HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - FDP - FDP130010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 -September 17, 2013
Ted Shepard
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, FDP130010, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies along with comment
responses for the Aspen Heights Student Housing Project.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: Please add more detail to the bus stop shelter. Please indicate details
associated with benches (did not see any graphically or called out), lighting, trash receptacle,
and correct the typo so it reads "No Advertising" not "No Add".
Response 10: The typo has been corrected and no reads (no advertising).
If a dome light is not provided for the bus shelter by the vendor, then the bus shelter will be lit with a
pole-mounted fixture. The fixture information is provided with the lighting package, and will be
“dark sky” rated.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/18/13: 05/01/2013: I will include language in the Development Agreement regarding the
portion of Vine Drive and Lupine Street adjacent to the site that cannot be completed at this
time.
Response 11: Noted, please see phasing plans on sheets 66-70 of the utility plans which have been
revised as a result of the August 6, 2013 phasing meeting. Lupine will be built in its entirety as part of
the first FDP (on Site). Construction drawings for Redwood and New Vine will be submitted under a
second FDP at a later date. Construction will occur subsequent to the approval of the Second FDP
contingent upon approval of the CLOMR.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need to provide curb return profiles. 07/18/13: This information can
1
be provided on the street intersection details or can be provide on the profile sheets.
Response 15: Curb return profiles are now shown for curb returns on the street profile sheets
51-53. Flowlines are shown on the intersection details on sheet 18.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need intersection details. 07/18/13: Return comments indicated that
spot elevations and slopes were provided on the grading plans. The spot elevations were not
shown. Typically this information is not provided on a grading plan since it will be very difficult
to provide all the spot elevation information at that scale. If this information is provided on the
grading plans and we get it to work – a note will need to be placed on the plan profile sheets to
see grading plans for intersection detail information.
Response 16: Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently
prior to printing. Intersection details have been enlarged and shown on sheet 18. A note has been
added to the street profile sheets 51-53 to reference the intersection details.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05/01/2013: Street Plans - Are the stationing information at the driveways the centerline station
of the driveways? Need to identify the driveway widths. 07/18/13:You have indicated the
driveway width at its narrowest point, please also provide a note on these three sheets that
indicates what the driveway width from flowline to back of sidewalk is.
Response 17: Yes, the stationing at the driveways is the centerline station, this is now noted.
Driveways are 28’ at the street flowline and this is now indicated on the street plans. A typical
driveway is detailed on sheets 53 and referenced on the road centerline plan and profile sheets.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need striping plans. 07/18/13:Review of the striping plans is done
by Traffic Operations, so please check with them regarding comments.
Response 18: Please see sheets 27-30 and 54 for existing and proposed striping. With Traffic
Operations comments addressed. These sheets will be sent directly to Ward Sanford for his review
and comment.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05/01/2013: Utility Plans - The utility plans are showing a UGE/COMM line. Is this a private line
or a public utility? The UGE line is public, the COMM line is private (fiber optic).
If private it needs to be sleeved under the row, meet minimum cover
requirements (profile), and a revocable permit will be needed prior to construction of this line.
If they are public (Comcast, Xcel…) then the franchised utility knows what is required.
Response 38: Noted, all private fiber optic and landscape sleeves are shown on the plans and notes
have been added to the sheets to indicate the minimum 3’ of cover. Please refer to water profiles for
sleeve sizes and locations.
2
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/18/13: In regards to the variance request regarding the cover over several of the storm
pipes. A variance will most likely be granted for the cover over the NECCO pipes on Lupine
provide that the street area over the pipes and the adjacent inlets is done in concrete. I have
shown the area to be in concrete on the plans (storm profile sheet). See my notes on this
sheet. We do want to know what the final cover amount (what is the minimum cover amount at
the lowest cover point) will be once the profiles are finalized. At the intersection of Blue
Spruce and New Vine Drive a variance request will be granted for cover over this pipe
provided that concrete is provided from the cross pan to a point past the pipe as I have shown
on the plans. The variance request for the interim storm pipe in redwood the variance is grated
on the basis that at such time as the ultimate improvements are constructed that the portion of
the pipe system that does not meet minimum cover is removed at that time. I have not talked
to Stormwater about this but will do so.05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Standards require that a
minimum of 3 feet of cover be provided from the top of pipes to the top of asphalt for lines
within and crossing public streets. Many of the stormpipes shown so far do not meet this
requirement. May need to use multiple pipes, elliptical pipes, raise road grades, lower storm
grades or a combination of these solutions.
Response 44: Noted, per our August 18, 2013 meeting with Engineering, Stormwater, and Utilities
we understand that a variance will be approved for the Lupine Crossing and the Blue Spruce/New
Vine Drive 3’ cover requirement. Concrete pavement has been added at these locations as
requested. In addition, stormwater will accept sumps where shown due to the temporary nature of
these storm systems. Cover depth is now shown at all critical storm/street crossing locations.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/18/13: A profile for this pipe was not included on the plans and a detail for the pan is
needed. The detail should show the pans placement in relation to the property line.
05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Prior to hearing you provided me an exhibit that showed a pan
along the west property line. This plan does not show that. How will the drainage work along
this property line?
