Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTHEAST FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK - FDP - FDP160009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONSland planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement February 9, 2015 Clark Mapes City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO RE: Southeast Fort Collins Community Park, PDP140014, Round Number 3 If have any questions regarding the responses in red contact Robin Rooney with Civitas Inc. For responses in blue please contact Mike Oberlander at Interwest Engineering For responses in purple please contact Gopal Shrestha at RB+B Architects Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015 05/26/2015: Plan components labels: It's difficult/impossible to tell what some of the plan components are - we can clarify at the meeting. Some aren't crucial to LUC review or the hearing, but a few more labels might be worthwhile to make final plans a bit more understandable for long term use. Response: Completed at 9.2.15 submittal Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014 09/10/2014: From FC-Loveland Water District and SFC Sanitation District: The District does not allow trees, extensive landscaping, structures, etc. within 10 feet of District facilities or within District easements. The District will require a permanent and temporary construction easement for the installation of a 24-inch waterline. The property will need to petition into the sanitation District with a $50 per acre fee. There is a reimbursement for connection to the water infrastructure of approximately $62,566.76 as of September 3, 2014. There is an interest rate factor that will increase over time. The District will require another review of plans to resolve these comments. Response: Tree locations have been revised. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014 09/15/2015: All lanes shall be in alignment through each intersection. Please show that the driveway lines up with Sage Creek Road accordingly. Response: See sheet PP-1. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 2 of 13 05/27/2015: Please verify that the directional ramps that cross Ziegler Road lines up with the existing ramps on Sage Creek Road. Response: Completed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/09/2014: The proposed driveway to the parking lot on Ziegler road appears too close to the existing ADA ramp connecting to Sage Creek Road. This may need to be rebuilt with the construction of the proposed driveway. Please see LCUASS Drawing 707 for driveway details. This detail will be required for final plans. Response: There are directional ramps at the new driveway entrance that eliminate the need for this existing ramp that will be removed with the driveway. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014 09/15/2015: A letter of intent for an access easement along Saber Cat Drive on PSD property will be required prior to hearing. This will also be needed for the proposed diagonal parking. Response: Letter has been submitted 05/27/2015: The proposed diagonal parking along Saber Cat Drive appears to be on Poudre School District Property. An offsite easement will be required to complete this work. If half of the drive is owned by the applicant, please show the correct property line boundaries. Response: Letter of intent has been submitted 09/09/2014: Plans call for work outside the property limits. There is a section on the southeast corner of the property where the pond, walk and boardwalk are proposed that lie outside the limits that belong to the Poudre School District. A letter or an agreement will be required to develop on their property. Response: Letter of intent has been submitted Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014 09/10/2014: Please show the location of the subdrain, cleanouts and point of subdrain discharge from the Harvest Park Subdivision to the east on the Utility Plans. The subdrain location can be found on the Utility Plans for Harvest Park, sheets 124-126. Response: Completed with 9.2.15 submittal Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 09/15/2015: Labels needed on Sheets PP-2, PP-3 and FP-1. Response: Labels have been added. 05/27/2015: Please label Saber Cat Drive as a "Private Drive" on all sheets in the Utility, Landscape & Site Plan. Response: Completed with 9.2.15 submittal Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 09/15/2015: Show ROW alignments needed along Kechter Road and Ziegler Road. ROW alignments will also be needed for Lady Moon Drive. Alignments will be needed for all areas of detention and stormwater conveyance. The drainage area to the southwest of the property along Ziegler Road as well as the creek boundaries will need to be in drainage alignments. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 3 of 13 05/27/2015: Please show the ROW and property boundaries along Kechter Road and Ziegler Road. The public sidewalk along these streets appears to be on the property. Please show all alignment boundaries for the sidewalks as well as all Utility Alignments throughout the project. Future alignments will be needed for any fire lanes, drainage areas, rain gardens, etc. Please show these boundaries on the Utility Plan. Response: (9.2.15) The existing ROW shown is accurate. When the improvements on the north side of Kechter - including the roundabout - were constructed, no additional right of way was dedicated because the city owned the property. City Survey (John Von Nieda) has confirmed that we are showing the existing ROW and property lines correctly. Additional ROW along Ziegler will be required for the right turn lanes as well. This is being coordinated through the City Surveying department. An emergency access easement has been shown for the fire access. Drainage easements have not been requested from stormwater. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 09/15/2015: Please move the concrete pan to line up with the flow lines from the bump outs. The east bump out needs to match the west bump out to allow for bicycles to continue biking along Lady Moon Drive. Concrete is needed for the full length of the parkings stalls. Response: The parking along Lady Moon has been updated. 05/27/2015: The exact layout for the angled parking will be discussed internally. If allowed, outflow curb will be required in these areas. Spot elevations in these areas will be needed to ensure that there is proper drainage. Response: Completed with 9.2.15 submittal Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The driveway into the site and at Saber Cat Drive must meet LCUASS detail 707.1. This shows concrete to behind the sidewalk. Detectable warnings will need to be angled so they line up correctly across the driveway. Please verify that this section meets ADA standars with a 1/4"/LF cros slope for the walk area. See redlines. Response: The driveways have been modified to meet detail 707.1 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2014 09/09/2014: I have received and reviewed the ECS and preliminary plans - this project is ready for hearing from an Environmental Planning perspective. I will review the proposed landscape materials, e.g., seed mixes, at time of final. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/11/2014 09/18/2015: Continued see note number 21 05/29/2015: Comment continued from 09/11/2014 09/11/2014: There appear to be some inaccuracies in the tree inventory information on Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 4 of 13 SP-02 particularly at the west end of the site in reference to some tree locations, species and intent to remove or retain. Also there are existing street trees along Saber Cat and some other existing landscape trees along the north boundary and the east area by the pond that are not shown on Tree Evaluation Sheet SP-02 that will need to be inventoried. Please contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to review and refine the tree inventory information. All existing trees will need to be accurately shown by location with the species, size, condition, intent to protect or remove and mitigation recorded. This also includes all landscape and street trees that are located on the site. Response: This has been revised on sheets SP-02/03 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 09/18/2015: Continued: City Forester was not included in the meeting. 05/29/2015: Set up a meeting with the City Forester and Assistant City Forester to discuss and receive some additional detail comments on the recent plans. Response: Received additional comments from forestry, and have addressed them. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 09/18/2015: CONTINUED see note number 23 05/29/2015: The Forestry Division has revised tree protection specifications for City projects. These tree protection specifications will be provided to Park Planning staff either by email or at the meeting requested in comment number 16. Please place the tree protection specifications on the tree inventory sheet SP 02 in place of those on sheet LL 00 if possible. Response: These notes have been included on new sheet SP-04 Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Provide note on plan SP 02 that says all existing trees east of Lady Moon will be retained. Response: This has been added. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Provide inventory information on sheet SP 02 for street trees along Saber Cat and other exiting trees near the street that are not identified on the tree evaluation plan. Forestry has provided this information. These existing trees need to be identified by species, size condition and mitigation as others have been. Trees identified for transplanting by Forestry need to be recorded for transplanting. The locations where transplanted tree will be transplanted to needs to be shown on the plan. Provide notes that describe the tree transplanting process such as time of year, size of root ball and after care. Clearly show which trees will be transplanted. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 5 of 13 Response: This has been added, now sheets SP-02/03. No trees are to be transplanted. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: The tree mitigation table on SP02 has the incorrect total for required upsized mitigation trees. Refer to the tree inventory to get the total for upsized mitigation trees. Response: This has been revised, now located on SP-03 Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Use the Forestry Division tree protection specification on the plan in place of those being used. Place these specifications on the plan. Forestry Division tree specification are available from the City Forester. Response: This has been revised, and is on sheet SP-04. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Thin Leaf Alder is a mesic plant that is not suitable for dryer locations. Submit some alternate species for Thin Leaf Alder to the City Forester for review. Response: These have been removed from the plan. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Species Changes: Ussurian pear has thorns and because of this quality the straight species it is not suitable in public use areas particularly where there will be Children. The cultivar of Ussurian Pear (Prairie Gem) does not have thorns and could be use at the proposed locations. The LA should review the shape and form of Prairie Gem to confirm its suitability for use at this location. Forestry has some concerns with the long term growth and survival of Regal Prince Oak. Explore the use of Prairie Sentinel Hackberry in its place. Review shape and form of Prairie Sentinel for appropriateness at the proposed location. The use of Canyon Maple (Acer grandidentatum) at locations where Hotwings Tatarian Maple is used along the channel would provide a better native and xeric maple in these natural zone areas. Response: Ussurian Pear has been revised to Prairie Gem Pear. Regal Prince Oak has been revised to Prairie Sentinel Hackberry. Tatarian Maple has been revised to Canyon Maple. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Gambel oak is typically specified as clump by height. Specifying it as 8 foot clump would be appropriate. Response: This has been revised. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 6 of 13 09/18/2015: Change the street trees shown as Lindens long Ziegler and Lady Moon to Kentucky Coffeetree. Forestry has identified problems in using Lindens on main streets from heat and salts. Response: These have been revisied Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Two conifers on sheet LL 08 are not identified as to species. Response:This has been revised. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Existing tree number 25 has been identified as needing a prop to reduce risk. Provide appropriate notes and a design of the prop for this tree. It is suggested that this be defined in a detail. Response:This has been added to details. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Add street trees along Saber Cat at 30-40 foot spacing to meet the code requirement for street trees. Response: These have been added to plans. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Provide information that establishes the quality of the water that will be used to irrigate trees in the park is suitable for tree growth. Provide information to the City Forester. Response: Park planning has not seen any harmful effects on the seeds at Radiant Park. Further information has been provided to Forestry. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Revise the planting detail to say set root ball 1 inch higher than the finish grade. