Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAPSTONE COTTAGES - FDP - FDP150046 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSPage 1 of 15 Capstone Cottages Final Development Plans – Round 2 Comment Responses 2/17/2016 Response: Consultant Comment Responses: Underlined & Italicized Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Show plan with building types to correspond to elevations. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Status of interim one-way lane connection to 10th. Street? RESPONSE: Per the condition of approval imposed by the hearing officer, this interim paved connection will be closed off to vehicular traffic, and will be a path for bikes and pedestrians only. The pavement section will be capable of handling one-way vehicular traffic should things change at a future date. ***New resolution for this from City Council last night (2-16) will allow the one-way connecting drive to be added back (this was not caught in time to be added to these plans). Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: C303. Add transit stop pad and shelter facility. RESPONSE: A concrete pad has been provided. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: C505. For realigned Lemay at Duff intersection, remove interim paved lane connection to 10th. Street, and show how Buckingham is cut-off from access to neighborhood area near alley. RESPONSE: See response to Comment Number: 3, above. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Grading Plan - between Maintenance building area and Tract D, show how drainage is not being directed to property line on east side. A swale may be needed. RESPONSE: The grading design has been updated to intercept flow in a rain garden. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Label match lines. Legend symbols Page 2 of 15 do not match plan details on Sheet L1.0. Matchlines were labeled and a symbol added to legends. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: L7.0. Aterial Street medians and roundabout planting symbol is shrub beds. Need note to determine responsible party for planting these areas and details. A planting design has been provided. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Add match line symbol in legend of all sheets. Distinguish match line from storm drainage line symbols better. All sheets, remove contour lines. A matchline symbol was added and contours removed from site plan sheets. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: SP2. Add match lines and Index diagram. A matchline symbol was added… Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On the paving plan sheet, please add a 6' reference for the sidewalk along Lincoln Avenue, and change the 5' to 6' reference for the minor arterial. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 105 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The Sheet Index shows Sheets C311-C316 and there are reference to these sheets in the plans, but sheets are labelled ST1-ST5 instead. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: In general, there are some discrepancies on sheet numbers listed in the index and the as numbered. Also discrepancies exist on the legend map. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 115 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Sheet ST1 shows the 48" RCP having less than the minimum cover needed across Webster Avenue, with a depth of less than 2'. If the concern is maintaining the 18" from the water line, perhaps twin pipes and/or and elliptical pipe can be explored to get additional cover from Webster. RESPONSE: The storm drain has been lowered as much as possible and now has 31” of cover from flowline to top outside of pipe. Comment Number: 120 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Sheet ST2's Storm Drain Line 1-2 appears to have a minimum cover issue across the to be named minor arterial (shows about 2.5' at its shallowest). The roadway above this crossing appears to be concrete per Sheet C910 as part of the approach for the roundabout, and subject to verification from our Director, I believe can be supported. RESPONSE: The design of Storm Drain Line 1-2 and the roundabout have been coordinated to provide 3’ of cover at the flowline of the Minor Arterial. Comment Number: 125 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Sheet ST4's Storm Drain Line 3-3 has less than 2 feet of cover over the top of the roadway and is about 1.5 feet at its shallowest. While this area appears to be a concrete roadway, I'm concerned that at 1.5 feet, we may have depth concerns. RESPONSE: We share your concern on the cover over this storm drain. The vertical Page 3 of 15 alignment of the storm line is being driven by the existing 8” COFC water main that crosses between Inlets 3-3.1B and 3-3.2B. Applicant is open to lowering the waterline in this location, however there were discussions during staff review about if this was the best location for the waterline. While we are not in favor of moving the waterline (at least not at the expense of this project) we are waiting for resolution from staff on this matter. Discussions with staff have been initiated on this item, but have not reached a resolution to our knowledge. Plans can be easily updated once a clear direction from staff is received. Comment Number: 130 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Sheet ST4's Storm Drain Line 5 has at its shallowest about 1 foot of cover over the top of the roadway. I'm wondering if a waterline lowering should be explored here (and in other locations as it pertains to some of the other shallow crossing noted above). RESPONSE: Storm Drain 5 is affected by the same existing waterline outlined in response to Comment 125. Comment Number: 135 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Sheet ST5's Future Storm Drain Line 7 appears to be situated to have less than the minimum cover required (showing less than 2 feet), again due in part to