Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD THIRD FILING - FDP - FDP140006 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSland planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement April 9, 2014 Mr. Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Waterfield Third Filing, FDP140006, Round Number 1 Responses Please see the following summary of response to comments and the revised drawings of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter: Stephanie Sigler, Ripley Design Inc. responses in red 970-224-5828 Bud Curtis / Cody Snowden, Northern Engineering responses in blue 970-221-4158 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: The crusher fines path around the natural area is appropriate but should be upgraded to concrete within Tracts F and G. These two tracts are flanked by lots and has more of a developed character than a natural character. Response: The plans have been revised to show concrete walks through the tracts. Labels have been added. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: As you are aware, the westerly north-south local street cannot be named either “County Road 11” or “Turnberry Road.” Both Karen McWilliams and I strongly encourage you to consider naming this street “Cherryhurst” in honor of Agnes Wright Spring who owned the large farm and orchard south of Long Pond. This farm was named “Cherryhurst.” Mrs. Spring was the State Historian for both Colorado and Wyoming, the only person ever to be accorded this honor, and was inducted into the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame. In addition, to being nationally recognized author and historian, she was also the Wyoming State Women’s Golf Champion in 1916, and two-time winner of the Fort Collins Championship. She was a prominent and notable citizen who was ahead of her time. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 2 of 17 In 2003, the City staff conducted a public outreach to name County roads that had been annexed. The result of this effort led the current names that in use today: Richards Lake Road, Douglas Road, Giddings Road and Terry Lake Road. “Cherryhurst” was the popular selection as the name for County Road 11 but was superseded by “Turnberry Road” as a result of a successful last-minute lobbying effort by golf enthusiasts. Since this street will likely be the address for a public elementary school and public neighborhood park, selecting “Cherryhurst” as the street name will honor local history and tie the new Waterfield project to the land. Response: The plans have been updated to label that road as “Cherryhurst” Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Staff is concerned that established residents near the northerly temporary terminus of Mandarin Drive will, perhaps, not be fully aware that Mandarin is to continue north to intersect with the future extension of Conifer Street. In order to keep residents fully informed, please provide a sign on the Type Three Barricade that states to the effect that Mandarin Drive is to continue north at some point in the future. Response: There is a temporary turn around and no Type Three Barricade. We can provide a sign after construction that explains the street will continue. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/24/2014 03/24/2014: Be sure to resolve all legal and notification issues related to the relocation of the irrigation lateral that is serving Mr. Ken Barker. [Response]: Multiple discussion have occurred with Ken and the Ditch Company. They are a signatory on the plans and will sign off before final mylars. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/24/2014 03/24/2014: On the Landscape Plan, please add a Key Map to the sheets for reference. Also, it would be helpful to add street names as well. Response: Key map and street names have been added to Landscape Plan sheets. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/24/2014 03/24/2014: On the Site Plan, please add a Key Map to sheets 2 and 3. Response: Key map has been added to Site Plan sheets 2 and 3. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please provide a phasing plan with civil construction set. It has been the intent to phase the construction of this project but I have not seen a phasing plan yet. [Response]: A phasing plan has been included. Per discussion, further discovery needs to occur with the traffic counts and study, but this conflict with overall design and could be finally address at mylars. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please provide reference to variances within note 48 on sheet CS2. Currently there is the APF variance and engineering is requesting a variance to our cross section Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 3 of 17 standard for Garganey inverted crown and infiltration median. [Response]: The two variances have been added to note 48 . Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Underdrains are allowed outside of the right of way and on the back of lots. However, if the underdrain system for basements is intended to be routed within in the Right of Way (other than perpendicular) crossings than we will require a subsurface exploration report that details the design of the underdrain. If the underdrain will not be routed through right of way than we will not require such a report but still strongly recommend it being designed and sized by a licensed professional. If the system is to cross right of way it will need to be solid pipe, sleeved and clay cutoff walls at the right of way. [Response]: Underdrains have not be determined necessary at this point, but appreciate you researching our question . This maybe a path taken in the future, but will be the decision on the developer. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Is the existing pump house intended to stay in place? It appears to be within the right of way as well as underneath a proposed sidewalk accoridng to the Civil Plans. [Response]: As we have discussed and further dictated through exhibits, the existing pump house will not be within the future ROW and is intended to stay in the current location. There are ROW vacations to alleviate this location discrepancy. