Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY COMMONS - PDP - PDP150027 - 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 December 23, 2015 Todd Parker Brinkman Development 3528 Precision Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Harmony Commons, PDP150027, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The boundary of the plat includes multiple easements and utilities especially along Harmony Road. Presently, there are signature blocks for the owner and lienholder only. Please check and be sure there are no other owners that need to sign the plat. RESPONSE: The owners are working with their attorneys to make sure the right signatures are on the plat. Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Have the issues associated with the owner of the Irrigation Easement been resolved? RESPONSE: See comment 1. A private party agreement has been drafted and agreed upon by both parties just not executed at the time of this resubmittal allowing for crossing of this easement with the proposed storm system shown in this submittal. Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: On the Site Plan, please revise Note 4 and provide an explanation as to how the 80-foot Buffer along Harmony Road is to be developed. Who is the developer? What is the timeframe for development? Will the construction of these improvements be coordinated with Harmony Commons so that newly installed improvements are not impacted by subsequent development? It would be helpful to cite the official plan title and City of Fort Collins project number for cross-reference purposes. RESPONSE: We have added a sentence to Note 4 stating that the 80-foot setback improvements are the responsibility of MAVD. We also referenced the City’s project number for the BDR. The commencement of the setback work will be upon closing of the land purchase this spring with the Harmony Commons work to follow immediately after the start of the setback and right-of-way work. Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: This note should be carried over to the Context Diagram and please add further explanation as to the responsibility and timing of the 8-foot wide bike and pedestrian easement between Lots 1,6 and Outlot B. RESPONSE: The note has been added. Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: On the Context Diagram, please add the land uses to the north. Please note that H-P has now divided into two separate companies. RESPONSE: Land uses are noted and revised. Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Staff is concerned about the length of the parking lot that parallels Timberwood Drive along southern edge of Lot 5. Please note that Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping – requires that this lot be screened by landscaping for a minimum of 70% of the length at a minimum of 30-inches in height. As shown, the amount of landscaping is insufficient for screening purposes. Please add additional plant material in this area to help screen the parking lot from the public street. Please explore other screening options. For example, is there sufficient width for an undulating berm? Even a low berm would be beneficial. Or, has a low screen wall been considered? RESPONSE: We have added a 4-foot strip of plant material containing 3-foot tall grasses. In addition, we added a combination of ornamental and evergreen trees planted in clusters to help screen the trash enclosure and transformer. Perhaps a combination of various screening elements would be interesting. RESPONSE: Since there is not room for a berm, we feel that the grasses and trees aid in fulfilling Section 3.2.1(E)(4). Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Street trees along Lady Moon between Harmony and the private drive are placed at intervals that exceed 40 feet. Please increase the number of street trees so that they are placed at intervals that do not exceed 40 feet. RESPONSE: Street trees are now spaced at 40 feet. Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: There is a north-south sidewalk on the east side of the north-south private drive on the west side of Lot 5 but this walk does not continue north. Please continue this walk to the north to Lot 4 so that it ties into the plaza between Buildings C and D. RESPONSE: The north-south walk has been added. Comment Number: 9. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Where the various internal sidewalks intersect with the private drives, please add crosswalks. RESPONSE: Crosswalks have been added. Comment Number: 10. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: On the Site Plan, please demarcate the boundary of the Convenience Shopping Center and state the acreage and indicate that this is a Secondary Use. Also, please indicate that the Office is a Primary Use. As subsequent phases develop, there can be no more than 7.57 acres of Secondary Uses. RESPONSE: The boundary has been added to the Site Plan. Comment Number: 11. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: On the Lighting Plan, please select the specification that the AS1 fixture must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin. RESPONSE: Parking lot lights have been specified as 4,000K to blend in with the neighboring project. The Banner Hospital has 5,000K and the office building to the south of the proposed project has 4,000K light fixtures. We request the use of the 4,000K parking lot lights to unify the commercial appeal on the Harmony corridor. Comment Number: 12. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: On the Lighting Plan, there appear to be numerous parking lot fixtures that are placed within the landscape islands. As the trees mature, this lighting will be significantly diminished over time. Please consider placing all parking lot fixtures outside the landscape islands. RESPONSE: Parking lot lights and landscape trees have been further coordinated to maintain light appropriate levels. Comment Number: 13. