing the trail construction in the floodway. 6. The lots in the West Vine Floodway cannot be constructed at this time. Please include a note that these can only be developed if and when the West Vine floodway is removed. The requested note has been added. 7. Please designate which lots are in the area where the LOMR-Fill was approved. The requested info has been provided. 8. Please include a table with the following information for the LOMR-Fill lots: BFE, Regulatory flood protection elevation (BFE + 2.0 ft.), minimum lowest floor elevation, minimum HVAC and electrical elevations. Include a note on the plans which homes must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. For 100% plans, please also include the actual design elevations for each structure. The requested info has been provided. 9. Include a drawing detail for the type of foundation showing lowest floor elevation, HVAC elevation and electrical relative to the BFE. Basements are not allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Structures on crawl spaces must meet the requirements of Section 10-40 of City Code. If garages are not going to be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation, they must meet the venting requirements of Section 10-39 of City Code. The requested info has been provided. 10. For the LOMR-Fill lots, please include a note on the plans that a floodplain use permit will be required prior to issuance of the building permit and a FEMA elevation certificate must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The requested info has been provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 04/23/2013: 11. Please include a note on the plans that a floodplain use permit is required for any site work in the floodplain or floodway including fences, paths, trellises, benches, bike racks, gardens, etc. The requested info has been provided. 12. Drainage report – Please see development review checklist for items to be included in the drainage report including discussion of both the Poudre River and West Vine floodplain and floodway; the lots in the West Vine floodway that cannot be built on at this time; structures in the LOMR-Fill area and the requirements for elevation of the lowest floor, HVAC and electrical; type of foundation for the LOMR-Fill lots, floodplain permit and CO requirements; breakaway fence details; and, no-rise certification requirements in the floodway. The requested info has been provided. 13. Due to the bank erosion that occurred during the flooding of April 1999, this property is at risk of severe bank erosion. The McMurray Natural Area work and the bank stabilization of the south bank of the river will help reduce this risk. Complete funding and schedule for the bank stabilization work have not yet been identified. Design is not yet complete. Because this risk has not been mapped and thus is not subject to the floodplain regulations in Chapter 10 of City Code, any development is done at the owners risk. The owner is strongly encouraged to provide additional mitigation to protect the development from erosion and overland flooding and/or wait until the bank repairs are complete. Acknowledged. 14. FEMA has officially kicked off remapping of the Poudre River. This will be a multi-year project. Property owners near the river need to be aware that the floodplain may be remapped and may change on their property. Furthermore, the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 is removing subsidized flood insurance rates. Complete details regarding implementation by FEMA are unknown at this time. However, what we do know is that future structures that are mapped in the floodplain will not be eligible to receive grandfathered or subsidized rates. Therefore, if a structure is built with a basement and then gets mapped in the floodplain, they will be paying actuarial rates which are significantly higher when the basement is 8-10 feet below the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, we are encouraging you to consider if you want to have basements on these structures and encourage you to elevate the structures as much as possible. We are providing you this information to help you plan for possible future change in the floodplain mapping and already adopted changes in flood insurance. Thank you for the information. 15. Please see redlines on the plans and the 50% development review checklist. Please contact Marsha Hilmes-Robinson for any questions on floodplain regulation requirements. Acknowledged. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 05/28/2013: Good for preliminary. At final, more detail of the design should be included in the text. 04/24/2013: Please describe in more detail the water quality mitigation techniques proposed for this project and describe how the site is meeting the LID requirements. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/22/2013 05/29/2013: No comments. 04/22/2013: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/22/2013 05/29/2013: This has not been corrected. The street names must match the Subdivision Plat. The Plat will rule what the street name is. The streetnames should be “Harts GardensLane” and “Peregoy Farms Way”. All documents should reflect these names. 04/22/2013: Please change all references to the street "Hart Farms Lane" to match the Subdivision Plat, which shows the name as "Hart Farm Lane". The streetnames should be “Harts GardensLane” and “Peregoy Farms Way”. All documents should reflect these names. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: Most of this has been addressed, but there are still issues. See redlines.04/23/2013: All of the tree numbering on sheet LP101 is covered up by the tree symbols. Please adjust the text, so it can be read. Redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: This has not been corrected. The street names must match the Subdivision Plat. The Plat will rule what the street name is. 04/23/2013: Please change all references to the street "Hart Farms Lane" to match the Subdivision Plat, which shows the name as "Hart Farm Lane". The streetnames have been corrected. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: There are still issues on sheet LP101, LP103 & LP401. See redlines. 