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: It appears that the half of the Timberline Right of Way adjacent to this project is still being shown at 70.5 which is for the 6 lane arterial. Was it not the desire to vacate 13 feet to the 4 lane arterial half right of way of 57.5? [Response]: The ROW vacation Exhibits have been provided to the City and are awaiting for City Council approval. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Private irrigation line crossings of public streets need to have casing/sleeving and will require an encroachment permit prior to construction. [Response]: The revised design shows all private crossings to be sleeved. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sheet IR3 the irrigation pipe is very shallow and does not have minimum cover. Additionally, it should be encased and designed to an ultimate condition where it extends and daylights on the east side of the full build out of Timberline. [Response]: The revised design shows this crossing to be siphoned under Timberline Road through verbal agreement from Lateral No. 10. As previously mentioned, there signature will be required prior to approval of the Utility Plans and Plat. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: concrete cutoff walls for the underdrain in Garganey Drive need to be constructed to a depth of 30 inches below flowline and extend to the top back of curb. [Response]: I have included a concrete cutoff wall within the median of Garganey Drive and the two tracts to not avoid delays, but have also included some standard details that have been adopted by other states. It is understood that neither street stability nor water quality should be compromised, but further discussions should occur a final decision is made. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 4 of 17 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please provide hydraulic calculations for cross pans at intersections and mid block cross pans for Shearwater, Aleutian and Mandarin. [Response]: An inlet and storm system has been added as discussed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Engineering is not comfortable with the amount of runoff that will be crossing Aleutian Drive at the south side of Tract F. Two very large basins are draining to this point source. The runoff needs to be collected in an inlet and piped under Aleutian into the Detention pond in Tract C. [Response]: An inlet and storm system has been added as discussed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: The drainage in Tract G appears to be collected and held in a detention manner until enough ponding occurs to spill through sidewalk chase. It appears the sidewalk chase is not needed and the water could continue to pond until it spills over the sidewalk. Additionally, please include a grate on the underdrain cleanout and it can be raised above ground level to serve as an area drain when water ponds but before it spills. [Response]: The sidewalk chase has been removed and an overflow (8” dome) has been added to relief overflow.. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Show all Handicap Ramp symbols on the plans. Many of the sheets have the callouts but are missing the symbols. [Response]: All Handicap Ramp symbols, as well as curb transition have been added.. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Timberline needs to have the ultimate design shown adjacent to the project down to the intersection of Timberline and New Vine. Let's discuss further how to show interim/proposed design clearly as well as Future/ultimate design of Timberline as well as intersections with Timberline. [Response]: A complete interim and Future/Ultimate design has been included. See additional sheets. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Include CDOT concrete joint detail in the details for the concrete roadways. [Response]: The CDOT Concrete Joint Detail has been included. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Thank you for providing a detail for the concrete cutoff wall and PVC liner in Garganey. Engineering is adopting a standard of a concrete cutoff wall as a barrier to infiltration basins within the right of way and basins that are adjacent to right of way. We request that wall be at east 30" below grade and minimum of 6" thick. [Response]: As depicted earlier, further discussion need to be had within the review of the final plans. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: See redlines for additional comments and they will be available end of day friday. Please schedule a time to meet with me early next week to sit down and go through comments. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 5 of 17 [Response]: See revised plans. Andrew, thanks for the prompt and ongoing help with this project. By the way, I wasn’t close to 30 comments! Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please contact Clark Mapes in Planning Department regarding landscaping for medians as a part of our streetscape standards. Additionally medians should have the double curb shown which will limit some of the space within the median and median noses for plantings. Response: The double curb has been added and the streetscape standards have been followed. We will route an additional planting plan to Clark during this submittal. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Northern Engineering has provided a draft of the right of way vacations exhibits and legals. I am confirming with our Attorneys that we can vacate right of way that was dedicated on two separate filings on one legal. Assuming this is the case than I suggest we combine the (3) vacations into one single ordinance for City Council. This would result in only one vacation being submitted and only $800 for right of way vacation. [Response]: ROW exhibits and legals have been submitted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Right of Way Vacation needs to be approved by City Council by ordinance and have two readings at City Council. After internal review of the exhibits and legals that were submitted we will ask for final stamped and signed legals and exhibits and schedule the first reading at City Council. After second reading the ordinance will be recorded. [Response]: ROW exhibits and legals have been submitted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Easement dedications were submitted for review for access, Xcel, etc. If these agreements are private (between two parties) and not dedicated to the City than we do not need to process them. They will need to be recorded separately and the reception numbers will need to be shown on the Plat. This could result in not needing $250 for each easement dedication. Curly – Do you need an exhibit and legal for the private access easement to the west or is this taken care directly through the lawyers? Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please change "Environmental Engineer" to Environmental Planner on the Utility Plans. [Response]: We have revised the sheets, but let us know if we missed any. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 6 of 17 03/18/2014: Let's schedule a separate meeting for the long term monitoring and weed management plan. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Forestry Review of this project includes only trees and design elements that could impact trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Amur Chokecherry an ornamental tree that tends to decline early and is prone to sunscald. This species should not be used as a street tree. It’s recommended that another species of ornamental tree be considered for used in its place in common greenbelt areas. Response: All Amur Chokecherry trees located as street trees or in greenbelts have been removed. Chanticleer Callery Pear and Autumn Blaze Callery Pear have been used in substitution. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Provide smaller street tree groups of same species. Many same species groupings include clusters of 10-17 street trees of the same species. The intent is to provide a degree of species diversity within a deliberate, repeating design pattern. Apply species diversity within street tree rows that is generally displayed in Standard 4.1.2 found in the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards. Response: Street tree groupings have been reduced to 3-7 in accordance with Standard 4.1.2 of the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards. Species diversity percentages for street trees are all 15% or less. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Street Tree Selection: Please include these additional street tree species for greater diversity: Accolade Elm Boulevard American Linden Chinkapin Oak (smaller quantities) Shumard Oak (smaller quantities) Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree ( smaller quantities) Do not use Amur Chokecherry or other ornamental trees as street trees except near street lights. Do not use the very narrow pyramid shaped Crimsonspire oak as a street tree, as there are not site constraints that limit the use of a full canopy tree. Label the Bur oak in the plant list as “Bullet Gall Resistant” Response: All trees listed above have been included in the landscape plan. Amur Chokecherry trees have been removed as street trees. Autumn Blaze Callery Pear has been added as a street tree near street lights. All Crimsonspire oaks have been removed. Bur oak is now labeled as "Bullet Gall Resistant." Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 7 of 17 03/18/2014: Locate only one street tree in front of lots that are 60 feet or less in width. This appears to be all of the lots in this project. Utility/tree separation standards and driveway locations with their separation standard make planting more than one street tree per narrow lot not feasible (LUC 3.2.1 D 2 a). Side lot street trees may include trees at 40 feet spacing unless utility or street light locations restrict street tree placement. Response: One tree has been located in front of all lots that are less than 60 feet in frontage width, spaced at 30-40 feet with single tree on adjacent lot. There are a few cases where frontage width is larger than 60 feet, in these cases 2-3 trees have been located. Due to driveways not yet being located, trees are set off to one side of each lot to leave room for driveways. Side lot street trees are spaced at 40 feet where applicable. All trees meet utility separation standards. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Provide a street tree design that meets all of the following separation standards. Show the locations of all streetlights, water and sewer service and main lines and the location of stop signs, with trees placed to meet separation standards. At intersection corners adjust street tree locations to provide for better visibility. Forty feet between shade trees and street lights Twenty feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. Ten feet between trees and water or sewer mains Four feet between trees and gas lines Eight feet between driveways and street trees Response: Street tree design has been modified to meet all of the above separation standards. At intersection corners, street tree locations have been moved to provide better visibility. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please place street names on the landscape plan. Response: Plans have been modified to show street names on the landscape plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Check that all trees are identified both on the drawings and in the plant list. Trees labeled with the following do not appear to be recorded in the plant list. Check all trees to be sure that they are correctly recorded in the plant list and on the drawings. PSH PSC MRB Response: Plant list has been updated to include the above plant codes and all plant codes have been checked to match those of which are listed on the plant list. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Provide the percentage of use of each species of trees by placing a column in the plant list with the percentage. Adjust numbers of species used if necessary to meet the minimum species diversity in LUC D 3. Response: Plant list table has been modified to include a column with percentages of species diversity within each planting category. (canopy trees, ornamental trees, shrubs etc.) Street tree percentages comply with LUC D 3. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 8 of 17 03/18/2014: Review plant material selected for the end areas of medians for site- distance. Review this item with Ward Stanford in Traffic Engineering. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Place the following statement on each of the landscape sheets surrounded with a bold edge and with larger print: A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and curb and in street medians. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tree locations after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the code of the City of Fort Collins. See landscape note number 3. Response: Each of the landscape plan sheets have been modified to include the above statement with larger print and surrounded with a bold line. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: If the intent is to have turf in all the parkways then place a note will arrow or by use of a symbol identify that turf shall be the landscape surface in the parkway. Response: Plans have been modified to show a turf hatch to show that turf shall be the landscape surface in the parkways. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Group of trees on the south side of Timberline (questions and comments): 1. What is the objective for placing this group of tree off –site? Please explain why is this being proposed? 2. Are these trees located on City property? Maintenance by the City cannot occur if these trees are not on City property 3. If these trees are on final landscape plan then provide an irrigation design/plan to ensure their establishment and survival. 4. If they are not in irrigated turf then provide a planting detail that shows a substantial water basin with mulch around each tree. 5. Provide a separate note just for these trees that says in effect….. The developer shall replace dead or dying trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All trees must be established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. 6. PSH is used to label some of these trees but is not in the plant list. 7. If this is a low water landscape then these species of evergreen trees would be preferred for use in this area: Austrian Pine Ponderosa Pine Rocky Mountain Juniper Southwest white pine 8. Is there enough space for these trees? Is the Railroad nearby and if so are there any Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 9 of 17 placement issues? Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Provide a typical lot detail for a midblock and corner lot that show the street tree, water and sewer service lines, driveway, stop sign and street light. Label separation distances between tree and these elements. Response: Landscape Plans now provide a detail for midblock and corner lots to show street tree separation from water lines, sewer lines, stop signs and room for future driveways. There are no street lights in this project. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: The landscape design for the median in the new Vine should to be submitted and reviewed by the City Streetscape and Median team or by Clark Mapes. Contact Clark Mapes in the Planning Department to coordinate this review. Median plans for arterial streets should follow the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please provide a detail of the medians in the local street on the landscape plan. Plants are currently not labeled and the scale makes interpretation difficult. Response: All medians on site have been detailed and plants labeled. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Provide landscape notes that define who will be maintaining the landscaping in the street medians shown on this project. Contact Steve Lukowski in the Parks Department (416 2063) to determine if the City would maintain landscaping in the new Vine. If the City is to take over maintenance of the new Vine medians then provide notes that describe the inspection and approval process for acceptance of maintenance as required by Mr. Lukowski. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: On the utility plan, water & sewer services are shown next to the lot line which will cause conflicts with electric services, vaults, streetlights, etc. Water & sewer stubs need to be moved away from the lot lines closer to the middle of the lot to maintain required separation from electric facilities. [Response]: As denoted in comment 2, the service will need to be completely rebuilt. If this services is not included within the rebuilt, discussions can/need occur prior to Mylar. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: The existing electric infrastructure along Merganser Dr. will need to be completely rebuilt due to the proposed lots fronting on Merganser and the realignment of Merganser. [Response]: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Developer will be responsible for Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 10 of 17 system modification charges where applicable. [Response]: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Will the irrigation pumps along Timberline that Light & Power has transformers feeding remain? Or will these pumps be going away? This may determine whether Light & Power needs to keep the existing transformers feeding these pumps. [Response]: The pump house will remain. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Inform Light & Power Engineering of any pumps, clubhouses, irrigation or 3-phase services early on so we can plan accordingly. Contact Light & Power Engineering @ 970-221-6700 with any questions. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2014 03/19/2014: Erosion Control Escrow Calculation needs to be submitted. Make sure the EC plan pages that were submitted in the Erosion Control report are updated in the Utility plan set. Erosion Control Plan has some redlines that should be incorporated into the next revision. Erosion Control Report has various minor redlines that should be addressed. 02/26/2014: Erosion Control Plan was reviewed since it was present. The plan lacked 1) Sequence Chart 2) Phases for building such a large property. 117 Acres For the FDP please submit escrow and report (Report has not be provided by separate document as stated in the Report). 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]: Discussion has been acquired, and will be resolved prior to mylar. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: The bio-retention areas need to be sized to ensure that enough volume is being provided for the area draining into them. Also, please provide a total percent value of the site draining into a correctly sized LID feature. [Response]: Please see revised report. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Please edit the bio-retention section for the median per the redlines in the report. [Response]: Please see revised details. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Please update report per redlines. [Response]: Please see revised report. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Details and cross-sections are needed for the forebays. [Response]: Please see revised plans, sheet G7. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 11 of 17 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: [Response]: This comment was truly hard, but I gave it my best go! Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Please add a basin and pond summary table to the overall drainage plan. [Response]: Please see revised Drainage Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Please label all storm sewers public or private. [Response]: Storm Line A has been labeled a Private. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Please provide drainage easements for the lot lines per redlines where drainage from lots upstream pass through downstream lots. [Response]: Easements have been provided per the plat. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Pond 2 should have a 2% slope at the bottom of the pond. If this is not possible, than a soft or hard pan needs to be provided [Response]: Pond 2 has been completely revised per the Parks Department request. A flat bottom pond has been designed with an underdrain to alleviate minor storm inundation. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Please provide the City's standard detail for the concrete chase where water is being directed off of the street. Also, please reference the detail where these are labeled on the grading plan. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Please add a riprap detail that includes 6 inches of topsoil with a temporary erosion control blanket. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/21/2014 03/21/2014: Any future commercial development, club house, etc. would be required to meet the 25% porous pavement section of the code for any private drives or parking areas. [Response]: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are issues between the sheet index and the titles on the sheets marked. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are some issues with the matchline numbering on the demolition plan sheets. See redlines. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 12 of 17 [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are several sheets that need text rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please mask all text within the profiles. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are text over text issues. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are sheets showing Merganser Street. This name is incorrect. It was platted as Merganser Drive. Please change all effected sheets to reflecct this. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please correct the spelling of Utility in the titleblock of sheet D3, the sheet number of D3, and the sheet number on sheet D7. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. 01/13/2014: Repeat Comment: Please revise the legal description. See sheet 3. 12/04/2013: Please revise the legal description. See sheet 3. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 13 of 17 01/13/2014: These were not provided. Please email them directly to Jeff County at jcounty@fcgov.com. 12/04/2013: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown on the Plat. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment: Does the City & School District need to sign as owners? [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. 01/13/2014: Repeat comment. 12/04/2013: Please update the title commitment information as appropriate. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. This need to change on sheet 2 also. 01/13/2014: Please adjust the outer boundary to exclude right of way shown on sheet 3. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Sheets 8 & 10 show Tracts N & O as Utility & Drainage Easements, but the table on sheet 2 shows them as Future Commercial? Please rectify. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. 01/13/2014: Please call John @ 221-6565 to discuss the drainage easement to Country Club Farms LLC. Either Country Club Farms LLC will need to sign an acknowledgement vacating the easement, or the current owner is a successor in interest to Country Club Farms LLC, in which case no signature would be necessary(but would prefer you write an explanatory note). [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 14 of 17 [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: To whom is the Waterline Right of Way at Book 737, Page 575 on sheet 4 dedicated? See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please change all bearings to the nearest second. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: The right of way dedication information for East Vine Drive is confusing. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. 01/13/2014: Repeat comment. 12/04/2013: All easements must be dimensioned and locatable. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are linework issues on sheet 5. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. 01/13/2014: Repeat comment. 12/04/2013: All existing streets must show dedication information. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Repeat comment. 01/13/2014: Repeat comment. The street must be labeled as "New Vine" Drive (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). 12/04/2013: Please change all "Vine Drive" for the proposed realignment to "New Vine" Drive (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Add U&DE and definition to the legend on all sheets. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please label what appears to be a temporary turn around on sheet 8. See redlines. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 15 of 17 [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please label all Tracts with their use. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please check the 100.5' of right of way for Timberline Road. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please change the linetypes as shown. See redlines. [Response]: Please see revised plans. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please add sheet 6 & title to the sheet index on sheet 1. See redlines. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/19/2014 03/19/2014: Please mask all text within hatching. See redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Comment not addressed. Please revise median ends on new Vine per City Standard detail 801. 01/08/2014: Comment continued for reference. Change can be made at FDP stage. 11/26/2013: New Vine Drive and also New Timberline Drive P&P sheets: Please design the median noses to conform to LCUASS Standard Drawing 801. Can be done at FDP. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please include in the Details sheets, standard Drawing 801, 1401 (revise blade size from 8" blade to 12" blade, and 30" Stop sign to be 36" Stop sign), 1403, 1404 (revise note stating the turn arrow is not necessary if lane is less than 100' to less than 60'), 1406, 1411 (revise blade height from 8" to 12"), and 1420. All edits can be hand edits. City is working to get these standard Drawings revised. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Please include bike lane striping on the arterial and collector streets (6" solid white), and parking lane striping (4" solid white) on the appropriate Collector street section. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 16 of 17 Please add Speed Limit signs (speed limit signs on collectors and above will have a sign posted 200 ft after every arterial or collector intersection. Additional speed limit signs should be posted every ½ mile on collectors and arterials), and bike stencils and signage (placed approximately 100' downstream of intersections; sign adjacent to pavement marking) [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG1: Please add "D3-1" (street name sign) to appropriate R1-1 (stop) sign labeling. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG2/SG3: Please revise the Striping Notes to state City of Fort Collins "Traffic" engineer each location that they currently state City of Ft Collins engineer. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG2: The single solid yellow stripe (5) used to create the eastern painted extension of the median on New Vine at Timberline should be a double yellow line (7). [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG3: The 4" solid white bike lane strip on the west side of Timberline (southbound lane) should be a 6" solid white line (combo bike lane and edge stripes are now 6" lines). [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG3: Please show and label the Interim Sb edge of pavement/asphalt fully along the property. There are several undefined lines on the west side of Timberline that aren't defined or match the legend. Please clarify/correct. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG3: Depending on where the interim edge of pavement is on the west side of Timberline, we may revise some of the striping between Garganey and new Vine and south to the end of the property to possibly add right turn lanes in excess pavement areas. I'll provide redlines to show the possible changes. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG3: Please add a bike lane (and bike stencils/signage) and right turn lane striping to south bound Timberline north of Garganey extending to the bridge. Waterfield FDP Revision 1_Comment Responses Page 17 of 17 [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG3: Terminate the south open end of the painted median (future Sb left turn lanes) on interim Timberline on the north side of Garganey and the north side of new Vine. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Sht SG3: The southbound redirect tapers north of Garganey and south of new Vine will need to be lengthened to get close to meeting the 540' AASHTO/MUTCD standard. [Response]: See revised plans per further discussions. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/18/2014 03/18/2014: Due to the long redirect tapers and the lack of adequate space for them the striping across the north bridge on Timberline needs to be refreshed and the Sb bike lane extended across the bridge. [Response]: An inlet and storm system has been added as discussed. Calculations have been included per our meeting.