maintaining 18" of clearance from an existing water line. RESPONSE: Future Storm Drain 7 is anticipated have minimal cover. As noted by staff, this is partly a result of existing waterlines in the vicinity of the future inlet, particularly a 24” COFC main. While this project will not be constructing the future line, it is our expectation that the existing waterline would be potholed at the time of construction, and the vertical storm drain design would be determined at that time. It may be prudent to flatten the sections of storm drain that will be constructed with this project below the typical 0.5% slope in order to provide maximum flexibility for future storm drains. Comment Number: 140 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Sheet ST5's Storm Drain Line 8 shows less than the minimum cover required, and in general is the existing storm pipe that this line ties into, problematic with its elevation in relation to Lemay Avenue? Existing ground is higher than proposed as depicted on the profile view, with a cut occurring, though C502 shows a fill instead of a cut in this area. Is there a profile for this existing line shown in relation to finished grade along Lemay Avenue? C502 should be depicting this pipe under the roadway and illustrate whether the pipe itself is problematic with the ultimate Lemay improvements. RESPONSE: Storm Drain 8 will have less than minimum cover in the interim condition, as it will actually serve as an area inlet draining an interim swale that is created within the future Lemay ROW. When Lemay is constructed, the inlet will be converted to a Double Combo inlet and raised. The cover at that time is expected to be 2.8’. Comment Number: 145 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: In general, it appears that much of the previous comments pertain to conflicts with existing water lines (and potentially an existing storm line as well). Given the reworking of Lincoln that will occur with the project, and the reworking of Lemay in the future, presumably by the City, I would be curious to understand whether some of the existing utility infrastructure should be modified and/or relocated, since the corresponding roadways will have similar realignment, which could better allow compliance with street standard cover requirements. RESPONSE: We did not receive clear resolution on this item. We agree that there is some merit in potential relocation of some waterlines, however it is our belief that the project should not be responsible for relocating existing infrastructure that falls within existing ROW’s. As noted above, our preference is to provide less than minimum cover over storm drains that are affected by existing waterline crossings or to lower the existing waterlines if needed. Comment Number: 150 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The Lemay Avenue vertical design only included centerline profiles. Unless otherwise agreed to by Engineering Capital Projects, flowline designs should be provided. RESPONSE: Engineering Capital Projects is OK with future centerline profiles only. Comment Number: 155 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 Page 4 of 15 01/13/2016: On Sheet C504, please change "future overpass" to "future potential overpass". I'm understanding that there is not necessarily a guarantee that the intersection will be an overpass vs. an underpass vs. an at-grade crossing. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 160 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On C507, the sag K-value for the flowlines on Duff Drive fall short of the 60 value required for the collector classification. RESPONSE: The flowline design has been updated. Comment Number: 165 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On C508, the crest K-value for the flowlines on the new minor arterial fall short of the 110 value required for the arterial classification. RESPONSE: The K-value has been updated. Comment Number: 167 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Duff and Webster existing flowlines and centerline with percent grades should be shown east of the property to show how proposed grades tie into existing. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 170 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On C513, the access ramps crossing both sides of the drive aisle isn't normally where we would place access ramps mid-block. If still desired and okay to remain, there should be receiving ramps placed at the south side of the intersection. RESPONSE: These ramps have been deleted. Comment Number: 175 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: As a carryover comment from PDP, on signing and striping plan sheets Sheet C514 through C518, please place dimensions all the components in the right-of- way (width of travel lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, medians, parkway strips, and sidewalks). Also the parameters for taper and storage of turn lanes should be provided. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 180 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On Sheet C516 a couple of thoughts regarding access ramps: - There's a ramp facing east on the south side of Cottage Drive and the minor arterial. I don't believe this is needed, as there's a crossing and a receiving ramp along the north leg of this intersection. RESPONSE: This ramp has been deleted. - The access ramps on the south side of the Duff Drive/minor arterial intersection don't appear to align with each other across the minor arterial. RESPONSE: These ramps now align. - I'm wondering if there's an opportunity and support for an access ramp on the north leg of Webster Avenue/minor arterial intersection with a pedestrian refuge island midway through the splitter island? Perhaps this crossing negate the need for a crossing at the north side of the Cottage Drive/minor arterial intersection. RESPONSE: The preference is to cross at the roundabout or at Duff, not at