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Regarding the architectural elevations for Buildings C and D, please note that Section 3.5.3(E) calls for each building to have a distinct base, middle and top. Staff interprets this standard in such a way, however, as to allow one-story buildings to accomplish architectural interest by a variety of techniques. Since Buildings C and D rely on variety and interest across their elevations, the result, as stated in the Planning Objectives, is an emphasis on the overall horizontality aspect of the project. Staff is concerned that this results in an overly repetitive pattern especially as these buildings relate to the two public streets. RESPONSE: Included in the current submittal are 3-dimensional perspectives of each building to represent the building steps with shade and shadow. Masonry banding has also been added to the fields of masonry. Comment Number: 14. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Specifically, Staff is concerned about north elevation of Building C (facing Harmony Road) and the north and east elevations of Building D (facing Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive). Broadly speaking, except for the ends that feature entrances (with columns and overhangs), these elevations appear flat and lack three-dimensionality. It is not clear as to the extent that these elevations feature recesses and projections and shadow lines. The long, one-story rooflines appear excessive and without relief. Staff advises that additional opportunities should be considered to create more recesses, projections, reveals, cornices, varying parapet heights, and the like, in order to add shadow lines and depth to the facades that are visible to the public. Such features would help mitigate the emphasis on the consistent rooflines and overall horizontality of the buildings. RESPONSE: Included in the current submittal are 3-dimensional perspectives of each building to represent the building steps with shade and shadow. A meeting between planning staff and the project Architect was had and addressed the elevation concerns. Comment Number: 15. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Has any consideration been given to adding more trim, sills, lintels, coursing or other details around the windows? As depicted, the windows contribute to the flatness of the facades. RESPONSE: This has been reviewed and windows are recessed within the masonry and for building reasons of construction the windows in the stucco cannot be recessed further. Masonry coursing has been included to create further detail and interest. Comment Number: 16. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Perhaps more attention could be paid to the treatment of the exit doors. These three elevations include eight hollow metal doors that appear to lack any detail. Staff advises that various treatments be investigated to either make these doors less visible or mitigated with additional features. If the latter, please consider including additional trim and detail or overhangs or columns or wing walls in order to ensure more three-dimensionality and has the benefit of mitigating the utilitarian function of these back side doors. RESPONSE: Hollow metal doors on the north elevation have been painted to blend in with the adjacent building material. Comment Number: 17. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The Statement of Planning Objectives indicates that the buildings are taking their architectural cue from Banner Health and Fuse Office Building as well as Fossil Ridge High School. Please note that Banner Health includes three distinct types of masonry, and, in certain portions of the building, masonry is taken up to the full height of both one and two story sections. Does the selected c.m.u. match any of the c.m.u.’s of Banner? RESPONSE: Masonry coursing has been included to create further detail and interest to the building. The colored banding technique is not being duplicated from the Banner Hospital as these buildings want to have a separate identity from the Hospital yet complement each other. Please consider adding an additional masonry material and or color to add variety along the street- facing elevations. Perhaps the brick that is included on Building E could be introduced to enrich the street-facing facades of Buildings C and D. RESPONSE: Masonry coursing has been included to create further detail and interest Comment Number: 18. Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: For the next submittal, pleases include perspectives of the three buildings. RESPONSE: Included. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: Why is a 24" storm line proposed underneath the sidewalk along Lady Moon? The location is awkward as it places manholes in the sidewalk. RESPONSE: We have moved the storm manholes so that the rims will be outside of the sidewalk. This pipe is necessary because we are connecting the existing inlet and outlet that is presently an open channel. Comment Number: 105 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The use of bioswales behind the curb and gutter along Lady Moon Drive is of concern in that there's limited information at this time regarding its proposal, suitability, and mitigation. Understanding that this bioswale is intended for Lady Moon Drive flows only and not from the development, there apparently is not a concern with private requirements being mitigated in public right-of-way. However, if the intent is to take public street flows and allow these flows to infiltrate behind the curb and gutter, there are concerns such as: 1) How will it be ensured that infiltration of flows behind the curb and gutter does not negatively impact Lady Moon's street stability? Does the current soil condition in the area lend itself well to allow infiltration? We've required a previous project that used rain gardens for infiltration behind the curb and gutter to provide underdrains to help in mitigate impacts to the roadway. Cutoff walls and/or liners would need to be considered as well. 2) How is ongoing maintenance of the bioswale envisioned, is this intended to be maintained by the City or the abutting property? 