HomeMy WebLinkAboutLDS TEMPLE (OF FORT COLLINS) - FDP - FDP130029 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
August 12, 2013
Jeff Olhausen
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
Representing the Church of Latter Day Saints
3721 West Eisenhower Blvd
Loveland, CO 80537
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com
Topic: General
08/05/2013: Comment repeated as a reminder.
02/08/2013: For the single family residential, please make sure to contact Marcus Bodig in the City's
GIS department at 416 2050 or Todd Reidenbach at 416 2483 to coordinate addressing for the single
family residence. Our GIS department assigns addressing once the plat is recorded.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
Topic: Site Plan
08/05/2013: Under General Development Notes on page SP1, please add note 15: " As a Planning
and Zoning Board condition of approval, the lighting on the tower and steeple will be turned off at 10
p.m. The balance of the building lighting will be turned off at 11 p.m."
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Under General Development Notes on page SP1, general note number 2 should be
removed/revised, as Spring 2013 has passed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Under General Development Notes on page SP1, note number 8 should be revised
removing "excluding temple steeple lighting".
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Please note that the title should be changed on SP1 from Project Development Plan.
Project Development Plan is the previous process.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
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, Courtney Levingston, at 970-416-2283 or
clevingston@fcgov.com.
RE: LDS Temple, FDP130029, Round Number 1
Page 1 of 13
08/06/2013: Repeat comment from Feb.
02/10/2013: Please have a note on SP1 noting that the utility meters, conduit, vents and other
equipment attached to the buildings will be painted to match (LUC 3.5.1(I)).
Additionally, on the elevations please call out/note where these items are to be located, painted to
match and screened.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
08/07/2013: Sheet C15 and C30 depict storm line E-1 and its location outside of Timberline Road
right-of-way, is this requiring an off-site easement from Wayne Lesitkow? With the information shown I'm
not sure whose property this storm line enters and whether any easements for the construction are
already in place. The various off-site easement legal descriptions did not appear to include this area. If
an existing easement is already in place, please label this on the plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Similarly to the previous comment, on Sheets C15 and C16 there appears to be storm
utility work on what's identified as Tract N of Westchase. Please identify the existence of easements on
the plans for confirmation on the ability to construct the work without requirement additional
easement/permission. Note that the Westchase plat indicates a 30' wide utility easement along the
southern boundary of Tract N at this location. However the overall Tract N is identified as a "drainage
tract" owned and maintained by the Westchase HOA (and not a drainage easement dedicated to the
public). Verification from Stormwater should be made on the legal ability to install (and maintain) the
work on Westchase property and whether additional drainage easement is perhaps needed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The sanitary sewer sheets should have FCLWD/SFCSD signatures on the sheets. It's
awkward to have only City approval blocks on sheets that mainly represent FCLWD/SFCSD facilities.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: 3 feet of cover over pipe is required for City roadways. In general, sheets C19, C20, C24,
C29, C30 have instances of storm pipe crossing public streets with insufficient clearance.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: On the plan and profile sheets, please add grading plan contour information on the plan
view in order to provide additional cross-check with the roadway design information shown. Proposed
grading contours within roadways demonstrating tying into proposed grading should be evident.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C32 shows an algebraic difference of 1.29 that appears to be 1.69. The
corresponding K value is 88 instead of 116 and the required K value/length of vertical curve is
substandard.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: In general there are plan and profile sheets that are identified as centerline in the middle
of the page that are either left or right. Ideally the center, left, and right profiles would all be on one
sheet to be able to review the plans more cohesively and more easily ascertain the roadway design
rather than splitting these out on three different sheet.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Page 2 of 13
08/07/2013: On Sheet C33 an elevation at STA 4+63.45 is not identified consistently between plan and
profile view.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Flowline sheets for road design seem to show and label centerline stationing, however the
indicated points along the flowline profile are flowline stationing. The information is hard to follow, and it
would seem that the stationing identified along the profile view should be flowline, not centerline.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: In general, the plan and profile views should look to be aligned to the extent possible.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C34 shows various flowline grades with grade breaks occurring within vertical
curves. Not sure on the intent of the design, as it seems to be ambiguous as to whether the flowline is
intended to be built with a vertical curve or a series of grade breaks in these areas. I'm not sure how
the algebraic differences were calculated and based upon what I'm thinking the algebraic differences
are, the vertical curves and K values would need to be much larger.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Indicate Rock Castle Drive as Rock Castle Lane.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C34 needs to show what percent grade is projected past the vertical curve around
Rock Castle Lane (along with grading contours) in order to ascertain how the flowline grade around the
curb return transitions to existing.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C34 shows a 1.32% grade going into a 6.36% grade. A grade break of up to 3% is
allowed in "extreme circumstances" and a grade break of 5.04% here would not be allowed.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Spot elevations at intersections need to be provided in accordance with Figures 7-27 and
7-28 of LCUASS.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The flowline designs are showing grades that result in access ramps not being ADA
compliant with cross-slope intersecting public streets. With the providing of spot elevations noted in
the previous comment, additional review would be needed.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: On Sheet C38 it shows a .64% centerline grade indicated also as a grade break that's
going into a vertical curve. Not sure of the appearance of what seems to be an instantaneous grade
and grade break here.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheets C38 and C40 indicate "Interim" for Majestic Drive?