Response 47: See sheet 50 for the storm pipe profile and sections A-A and B-B on grading sheets
12 and 14 that show the pan along the west property line in relation to the property line and storm
pipe.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/18/13: There were some spot elevations shown on the drainage plans, but these were not
shown on the grading plan. I couldn’t read many of the spot elevations and the flowline arrows
shown on the grading plans didn’t always seem to correspond with the basin lines and spots I
could read. Need to provide the spot information on the grading plans, including high point
elevations so it is very clear where the grade break is located. 05/01/2013: Grading sheets -
The pans in the parking lots need to be directed to the curb chases and spot elevations
provided to show that the flow is going to go out that way. May also need slight high points in
the drive so flow is properly directed to the chases in the minor storms.
3
Response 48: Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently
prior to printing. Spot elevations are now shown and high points are more clearly indicated on the
grading plans. See sheets 12-18.
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/18/13: The grading was not shown on the set I received. 05/01/2013: Grading sheets -
Need to show the grading that will occur in Blondel Street for the installation of the waterline in
this street.
Response 51: Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently
prior to printing. Spot elevations are now shown and grading at Blondel Street is shown. See
sheet 14 and sheet 32.
Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: Site plan – currently the bus shelter is shown being placed over the sidewalk area.
Please make sure that the shelter is shown being placed so that the sidewalk area remains
clear.
Response 62: The bus shelter has been moved south of the ROW/property line ( see sheet 6 of the
Site Plan set) and a Transit Easement provided on the plat. The revised plat includes language
provided by Sheri.
Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: The asphalt sidewalk tie in. Either angle the tie in or provide a cover plate for the
entire length of the sidewalk chase. Right now the sidewalk leads everyone to curb drop.
Response 63: The sidewalk tie-in is now angled and the cover plate has a note to extend all the way
to the existing curb on Conifer. The site plan has been updated to reflect this change. See site plan
sheet 5, and Utility Plan sheet 17. Sheri has approved this configuration via e-mail.
Comment Number: 64 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: I will need to get the temporary sidewalk design you placed on the plans
reviewed by Rick to determine if this design is okay or if the design will be determined at the
time the design for the streets is determined.
Response 64: A note has been added requiring that the contractor check with Sheri Langenburger
at the City prior to constructing the temporary sidewalk, to confirm the acceptability of the interim
design. Sheets 17 and 4 have been forwarded to Rick Richter for his review and comment as part of
this submittal.
Comment Number: 65 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: The plans are showing the installation of the waterline in New Vine being installed
with this plan set. Is that what you are intending to do? The profile for the water line shows
revised grading and additional fill being placed over this line, but your grading plans do not
show that you are going to be changing the grade in this area.
4
Response 65: Per Roger Buffington, we are installing the waterline with New Vine with the offsite
plans instead of the onsite plans since the waterline will be too deep in some locations and too
shallow in others if installed at current grade.
Comment Number: 66 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: Plan/ Profile sheets –
1.Per standards the grade into an inlet is to be .5%. You have a couple of locations where you
are showing grades greater than this.
2. Vertical curves are required for any grade break that is greater than .40%. There are several
location where this is exceeded.
3. A vertical curve needs to be provided at all of the crest grade breaks. You are showing
them along the centerline, but are not showing curves along the flowline profiles.
4. I couldn’t tell where some of the grade breaks along the flowlines occurred, please make
sure the grade break locations and elevations are labeled.
Response 66: Grade Breaks are now clearly indicated, grades at inlets are at 0.5%, and vertical
curves have been added at locations greater than 0.4%.
Comment Number: 67 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: All the details I asked for were provided, but many of them are old versions. I
noted the ones that need to be updated to current versions on the plans.
Response 67: Current versions are now shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 68 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: Phasing Plans
Sheet 65 indicated that the phasing was shown in color. I didn’t get color plans, nor do we
record color plans.
A note on sheet 65 indicated that you are trying to set this up so that any phase can go first.
Note sure how you are going to identify that and identify everything that will need to be
constructed with each phase depending on which order they actually occur. I highlighted on
each phase sheet what roadway and sidewalk improvements will need to be done with that
phase as if that phase was going to be the first phase constructed. Please note that the SW
phase requires the New Vine frontage along this phase to be constructed prior to issuance of
any building permits in that phase.
With the first phase the offsite asphalt sidewalk will need to be constructed and a sidewalk link
to this from which ever phase it is that is first will need to be made.
Response 68: The phasing plans have been revised per our August 6, 2013 meeting.
Comment Number: 69 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: See redlines.
Response 69: Noted, all redlines have been addressed on the plans, highlighted, and commentary
included where deemed appropriate.
5
Comment Number: 70 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013
07/18/2013: As a reminder as was discussed in the phasing meeting that we had in which it
was discussed that the NE phase would be the first phase that no building permits in any of the
additional phases will be issued until the New Vine Drive and Redwood Street improvements
are under construction.
Response 70: This has been updated per our August 6, 2013 meeting, the developer has been
copied on all meeting notes and emails from the meeting summary and phasing is now reflected on
the plans and specific phasing requirements will be reflected in the development agreement.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013
07/17/2013: Staff is currently drafting the DA language for this issue and corresponding with the
applicant on the final cost of the off-site mitigation.
04/23/2013: Off-site mitigation for the loss of wetlands and prairie dog habitat will be
coordinated with the City's Natural Areas Department prior to signing of the development
agreement. Please let me know when a good time is to set up a meeting to resolve this issue.
It might be best for the City to take a stab at the first draft of the agreement, would that work for
you?
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013:
Sheet ENV-1 of 1 the Tree Inventory:
Response 26: The Tree Mitigation Plan (previously named ENV-1) has been added to the landscape
plan set and is named (LS-16).