3) Is there existing or proposed utility infrastructure that would be impacted by the bioswales as utility infrastructure could be in the same location. How will any ongoing access, maintenance, and replacement of utilities adjacent or beneath impact the viability of the bioswales? RESPONSE: We have removed the bioswale between our driveway and TImberwood (where the future right turn lane is likely). We have added a perforated underdrain to the remaining sections of bioswale. On January 8, we met with Wes, Marc and Sheri to discuss the issues with the proposed bioswale – adding the perforated pipe was discussed, but Engineering did not ”approve” that solution.. We have not received any word back from staff if this modified design will be sufficient. Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: To the extent that there's room to do so, the roof drain shown east of Lot 5, should be moved out of the 9 foot utility easement. RESPONSE: Roof drain piping has been removed from the east side of the building – it will drain west. Topic: General Comment Number: 200 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The presumption I have in terms of entitlement of properties by this development plan is that Lots 3, 4, and 5 would be the development plan area that would obtain a final plan approval and vesting, resulting in the development agreement boundary covering Lots 3, 4 and 5. If there are concerns with this approach (looking to add Lots 1, 2 and/or 6 to the development agreement), we should discuss this at some point. RESPONSE: The intent is to only entitle and develop Lots 3, 4 and 5. Comment Number: 205 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The abutting local street portion of pavement for Harmony Road would need to be repaid to the City prior to the first building permit. With the previous comment in mind, we would take the approach that the first building permit in this development would need to provide this repay for the Harmony frontage in front of lots 3 and 4 (regardless whether a building permit for lots 3, 4 or 5 are pulled first). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 210 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The right turn lane on Harmony Road abutting this development was constructed by Banner Hospital. Banner Hospital may have filed a repay for this work which would have an amount contributable by this development. Further information on this is intended to be available and then have this comment updated accordingly. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 215 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The abutting Timberwood Drive and Outlot A designs are part of the Basic Development Review proposal by MAVD. The last version of the BDR submitted did not show sidewalk along Timberwood Drive, similar to this proposal. We'll want to ensure that the sidewalk is shown to be installed, either by this project, or the BDR. Regardless, it will be part of the development agreement for this proposal that the sidewalk and streets are completed, and if for whatever reason the BDR construction would not move forward, this project would need to complete the work shown on the BDR. I would like to see it revised on all the plans that all reference to "By Others" is changed to "By M.A.V.D., the master developer" (or something similar), in order to make a more clear intent as to how the abutting infrastructure is intended to be completed. RESPONSE: Aspen’s latest BDR plans show proposed sidewalk along the north side of Timberwood Drive, per Noah Beal’s request. Comment Number: 220 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: There is an edge of pavement line that's identified on the plat. I'd want to confirm that this edge of pavement is current as of the right turn lane built by Banner Hospital. This edge of pavement line should ideally then be labelled on the site plan to demonstrate its relationship to the proposed buildings and then confirm whether the appropriate setback requirements as part of the Harmony Corridor Plan, is being met (or if not, a variance then to that standard is then provided). RESPONSE: The edge of pavement line was surveyed by Northern Engineering so we know it is accurate. The property line proposed for this plat is parallel to the edged of pavement and is exactly 80 foot wide. There is a note on the site plan. Comment Number: 225 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: There are two existing vent pipes along Lady Moon Drive shown on the plans. Both vent pipes would need to be moved at least two feet behind (west of) the new proposed sidewalk along Lady Moon Drive. The MAVD BDR plans are intending on depicting this relocation for the southern vent pipe. It should at least be indicated with this plan set that the northern vent pipe is relocated. RESPONSE: The MAVD BDR Plans are moving the vent pipe at Timberwood because it is in the way of the HCAP ramps. The 2nd vent pipe to the north is behind the curb and not near the new detached walk, so we were not planning on moving it. Comment Number: 230 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The bioswales along Lady Moon Drive depicted on the civil plans are not indicated and labelled on the landscape plan. If ultimately approved, it would seem this would need coordination between the landscape plan and the civil plan, as the tree locations appear to be in conflict to meet the tree planting detail and the swale that's created. RESPONSE: Understood. Any bioswale materials will be close to the curb and gutter and there will be about 7’ of width remaining for the street trees. Comment Number: 235 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: Some sort of exhibit should be created depicting what are the separate document dedications of easements that are intended to be dedicated in conjunction with the development plan. The pond and associated infrastructure tying into it along the south side of Timberwood Drive should presumably have offsite drainage and utility easements. In addition there would appear to be a need for a drainage easement for the temporary swale traversing Lots 1 & 2 (which could be dedicated on the plat itself, rather than by separate document). Are there other separate document dedication envisioned? RESPONSE: Aspen’s intent is to provide a blanket drainage, utility, and access easement (by separate document) for the Pond Only portion of the project. This will be provided, as applicable, and during final design of the onsite portion of the work. There is no longer the need for a temporary drainage easement on the west Lots – that drainage channel has been removed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 400 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: Is it the intention of Outlot B to be subsequently replatted with development of that property? Assuming it's intended to be developed, I'm wondering why not have it as an additional lot (Lot 7?) of the sixth filing? RESPONSE: Outlot B has been changed to Lot 7. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: FIRE LANES. Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of any building perimeter. Building E is fully compliant. Buildings C and D do not meet the prescriptive measure of the code but as they will be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, the out-of- access conditions is considered to be within acceptable limits. RESPONSE: Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: MARKING. Fire lanes are to be maintained unobstructed at all times. Fire lane signage and/or red curbing is required to assist in identifying the limits of the fire land and areas of no parking. A No Parking - Fire Lane sign detail should be added to the plans. Sign locations should be added to the signage and stripping plan. Code language provided below. See also IFC Appendix D for signage details and other information. > IFC503.3: Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices that include the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times ad be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. RESPONSE: Fire Lane – No Parking Signs have been added to the plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 12/14/2015: PLAN SCALE. The plan scale appears to be mislabeled on sheet 1 of the site plan and page 2 of the utility plan. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2015 12/09/2015: "On-Site" work needs to include an erosion control plan, report, and escrow. "Off-Site" work has redlines on the plans, needs to include a report meeting all the drainage criteria, and escrow may need to be recalculated based on any changes to the plans. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Aspen has spoken with Jesse Schlam and understands Aspen will be responsible for a SWMP for the Pond Only portion of the project (offsite work). Aspen’s final drainage report provides for the escrow amount for the Pond Only portion of the project (offsite work). Interwest will prepare the required drawings and reports during the FCP submittal for the on site work. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Please provide a more detailed LID table that breaks down each porous paver section to help verify each paver section is meeting the 3 to 1 run-on area. RESPONSE: LID Tables have been expanded. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The modified regional detention pond needs to be sized using SWMM since the area draining to the pond is greater than 20 acres. RESPONSE: Per discussions and meeting with Wes Lamarque, the existing SWMM model is acceptable and Aspen has provided for Pond 100 exceeding that required by the existing and approved SWMM model. Cumulative SWMM volumes (including water quality capture volumes) have been accounted for and are now contained in one large pond (Pond 100) while maintaining the allowable release rates shown in the approved SWMM model. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Please add a discussion in the text of the drainage report that the overflow path for Pond 100 will need to be redesigned at time of future development to convey the flows to Lady Moon Drive. RESPONSE: Aspen has added language which states that future development east/ southeast of Pond 100 shall ensure a positive overflow path east and out to Lady Moon Drive. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Move the marked text up off of the border on sheet 2. See redlines RESPONSE: This has been fixed. Topic: Constriction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: INTERWEST: Please change the title to match the name for the Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE: Everything is now called Harmony Commons. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: INTERWEST: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: INTERWEST: The Benchmark Statement does not match the Aspen Engineering plans. Please resolve. RESPONSE: The 2 sets of drawings are on different datum. Both sets clearly state this and note the required conversion between the drawings. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: ASPEN: Please change the title to match the name change for the Subdivision Plat, and remove the portions of the sub-title as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Aspen’s sheet has been correct to read “Harmony Commons”. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: ASPEN: The Benchmark Statement does not match the Interwest plans. Please resolve. RESPONSE: Per previous and current discussions and agreements with Jeff County and John Von Nieda, NGVD ’29 is the datum that has been used for the entire HTP Campus to date, including the entire SWMM model for the HTP Campus and associated roadway and utility Infrastructure for the entire Campus. Aspen’s plans hold this datum for continuity and to match the overall Campus plans. Edmonds Land Surveying provided (and has provided) the topographic survey(s) for Aspen’s HTP BDR project, all subsequent Aspen projects, and now the Pond Only portion of the project, with the topo tying to specific benchmarks provided and utilized by Edmonds Land Surveying (NGVD ’29 to match the Campus control). Brinkman hired Northern Engineering to provide subsequent topo. Please refer to Northern’s topo information for their specific control for their stand-alone onsite work. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: ASPEN: Please make changes to the Benchmark Statement as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Aspen has revised the statement as requested. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: The Basis Of Bearings Statement on sheet 6 states "between found monuments as shown and described hereon". Where is the Basis Of Bearings shown in the plan set? RESPONSE: Per discussion with Jeff County, Aspen has revised the statement as requested. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: No comments. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please rename to "Harmony Commons" to match the other plans, or "Harmony Technology Park Fifth Filing". See redlines. RESPONSE: Revised Title has been changed to Harmony Commons as suggested. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please make changes to the titles as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Title has been changed to Harmony Commons as suggested. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: The zoning note is not required, and may be removed if you choose. RESPONSE: Zoning note removed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please explain the purpose of Note #7. See redlines. RESPONSE: Note # 7 has been removed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: The Curve Table data does not match the previous Plat. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrected. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please show the right of way lines on the opposite side of all adjacent streets. See redlines. RESPONSE: The right-of-way lines are now shown. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See redlines. RESPONSE: Dedication information added. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: All easements must be labeled & locatable. See redlines. RESPONSE: Easements are labeled. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Please add bearings, distances, and/or curve data as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Added. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: How do Lots 1, 2 & 3 get access? RESPONSE: Access statement is on Note Number 6 on Sheet 1. Lots within the platted boundaries of Harmony Commons shall have the benefit of shared access for ingress and egress shall include all access driveways, drives, aisle ways, sidewalks, maneuvering and parking areas. Said shared access shall be for the common use and maintenance of all users, public and private, and owners. Vehicular and pedestrian movements shall be provided for and permitted across all property lines at all times regardless of future ownership and platting actions. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Is there a way to show the easements differently with the hatching? It is confusing the way it is shown. See redlines. RESPONSE: The EAE has been hatched differently. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Fixed. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: The legal description should change to match the name change for the Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE: Legal changed. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text fixed Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The TIS has been received and reviewed. The TIS was completed for the entire portion of the area, not just the three buildings shown on the PDP, so its hard to draw clear conclusions specifically related to these buildings. RESPONSE: When the TIS was begun and scoped, we were given and used the site plan that had six buildings. The reduction in the number of buildings occurred when we were >95 percent complete. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The distribution percentages using HTP and Lady Moon seem unrealistic for these three buildings (assuming 90% will use HTP). RESPONSE: The assignment to/from the accesses on Harmony Road was based upon judgment, time path, and trip production areas. It reflects six buildings. With three buildings, it is acknowledged that the assignment would change to some extent. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: It is unclear why the long term site traffic is lower than the short term site traffic.... RESPONSE: The site traffic is the same. This comment should be discussed further. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: The long term traffic numbers show that a warrant is met for a southbound right turn lane from Lady Moon onto Timberwood. This needs to be considered. RESPONSE: Right of Way is now being dedicated for a future right turn lane. We do not plan to design or build this with this PDP as it is not warranted (yet). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: It will be assumed that the completion of these three buildings do not yet meet the signal warrant at HTP. If the applicant wants to discuss that further, then we would need a memo update that specifically addresses the trip generation from these three buildings. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This should be discussed further. The signal is not part of the work associated with this submittal and the applicant does not intend to pursue this with the city. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2015 12/18/2015: Perovskia Atriplicifolia (Russian Sage) has been removed from the City of Fort Collins Plant List. Please replace with a plant variety from the current list. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. RESPONSE: Russian Sage has been removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/18/2015 12/18/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: Please plan for the water main lowering to be 2 feet lower than the future storm sewer in this location. RESPONSE: The water loop through the future lots has been removed, so the lowering is no longer needed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 12/23/2015: There are several landscape conflicts with the water meter pits and fire hydrants. RESPONSE: The landscape has been adjusted. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Trash enclosures over 6 foot tall require separate building permits, if you keep them under 6 foot no permit is required. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Enclosures will be kept to six feet tall. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 12/22/2015: Trash and recycling enclosures should not be placed within 20 feet of a public sidewalk. The lot 4 enclosure will need to relocate. RESPONSE: Trash enclosure has been moved.