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Sheet C40 shows the presence of a .58% flowline grades and a grade break occurring
within a vertical curve.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: On Sheet C42 for the Trilby/Majestic intersection please label the streets, correct the north
arrow orientation, and provide existing flowline grades to the west and east of the south side of Trilby
to show how the .50% and .83% grades are matching into existing.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Page 3 of 13
08/07/2013: I'm unable to find road design information for the interim condition of Timberline Road
north of Trilby. Sheet C31 indicates that the interim is on Sheet C42, which has no designs for
Timberline.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Cross sections weren't provided for Timberline Road north of Trilby.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The labelling on the sheets of the cross sections as interim for Timberline and Majestic
should be modified accordingly as all of Majestic should be ultimate and the majority of Timberline
should also be presumably be ultimate.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: In general, the cross sections can't easily be reviewed for verification against the plan and
profile sheets with the lack of labelling elevations on both flowlines and the centerline. Please provide
this information with the next submittal.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The Timberline Road ultimate design north of Trilby Road contradicts the ultimate design
shown on the Westchase plans, as the Westchase plans indicate the shifting of Timberline Road to the
east (requiring the removal of the curb and gutter on the east side of Timberline Road in front of
Westchase). The intention of the road shift was to avoid large existing trees on the west side of
Timberline Road across from Westchase. The plans should incorporate the road shift shown with the
Westchase plans as the likely design scenario with the corresponding signing and striping, centerline
profile, and horizontal alignment information.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Similar to a previous comment, on Sheet C49 I'm unsure of what the .52% centerline grade
is conveying within a prescribed vertical curve.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Line and curve horizontal information provided on Sheet C53 should be shown for the
flowlines and centerlines of the street plan and profile sheets. Additional information such as the curb
return radii for Timberline and Trilby (both sides) and the west side of Majestic at Timberline is also
needed.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Many of the comments previous pertaining to concerns with the information provided on
the construction plans are part of the requirements in LCUASS, notably Appendix E-4, Requirements
for Utility Plans. Please use Appendix E-4 to ensure general conformance. Additional
comments/concerns may be raised with the additional information/clarification to the plans.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Coordinate with Stormwater on the details for combination inlets. I believe there are City of
Fort Collins specific details that can be used instead of City of Loveland.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/08/2013: A concrete joint pattern design for Timberline Road is required. Information provided
should be in a manner similar to CDOT's M-412 standard.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
Topic: Easements
Page 4 of 13
08/07/2013: For the easement indicated as a grading and construction easement across Lot 3, please
provide a picture exhibit of the easement.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: For the 20 foot private sanitary sewer easement, I'm assuming that this easement will be
reviewed and approved by SFCSD, and not the City. Likewise for the 30 foot SFCSD easement over a
portion of Lot 3.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: For the 50 foot drainage easement, I'll need confirmation of the design of the easement
from City Stormwater before Technical Service's review of closure of the legal description.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Is the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, Drainage, Landscape, Irrigation and Access Easement
needing to be dedicated to the City? I'm not sure where "Access" is needed and "Irrigation" as well?