Webster. Comment Number: 185 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On Sheets C517 and C518 also pertaining to access ramps: - Please ensure that at the southeast corner of the Buckingham-Duff/realigned Lemay intersection that an access ramp is built heading north, with a receiving access ramp at the northeast corner of this intersection. It would seem that this could be built in the ultimate condition today within the limits of the curb and gutter section for Buckingham- Duff. RESPONSE: The ramp at the southeast corner will be built now; however, the northeast corner will not. Interim pedestrian movements to/from the north will be around the turnaround and via the interim path to Buckingham/10th St. Page 5 of 15 - The mid-block receiving access ramp on the north side of Buckingham-Duff doesn't appear to align with the access ramp/sidewalk on the south side. RESPONSE: This ramp has been deleted altogether. - The plans should indicate that the aforementioned receiving ramps along the north side of Buckingham-Duff being built now. The sidewalk on the north side isn't required with this project, (but can be built with this project) -- in its current iteration it is confusing to discern what is being built along the north side. RESPONSE: This ramp will be constructed in the future when the parcel(s) to the north develop. It is best constructed in conjunction with the sidewalk and curb cut/drive approach. - Sheet C518 should be showing at least the receiving access ramps along the north side of the Buckingham-Duff/minor arterial intersection. Sidewalk again along the north side isn't required, but would be nice; what is to be built north of the curb and gutter along the north side should be clarified. RESPONSE: The plans now better clarify that these ramps will be constructed in the future when the parcel(s) to the north develop and/or when the minor arterial is extended north. The future ramps are located on off-site property outside of the development plan area. They are not needed to serve this development, nor the community in the interim condition. Sufficient pedestrian connections and level of service needs are met with the improvements to be constructed as shown. Comment Number: 190 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On the plan and profile sheets, please ensure that the profile lines use a heavier lineweight for the 0 and 5 foot elevations, it's difficult to verify elevations without the variation of lineweight at the major intervals. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 195 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On the plan and profile sheets, please ensure that existing and proposed contours are shown and labeled in plan view. RESPONSE: While we appreciate staffs desire to see contours in conjunction with the roadway, we feel that showing this information would have a negative impact from a reprinting and clarity standpoint. That being said, if there are specific items that staff is trying to determine that are not apparent from the grading plans or roadway cross-sections, we are happy to provide additional exhibits for staff in order to resolve those concerns. Comment Number: 200 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On the cross section sheets, please provide flowline elevations to cross check against the specified cross slope and the plan and profile sheets. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 205 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The cross sections for Duff Drive show grading past the platted right-of- way for Duff Drive along the north and would require an offsite grading easement. Note that the right-of-way from STA 27+50 on is not depicted for the north side as well as the south side east of the new minor arterial. Offside grading easement might be needed for the south side of Duff Drive east of this property. RESPONSE: The grading has been revised to daylight within the right-of-way or within a grading easement. Comment Number: 210 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The ultimate Lemay Avenue design shows the need for offsite easement to construct Lemay Avenue on the west side. This is just for reference to Engineering Capital for the future construction. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 215 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Existing Lemay Avenue design with the interim right turn lane into a right only movement into the site needs to have a roadway design with grading, spot elevations, cross slopes of the new pavement against the existing, etc. Additionally, as signing and striping plan is needed, showing the new lane width against the existing, parameters used for taper and storage, radius for the right turn, etc. Page 6 of 15 RESPONSE: Information for the interim right-in only access has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 220 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Intersection spot elevations are needed for the public streets intersections in accordance with Figure 7-27 and 7-28 of LCUASS. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 225 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: It appears that Sheets C911 through C914 is profiling the centerline. Please add flowline plan and profiles as well. Ideally instead of profiling the centerline, there would be a flowline profile against both "flowlines" of the center median. RESPONSE: Edge of pavement Profile Sheets have been included for all splitter islands and edge of pavements. Comment Number: 230 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Similar to #195, please have sheets C911 through C914 show (and label) existing and proposed contours. Sheets 915 and 916 should be showing this information as well with the indication of elevations on the sheet. RESPONSE: The roadway sheets have been updated to show the proposed contours. The presentation of sheets 915 & 916 have been updated to just call out proposed horizontal alignment information and profile sheets have been added for all of the edge of pavement and splitter islands. Flow vectors and 1’ Major and 0.2’ minor contours have been added to the geometric detail sheets. Comment Number: 235 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On the striping plan for the roundabout, will the use of "fish hooks" for paint and/or striping be utilized? RESPONSE: Fish Hooks were not intended to be utilized. Comment Number: 240 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The cross sections for the roundabout should be showing flowline elevations for the outside edges of the roadway as well as both side of the center median, to cross check against the flowine design. RESPONSE: Edge of pavement offsets and elevations were annotated on the cross sections to be consistent with the edge of pavement profile sheets that were created. Comment Number: 245 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: For the ties in points into existing Lincoln, it appears that the western edge tie in creating an angle point, whereas a radius is introduced on the eastern edge, which reduces the appearance of a kink in the roadway. I'd like to see a radius reflected on the western edge of the tie-in point on the south side of the roadway with existing curb and gutter. RESPONSE: The western tie in has been updated with a radius in a similar manner to the eastern tie in. Comment Number: 250 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please provide flow arrows to go along with the spot elevation on Sheets such as C908 to understand "the ride" of the vehicle utilizing the roundabout and its approaches. Also, the flow arrows help show how water drains and whether it directs to medians needing inlets, etc. RESPONSE: Flow Vectors tight contours with 1’ Major/0.2’ Minor have been added to the geometric detail sheets to provide a better understanding of “the ride” and how the edge of pavement profiles interact with each other. Comment Number: 255 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: A subdrain system should be shown in the roundabout utility plan for the landscaping required in the roundabout. In addition irrigation line should be shown, and coordinated with City Parks for maintenance. RESPONSE: The subdrain system will be shown on the proposed utility sheets. Comment Number: 260 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: A concrete joint pattern and reinforcement detail is needed for the concrete used for the roundabout and its approaches. RESPONSE: A Joint Detail Sheet has been added to the plan set. Page 7 of 15 Comment Number: 265 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: I'm presuming a report on the parameters used for the design of the roundabout will be provided and further discussion will occur on the Thursday morning meeting. Turning templates for emergency and WB-50 vehicles should be provided in the report, and how does a WB-67 track through the intersection? RESPONSE: A comprehensive design package will be delivered showing the Autoturn movements in addition to the fast path and sight distance calcs. Comment Number: 270 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The use of successive "curb on curb" for the medians on both ultimate Lemay and pertaining to the roundabout design isn't reflected in the cross sections, We'll want to ensure that this design is implemented as part of the City's streetscape design standards, including for the interior of the roundabout. RESPONSE: The typical sections, plan sheets, and cross section have been updated to show the “curb on curb” detail. The small median at the Buffalo Run access does not have the “curb on curb” detail due to the small size. Comment Number: 275 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The use of truncated dome detection for the roundabout design is evident along the roadway edges, but isn't depicted within the ped refuge/splitter islands. I'm presuming the intention is to have these in the splitter/refuge islands? RESPONSE: The intent was to have truncated domes in the splitter islands. The plans have been updated to reflect this. Comment Number: 280 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: There are some general concerns with the location of manholes in relation to the public streets, such as for ultimate Lemay on C502 showing manoles in flowlines where the bikelane along Lemay would be, as well as against the median flowline. A manhole in the Lincoln flowline median is shown as well. We'll want to ensure that manholes aren't located in bikelanes, and aren't in conflict with median flowlines, either placed in the median, or in the middle of the adjacent travel lane. RESPONSE: The edge of pavement at the western tie-in has been modified to eliminate the occurrence of the man hole in the flow line. Comment Number: 290 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please ensure that the roundabout plans have the City Approval Block in the same manner as the "onsite" plans. RESPONSE: The title block has been updated on all sheets to show the City Approval Block. Topic: General Comment Number: 500 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: A landscape plan for the medians pertaining to the roundabout (including approach medians) is needed. RESPONSE: A landscape plan has been provided and meeting set with the streetscape review committee 2/19/2016. Comment Number: 505 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: With the roadway network internal to the development bring private, there isn't much purview through Engineering. That said, I'm curious to know why the two north-south roadway don't align with each other on the west side of Cottage Drive, and the implications behind no stop control being specified for this intersection (based on the lack of Stop Sign symbols for this intersection as depicted in the site plan). RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 510 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The placement of rain gardens within utility easements behind the right-of- way does not constitute Engineering approval for its placement, though the slope and material type immediately behind the public street sidewalks need to be verified for being gradual, and not a "hole" or with rough media behind the walk. I would question the implications on the integrity of the rain gardens being maintained over time with any utility installation work occurring in the future within the general utility easement. