Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMANHATTAN TOWNHOMES, SECOND FILING - PDP/FDP - FDP150021 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity 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 July 20, 2015 Russell Baker MANHATTAN LAND COMPANY, LLC 772 WHALERS WAY STE 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Manhattan Townhomes Second Filing, FDP150021, Round Number 1 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. Review Reference Code: The following key code is included next to each staff comment or department category. Please use this as reference when addressing comments. INF – COMMENT IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR INFORMATION, AND MUST BE ADDRESSED WITH SUBSEQUENT PERMIT APPROVALS OR AGREEMENTS. PLEASE RESPOND WITH THE INITIAL ROUND OF REVIEW AND NO ADDITIONAL RESPONSE IS REQUIRED WITH SUBSEQUENT REVIEW. HR – Comment must be resolved prior to scheduling a hearing. FN – Comment must be resolved prior to MylAR. UNR – COMMENT REMAINS UNRESOLVED AND ADDITIONAL RESPONSE AND REVISION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO MYLAR ACCEPTANCE. RES – COMMENT APPEARS TO BE RESOLVED AND NO FURTHER RESPONSE OR REVISION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO MYLAR ACCEPTANCE. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Site Plan: Placing the buildings closer than the 15 foot building setback will require a modification to this standard or alternative compliance. How does the design mitigate the visual impacts of closer proximity to the street, and how is the design equal to/better than a 15 foot setback? RESPONSE: A Modification Request is included with the resubmittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: We would like to see more refinement of the landscape plan, and this can be part of the justification for comment 1. We need more evergreen material and a stronger, more distinctive building foundation landscape concept. A less is more approach might be a nice look where there's a mix of cobble sizes in larger beds combined with a looser mix of plant material, and with the material further away from the building foundations where possible. This isn't the only approach, you could do standard mulch. Mainly we just need the landscape plan to include more variety and significantly more evergreen material. Also, the plan is very busy at 1:30 and very difficult to read the different symbols with all of the other information (mulch hatching, etc.). RESPONSE: Evergreen material has been added to the plan. Overall planting beds and the variety of plan materials have been expanded as well. The scale of the drawings have been changed to 1:20. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please see building elev. redlines. Also please show where the AC units and meters will be located on the elevs. and all other plans, and how they will be screened. This is mentioned in the planning objectives that this will be architectural? If on the ends of the buildings this could be a feature to add variety/ visual interest to the building ends? For the formatting of the elevation drawings, the sheets need to be to be drafted with linework only and include detailed materials notes and/or a material schedule. The color elevations can be used with the PDP set in conjunction with the line drawings and also as a part of the hearing presentation, but they need to be higher resolution. A material sampleboard is also required that also includes paint samples. RESPONSE: Please see revised elevations for some items as well as revised landscape plan for A/C Unit pads. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Buildings F and G are not served by a design that qualifies as a major walkway spine. We would need to process a modification for this and also connect the sidewalk east of the buildings. RESPONSE: A Modification Request is included for the building entrances that are greater than 200’ from the street sidewalk. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: The land use code supports the trail connection as a requirement of the project, as a mid-block connection and in support of LUC 3.2.2.(C)(6) and (7). This development project would be required to provide the final design and construction of the trail spur. No payments were made to the city for this work with the past approval. Please acknowledge. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General HR Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Sheets D1-D5 have different sheet titles than what is listed on the Sheet Index. Please rename sheet titles to match sheet index RESPONSE: The sheet titles have been updated. HR Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: The existing concrete patches in Manhattan Avenue need to be replaced with asphalt. RESPONSE: The concrete patches are now shown to be replaced. HR Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Access easements need to be depicted as to be vacated. See redlines for locations. RESPONSE: All old easements are now set to be vacated and new easements dedicated. HR Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: A portion of the trail sits outside of the existing 8' trail easement. See redlines. This portion may need to be dedicated as an alignment. The portion not used may need to be vacated as well. RESPONSE: Awaiting final determination on how to proceed from staff. HR Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Please work with PFA to determine if internal streets will need to be named. Please label these streets as Private Drives. Signs will need to be posted to state that the private drives will be privately maintained. RESPONSE: Internal streets will not be named, but a way-finding sign will be provided. HR Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: A section of sidewalk next to lot 36 sits offsite. An offsite easement will be needed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Permeable Pavers are not allowed in the 9' utility easement along Manhattan Avenue. Please remove and recalculate area needed for permeable pavers. A concrete collar will be needed at the edge of pavers at these driveways. RESPONSE: The pavers have been updated. HR Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Since the portion to the south was part of the original plat, please replace the small section of ribbon curb with vertical curb. See redlines. RESPONSE: The ribbon curb is now shown to be removed and replaced. HR Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Please relabel the callout for an existing 30' Utility Easement as a 30' Utility Alignment. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been relabeled. HR Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: The minimum gutter flowline grade is 0.5%. Please adjust. RESPONSE: Per our meeting, the flowline grade has been left at 0.42% due to the previous centerline design being at 0.40%. HR Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Please provide the striping plan for Manhattan Avenue. The striping boundaries will need to be extended further north and south of the property to show the transitions from a shared bike/parking lane to separate bike and parking lanes. It is difficult to determine if the existing layout will work. RESPONSE: A striping plan is now provided and provides striping as we discussed in our meeting. HR Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: It appears that the cross section of Manhattan Avenue as shown on Sheet R1 is significantly less for the roadway to the south of the property. It looks like it is about 1.67' less in this area. Did the roadwaycenterline change? RESPONSE: Roadway centerline did not shift, however the previous plans/cross section for Manhattan Townhomes First Filing had an incorrect section, which may have led to some of the confusion. We are providing the half-section for a Minor Collector (25’ Total, 11 travel, 6’ bike, 8’ parking). The cross section shown, shows a EOP width of 47.67, which no cross section along the property meets this width. RESPONSE: I believe this is resolved from our meeting and subsequent discussions. HR Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: Please label ROW widths along Manhattan Avenue. RESPONSE: The ROW has now been labeled. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, , kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 HR 07/15/2015: As the applicant is not able to meet a standard 100' buffer for the wetland, discussions with Stormwater have allowed for enhancements to Stormwater property to the east of the development, which will allow the applicant to meet the total area buffer requirements. Initially, we had discussed a permanent easement for this area for the landscaping and associated maintenance. Recent discussions with Stormwater have led us away from this idea and instead we would like to see the applicant establish and maintain the landscaping for a period of at least three years until it reaches an agreed upon level of success, at which point the continued maintained will be turned over to Stormwater. RESPONSE: A note has been added to General Landscape Notes (#18) which states the following: ‘Landscaping within the Buffer Zone Enhancement Area shall be established and maintained for a period of at least three years until it has reached an agreed upon level of success, at which point the continued maintenance will be turned over to Stormwater.’ Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 HR 07/15/2015: Please see notes on landscape plan for buffer area to the south. Suggestions include: 1.) activating the western spur with chokecherry, plums, as well as possibly Twinberry honeysuckle and thimbleberry 2.) Avoid shading shrubs and other plants with cottonwoods - chokecherry o.k. 3.) Move junipers up away from the wetland edge and move moisture-loving plants down 4.) Cluster rabbitbrush, snowberry, sumac and juniper to create and informal edge with some gaps/view sheds 5.) Don't shade rabbitbrush 6.) currant, chokecherry, and plum in the moisture transition area and move cottonwoods closer to edge of wetland RESPONSE: The landscape has been adjusted per this comment. HR Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/15/2015 07/15/2015: As for buffer enhancement plantings on Stormwater property: 1.) Do not plant trees and shrubs in a line but cluster appropriately for the plants moisture/shade requirements and to allow for mowing and maintenance 2.) Do not plant cottonwoods and plums together, nor junipers and cottonwoods together 3.) Cluster juniper with rabbitbrush, as well as possibly red osier dogwood, sand cherry 4.) Instead of rabbitbrush in the northwest corner of this area along edge, suggest wood's rose, snowberry and/or shrubby cinquefoil RESPONSE: The landscape has been adjusted per this comment. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans HR Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 07/16/2015: Use the newly developed landscape and other project notes on this development. Notes are available from the City Planner. RESPONSE: The notes have been replaced with the new City notes. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Show the accurate location of all existing trees. Identify existing trees by number with species, size, condition, mitigation and intent to save, remove or transplant stated. Some trees are of a transplantable size and should be closely evaluated for transplanting on the project. Provide required number of upsized mitigation trees. Shade trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper Conifer trees 8 feet height RESPONSE: Accurate locations of trees has been added to plans along with all inventory/mitigation information. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Show locations of any street lights and space street trees away from street lights to LUC standard 3.2.1 K. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Distance between street trees appears to vary some. Adjust plan by providing a regular street tree spacing or please communicate the design objective that the project would like to achieve with some variation in spacing. RESPONSE: Street trees are spaced at 40’ intervals. Any areas without trees are do to setback requirements from stop signs and street lights. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: A street tree shown along Manhattan does not appear to match any symbol in the plan list. RESPONSE: The symbols have been revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Will mowing of the grass occur in the Buffer Enhancement Zone? If mowing is to occur then evaluate the feasibility of placing shrubs in closely spaced groups with the area between shrubs free of grass and mulched. Rough mowing between individual shrubs can be challenging and often results in mower damage to shrubs. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Provide irrigation to trees and shrubs in the Buffer Enhancement Zone. Irrigation to the trees and shrubs will be need until plants are established, which can be 5 years or more. Specify the length of time irrigation will be provided. Provide a planting detail for trees and shrubs in the buffer enhancement zone. RESPONSE: Irrigation to trees and shrubs in the Buffer Zone Enhancement area will be provided. The length of time has been specified as at least 3 years per Environmental Planning (see General Landscape Notes #18). A note has been added to the planting detail for the trees and shrubs which specifies that an irrigation well will be required within the Buffer Enhancement Zone. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/10/2015 INF 07/10/2015: Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design,that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Manhattan townhomes project specific concerns: HR 1. A P2904 or 13-D fire-sprinkler systems are required in all townhomes. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 7. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. HR 9. Low VOC interior finishes. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/26/2015 INF 06/26/2015: System modification charges will apply for any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/26/2015 HR 06/26/2015: The existing electric vault shown to be removed on the demolition plan is actually a pad mount transformer. This transformer will be needed to provide power to some of the buildings. Owner will need to coordinate a new transformer location within 10' of an asphalt/concrete surface and all existing secondary will need to be extended and re-pulled. RESPONSE: New transformer is now provided along south side of southern drive, between Buildings E & F. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/26/2015 HR 06/26/2015: The Utility plans show some gas meters where electric meters need to be. Owner will need to coordinate meter locations with Light & Power Engineering. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/26/2015 HR 06/26/2015: Contact Light & Power Engineering @ 970-221-6700 to coordinate locations for electric lines. Electric lines are shown going in back lot. Light & Power does front lot installations. With the smaller private drive it may be difficult to fit all of the utilities in the easement. RESPONSE: The utility layout in the drives has been modified and now provides more room for electric utilities. Applicant will coordinate with Light and Power as needed to resolve any other outstanding issues. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/12/2015 HR 07/12/2015: FIRE LANES General fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of all buildings. This requirement has been met with the proposed site plan and Emergency Access Easement to be dedicated. One of the limiting factors from the past site plan review related to building heights in excess of 30'. This requirement has been better defined in the last 2012 IFC revision, to the benefit of the applicant. Refer to Section D105 of Appendix D for more information. Code language and fire lane specifications provided below. > IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. > IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. RESPONSE: Current plan meets these requirements. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. RESPONSE: Current plans meet this requirement. > Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. RESPONSE: Current plans meet this requirement. > The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans. RESPONSE: > Be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. RESPONSE: > Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Refer to Appendix D of the 2012 IFC or contact PFA for details. International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/12/2015 HR 07/12/2015: WATER SUPPLY The proposed utility plan details 3 locations for hydrants. I would like to work with the project team to reduce the number of hydrants where feasible. Please contact me to discuss this in further detail. RESPONSE: The hydrant located in the middle of the project along Manhattan has been removed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/12/2015 HR 07/12/2015: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION An addressing plan is required. Unless the private drive is named, monument signage may be required to allow way-finding. Code language provided below. > IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will provide monument signage in lieu of naming the private drives. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control HR/INF Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/07/2015 07/07/2015: 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. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (Redlines were Returned with the packet) , Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Erosion control materials were submitted, and are being resubmitted with this application. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: More clarification and documentation is needed to make sure the PDP is meeting the LID requirements. It appears the porous paver system may be taking on more than 3 to 1 impervious surface. RESPONSE: Additional documentation has been provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Temporary erosion control is needed for the pipe outlets into the regional detention pond. RESPONSE: Erosion Fabric is now provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility will no longer require a landscape maintenance easement for the landscape improvements on City property. Coordination with the Environmental Planner and Stormwater staff is needed to determine a warranty period and development agreement language. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Please see other minor comments on the redlines. RESPONSE: All redlines have been addressed. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 70-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 FN 07/14/2015: Plan sheets that are in color are not acceptable. RESPONSE: See revised elevations. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please add "Second Filing" to the title block on all sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: See revised elevations. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please add sheet numbering to the plan sheets. RESPONSE: See revised elevations. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please correct the sub-title to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrected. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please make sure the Benchmark Statement is in the EXACT format shown below. RESPONSE: Benchmark matches what was provided. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX'. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Addressed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text has been masked. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please change Manhattan Drive to Manhattan Avenue. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrected. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please provide title commitment information as available. RESPONSE: We will provide this when available directly to you. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please label all found monuments. See redlines. RESPONSE: All monuments labeled. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Because Tract B is a D,U & A Easement, the only Utility Easements that needs to be dedicated separately are those portions of Lots 8-16, 17 & that small portion of Lot 7 as marked in red. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been modified as directed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please provide a detail showing the area marked at the northeast corner of Lot 36 on sheet 2. See redlines. RESPONSE: A detail is now provided. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: All easements must be labeled & locatable. See redlines. RESPONSE: All easements are now labeled and locatable. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Addressed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Please label the Basis Of Bearings, and explain how you have established the location of the corners. See redlines. If needed, please call John to discuss. RESPONSE: BOB now labeled. Basis was discussed with City staff. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Sheet 3 is not necessary. Please see the notes on sheet 3 and decide if it is going to remain with the Plat, and make the changes as marked if you choose to keep it. See redlines. RESPONSE: Sheet 3 has been removed. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 INF 07/14/2015: Given the fact that this property was previously approved for more units than what is shown now, and that the anticipated traffic to be generated does not meet the threshold for requiring a TIS, the Traffic Impact Study requirement is waived. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: Is there a connection from the internal parking lot to the trail? That would be helpful for multi-modal mobility. RESPONSE: A connection has been added to the 8’ trail. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/14/2015 HR 07/14/2015: It is unclear how Manhattan will be striped. Will parking be accommodated along the property frontage? This should be shown, including transitions to the existing roadway on both north and south side. RESPONSE: A striping plan is now provided per our discussions. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: The maximum allowed units for a joint service is six. Please revise where this is exceeded. RESPONSE: The utility plan has been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Connection 5 for the sanitary sewer needs to be a public sewer heading west into the site. RESPONSE: This has been changed. Also, please provide a manhole at the junction. RESPONSE: A manhole has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Will the existing 6-inch water line on the south end of the site be private? If the line is to be public, a blowout is required at the eastern end. RESPONSE: Yes, it will be private. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/16/2015 HR 07/16/2015: Please see redlines for other comments. RESPONSE: All redlines have been addressed.