A "Natural Habitat Buffer Zone" if dedicated to the City, may need clarification language from our
standard easement dedication form, explaining what this easement is.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Topic: General
08/07/2013: There's been further discussion and coordination with PFA on the design of emergency
access off of public streets on projects as a whole. Pending verification from PFA, Engineering would
prefer to see that instead of a driveway cut for the emergency access onto Trilby, that the vertical curb
and gutter is replaced with driveover curb for the emergency access and the bollards are placed
behind the right-of-way. We've looked to implement this design on other projects for the aesthetic
value of the streetscape not having bollards and the driveway cut. In addition the bollard placement in
right-of-way is of concern.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: [This comment is no longer applicable and has been resolved. It is left here for
reference.] The connection of Majestic out to Trilby needs to have an access ramp for crossing Trilby
on at least one location, and a receiving access ramp tying into the sidewalk on the north side of Trilby
Road. T-intersection are required to have at least one access ramp crossing traversing the through
street.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
08/06/2013: The comments related to the raptor's nest are continued and will be included in the
Development Agreement.
01/22/2013: The raptor nest to the west of Timberline cannot be removed until final plans have been
approved and recorded. If the timing of this removal conflicts with the seasonal restrictions on nesting
and rearing, then a temporary LOD will be established around the nest.
11/27/2012: As per the ECS, the recommendations found on page 7 regarding the raptor nest to the
west of Timberline shall be a condition of this project's approval. In addition, the Siberian elms on site
shall be surveyed prior to construction for any raptor nests.
If a raptors nest is found during the pre construction surveys, then a temporary Limits of Development
shall be applied in accordance with Section 3.4.1(N)(5) of the Land Use Code.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Page 5 of 13
08/06/2013: A landscaping bond for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones will be required at the time of
C.O. for 67% of the construction value - this language will be included in the development agreement.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
08/06/2013: Excellent work on the shrubs around the NE and SW Detention Ponds - this is exactly
what I was looking for. Thank you.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Topic: Reports - Soils, Subdrain
08/06/2013: Thank you for the timely submittal of the mitigation and monitoring plan. I have the
following comments:
1. The success criteria outlind on page 5 of the document are a good start, but we typically require
80-90% vegetation cover by the third season. Please revise or provide a justification. In the past,
we've required 50% cover at the end of the first year, 75% at the end of the second year and 85-90%
at the end of the third year.
2. On Section 5.2, please include that the City will be invited to attend at least one site visit per year
with the consultant.
3. On Section 5.5, please include a timing for delivery of the report, e.g., on or around December 1 of
each calendar year. Also include in the report any suggestions for addressing concerns/needs on the
site.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
08/07/2013:
Tree Sizes:
Review the installed size of conifer trees to be sure the intent of the applicant is to provide specimen
trees larger than code requirement. There is not a restriction in providing larger trees but availability
and other issues should be considered. Some conifer trees are listed at 10-16 feet height. Upsizing
beyond what is in the code is not a City Requirement.
For mitigation trees these are the minimum size requirements.
2.5 inch ornamental
3 inch shade trees
8 foot heath conifer trees
Standard minimum size requirement
2.0 inch shade tree
1.5 inch ornamental tree
6 foot heath conifer tree
Spring Snow Crab, Thunderchild Crab and Chanticleer Pear are listed as 3 and 4 inch caliper in the
plant list.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Page 6 of 13
08/07/2013:
Tree Mitigation Count and sizes:
Trees listed on LP605 in the list of the quantities of trees upsized for mitigation do not coincide with
those on the plant list. For one example there are 25 Spring Snow Crabs 2.5 inch caliper listed on
LP605 but on the plant list there 42 Spring Snow Crab listed as 3 inch. Also on the landscape sheets
where it shows the symbols of actual trees to plant the caliper is placed by the mitigation trees. Cross
check all three of these so that the sizes and numbers coincide.
1. List on LP605
2. Plant List
3. Direct labeling of mitigation trees on the sheets with caliper or height listed by the symbol.
Larger than mitigation size can be listed at the discretion of the applicant if that is the design intent of
the project but is not a code requirement. If additional upsizing is the intent of the applicant then the
upsized list on LP695 could say (Installed Size or Greater).