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Page 8 of 15 Comment Number: 515 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Will the general drainage design with permeable pavers be amended with the change in stormwater criteria? RESPONSE: No, the PICP systems are still necessary to treat the water before discharging into the wetland pond. Comment Number: 520 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Carrying forward a PDP comment for reference in that the local street portion of Lemay adjacent to Tract G will be required with the project, similar to the local street portion (minus sidewalk) along the east side of realigned Lemay Avenue abutting the property. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 525 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Carrying forward a PDP comment as unresolved, looking to have "Being Private Maintenance" informational signs at the entrances to the site off of the public streets. A detail should be added to the civil detail sheets, and their locations referencing the detail should be shown on the site/landscape and civil plans. RESPONSE: Andy – Where is on-site signing and striping…Ripley or Nequette? Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 01/11/2016: On all plans showing the mitigation wetland and associated buffer, please label more clearly to indicate the entire upland area around the wetland is the NHBZ. A logical boundary would be the gray-dashed existing stormdrain line. Please also provide a table of the area of the mitigation wetland, as well as the buffer. RESPONSE: The NHZB was labeled and dashed previously with a boundary line and labels (it was requested previously that the entire Tract D be labeled as NHZB and this was also done). The area is shown with a heavy screened/dashed line and labeled, occurring at the back of walk surrounding the detention area (ROW and property boundary inward towards the pond). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 01/11/2016: Please see redlines on landscape plans for replacing the non-native species with natives, specifically GSD, QSR, ASG, ARM, and some PSP. Also, the 17 SXE in the northwest corner appear to be mislabeled. RESPONSE: Non-native street trees were removed -because of utility conflicts with in the tree lawn the pond edge was being utilized for street trees. Native trees and shrubs including Ponderosa Pine and Rocky Mountain Maple were removed as well. Other areas where canopy trees were shifted were supplemented with varieties as indicated on the plan redlines. Please note the addition of existing water line utility runs. The 17 SXE label was corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 01/11/2016: As discussed, a mitigation and monitoring plan will need to be finalized to indicate how the wetlands will be installed and monitored to ensure success. This document will be attached to the development agreement. A letter of credit to ensure the wetlands and buffer can be replaced, should the success criteria not be met, will be required. Noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/11/2016 01/11/2016: What is the proposed seed mix for the wetland area? I will email a suggested mix, as well as a mix to replace the dryland seed mix that includes more forbes. RESPONSE: The seed mix you provided was added to the landscape details and notes (sheet L-13). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Thank you for providing a photometric plan with this PDP submittal and Page 9 of 15 that no light spillage is shown within the buffer area. Please also consider the 3000K option for the light fixtures, in order to limit the amount of blue light in the night environment. Both LED and metal halide fixtures contain large amounts of blue light in their spectrum, and exposure to blue light at night has been shown to harm human health and endanger wildlife. Please also consider fixtures with dimming capabilities so that light levels can be adjusted as needed. RESPONSE: We are looking into providing this option. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: CONTINUED 09/16/2015: CONTINUED 01/14/2015: This comment is continued from 5/29/14. If not already indicated show the location of stop signs with a defined symbol in the site plan legend. Adjust street tree locations to a distance of at least 20 feet from stop signs. RESPONSE: Street tree locations were adjusted 20’ from stop sign locations. 05/29/2014: Please show the locations of street lights and stop signs and adjust street tree locations as necessary. Street lights: 40 feet for shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees Stop signs: 20 feet for any tree RESPONSE: Please note private drive street lights are pedestrian scaled with 14’ poles and at +/- 60’ offsets as opposed to standard cobra-styled street lights at 175’ offsets and 30’ poles. Adjustments were made to maintain 15’ clearances at minimum on private drives. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: CONTINUED CONTINUED 9-16-15 01/14/2015: Some street trees at the following locations appear to not be labeled as to species. Four street trees located at Duff Drive and North Club House Drive on n North Club House Drive. Some street trees located at the corner of Cottage Drive and International Boulevard. Some street trees located at Cottage Drive and North Club House Drive NE corner. RESPONSE: Tree labels have been double-checked. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: CONTINUED 09/16/2015: CONTINUED Providing only drip irrigation to trees with no other irrigation to turf will not sustain street trees long term as they grow and mature. Providing spray irrigation to the turf in parkways appears the best way to provide for the future irrigation of City street trees in parkways. 01/14/2015: Prairie Turf (Reduced Irrigation) is indicated in the perimeter parkways. Parkway turf needs to receive irrigation by a pop-up spray or equivalent system. This should be clarified by possibly describing it as Irrigated Prairie Turf. Providing for reduced irrigation in landscape areas is a great concept but the irrigation of street trees still needs to be adequately provided for. Significant reductions in turf irrigation would limit the growth and survival of street trees. Provide specific information on how irrigation with this concept will be adequate to establish and sustain street tree growth. Incorporate information and or design elements into the project design plan that clearly defines the level of irrigation that is needed and will be provided for the street trees. RESPONSE: Supplemental notes have been added to the General Landscape Notes that commit the developer to providing full drip irrigation for all trees in conjunction with the spray irrigation in the prairie turf and high traffic turf areas. A detail has also been included with the comment responses and will be emailed directly to you showing the drip pattern placement planned for all trees. A full irrigation plan will be provided as well before building permit as instructed by Eric Olson. Notes concerning station timing will be provide with the Page 10 of 15 irrigation specifications. The hydrozone levels were also increased for the parkway/prairie turf areas. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: CONTINUED 09/16/2015: CONTINUED 01/14/2015: Include 35 upsized mitigation trees on the project. Identify upsized mitigation trees in the Landscape Material Legend and by direct labeling of trees used as mitigation trees. Typically placing an asterisk with footnote by mitigation trees in the Landscape Material Legend and placing an M by those that are direct labeled has been an effective way to identify mitigation trees. Canopy Shade trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height. RESPONSE: 36 upsized mitigation trees were added to the plant legend and landscape plans Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: CONTINUED 09/16/2015: CONTINUED Provide a final landscape plan for the round- about at final plan. Follow the requirements in the streetscape and median standards. Contact Clark Mapes in the Planning Department to obtain information on how the round- about will be reviewed by the City streetscape and median team 01/14/2015: Will a landscape plan be provided for the round about? RESPONSE: A landscape design has been provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: CONTINUED 09/16/2015: Use the newly developed project landscape, tree protection and street tree notes. These notes are available from the Project Planner Pete Wray or the City Forester. RESPONSE: These notes have been added to sheet L-13. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: Discovery Elm appears to be labeled as USD but in the plant list it is listed as USJ. RESPONSE: This label has been corrected. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: Please provide information documenting why the 9 street trees along Lemay just to the north of the Bank of Colorado are behind the walk. RESPONSE: These trees were previously requested by Engineering to be removed from the sight distance triangle, but subsequently allowed to be moved back into the tree lawn. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: The four street trees along the south side of Webster need to be labeled correctly. Please check and relabel. RESPONSE: These four trees were relabeled. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: New development and system modification charges may apply. A link to our online electric fee estimator is below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-de Page 11 of 15 velopment-fees/electric-development-fee-estimator?id=3 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Transformer and meter location needs to be coordinated with Light & Power. It is preferred to have the meters gained on one side of the building opposite from gas meters. Coordination is important since this is a congested site and power lines need to be separated by 10 feet from water lines and 3 feet from gas lines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: A C-1 form needs to be filled and a one-line diagram needs to be provided for the clubhouse in order to size the transformer properly. It is preferred to serve the clubhouse with single phase if possible. A link to a copy of our C-1 form is below. http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please provide breaker panel sizing for each unit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: For any multifamily units, it will be the responsibility of the developer/electrician to provide the service from the transformer to the meter. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. However, these are all single family dwellings. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Drawings show an electrical line along the north side of Lincoln, just south of the development. This needs to be double checked since our maps do not show any electrical on the north side of Lincoln, but rather on the south side. This could be telephone line since the drawings show telephone being feed in the area. RESPONSE: This will be checked. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: If any existing electrical lines need to be relocated to accommodate the round-a-bout, modification charges will apply. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Street lighting and electrical design will be done for the existing Lemay Ave. Once the new Lemay Ave is installed, modification charges will apply for the relocation of street lighting and electrical infrastructure. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Distinguish between City street lighting and private lighting on the landscape drawings. Some proposed City street lights are missing from the drawings. Contact Todd Vedder if a copy is needed for proposed street lighting. Local residential streets shall have one light at each intersection. If the intersection lights would exceed 320 feet apart on a straight street, mid-block lights shall be added so lights do not exceed 320 feet spacing. If the street has a curve, judgment shall be used to reduce the spacing to less than 320 feet. Shade trees are required to maintain 40 feet of clearance with street lights and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of clearance with street lights. (clearances is from the trunk of tree to light) RESPONSE: Different symbols for public and private lighting were added to the plans Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Erosion Control Report was acceptable. Erosion Control Plan will need Page 12 of 15 some significant redline changes primarily based upon needing interior perimeter protection as proposed plans have shown through various other projects that not having interior perimeter protection on the site results in muddy messes almost impossible to control from being discharged to inlets. Please revise erosion control plan and calculate a escrow based upon the new changes to the erosion control plan. 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: The Erosion Control Plan has been revised accordingly. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On page 2 in the drainage report under paragraph 8, please document how the existing storm sewer has adequate capacity for the on site flows that will be added to the existing flows that are already conveyed by the storm sewer. RESPONSE: The drainage repoort has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please revise some of the text on page 8 of the drainage report. Basin descriptions are inconsistent in describing where they will be detained. They reference between pond and paver system for detention is inconsistent. RESPONSE: The drainage report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The areas of right of way (basins 2,3 ,6, 12) that drain into the wetland/detention basin are being proposed to have only a snout as pre treatment. This would not normally meet the requirement of pre treatment and a discussion needs to take place on options of adequate pre treatment. RESPONSE: Additional rain gardens have been designed to treat the right-of-way basins prior to reaching the sump/Snout polishing structure. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please provide text in the draiange report on the specific detention design regarding the basins that are free releasing. Are the other basins being overdetained? RESPONSE: The drainage report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On sheet 9, some additional revisions are needed to the drainage report. Please revise basin inconsistencies and remove the words preliminary. RESPONSE: The drainage report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please revise the text in the drainage report discussing the treatment train. Goals are good to have, but a more definitive explanation is required discussing if the development has met the LID requirements or not. RESPONSE: The drainage report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please include the City's LID table in the text of the drainage report. RESPONSE: The drainage report has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Due to much of the LID treatment proposed on site not being sized or quantified, it is difficult to determine if the site is meeting the City's LID requirements. An internal meeting will be scheduled to determine if the site is meeting the criteria and what, if any, additional provisions will be required. RESPONSE: Both an internal meeting as well as a meeting with the design consultant occurred. Additional rain gardens have been added to treat developed runoff from City master street plan right-of-ways. Additionally, all rain gardens are now fully sized to treat their respective tributary areas. Page 13 of 15 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: There are areas on site where the rain gardens can be sized for the direct areas draining to them. Specifically basins 10, 13, and 14b. The routing for these basins is relatively straight forward and sizing calculations can show that these basins are meeting the LID requirements. RESPONSE: Sizing calculations are provided. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please complete the outlet structure detail on sheet C709. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please add the bio retention media specifications to the detail sheet. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Please add the HGLs to the storm profiles. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please add the title of "Capstone Cottages" to all sheets RESPONSE: This change was added to the plans Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are problems with the sheet numbering. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please change the name & note for the "Minor Arterial" to the following on all sheets showing the street. International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined Page 14 of 15 By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are issues with matchlines. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 01/14/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 01/14/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 01/14/2016: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 01/14/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 01/14/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 01/14/2016: There are missing titles. See redlines. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/14/2016 01/14/2016: There is text that needs the size increased. See redlines. RESPONSE: Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please change the name & note for the "Minor Arterial" to the following. International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. RESPONSE: this change was added to the plans Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The label mask size was increased… Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The label mask size was increased… Page 15 of 15 Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please add bearings, distances, and/or curve data as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please change the name & note for the "Minor Arterial" to the following. International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See redlines. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please clean up the fuzzy text in the Land Use Table. See redlines. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: All reception numbers for documents recorded by separate document, must be added prior to producing mylars. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: All easements must be labeled & locatable. There is a 15' Utility Easement that does not scale 15'. See redlines. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: Please change the name & note for the "Minor Arterial" to the following. International Boulevard (Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). Please use this exact wording. See redlines. RESPONSE: This change was added to the plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The label mask size was increased… Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The label mask size was increased… Page 16 of 15 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Is there any signing and striping for the areas not including the roundabout? I may have missed it, but we'll need signing at the right in only off Lemay, etc. RESPONSE: Yes, please see Sheets CXXX-CXXX. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Can you provide a brief design report related to the roundabout? It would be helpful to have a summary document that bullets the key components, ICD, R values, truck turning templates, etc. We'll have striping comments at the design meeting on Thursday. RESPONSE: This information was supplied at the referenced meeting. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The sheet index doesn't match the sheets. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: What's the landscaping for the central island and splitters? Is it just mulch? RESPONSE: A landscape design was included with this submittal and a meeting scheduled with the streetscape design committee 2/19. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/12/2016 01/12/2016: 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: Noted. This note was added to the General Landscape Notes (sheet L13.0) Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: Please remove the label (City of Fort Collins) for the private sewer main for all the areas it is labeled. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: Please add the word "Private" for all the labels of the sewer main. RESPONSE: The Plat has been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2016 01/15/2016: The City recommends encasing the sanitary main where it crosses under another utility of 24-inches in size and larger. RESPONSE: An Add Alternate will be provided for casing pipe. Thank you. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: Page 17 of 15 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: Where is a handicap space close to the club house? RESPONSE: Two handicap spaces were added in front of the club house Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The plans indicate that the porches are to be used for enclosed bikes space. Is this suppose to be all the porches? It does not seem that the porches are large enough. RESPONSE: Noah, we are investigating covered alternatives in lieu of storing bikes on the building porches and will get these to you. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On sheet L5.0 Please include street trees along Duff Drive. RESPONSE: Street trees have been included for the portion of Duff Drive the developer is responsible for building. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On sheet L7.0 It is unclear where the sidewalk is on the northwest side of the round about. RESPONSE: Round-about design has been updated and landscape design included with this submittal. There is also a meeting scheduled 2/19 with the streetscape design committee to go over layouts. Is there a reason why there are not street trees near the round about? Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On sheet L10.0 Pleas include street trees along future Lemay RESPONSE: Street trees were moved back to the tree lawn after discussion with Marc Virata Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: What is the landscape design for the center of the round about? RESPONSE: A landscape design was provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: On Sheet L8.0 There is a landscape island without a tree, please include a tree here. RESPONSE: This tree was omitted because of conflict with a stop sign. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The sheet index on the coversheet needs to include all the sheets not included in the Utility Plans. RESPONSE: A sheet index was added to the Site Plan Cover Sheet Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2016 01/13/2016: The plat labeled a private street as need a name drive. Is there a name yet? RESPONSE: Sorry, we are still working on a name.