The letters PL are stated to mean Plains cottonwood but in the schedule PC is used. Please
address. Acronyms have been corrected (previous response).
Response 26: Acronyms have been corrected.
The Boxes with the numbers are a little confusing. I suggest the following boxes and totals.
Total number of required mitigation trees 79
Total Plains Cottonwood
Total Peachleaf Willow
Trees retained
Trees removed
Table has been corrected, as suggested. (previous response)
Response 26: The table has been corrected and simplified to show total tree mitigation with total
trees retained and total trees removed broken out separately. The number of total tree mitigation
6
has been adjusted per subsequent field visits discussions due to disturbance to existing trees from
proposed storm utilities to the proposed detention pond. The number of 79 has been increased to
142.
Add note number 10. If any trees in Gove D, G and H are removed at a future date then the City
Forester will determine if mitigation needs to be revaluated. City Forester must approve any
tree removal in these groves.
It appears a small grove of trees will be impacted by the Storm water detention construction. This
is graphically depicted on the tree mitigation plan and shown on the aerial photography. Numbers
of impacted trees have been indicated on the plan. (previous response)
Response 26: The area of impact and nearby existing trees were surveyed and staked in the field.
The project LA met with both Tim and Ralph in the field to review. It was decided by Ralph and Tim to
proceed as described in Comment #37 below.
Add the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G
Tree protection specifications have been added to the Tree Mitigation Plan. (previous response)
Response 26: Tree protection specifications have been added to the Tree Mitigation Plan.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013:
Previous comment number 23 still needs to be addressed. (Original comment 23 follows below)
(Comment 23:)Please set up an on-site meeting with the City Forester and a representative form the
Engineering Department (Marc Virata) 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.
The trees that will be impacted along the new roadway alignment for Redwood Drive and New Vine
will be surveyed to determine if any trees can be preserved as a result of construction. This will
be submitted with the Off-site roadway construction plans under separate cover. For the time
being, tree mitigation upsizing of on-site trees will be calculated as if the tree stands in question
will be removed in their entirety. This will be re-visited prior to construction. (previous response)
Response 30: After an initial on-site meeting with Time and Ralph, the trees in respect to the
anticipated alignment of Redwood was surveyed and staked in the field. The project LA met with
both Ralph and Tim on a subsequent site visit to review the relationship of existing trees with future
road alignment. It was a decided that by both Tim and Ralph that the trees would be mitigated as if
they are all being removed. And, a note was added to the plans to have the final alignment of the road
and tree surveyed and reviewed again by the City to determine if any trees could be saved prior to
construction.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013:
Provide planting detail for trees and shrubs in the detention pond area just off the border of the
project. Include a water basin around trees and shrubs.
Response 31: The evergreen tree, deciduous tree and shrub details have been revised to include a
water basin for plants in non-irrigated, seeded areas.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013:
7
Further define the maintenance responsibility of landscaping outside the limits of development.
This includes trees and shrubs in the detention pond, surface maintenance of the detention
pond, surface maintenance of parkways and landscaping in the median. Contact Bill Whirty,
Manager of Parks, and Hank Richardson, Storm Water Utility, to obtain further definition if the
City will take over maintenance of these areas and if so what their process would be for source
of water, irrigation plan approval, establishment maintenance period and acceptance
maintenance.
Include appropriate notes to define the information and decisions provided by these two staff
City Staff members.
Response 33: E-mails were sent to Bill Whirty and Hank Richardson. The result is as follows:
1. Maintenance of all on-site landscape, including the tree lawns along Vine Drive and Redwood
Drive will be provided by the developer.
2. Maintenance of the Landscape median will be provided by the City of Fort Collins Parks
Department.
(Note, a detailed landscape plan for this under separate cover related to the “off-site”
development plan – to be reviewed and approved with the completion of the CLOMR now in
progress.)
3. Any landscape shrubs and trees, shown within the NECCO – City –owned detention pond have
been removed, and placed within the property limits of the Aspen Heights development, and will
be maintained by the Developer.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013:
The median landscape design needs to be coordinated with Pet Wray of the Planning
Department for review and approval. Design should be to City Streetscape and Median
standards. Response Number 34: The median landscape plan will be submitted with a future
development plan – along with the approval of the CLOMR and construction documents for
Redwood Drive and Future Vine Drive. This has been discussed and approved by staff.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: Revise note about canopy height on street trees in sight distance areas to
say……. Trees to be maintained to achieve a 6 foot high canopy.
Response 35: All (5) notes on sheets LS-5, LS-6, LS-7, LS-8 AND LS-10 have been updated per the
language provided above.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013:
There are 2 Texas Red Oak at the NW corner of Lupine and Blue spruce on Blue Spruce. They
are labeled as 1 tree but there are 2.
Response 36: The trees in question have been corrected.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
8
07/26/2013:
Increase the number of mitigation trees for the additional impact to trees from the drainage work
in and by Groves E D and G. Increased mitigation can be calculated as a percentage of grove
removed multiplied by the total number of mitigation trees for each of these groves.
Response 37(a): The mitigation tree quantities have been increased based on the suggested
method. The percentage of stand “D” estimated to be disturbed is 81.3%. A total of 63 additional
trees have been upsized. The additional upsized trees are reflected on the landscape plans and in
the plant list.
Stake construction impact areas from these drainage channels 10 feet from edge of disturbance
and coordinate an on-site meeting with the City Forester so the increased tree mitigation impact
can be verified.
