Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY COMMONS - FDP - FDP160013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - 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 February 5, 2016 Todd Parker Brinkman Development 3528 Precision Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Harmony Commons, PDP150027, Round Number 2 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Context Diagram, please change the label for Outlot B to Lot 7 to match the plat, please add the building letter designations to match the Site Plan and double check with John Gooch, Aspen Engineering, as the size and shape of the off-site detention pond may have changed. RESPONSE: The labels have been revised. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Site Plan, thank you for adding the convenience shopping center boundary. While noted in the legend, please add a label to the Site Plan as well. RESPONSE: The label has been added to the site plan. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Site Plan, note number 4, please correct the reference to B.D.R., not P.D.R. RESPONSE: The note has been changed. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Site Plan, note number 6, please break this note into two notes as there is a mixing of expected screening between rooftop and ground-mounted appurtenances. One note should be for rooftop and one note should be for ground-mounted. For ground-mounted equipment, please reference condensing units, gas and electrical meters, phone and cable pedestals and the like. RESPONSE: Note have been separated. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Site Plan, note number 7, please delete the reference to the City of Fort Collins Light and Power Utility as L & P does not regulate private on-site lighting and they install public street lights per their own specifications. RESPONSE: Note revised. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Site Plan, note number 10, please add that bikes must be permanently anchored to concrete and not interfere with walkways and landscaping. RESPONSE: Note revised. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016:On the Landscape Plan, we have a repeat comment regarding the screening of the parking lot along Timberwood Drive. Staff is concerned that the area behind the sidewalk ranges in width from 14 to 18 feet and yet the shrub bed is (except for the three Evergreen Trees) ranges in width only between 4 and 6 feet. In order to comply with Section 3.2.1(E)(4), the shrub should be widened to accommodate more than just Ornamental Grasses in a narrow shrub bed. Staff recommends additional Evergreen Trees in this area. Have you considered adding the Hoopsi or Iseli Spruce? These trees, among others, have a more narrow profile. RESPONSE: The planting bed screening the parking lot on Timberwood has been widened, as well as populated with additional Evergreen Trees to create a better buffer. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Landscape Plan, staff is concerned that with the reverse mode layout of the buildings, the landscaping may not be coordinated with the need to screen the ground-mounted equipment. At the time of Final Plan submittal, please be sure that the appropriate plant material is placed such that ground-mounted equipment is adequately screened. RESPONSE: Upright Junipers have been planted to screen Ground mounted equipment. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 2802/03/2016: Thank you for providing architectural perspectives for the three buildings. Regarding our first round comments on the architectural elevations for Buildings C and D, staff is concerned that the revisions, as indicated in the response letter, appear difficult to discern. Each response to staff comments numbers 13, 15, and 17 states that masonry coursing (or banding) has been added but please note that these changes are rather subtle. Staff recommends that this coursing (or banding) be widened over several courses versus the what is indicated so that the coursing is effective and visible from a distance. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 Our first round comment number 16 expressed the concern that with the reverse mode layout of Buildings C and D, there are 10 hollow metal doors facing Harmony Road. The response that these doors are now painted to blend in with the adjacent building material does not address the fundamental concern that back side of two commercial buildings will face a six-lane arterial roadway that is considered the southern gateway to our City. Our expectation in making this comment was to mitigate this backside treatment. At minimum, these back doors must be treated with an overhang that is consistent with other overhangs within the center. Overhangs would help make the doors disappear. Other mitigation techniques are welcome but the mere painting of the doors is insufficient. Or, perhaps evidence can be presented that clearly shows how the proposed berming and landscaping would render the doors effectively screened from Harmony Road. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/03/2016 02/03/2016: On the Architectural Elevations, the ten exit doors that face Harmony Road each include a light fixture but these fixtures are not called out on the Lighting Plan. Please resolve. Note that if these fixtures are to be added to the Lighting Plan, low wattage and, if L.E.D. fixtures are selected, then low Kelvin temperatures are required. Please note that in conjunction with comment about adding overhangs for each door, these light fixtures would also benefit from the screening provided by overhangs. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 105 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 02/05/2016: Input Sheri received from Rick Richter is that the bioswales in Lady Moon right-of-way would not be accepted. Either a design that places the bioswales outside of right-of-way would need to be explored, or a variance to stormwater requirements in eliminating them should be looked at. RESPONSE: Bioswales have been removed from the project. 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? Comment Number: 115 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016 02/05/2016: Swale A on the Aspen plans -- is this temporary in nature and would be eventually piped? RESPONSE: As discussed with staff, the BDR plans have removed from the Harmony Commons Plan set. Topic: General Comment Number: 215 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 02/05/2016: This didn't appear to be reflected on the site and landscape plan. RESPONSE: As discussed with staff, the BDR plans have removed from the Harmony Commons Plan set. 