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013:
On LP605 Under Tree Preservation Guidelines /Protect Trunk and Branches change note number 9 to
say in effect the following.
All damage to existing trees to remain shall be reported immediately to the Architect and City Forester.
Fines for damage shall range from $500 to $1,000 per incident or as assessed by a private qualified
landscape appraiser.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013:
Clarify the calculation for the 90.5 tree mitigation credit listed on LP605 by adding this statement. (The
tree mitigation credit for transplanting trees includes a maximum of 2 or the actual mitigation value
whichever is less). Please add this statement at the appropriate location on LP605.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com
Topic: General
08/06/2013: After plans are recorded, please send the final autoCAD to Terry Cox at
TCOX@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Page 7 of 13
08/07/2013: KNOX BOX LOCATIONS
The Knox Box detailed for install on the north gate may be omitted. Instead, due to the size and
interior complexity of the temple, we are requesting a Knox Box be installed at each of the five exit
doors.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: BOLLARDS BLOCKING EAE
The removable bollards detailed on the site plan at the location of the north, side emergency access
drive aisle are to be omitted from the plan. A roll over curb is acceptable at this location in place of the
bollards. "Fire Lane - No Parking" signage is also required at this location.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
07/30/2013: The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the
Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. The current Erosion Control Materials Submitted
do not meet requirements. See redlines for corrections in the Erosion Control Plan on C.3 and C.56.
The Erosion Control Report (Stormwater Management Control) submitted was incomplete and not
current neither for City Erosion Control Requirements nor for State SWMP requirements please read
supplied materials to ensure the Erosion Control Report addresses the City requirements. 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
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/30/2013
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
08/12/2013: Please provide drainage easements dedicated to the City for all detention areas and
major conveyance elements. Storm Sewers should have a 20 foot minimum wide easement.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
08/12/2013: Please provide separation between all trees and storm sewers. 10 feet is normally
required for shade trees and 6 feet for ornamental trees.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
08/12/2013: The construction activity that is proposed on Westchase property is being investigated
into what permission is legally needed to perform the proposed improvements. The City will inform
the applicant of any findings.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
08/12/2013: Please see redlines for other minor comments. Redlines can be picked up at anytime at
the Dev Review Center counter located at 281 North College Avenue.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/12/2013
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
08/02/2013: Please change the title on all sheets to "Fort Collins LDS Temple", to match the other plan
sets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/02/2013
Page 8 of 13
08/02/2013: There are text over text issues on sheets A.1, A.2 & A.3. See redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/02/2013
08/02/2013: Please mask the text marked on sheet A.6. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/02/2013
Topic: Construction Drawings
08/05/2013: There are problems with the sheet index on sheet C.1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The legal description on sheet C.1 should read "Lot 1, Fort Collins LDS Temple & Lot 3,
Amended Plat of Leistikow M.R.D. S-21-92, situate in Section...". The metes & bounds portion of the
description is not necessary.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The benchmarks on sheet C.1A should match the ones shown on sheet C.1. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: There is text that needs to be masked on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Please add a Match Line to the top of sheet C.9. See redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet C.22. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/06/2013: Please correct the spelling of "Left" on sheet C.52. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
08/06/2013: Please change the title on all sheets to "Fort Collins LDS Temple", to match the other plan
sets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Please remove the hatching over LP116 in the Key Map on sheet LP117. See redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets LP102a, LP123, LP125 & LP126. See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: There are text over text issues on sheet LP102a. See redlines.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: There is text that needs to be masked on sheet LP102a. See redlines.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Topic: Lighting Plan
08/07/2013: No plans were routed to us for this review.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Page 9 of 13
Topic: Plat
08/07/2013: Please revise the Easement Dedication statement for the Fort Collins-Loveland Water
District & South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: The downstream owners of the irrigation easement in Easement Vacations note #2 must
acknowledge the vacation, as they are the ones holding the right to the easement.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Please provide the reception numbers marked on sheet 2. These must be added prior to
mylars. See redlines.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Topic: Site Plan
08/07/2013: Repeat Comment: There are line over text issues on sheet SP.2. See redlines.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
08/07/2013: Please change the title on sheet SP.3 to "Fort Collins LDS Temple", to match the other
plan sets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please make any repositioned/new signs bold. The old (existing) location
can remain faint.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove non-traffic related (signs/markings) labels and symbols
(power poles, etc.)