Response 37(b): Construction impact areas were surveyed and staked in the field. The stake
locations were reviewed with the project LA, Tim Buchanan and Ralph Zentz.
Add a note on the plans by the drainage channel impact to groves E D and G….Prior to removal
of any trees in Groves E D and G stake location of edge of disturbance and review with the City
Forester to confirm which edge of construction trees can be retained or should removed.
Response 37(c): The requested note was added to the Tree Mitigation Plan for tree stands “D” and
“G”
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013:
Add this note to the plans by the tree groves that will be impacted by the New Vine and
Redwood. This includes tree groves A, B and C.
Retain all trees in Groves A, B and C until time of road construction of the New Vine and
Redwood. Prior to road construction trees in Goves A, B and C to be reviewed and evaluated
by the City Forester to verify need for removal and to evaluate the location and condition of
select trees for possible retention.
Response 38: The requested note (above) was added to the Tree Mitigation Plan.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013:
Please revise Note number 5 on sheet ENV-1:
All mitigation trees will be planted as part of phase one as shown on the landscape plan for the
project.
In some locations new street trees will be installed that are larger than the minimum to meet
mitigation quantities. All street trees in sight distance triangles to be 3 inch caliper.
Response 39: Note #5 was updated to indicate that mitigation trees will be planted in phase one
(a.k.a. on-site phase). Please note that ‘phase one’ is comprised of multiple phases, all of which are
9
to be considered at on-site phases. Tree mitigation trees associated with each of these separate
phases will be installed with their corresponding phase. See sheet LS-15 for the ‘phase one’
sub-phases.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: The 4 street trees on Blue Spruce just north of the New Vine are not labeled as to
species.
Response 40: The (4) trees have been labeled with species identified.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: Please show the American plum along the project perimeter to the detention pond
with a smaller symbol in relation to the cottonwoods. Both cottonwood and American plum are
shown as the same size symbol.
Response 41: The symbols have been adjusted to reflect their respective plant sizes.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: Consult with the storm water utility to confirm that the Pinion Pine can be planted in
the drainage channel without causing any functional problems to this facility.
Response 42: Project LA consulted with Glen Schlueter and Jesse Schlam. Per a discussion with
Glen, the trees have been moved above high water, which is approximately 3.5’ from the bottom in
the north drainage channel and 2.5’ from the bottom in the south drainage channel.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013:
Due to recent low availability of Texas Red Oak reduce the number of this species used as a
street tree by one half on phase one areas. Consider using Front Yard American Linden for half
of the Texas Red Oak used as a street trees in phase 1.
Response 43: The Texas Red oaks have been reduced by over 50% on the landscape plans.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/05/2013
07/12/2013:
04/05/2013: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements to the clubhouse with
Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700.
Response 5: Noted. Permit plans have been submitted to the Building Department. This includes
power requirements for the clubhouse.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/05/2013
10
07/12/2013:
04/05/2013: After the plan is finalized, an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) of the site plan
needs to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM.
Response 6: Noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013
07/12/2013: There are many locations (too numerous to mention here) where water or sewer
lines need to be relocated to provide for installation of electric power facilities. The owner,
developer, and their engineer were informed of these via email on July 8, 2013.
Response 6: Noted, conflicts have been addressed and water/sewer services were moved as
discussed in our July 16, 2013 meeting, and as shown in the redlines provided by Doug Martine.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013
07/12/2013: The utility plan shows a separate electric service to each dwelling unit. While this
is possible, it doesn't seem logical. I suggest a meeting to include the owner/developer, their
engineer, a representative from Building Inspection (Mike Gebo?) and LIght & Power
Engineering (Doug Martine) to discuss this.
Response 8: Electric services have been combined as recommended and the plans now reflect
this.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: FYI ONLY - Response to comment no. 5 (originated 01/05/2012): The HMIA
pertaining to pool chemistry, storage of pesticides, etc. may be supplied at time of building
permit.
Response 10: Noted, thank you.
Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: RESIDENTIAL WATER SUPPLY
Further review of hydrant placement and possible infill along Conifer and Redwood Streets is
required. It may be necessary to add a hydrant at the corner of Redwood and Lupine and
another to Conifer Street between Redwood and Blue Spruce. A site plan detailing all locations
of proposed hydrant and along with existing hydrants which surrounding the development is
requested.
Response 02: Please see sheet 19 for a site plan that shows existing and proposed hydrant
locations as well as fire access on the private drives. Note that the private drives are within access
easements. 2 additional hydrants have been added as suggested.
11
Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: SECONDARY ACCESS
PFA was not routed on the last round of reviews and I haven't seen the most current plan
revisions. However, at the 7-24-13 Staff Review meeting, it appeared that prior PFA comments
remain active with one comment to add concerning secondary fire access.
The restrictions placed on the build out of Onsite Phase 4 require the prior completion of new Vine,
which eliminates a need for a temporary access.
While final connectivity to future New Vine Drive is to be delayed, a means of secondary
access into the SW portion of the development site must still be resolved. Several options
have been discussed to allow temporary fire access until New Vine Drive is built, however the
PFA will need an access plan to be detailed on the plan set before the project can be
approved.
Response 03: Please see sheet 19 for a site plan that shows existing and proposed hydrant
locations as well as fire access on the private drives. Note that the private drives are within access
easements. The temporary fire access for the southwest portion is no longer needed since Vine drive
will be constructed along with the southwest portion of the site.