04/23/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet LP103, LP401 & LP402. Redlines have been addressed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: We did not receive these. 04/23/2013: Please provide the current monument records for the public land corners shown for control. We will email these to Jeff County Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: Repeat comment. This has not been addressed. 04/23/2013: Does the title commitment need to be updated? This has been addressed and a new title commitment has been ordered. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: Repeat comment. This has not been addressed. 04/23/2013: Please add a legal description that matches the metes & bounds boundary shown on sheet 2, referencing the current vesting deed if you wish ("being the same tract of land described in the deed recorded at..."). This cannot be added to the plat. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: We need verification whether or not there are lienholders. 04/23/2013: Are there any lienholders? If so please add the Lienholders signature block. There are no Lien Holders. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: The boundary now closes. 04/23/2013: The boundary as shown on sheet 2, does not close by 23.6'. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: There are still issues. See redlines. 04/23/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. This has been addressed. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: There are still issues with text. See redlines. 04/23/2013: Please rotate all text to read from the bottom or right hand side of sheet 2. This has been addressed. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: Please provide the reception number for this dedication, and correct the typos in the note. See redlines. 04/23/2013: Is there offsite right of way needed along the west end of the property? This will be provided upon recordation. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/29/2013: There are still Tracts that need this reference. 04/23/2013: Please add reference to Note #6 with all Tracts on sheet 2. See redlines. This has been addressed. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 05/29/2013: There are still some information missing. See redlines. 04/24/2013: Please label all lot lines and right of way lines with bearings, distances and/or curve data. See redlines. This has been addressed. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 05/29/2013: Please move the legend closer to the boundary, and add a title to it. See redlines. 04/24/2013: Please add a legend showing found & set pins and easement information. This has been addressed. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Please extend the right of way alignment of Wood Street to the south boundary of the City property. See redlines. This has been addressed. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: If you are keeping the boundary as it is, please show the conflicting boundary evidence (fences, found pins-if any, calculated postion of the Rupel's survey etc.) per C.R.S. 38-51-106(k). Rupel’s Survey is follows the existing deeds and which are shown. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 05/29/2013: This has not been corrected. The street names must match the Subdivision Plat. The Plat will rule what the street name is. 04/24/2013: Please change all references to the street "Hart Farms Lane" to match the Subdivision Plat, which shows the name as "Hart Farm Lane". The streetnames have been corrected. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 04/24/2013 05/29/2013: There are still issues on sheets LS102, LS401, LS402 & LS502. See redlines.04/24/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet LS101, LS102, LS401 & LS402. Redlines have been addressed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Looks like a sight distance easement may be needed for the intersection of Peregoy and Hart Farms. Please review for intersection sight dostance. If required please coordinate between plan sets. A sight distance easement has been provided. It should be noted that due to sight constraints, a variance to the design speed used to calculate the sight distance triangle will be requested. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/28/2013 05/28/2013: Traffic has concerns with the multi-stemmed Bigtooth Maple's use at the Peregoy and Hart Farms intersection. Concerns with its lower growing habit being a visibility problem for the intersection. Can the aesthetics be accomplished with other landscaping while maintaining the intersection visibility? This landscaped intersection has been adjusted. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/28/2013: This is being carried forward as a reminder that it remains an unanswered question. Acknowledged. 04/23/2013: Concerns have been raised regarding the existing 27" sewer in the rear years of Lots 14 through 21. There is little space between the houses as shown and the easement. This could preclude the construction of decks on the back of these houses. Please review the possibility of re-routing this sewer to provide more flexibility for these lots. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 05/28/2013: Move the north line of this easement so that it is 15 feet north of the sewer line. Portions of this line are 16 and 17+ feet deep. The location of the utility easement has a tremendous impact on the lots, and in particular on the feasibility of homes that can be built. As such, even a small variation to the easement creates a significant improvement to the project. Applicant would like to further discuss the easement to determine the minimum distance from the easement to the north boundary while still providing the ability to service and maintain the line. 04/23/2013: The easement shown for the existing 27" sewer appears to be shown differently on the plat and the construction drawings. Please coordinate the two documents. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/11/2013 04/11/2013: If Farm animals are not intended to be allowed in this cluster development please include a note on the site plan indicating this. Addressed. If farm animals are desired then the plans need to identify the areas were they are allowed and how the area is mitigated and buffered from surroundings. Addressed.