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove all R3-7R (Right Lane Must Turn Right) signs. Delete the new
signs and label the existing ones to be removed. We are now only using them at drop lane locations,
not on standard exclusive turn lanes.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove the 2-way (continuous) left turn lane arrows.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please remove the Stop Bar at Timberline and Majestic. We only use them
at signalized intersections that have decorative crosswalks and at mid-block x'ings of trails or
sidewalks.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/08/2013: Sht's C43/44: Please revise lane striping per the sketch sent on 8/9.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
08/08/2013: Please remove the "Existing Striping Extended South" label.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
Page 10 of 13
08/08/2013: Please revise the labeling of the eastern bike/edge stripe near the northern end of the
Timberline plan (Begin & End Extended striping labels we spoke about).
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/08/2013
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
08/06/2013: Irrigation plans must be submitted at time of final plan/building permit submittal. Please
see LUC 3.2.2(J)(3) for details on how to ensure you comply with the irrigation plan requirements.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
08/06/2013: Please make sure the following notes are included on the irrigation plans:
"A master shut-off valve shall be installed downstream of the backflow device to shut off water to the
system when not operating.
Irrigation controllers shall be "smart" controllers, using climate-based or soil moisture-based
technology, selected from the Irrigation Association's current Smart Water Application Technologies
(SWAT) tested products list or other similarly tested product list. Controllers shall be installed and
programmed according to manufacturer's specifications.
A rain sensor shall be installed on each irrigation controller and installed according to the
manufacturer's specifications."
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Terry Farrill, ,
Topic: General
08/05/2013: Under general note 5, all references to the water and sanitary sewer are to be deleted
please.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: General note 13 is to be deleted please.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Comments to be added: "all water line construction shall conform to the Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District standards and specifications current to the date of construction.
All sanitary sewer line construction shall conform to the Fort Collins- Loveland Water District standards
and specifications current to the date of construction."
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District requires a minimum 30 foot wide easement, on the District's standard
easement form, for the sanitary sewer lines that are not located within public ROW. The sanitary sewer
line is to be centered in the easement.
The District requires a minimum 20 foot wide easement, on the District's standard easement form, for
water facilities that are not located within public ROW.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
Page 11 of 13
08/05/2013: The overflow Rundown can't be located over District facilities.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: Each water line lowering is to be detailed. The District requires joint restraint systems for
the lowerings. The lengths of joint restraint are to be calculated for each lowering please.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The need for ARVs needs to be evaluated.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The water lines crossing the storm sewer need to be shown in the profile.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The line lowering typical on sheet C.59 is to be deleted.
The manhole frame and cover on sheet C.60 is to be deleted.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District does not allow trees, tree canopies or landscaping within the District's
easement.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District requires a reduced pressure principle Back-flow-prevention device on the fire
line riser.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The meter vault typical on sheet C.59 is to be replaced with the District typical 3 inch
meter vault. The typical can be obtained in CAD format by contacting Ms. Sue Vest, (970)226-3104,
extension 107.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
08/05/2013: The District will require another round of formal final plan review due to the nature and
number of the above comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-226-3104 ext. 104 if you
require additional information or for questions.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
07/16/2013: Please put notes on the Title Sheet that reference the approved Modifications.
Also add a note to the title sheet that details the lighting condition that the Planning and Zoning Board
placed upon their approval.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/16/2013
07/16/2013: The lighting plan and Visual and shadow analysis are part of the Final Plan. The applicant
can submit these electronically before going to MYLAR
There appears to be down directional lighting on the outside of the steeple, where these fixtures in the
lighting plan?
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/16/2013
Page 12 of 13
07/16/2013: Do the roof flues w/ backdraft preventer have to be so tall. Why are they not screened?
What color are they to be painted?
What color will the ladder pipe rail that is visible be painted?
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/16/2013
Page 13 of 13