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 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 resubmit
Erosion Control Plan corrected with redlines. Please submit and Erosion Control Report, and
Please submit 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
Response 1: The Escrow was included in the drainage report previously submitted. All comments
on the Erosion Control Plan have been revised. A separate Erosion Control Report (aka Stormwater
Management Plan (SWMP)) has been submitted for your review as discussed offline. In addition, we
have addressed the following areas of concern:
a) The silt fence on Conifer has been extended on the other side of the VTC.
b) There will be drainage coming off the west side of the site but the inlet protection will capture any
sediment and it is our professional opinion that a silt fence is not necessary on the west side of
the site since the west property will not be disturbed. The future developer will install a silt
fence when they develop their property.
c) The main channel is generally very flat at approximately 0.10% slope. In addition, note the
rip-rap has been installed in many parts of the channel.
d) The Erosion Control Plan and Detail Sheet will be included with the Erosion Control Report
12
(SWMP)
e) Wattles have been added around the outlet structure (WD).
f) A sequence chart has been added to the erosion control plan.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05/01/2013:
1. Please address all the red-lined comments on the Plat, Site Plan, Construction Drawings and
Drainage Report.
2. As was noted in the previous review, parts of Redwood Street and new Vine Drive are
located in the Dry Creek floodway. The street improvements, installation of utilities,
landscaping, etc. proposed for construction within that floodway cannot occur until a CLOMR
has been approved by FEMA. The plans for this development cannot be approved until the
CLOMR process has been completed.
Response 2: All redlines comments have been addressed. Noted that plans for Vine and Redwood
(separate plan set to be submitted at a later date) will not be approved until the CLOMR is approved.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013
07/23/2013:
1. On Sheet 4 of the Plat, please use different line types for the floodway and floodplain
boundaries. The Plat, Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Utility drawings all now show different line types
for the floodway and the floodplain.
2. The previous comments in the Drainage Report still need to be resolved. Those comments
are attached to the latest Drainage Report. Please resolve the attached comments in addition
to any and all new comments.
Response 9.2: All redlines comments have been addressed.
3. On Sheet 5 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please use different line types for the floodway and
floodplain boundaries, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary, and add a note:
Refer to Drainage Plan for Floodplain Information.
Response 9.3: A different line type has been used for the floodplain boundaries, additional portions
have been added, and a note has been added to refer to the drainage plan for floodplain information.
4. On Sheet 6 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please use different line types for the floodway and
floodplain boundaries, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary, include XS numbers
and elevations (in NAVD88 and NGVD29) for all cross sections, and include elevations (again in
NAVD88 and NGVD29) for each BFE.
Response 9.4: A different line type has been used for the floodplain boundaries. Note that only
NAVD88 and NGVD29 elevations were available for the floodway contours themselves per the FIRM
Panel. We were unable to locate elevations for FEMA sections AI-AM as they are not shown on the
13
FIRM or City floodplain maps.
5. On Sheet 11 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please add the same floodplain notes already
included on Sheet 6 of 69, and use different line types for the floodway and floodplain
boundaries, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary, include XS numbers and
elevations (in NAVD88 and NGVD29) for all cross sections, and include elevations (again in
NAVD88 and NGVD29) for each BFE.
Response 9.5: A different line type has been used for the floodplain boundaries. Note that only
NAVD88 and NGVD29 elevations were available for the floodway contours themselves per the FIRM
Panel. We were unable to locate elevations for FEMA sections AI-AM as they are not shown on the
FIRM or City floodplain maps.
6. On Sheet 16 of 69 of the Utility Plans , add a note: Refer to Drainage Plan for Floodplain
Information, and make the floodplain boundary more distinct and label it.
Response 9.6: A note has been added to refer to the drainage plan for floodplain information and
floodplain information is shown clearly. See sheet 20.
7. On Sheet 18 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please use different line types for the floodway and
floodplain boundaries, and add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary,
8. On Sheet 48 of 69 of the Utility Plans , label the southern boundary of the flood way, and add
the missing portion of the floodplain boundary.
9. On Sheet 49 of 69 of the Utility Plans, label the southern boundary of the flood way, and add
the missing portion of the floodplain boundary.
10. On Sheet 65 of 69 of the Utility Plans, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary.
Response 9.7-9.9: The floodplain information and floodplain information is shown clearly per
redline comments.
11. Sheet 15 of the Site Plan is missing from the submittal packet.
Response 11: Sheet 15 is provided.
12. On Sheets 2,3,4,12,13,14, and 15 of the Site Plan, please show the “FEMA 100-year
Floodplain” boundary and “FEMA 100-year Floodway” boundary and label each of them.
Include the line-types in a legend and make them distinct so they don’t blend in with contours,
property lines, etc.
Response 12: The FEMA 100-year floodway boundary and the FEMA 100-year floodway are now
shown with different line weights and labeled as requested.
13. In addition to the above comments, please make all other changes shown on the Plat, Site
Plan, Drainage Report and Utility Drawings.
Response 13: All redline changes and comment changes have been addressed.
14
14. Development review checklists for floodplain requirements can be obtained at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents. Please utilize
these documents when preparing your plans, drainage report, site plan, and utility drawings for
submittal.
Response 14: The floodplain checklist is included with the drainage report.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/24/2013: This to be included with the road plans.
05/01/2013: Repeat Comment.
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.
Response 3: This analysis is being completed with the CLOMR analysis.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/24/2013: It is hard to read due to some line type and cluter issues. We can discuss best
information to show on the grading plan and the drainage plan.