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. Comment Number: 225 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 02/05/2016: The northern vent pipe is considered an above grade utility similar to a pedestal box, whereupon when between the sidewalk and curb, it needs to be moved and placed 2 feet behind the sidewalk. RESPONSE: Addressed. 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. Comment Number: 240 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016 02/05/2016: How is it envisioned that the right turn lane for Lady Moon onto Timberwood would be built that is indicated as a future improvement? RESPONSE: Right turn is now part of BDR. Comment Number: 245 Comment Originated: 02/05/2016 02/05/2016: The plat shows a 9 foot additional right-of-way dedication along Lady Moon in order to apparently have the right turn lane built. How was the 9 foot determined? Typically turn lanes are 12 feet in width and we would not want the parkway strip narrowing. Horizontal design information on the civil plans should be provided. RESPONSE: 9’ ROW matches needs for BDR right turn. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 12/29/2015: Please remove the 10% Smooth Brome from irrigated turf mix and replace, preferably with a native such as Blue Grama (Chondrosium hirsutum) or Sideoats Grama (Bouteloua curtipendula). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 12/29/2015: Please list the species in the perrenial/wildflower seed mix. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Select street trees from the City of Fort Collins Street tree list. Norway Maple is shown as a street tree but is not on the list so will need to be replaced with another species that is on the List. Consider the following species as a replacement trees. Kentucky Coffeetree Catalpa Chinquapin Oak Accolade Elm RESPONSE: Norway Maple has been removed from the plans and replaced with the Kentucky Coffee Tree along Lady Moon. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Provide greater street tree species diversity along Lady Moon. Use two or three species in the parkway along this section of Lady Moon. RESPONSE: Species diversity has been increased along Lady Moon to three different species. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Adjust street tree placement at corners of the entry drives and of public streets to provide better site distance visibility. Most street trees at these locations are very close to corners. Shift locations of street trees that will be a problem away from corners. Show locations of stop signs and place trees 20 feet from stop signs. RESPONSE: Trees planted in close proximity to corners have been removed or pushed back for provide for better visibility. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Show location of any street lights and place trees if needed to meet the tree separation standard in the LUC 3.2.1 K. Canopy shade trees 40 feet Ornamental trees 15 feet RESPONSE: Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: The Blue Spruce at the corner of Lady Moon and Timberwood appears that it will cause a significant site distance conflict. Place this tree at another location so the visibility at the corner can be maintained. RESPONSE: This Blue Spruce has been moved to another location. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Suggested species changes: Red Barron Crabapple or Chanticleer Pear have an upright canopy form and would function much better than at several of the locations where Radiant Carb is currently shown for use on the plans. Prairie Fire Crabapple has some susceptibility to the disease fire blight and is fairly spreading in habit. Use of Red Barron Crabapple, Chanticleer Pear or Tree Lilac would provide a much better upright growth form with good long term survival. Pinyon Pine is a good xeric pine but does have some problems with insects. Consider using Austrian Pine or Wichita Blue Rocky Mountain Juniper. RESPONSE: The plant selections have been taken into account, and Red Barron Crabapple and Austrian Pine have replaced more disease susceptible selections. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Who will be providing the corridor landscaping along Harmony? Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Use canopy shade trees in the parking lot islands and at densities to meet the standards in LUC 3.2.1 E 5. Ornamental trees are shown in some locations. RESPONSE: Shade trees have been replaced where possible, keeping in mind parking lot lighting. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2015 12/28/2015: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: Pre-Submittal meetings are required to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Harmony commons – project specific concerns: 1. Several retail buildings are shown closer than 10ft to their property line and that will require 1-hour walls with limited openings. 2. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. 3. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. 4. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. 5. Low VOC interior finishes. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 I have no new comments. I will list previous comments that have already been acknowledged for a reminder. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any necessary system modification charges will apply. Please see the Electric Estimating Calculator and Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Contact Luke Unruh at 416-2724 to coordinate locations. RESPONSE: We have requested a marked-up drawing that shows where the street lights will go. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. Transformer must be within 10’ of an asphalt/concrete surface. Pay close attention to the transformer clearances in the Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures. RESPONSE: We have shown transformer locations on the site and utility plans. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jly nxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/14/2015 02/03/2016: MARKING Add no parking - fire lanes signage per redlines. I also want to raise the question as to labeling signage on the utility plan. Is there a signage and striping plan this could be added to? See also updated LUCASS sign design (Prior comment provided below for tracking purposes). RESPONSE: Signage and detail added. 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. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/09/2015 01/22/2016: "On-Site" Work will still be needed an erosion control plan, report, and escrow. "Off-Site" Erosion control plans and escrow are acceptable, still needs to include an erosion control report meeting all the drainage criteria. 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: Erosion Control Report submitted to Jesse via email. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 02/05/2016: Table needs some additional minor updates. City will coordinate with project engineer. RESPONSE: Table updated. 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. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/02/2016: INTERWEST: Please change the title to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. RESPONSE: Title changed. Redlines addressed. 12/22/2015: INTERWEST: Please change the title to match the name change for the Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/02/2016: INTERWEST: Please consider changing datums to match the Aspen Engineering plans, or clearly note the elevation difference in areas where the two projects meet. RESPONSE: Datum changed to 1929. 12/22/2015: INTERWEST: The Benchmark Statement does not match the Aspen Engineering plans. Please resolve. RESPONSE: Benchmark Statement changed to match. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/02/2016: ASPEN: We apologize for the confusion on naming, but since the pond is not part of the project, and with the different datums, this plan set should be renamed so it is not confused with the Harmony Commons utility plan set. RESPONSE: As discussed with staff, the BDR plans have removed from the Harmony Commons Plan set. 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. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/02/2016: ASPEN: Please consider changing datums to match the Aspen Engineering plans, or clearly note the elevation difference in areas where the two projects meet. If both sets are to remain on different datums, the following note will need to be added to the cover sheet: "Please note: This plan set is using NGVD29 Unadjusted datum, and the Interwest Consulting Group plan set is using NAVD88 datum. RESPONSE: RESPONSE: As discussed with staff, the BDR plans have removed from the Harmony Commons Plan set. 12/22/2015: ASPEN: The Benchmark Statement does not match the Interwest plans. Please resolve. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: We highly recommend that the Off-Site Pond plan set be removed from the Interwest plan set, because of the difference in datums. This plan set would better fit in the Harmony Technology Park Infrastructure Improvements BDR project, since it is not a part of the Harmony Commons. RESPONSE: As discussed with staff, the BDR plans have removed from the Harmony Commons Plan set. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: ASPEN: Please add the Benchmark Statement to the cover sheet. RESPONSE: As discussed with staff, the BDR plans have removed from the Harmony Commons Plan set. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: ASPEN: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: As discussed with staff, the BDR plans have removed from the Harmony Commons Plan set. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/02/2016: No comments. 12/22/2015: No comments. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/02/2016: No comments. 12/22/2015: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/01/2016: This has not been corrected. RESPONSE: This is now corrected. 12/22/2015: All easements must be labeled & locatable. See redlines. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/01/2016: Please add bearings, distances, and/or curve data as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. 12/22/2015: Please add bearings, distances, and/or curve data as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/01/2016: Note #6 is not sufficient. Can the Emergency Access Easement also serve as an Access Easement for Lots 1-4, with extension of EAE (& AE)across to Lot 1, and other minor modifications? RESPONSE: The note has been changed to reference shared access. 12/22/2015: How do Lots 1, 2 & 3 get access? Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/01/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Line over text corrected. 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/01/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Line over text corrected. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/01/2016: Please increase the text for the Lot Line dimensions. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text size has been increased. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: Set corner pursuant to Board Rule 6.5.4, or if you accept found corner provide measured and record bearings & distances. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrected. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: Please show right of way lines as a solid line. See redlines. RESPONSE: Corrected. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/22/2015 02/02/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text has been masked. 12/22/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 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 it’s hard to draw clear conclusions specifically related to these buildings. 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). 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.... Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 02/02/2016: If the TIS does not reflect the actual number of buildings to be built, and the trip distribution is acknowledged to be different because of this (see response to comment 2), how do we know that the right turn lane is not yet warranted? If the lane is proposed to NOT be built, we'll need a traffic memo that details the lack of warrant. RESPONSE: it is our understanding that all traffic issues have been resolved. 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: BDR plans added right turn lane. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/02/2016 02/02/2016: There doesn't appear to be any curb ramps shown at all the internal pedestrian crossings. RESPONSE: Ramps shown as required from ROW to buildings and parking to buildings. 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. RESPONSE: Russian Sage has been removed from the plant list. 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. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/23/2015 02/05/2016: Reminder for Final Compliance. RESPONSE: We have shifted landscape away from water meter pit and fire hydrants. 12/23/2015: There are several landscape conflicts with the water meter pits and fire hydrants.