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 09/15/2015: 05/27/2015: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and system modification charges where applicable will apply. Response: Acknowledged. Is there a missing comment above for 9/15/15? Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 7 of 13 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 09/15/2015: 05/27/2015: Coordinate a transformer location with Light & Power Engineering within 10' of a paved surface. Submit a C-1 Form and One-line diagram to Light & Power Engineering for review. Response: C-1 Form and One-Line diagram has been submitted to Light and Power Engineering for review. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014 09/22/2015: The French Drain typical section shows a 6” depression and a downward gradient on the downstream side of the drain. The drain should be situated in a swale so as to more effectively capture runoff and to provide a long-term visual queue as to where the French drain is located for long-term maintenance. This can be addressed at final. Response: A 6” swale with 4:1 side slopes is proposed over the top of the French drain 05/26/2015: Some of the detail has been addresses but proposed grading does not show how these trenches will capture runoff. More detail is needed on the Grading Plan and Trench Detail. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/10/2014: More info in required on the WQ trench. Plans state "filtration of sediment will occur." Is there media that is to be used to filtrate? The method will need to be considered a LID design. It does not appear that the trench will intercept most flows. Response: Addressed with 5.6.15 submittal Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014 09/22/2015: In the drainage report, the SNOUT is still proposed for water quality treatment at the BMX area. The comment response to this previous comment was that the SNOUT would still help with maintenance but that the primary water quality treatment for this area is the irrigation pond east of Lady Moon. A manhole with a SNOUT usually includes a sump for debris settlement, so there is still concern that a dirt BMX track will convey a large amount of sediment into this sump area and require frequent maintenance of the manhole. Per a previous comment, we need to see calculations or manufacturers specs. This can be addressed at final. Response: Manufacturers specs have been included in the drainage report. If the City is comfortable removing the SNOUT and sump manhole and using the irrigation pond as the primary water quality source for the BMX area we can modify the design. The intent of the SNOUT was to allow for easier maintenance access to remove sediment as compared to the irrigation pond. 05/26/2015: Not resolved. Will a snout and sump be enough to adequately handle the possible large amount of sediment that could be transported from this site? Calculations or manufacturer's specifications may be necessary in this area. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/10/2014: Need to see info on the BMX WQ facility prior to approval on PDP Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 8 of 13 plans. Response: Addressed with 5.6.15 submittal Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014 09/22/2015: Not resolved. Consider using pervious pavers at the turnaround at the end of the drive aisle and/or including some bio-retention at the center area of the turnaround. Including this area in the overall pervious pavers area may achieve the 25% we are requiring. This can be addressed at final. Response: Pavers have been added to the turnaround to exceed the 25% requirement. 05/26/2015: Not resolved. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/10/2014: City staff will not support a variance request to the 25% porous pavement requirement. Response: Addressed with 5.6.15 submittal Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/10/2014 09/22/2015: A final modeling report will be required with the final submittal. Response: The final McClellands Creek model has been submitted with the plans. 05/26/2015: No modeling submitted. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/10/2014: Eliminating the quantity detention requirements must be verified to be approved with SW Master Planning by submittal of modeling supporting a variance request. Response: Addressed with 5.6.15 submittal Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014 09/22/2015: Not Resolved. Please callout/label the French drain adjacent to the dog park and verify that this French drain is allowed within the SFCSD easement. Response: French drain is adjacent to the dog park 05/26/2015: Appears to be proposed but needs more detail. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/12/2014: Provide WQ treatment for the dog park area. Response: Addressed with 5.6.15 submittal Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014 09/22/2015: Not Resolved. The drainage report text touches on addressing stability and erosion control concerns for this area but the plans don't provide any details. These will be required at final. Response: A rock check dam is proposed at the end of the channel improvements upstream of the McClelland’s Creek connection. Approx. 80 LF of existing channel will be maintained in place which includes existing buried riprap. This is noted on the erosion control plan. 05/26/2015: More detail needed. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/12/2014: Please define 100-year conveyance into the creek to address stability and erosion control concerns. Provide detailed design for stabilized drainageway improvements (i.e. riprap level spreader). Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 9 of 13 Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/12/2014 09/22/2015: Not Resolved. Response: Channel plans have been completed showing the detailed channel design. 05/26/2015: Channel design is now shown. Is the intent to regrade the entire channel or are there sections where the banks will be left undisturbed? Please highlight areas where the thalweg will be realigned. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal 09/12/2014: Please show channel design in utility plans. Response: Addressed with 9.2.15 submittal Contact: Heather McDowell, 9702246065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Drainage Report - the report states that the 2-30" culverts will carry approximately 57 cfs and that the remaining 99 cfs will overtop the drive aisle and be conveyed to the creek without impacting any structures. The grading plan doesn't show a low point in the drive aisle here and it looks like the road is graded down to the northeast, thereby directing water across the parking area toward the community gardens and shelter. Please revise this strategy. This can be addressed at final. Response: The entry drive grades have been revised to provide a low point that can convey the flow that overtops the culverts. The culvert capacity has been increased as well do to additional headwater area. Topic: General Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Sheet UT-1 - The legend on this sheet indicates floodplain lines, please either remove these from the legend on this sheet or add the floodplain lines to the sheet. In addition, a legend that included the different hatch patterns for concrete, LID pavers and crusher fine paths would be helpful. This can be addressed at final. Response: Legend has been modified. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Sheets UT-2 through UT-7 - See redlines for minor comments. These can be addressed at final. Response: The redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Sheet GR-1 - The entire hillside south of the parking area appears to drain onto the parking area and LID pavers. This is too much area for the pavers to handle. Consider adding another French drain and swale located along the south side of the parking area. This can be addressed at final. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 10 of 13 Response: This is a grass area that will not generate significant runoff during a 2-yr storm event (what the pavers are designed to treat). It is our understanding that the 3:1 run on ratio applies only to impervious area, not pervious area. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Sheet GR-1 - Per a previous redline, provide BMP’s to protect the creek bed. This can be addressed at final. Response: The channel plans address the BMPs to protect the creek bed (drop structures, rock check dams, etc.) Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Sheet GR-2 - A portion of the Community Garden area is located within the floodway. It is our understanding that these areas are “at-grade only” and do not propose structures or raised planters of any sort. A note on the plans should be added to indicate that these garden areas will be at-grade planting beds only and that raised planter beds will not be constructed within the floodway. This comment needs to be addressed before hearing. Response: A note has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Sheet GR-3 through GR-7 - See redlines for minor comments. These can be addressed at final. Response: The majority of these redlines were focused on the channel design which is part of a separate plan set. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Landscape Plans - Under Floodplain and Floodway Notes, please indicate the name of the floodway in the first note. This can be addressed at final. Response: This has been revised. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Sheet FP-1 - The existing floodplain, proposed floodplain and natural resources buffer are hard to distinguish from one another. Please revise some of the linetypes or thicknesses or change some to grey scale. This can be addressed at final. This can be addressed at final. Response: The linetypes have been adjusted. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Site Plan - A portion of the Community Garden area is located within the floodway. It is our understanding that these areas are “at-grade only” and do not propose structures or raised planters of any sort. A note on the plans should be added to indicate that these garden areas will be at-grade planting beds only and that Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 11 of 13 raised planter beds will not be constructed within the floodway. This comment needs to be addressed before hearing. - Please provide a legend on the site plan that shows floodway lines, buffer lines, different hatch patterns etc. These can be addressed at final. Response: A note has been added as described above. There are not raised planters anywhere in the community garden. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 09/09/2015: 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. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (New redlines please research slope protection and biotic slope protection to find better BMPs for the stream since SF will not work for that type of project), 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: An erosion control report has been prepared. New slope protection for the creek is proposed. 05/19/2015: 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. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan with corrected redlines, 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: Addressed at 9.2.15 submittal. Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015 05/26/2015: Please see redlines for additional minor comments. Response: Addressed at 9.2.15 submittal. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/08/2014 09/22/2015: There is still a problem with one of the elevations. See redlines. Response: 05/26/2015: There is a problem with one of the elevations. See redlines. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 12 of 13 Response: Addressed at 9.2.15 submittal. 09/08/2014: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide elevations for both the NAVD88 & NGVD29 (Unadjusted) datums, state the project datum, and provide an equation to get from NAVD88 to NGVD29 Unadjusted, i.e. NAVD88 = NGVD29 Unadjusted + _______. Response: Addressed at 9.2.15 submittal. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015 09/22/2015: This has not been corrected. Response: Corrected 05/26/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet numbers. See redlines. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/26/2015 09/22/2015: There are still cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: Corrected Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: Corrected Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Corrected Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 09/16/2015: There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Corrected Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/27/2015 09/22/2015: No plans were provided for review, so we cannot verify this was addressed. Response: Plans are included. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/09/2015 09/09/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been addressed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/22/2015 09/22/2015: Please remove the shown pedestrian crossing of Lady Moon at Saber Car. The ramps can go in, but we would not stripe the crossing at this Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 13 of 13 time. Response: This crossing has been removed. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: It would be really helpful if the luminaire schedule included an image of the actual fixture. Are all of these fully shielded and down directional? Response: Cut sheets can be provided in future submittals.