05/01/2013: More detail is needed on the grading plan to show these flows will actually flow
north-south and not get caught between the two properties in low lying areas.
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.
Response 6: Additional basins have been added to quantify this flow, please refer to the revised
drainage plan and report. Also, please reference sections A-A and B-B on grading sheets 12 and 14.
Please see sheet 50 for the storm plan and profile.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
07/24/2013: The grading plan does not have any spot elevations. The drainage plan has
some. The grading plan should have all the spot elevations and the drainage plan should not.
05/01/2013: In general the grading plan needs to be more detailed to ensure proper
construction. Suggest removing the drainage plan from the grading plan. The drainage basin
lines are thick and interfere with grading info.
Response 7: Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently
prior to printing. Spot elevations are now shown and grading is more clearly indicated on the
grading plans.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Please label the contours on the grading plan.
15
Response 10: Sorry, the contour labels were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently
prior to printing. Contour elevations are now shown and grading is more clearly indicated on the
grading plans.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: A building permit and structural design is required for any retaining walls 4 feet or
higher. This is measured from top of wall to bottom of footer. It looks like some of the walls
will qualify for a permit. Please add a note on the grading plan and site plan that a building
permit is required and specify which walls require this.
Response 11: Noted, a note has been added to the grading plans.” All retaining walls 4’ or higher
will require a building permit.”
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Please specify when the grading for the pool is to be completed. This can be with
a note on the plans stating that a grading plan is required with the pool building permit.
Response 12: Noted, a note has been added to the grading plans to provide a grading plan for the
pool with the pool building permit.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Please submit as soon as possible a cost estimate for the NECCO regional
drainage improvements that are to be built with this project. Once this is submitted, preparation
can begin on a cost-reimbursement program.
Response 12: The cost estimate has been submitted offline directly to Glen Schleuter.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: The storm sewers have slopes less than our minimums.
Response 14: Noted, due to the flat nature of the site, we were unable to steepen many storm
sewers and still maintain cover and positive drainage. We have tried to provide a minimum of ,25%
slopes where possible.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Coordination is needed between City Engineering and Stormwater Staff to
determine how to remove all proposed siphons for the storm sewer system.
Response 15: Per our August 18, 2013 meeting with Engineering, Stormwater, and Utilities we
understand that Stormwater will accept sumps where shown due to the temporary nature of these
storm systems.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: In the culvert calculations, D50 should be 12 inches, not 6 inches.
Response 16: Riprap calculations have been revised and a D50 of 12 inches minimum has been
16
used and is reflected on the plans.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: It appears the tail water assumptions are not correct in some of the culvert
calculations.
Response 17: Riprap calculations have been revised as the previous culvert calculations were only
utilized to determine riprap sizes. Revised Riprap calculations are now included in the report.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013
07/26/2013: For the SWMM model, please provide the following input data: Initial storage
impervious and pervious areas, Infiltration rate for pervious areas and decay rate, Node
connectivity, Design storm used.
Response 86: This information is now provided.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: Most of these have not been corrected. The line over text issues have been corrected per
the redlines provided
05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: Please remove "floor plan" from the title of sheet A-41 in the index. There are no
floor plans on that sheet. The “floor plan” reference has been removed.
05/06/2013: There are issues between the index on sheet A-1 and the actual sheet titles. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: There are still text over text issues. See redlines.
The line over text issues have been corrected per the redlines provided
05/06/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheets A-11 & A-23. See redlines.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: There is cut off text on sheet A-30 Cut off text has been corrected on sheet A-30
05/06/2013: There is cut off text on sheets A-11 & A-13. See redlines.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: Please mask all text that is in hatching on sheet A-25. See redlines. The text on top of
hatching has been corrected.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 07/25/2013
07/25/2013: There is random text that needs to be removed from sheets A-23 & A-34. See
redlines. The random text has been removed from sheets A-23 and A-34 as shown in the redlines.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
07/25/2013: There are still line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
17
05/07/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
07/25/2013: There are still text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
05/07/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
07/25/2013: This has not been corrected.
05/07/2013: Please rotate the "elevation" text on sheets 17-42, to make it plan readable. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
07/25/2013: There is still cut off text on sheet 40. See redlines.
05/07/2013: There is cut off text on sheets 27, 30 & 34. See redlines.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 07/25/2013
07/26/2013: Please make sure all sheet numbering is correct. There are several sheets with
issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 07/25/2013
07/26/2013: See comment #45 about what will be done for the street name of New Vine Drive.
Response 30-50: Noted. Every effort has been made to address line over text and text overlap
issues. A final check will be made prior to Mylar submittal.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: NEW VINE STREET NAMING: We are aware that Ted Shepard is working to name
"New Vine Drive", but this project will likely be filed before a name is selected. Therefore, we
are instructing the Surveyor to add "New Vine" Drive (Final name to be determined by City
Council by Resolution) for this street name. The Subdivision Plat is the document that controls
the street names, and all other plans will need to be changed to match it.
Response 30-50: Noted.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: See comment #45 about what will be done for the street name of New Vine Drive.
05/06/2013: Please label Future Vine Drive on sheet LS-2.
Response 24: Comment #45 reviewed. Labeled as indicated on redlines.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: There are still issues that have not been addressed.
05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Response 26: We have made every effort to alleviate line over text.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
07/25/2013: These have not been provided.
05/07/2013: Are there lighting plans with this project? If so, we will need to review them.
18
Response 44: There will be no lighting plans, lighting photometric plans provided for this project,
as comment responses have stated previously. All lighting will be either standard Street Lighting,
per Doug Martine, which is shown on the Landscape Plan, Site Plan and Utility plans. Any other
lights will be wall mounted, with “dark sky” rating. Light fixture cut sheets have been submitted to
Ted Shepard with this submittal set. Please remove this comment as satisfied.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: The centerline that is parallel to Redwood Street is not labeled. See redlines.
05/06/2013: Please label the centerline of the PSCO gasline easement along Blue Spruce
Drive on sheet 3. See redlines.
Comment Number 5: The PRPA center line and 60’ easement limits are shown and labeled on sheet
4 of the plat
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: Please rotate the marked curve data labels 180 degrees. See redlines.
05/06/2013: Please make sure that all text is plan readable.
Comment Number 7: The curve data labels can’t be rotated because it is an AutoCAD dynamic
label, and AutoCAD creates these automatically. The program will not let the user over-ride a
dynamic label.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: There is a leader missing on sheet 3 along Conifer Street. See redlines.
05/06/2013: Please make sure that all easements have bearings & distances, and are
locatable.
: Comment Number 9: The surveyor noted that a “crows-feet” leader was placed at the monument.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Ted Shepard is working to name "New Vine Drive", but this project will likely be
filed before a name is selected. Therefore, we need "New Vine" Drive (Final name to be
determined by City Council by Resolution) to be put in place of the current name shown on the
Plat.
Comment Number 47: The “New Vine Drive” naming is shown on the plat as suggested.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: There are still line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Response 16: We have made every effort to alleviate line over text. Corrected redlines.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: This has not been addressed with all street names.
05/06/2013: Please spell out the street names on all sheets. See redlines.
Response 17: Street names spelled out and redlines corrected for the site plan sheets.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
07/24/2013: This has not been addressed with all street names.
05/06/2013: Please make sure that the street names match the names on the Subdivision Plat.
Response 18: Street names corrected along with redlines.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
19
07/24/2013: We are aware that Ted Shepard is working to name the street, but this project will
likely be filed before a name is selected. See comment #45 about what will be done for the
street name of New Vine Drive.
05/06/2013: Please explain "New Vine TBD" shown on sheets 4 & 12. See redlines.
Response 20: “New Vine” Drive was corrected per the redlines on the site plan sheets.
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Please remove the box around the Redwood Street text on sheet 15. See
redlines.
Response 45: The box was removed.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013
07/24/2013: NOTES have not been revised. Continue comment.
05/02/2013: Traffic S & PM NOTES; please revise all instances of City of Fort Collins Engineer
to state City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. This is a permanent NOTES change. Please revise
your NOTES file.
Response 5: Sorry, we thought we had all of these. All instances found have been revised.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Sheet 53: Please remove unnecessary lines in the roadway (ELCO water, Gas,
etc). Please make the new S & S information stand out on the plans. As shown the more
distinct or bold lines are the utility lines, stationing data, and other erroneous data. Please
remove all other information that is not relevant to the roadway signing and striping so the
existing and new S & S information is the distinctive and contrasting information.
Response 7: Noted, the S&S plans have been revised to clarify the signage and striping.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Sheet 53: Please revise the S & S labeling so it's not intermingled with other lines
such as lot and building lines. Please minimize the line weight of the all data that isn't relevant
to the roadway and Signing and Striping information.
Response 8: Noted, the S&S plans have been revised to clarify the signage and striping.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Sheet 53: Please revise the R1-1 size to be 36" x 36" and include the street name
sign with the R1-1.
Response 9: We have revised the stop sign size. However, the street name signs are already
located at the northwest corner of the intersection (now indicated).
20
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Sheet 53: The dimensions of the south approach of Blue Spruce at Conifer should
provide a storage length of 50' and a taper (no decel needed) of 180'. With that said, please
remove the left turn lane striping altogether. Typically here, there isn't striping on the Local
Residential street. The flairing of the roadway as it approaches Conifer is fine and will allow for
the minor right turns or thru vehicles to continue around the higher volume left turn traffic. The
length of the flaired roadway should accomodate the above stated minimum storage and taper
lengths though. LARRY: Check traffic report to find out what the recommendation is.
Response 10: Noted, the turn lane and striping on Blue Spruce have been removed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Sheet 53 (and cross sections): What is all the shading indicating (shading between
the curb and sidewalk)? I recognize at Redwood and Conifer that the shading indicates the
sight distance easement. The other locations look to be inside of the street right-of-ways and
therefore an easement for sight distance isn't needed. If it is related to signing and striping or a
sight distance easement outside of the right-of-way, please remove the shading on sheet 23.
We are showing the full sight triangle. Where the Sight triangle exists outside of the right of way,
an easement is shown on the plat.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: Sheet 53: Please add to the end of NOTES 1, "Contractor to contact City of Fort
Collins Traffic Operations staff prior to final installation of signs and pavement markings for
layout approval."
Response 12: This note has been added to Sheet 53 (now 54).
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: No S & S plans received for any of the other streets. When will those be provided?
Response 13: S&S plans will be provided for Redwood & New Vine under a separate plan set that
will be reviewed along with CLOMR (floodplain removal) approvals. Lupine and Blue Spruce signs
are shown on sheet 27 through 31.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013
07/24/2013: It seems the provide S & S plan should cover Blue Spruce (BS) and not Conifer
since everything about Conifer is existing and not changing. Blue Spruce is the new street and
the BS & Conifer changes could still be shown. Maybe there are no additional signs or striping
on Blue Spruce to show, but it seems unnecessary to show Conifer which is also not receiving
any changes beyond the BS intersection. Show what the development team deems
appropriate but do remove/minimize all information not important to the roadway S & S.
Response 14: Please see sheets 27-30 for onsite, Lupine, Redwood, and Blue Spruce S&S. Sheet
54 shows S&S for Conifer. This is typically not how we would separate the S&S sheets but is how it
turned out after removing Redwood and Vine S&S sheets from this plan set. We are showing
Conifer and Redwood streets so that you know what the existing S&S is.
21
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013
04/30/2013: Please remove all cross walk striping on internal streets (Site and Landscape
Plans). Response 4: The cross walk striping on internal streets (Site and Landscape Plans) have
been removed. This striping was requested by Ted Shepard. It is understood that the two
departments are in agreement with this step.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013
07/23/2013: Repeat comment. This still needs to be addressed.
04/30/2013: Align the water mains to stay within the drives and a minimum of 5 feet from the
curbs wherever possible.
Response 3: Sorry, we missed a couple of locations as you redlined. These locations have been
corrected to be a minimum of 5 feet off the curbs.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013
07/23/2013: Repeat comment.
04/30/2013: Show curb stop and meter pit locations, and label water service sizes.
Response 5: Curb stops and meter pit symbols are shown on all water services. All water services
will be ¾” unless noted otherwise.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013
07/23/2013: Repeat comment. A couple have been missed and some are labeled concrete
encasement.
04/30/2013: Add steel casings where the water and sewer mains cross under storm drains 24"
or larger. Label the diameter and thickness of the casings. Where applicable, move fittings
out of casing area.
Response 7: Noted, these locations have been corrected as requested.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013
07/23/2013: Repeat comment. Show 24" ELCO water main in the profile of the 8" water main at
Conifer and Blue Spruce.
04/30/2013: Pothole 24" ELCO water main and show in profile on 18.
Response 8: The 24” ELCO water main is shown along with a note to pothole locate the water main
prior to trench excavation.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013
22
07/23/2013: repeat comment. This needs additional work.
04/30/2013: At point where sanitary crosses under (or at bottom of) drainage channel, provide
details showing how sanitary will be protected from scour and from freezing.
Response 9: Please see the enlarged crossing detail on sheet 45.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013
07/23/2013: Repeat comments. Show ALL water sanitary and/or storm crossings in ALL
pipeline profile drawings.
04/30/2013: Show ALL water main and sanitary sewer crossings on the storm drain profiles.
Response 10: Noted, missing crossings have been added to all profiles.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013
07/23/2013: Repeat comment.
05/02/2013: Show/label all irrigation taps.
Response 13: These were shown but have now been clarified. Note that there are only two
irrigation taps – one for the east half and one for the west half of the site. One is located just
southwest of the intersection of Lupine Drive and the main channel on Sheet 21 and the other is just
south of the clubhouse on Sheet 22. Both are 2” services and are labeled as such.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013
07/23/2013:
05/02/2013: Now that water/sewer services and underground electric/communication lines are
shown, it is strongly suggested that a utility coordination meeting be scheduled to work out
potential conflicts. At present, it appears that there will likely be conflicts between meter pits
and the underground electric/communication facilities and what appears to be gas mains.
Response 14: The utility coordination meeting was held on May 15, 2013. Since then, the Aspen
Heights design team has coordinated with all impacted utilities both online and in meetings and we
confident that we have a buildable plan set with conflicts minimized or eliminated.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013
07/23/2013: Repeat comment. Easements shown are inconsistent. In some locations,
easements end at the back of parking which leaves no place for the curb stops and meter pits.
In other locations, easements extend to the buildings.
05/02/2013: Meter pits cannot be installed in drive or parking areas. In some places, there
does not appear to be adequate easement and space for the curb stops and meter pits.
Response 15: Noted. Easements have been enlarged to provide space for curb stops and meter
pits a minimum of 4’ behind the back of curbs.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013
07/23/2013: The water main and sanitary sewer on Lupine at the crossing of the channel are not
23
adequately protected between the proposed storm drains. More work needed on this.
Response 16: Please see the enlarged crossing detail on sheet 45.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013
07/23/2013: See redlined utility plans for additional comments.
Response 17: All redlines have been addressed, thank you.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013
07/23/2013: Schedule meeting to review plans and comments in detail and to discuss
possible solutions to various problems noted.
Response 18: Meetings were held on July 6 and July 14 to work out various problems noted.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013
07/23/2013: Please return redlined utility plans with next submittal.
Response 19: Noted, redlines will be returned.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/15/2013
07/24/2013: Since the screening is proposed to be accomplished by landscaping, a note
should be added stating that "The adequacy of the landscape screening for the
mechanical/utility equipment will be field verified by City staff, and will need to be upgraded by
the developer if found to be insufficient".
Response Number 5: This note was added to the Landscape Plan on LS-2, per your request.
04/15/2013: Mechanical/utility equipment locations should be identified on the plans with notes
on how such equipment will be screened.
Note: A Landscape Phasing Plan is included with this plan set, as discussed with Staff (Noah Beals) This phasing plan is
intended to show the landscape requirements for issuance of bulding certificate of occupancy. The Developer shall install
landscape as shown or provide a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
24