Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN NORTH, 3RD FILING - PDP - PDP160017 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1 H Community 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 June 17, 2016 Terry Palmos Greeley Associates 419 Canyon Ave #200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Old Town North 3rd Filing, PDP160017, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Comment Responses: Shear Engineering, Ripley Design Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 1. Osiander – It doesn’t work as is with parking on one side and two-way traffic. Here are a few options that we have identified that might work: 1) remove parking - no parking on either side of Osiander and allow 2-way traffic. 2) keep parking on the south side of the road and restrict the roadway to one-way traffic. 3) widen the roadway by 4 feet - this would allow parking on the south side and two-way traffic. 4) widen the roadway by 12 feet - this would allow parking on both sides of the road and two way traffic. One or more of these ideas or solutions will impact the neighborhood and will require coordination with and input from the rest of the neighborhood. These options need to be considered and then come back with your proposal and ideas. R Per meeting with Planning, Engineering and Traffic 5 “bump outs” now occur on Osiander Street to mitigate the issue of two cars passing each other on Osiander. Two bump outs are created by the existing Baum St. and alley to the east of Baum Street. Three 20’x4’ bump outs have been included on the north side of Osiander as well. See Site Plan for locations and blow up typical. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 2 06/15/2016: 2. The community building is not shown on the plat. As currently shown that area is a blanket easement and no BP for this structure could be issued. R A lot has been defined for the community building. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 3. The community building was not included as a use in the traffic study. R The community clubhouse does not add any additional trips Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 4. The TDRFees did not include the community building – is it a 1,000 sq ft or 2,000 sq ft? not sure since the plan says 1,000, but also says 2 story. Nor did the fees include the extra 4 lots included in the plat. If they are to be included in the project the fees are due for these lots as well. R TDR fees have been submitted with this submittal for the 1,000sf clubhouse Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 5. Plat – the planning approval language is old. R Plat revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 6. Plat - need to identify who will own and maintain the tracts. R Plat revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 7. Plat - Need to address the vacation of the existing easements on the property. R Plat revised. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 8. Plat - does the alley need to be named?? If so that needs to be included on the plat. R The alley has been named “Emmaus Lane”. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 9. Ten foot by ten foot ROW corners need to be provided at the intersection of each alley and street and alley and alley intersection. R Plat revised. Utility Plans revised. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 10. Per the plans there is a portion of the alley that curves across Tract D and that needs to be in ROW as well. R Plans revised. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 11. The alleys at the east end of the property do not meet separation requirements. The new alleys need to align with the alleys across the street or they need to meet separation distances. R Alley has been realigned to line up with existing alley across Osiander St. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 12. For the future lots – they either need to be included in the plans or not included in the plans. If you wish to plat and plan these lots then they need to be shown as a part of the site, landscape, utility plans and be approved. They can be a phase 2, but will be subject to the vesting limitations. Either they are a part of the approval or they are not – it can’t be both. 3 R Future lots on the east side have been eliminated. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 13. I don’t know that a 12 foot wide alley for two way traffic will be acceptable. It is something that will need to be looked at and discussed if you wish to propose that. R The midblock access is now designated Emergency Access Only and has a minimum width of 26.5 ft. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 14. If the Osiander solution is one in which there is only parking on the south side of the street then no parking signs need to be shown to be installed along the north side of the street and this note needs to be added to the site plan. On street parking is to occur on the southern side of Osiander Street only. No parking signs will be placed at a minimum of 250 foot intervals along the north side of the road. R Three (3) no parking signs exist on the north side of Osiander Street. These were installed with the original Old Town North development. Refer to Intermill topo. Existing no parking signs now show up on the final utility plans. Two (2) additional no parking sign have been added on the east side where Osiander Street is being completed. Please reference the Master Improvements Plan. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 15. The following notes need to be added to the site plan: 1) Fences, Garages and all other structures shall be setback a minimum of 8 feet from alley rights-of-way. 2) Driveway flares shall comply with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Design Standards. See Engineering Drawings. R Notes added Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 16. The radii at the alley entrances are to be 5 feet. R All radii are now 5 feet. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 17. If the topo survey is to be a part of the utility plan set then it needs to have a signature block added to it. R A signature block has been added. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 18. General Note #41 – you need to identify if the stationing is to be based on Centerline or Flowline of the roads. I will need this information in order to be able to review the profiles once they are provided. R Acknowledged. Stationing has been identified. Osiander Street stationing is centerline stationing and matches the Osiander Street stationing from the original Old Town North project design. Emmaus Lane (alley) stationing is now identified and is centerline stationing. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 19. Line weights need to be adjusted so we can tell what is existing and what is proposed. No way to tell looking at it now. R Acknowledged. Plans revised for clarification. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 20. The ramps at the NE corner of Blondel and Osiander need to be updated to directional ramps. This needs to be shown on the plans. 4 R Acknowledged. NE corner of Blondel and Osiander has been revised. Refer to Master Improvements Plan for construction directives. Detail Drawing 1606 has been added to the detail sheet. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 21. Any utilities to the community office? Currently there are no services shown. R Acknowledged. Utility services are now provided. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 22. If the sidewalk along Redwood Street adjacent to this property isn’t already installed it will need to be installed with this project. R Acknowledged. Sidewalk was installed with Redwood Street with the Aspen Heights project. Redwood and Osiander Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 23. Per the City’s driveway details the drainage as you have shown it going into the parking lots off of the alley will not work as the area will slope back into the alley rather than into the parking lot. Probably need to do a driveway chase in these areas in order to get the drainage to the north, provide the driveway requirements and meet ADA requirements on the sidewalk you have planned along here. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 24. The cross section for Osiander Street needs to be changed – if parking does remain on only one side of the roadway it will be on the south side – not the north as you show. R The Osiander Street tyipical sections have been updated to represent parking on the south side of Osiander Street. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 25. The alley sections – For drainage to one side – need to show 5 that the roll curb is located within the alley section. This means that the drive able surface width will be reduced by 17 inches. Also need to show the 1 foot by 1 foot concrete edge on the other side. You also show an alley section that is proposed to have the center pan – how do you propose that these two sections work together. Also by doing this all alleys will have to be constructed fully in concrete. Also the alley section with the center pan is showing it too deep and exceeding the 2% cross slope. R The alley typical street section has been revised so that the back of drive-over curb is at the right-of-way line. A 1’x1’ concrete edge has been added to the other side to match LCUASS Figure 7-12F. R The alley with center drainage has been eliminated and replaced with an emergency access easement. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 26. Pavement sections are not to be shown on the plans. Pavement design is based on the final soils report which is done after all the utilities are installed and the grading completed. It is at that time that a pavement design can be proposed, reviewed and approved based on the existing soil conditions. R Pavement sections have been removed from the typical section sheet. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 27. The plans need to provide curve and design information for the alleys so it can be reviewed and make sure that meets standards and can be navigated by PFA trucks. R Alley curve data has been added. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 28. The driveways into the parking lots need to be built per detail 706.2 with the flare in order for the sidewalks to meet ADA standards. R Plans have been revised accordingly and detail 706.2 has been added. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 29. Reminder minimum flowline grade is .5% and that is what is required going into a low point in the street or alley. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 30. For the head in parking areas that are off the side of the alley that has the roll curb – need to show that curb extending across the parking area. R The entire Alley now represents the alley typical section with the drive-over curb, gutter and walk running the entire length of the alley. Head in parking is then added to the back of the drive-over curb, gutter and walk. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 31. The intersection detail will be checked when full profiles are provided. Transition lengths will need to be labeled on the intersection details. Will need intersection details for the street/ alley and alley/alley intersections as well. R Street / alley intersection details have been added. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 32. Based on the plans right now the following additional details are needed: 702 – roll curb for alley section, 1202, 1201, 1606a, 706.2, 6 sidewalk chase – if in City ROW City detail must be used - if on private property you can use D-11 or create your own detail. R Details 702, 1202, 1201, 1606a, 706.2 and D-11 have been added. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 33. The site has shallow water – Please know that sump pumps can only be tied into an approved drainage facility and cannot be drained out across sidewalks or into the curb and gutter or into the streets/ alleys. A paragraph will be added into the development agreement giving builders and property owners notice of this. This needs to accounted for in your design and plans. R Acknowledged. All building will be constructed with no basements and no crawlspaces and will meet separation requirements from known groundwater levels. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 34. See plans for additional comments. R Acknowledged. Redlines are being returned with this re-submittal. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: City Code and the Land Use Code require that any prairie dogs inhabiting a site must be humanely eradicated (see Section 3.4.1(N)(6) of the Land Use Code). A prairie dog removal plan will need to be provided at the time of Final Plans, and documentation of the removal activities should be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit. R Noted. Additionally, should this project gain approval and proceed to construction, a burrowing owl survey, in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards, shall be conducted prior to construction by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist. R Noted Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: I appreciate the attention to the seed mixes. Both the water quality and native seed mixes include a nice variety of native species that are well suited to this area. Thank you! R You’re welcome! Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: I will review the detailed planting plan for the shrub/perennial areas when it is provided - final plan is OK for Environmental Planning. R Detailed landscape plan will be submitted with Final Plan Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: 7 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. Old town north 3rd – project specific concerns: 1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required for townhomes and duplexes. 2. 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24” 3. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. 4. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. 5. 7. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. 6. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. 7. Low VOC interior finishes. 8 R Noted Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 06/10/2016: Single phase electric facilities exist along the N. side of Osiander St. and also dead-ended at the end of Blodel St. R Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 06/10/2016: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. R Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 06/10/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. R Transformer locations will be coordinated at Final Plan level Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 06/10/2016: 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. R Street light locations will be coordinated at Final Plan level Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 06/10/2016: The location of the water and electric services will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/10/2016 06/10/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. R Noted Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/09/2016 06/09/2016: HYDRANTS Hydrant number and placement exceeds minimum standards. The project may continue as currently planned or decrease by two hydrants as per redlines. Code language provided below. R We will eliminate two fire hydrants. Thank you for the redlines and directives. > IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: Within the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, 9 spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/09/2016 06/09/2016: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION Some concerns still remain with regard to wayfinding. > All entrances to alley should be posted with "Vehicle Access to Residences on Suniga Road" along with hundred block numbers as applicable. > Addressing of Suniga Road residences (odd no's lots) are proposed to be posted on both front and alley side to alleviate any confusion. PFA approves this plan. R Wayfinding signs have been provided at entrances to development and midblock > In addition, addressing of Osiander Street residences (even no's lots) should also be posted on both front and alley side to alleviate confusion. > Other issues need to be resolved with addressing if the alley is to be named. > Further discussion is required. R Wayfinding signs will avoid confusion of addressing Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/09/2016 06/09/2016: NO PARKING IN ALLEYS PFA is seeking verification that no parking is being proposed along the length of the public alley. No parking signs locations should be labeled on the plans. R No parking signs are noted along the alley and labeled. Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: For the two-family attached dwellings, the site plan does not seem to match the plat. Where the site plan shows a space between each pair of two family attached buildings, the plan shows no such separation. The documents need to fully describe and explain the ownership arrangement of this space. The site plan indicates this space to be common area with a walkway but the plat indicates that this space would be divided equally between the two adjoining lots. If the arrangement shown on the plat is to prevail, how is the space between buildings to be established and maintained? One option would be to dedicate on the plat a five-foot access easement on each side of the property line within which the connecting walkway would be constructed. Notes on both the Plat and Site Plan would be needed to state the purpose of the easement, the extent of the sidewalk, and the long term maintenance responsibilities. R A 4’ Access easement has been added for the width of the walk between 2 family attached dwellings. Notes have been added identifying that the walk will be maintained by the HOA Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: The site plan indicates that the easterly four parcels are to be part of a future development but the plat calls out these lots to be Lots 29 – 32. Please reconcile. R Future lots have been removed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: For the two-family attached dwellings, the plan view typical on the 10 site plan does not match the architectural elevations. The site plan typical indicates that the entrance to the ground floor studio unit B is on the side of the building. But, the elevations indicate that the entrance is on the ¿front¿ which I take to mean ¿north.¿ In order to strengthen the building-to-street relationship, and to tie the entrance to the connecting walkway out to Suniga, staff prefers the arrangement indicated on the architectural elevations. Or, if two entrances are intended, please indicate. In any event, please reconcile. R Both entrances have been provided. PFA has requested a side entrance to avoid confusion when entering from the alley. Building elevations have been updated to show the side entrance as well. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: For the two-family attached dwellings, the walkways between buildings are lost in all the linework on both the site and landscape plans. Please expand the plan view typical on the site plan to show the location and width of this walkway. R Site plan has been changed to 30 scale for clarity and typical has been expanded. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please re-label the out-building as a community building or community clubhouse. R Label now reads “community clubhouse” Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: For the single family detached, side yard fencing, please add a standard note on the site plan and a typical on the architectural elevations that indicates that the street-facing fencing located just behind the front building line will be a common design for ten feet in length for two lots versus individual designs five feet in length on an individual lot basis. This will emulate the treatment on the existing lots across the street. R Notes have been added and a typical single family fencing plan has been added Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: For the single family detached elevations, there is no scale. But it appears that houses are exceptionally narrow. Please note that on a 35-foot wide lot, minus the two 5-foot wide sideyard setbacks, there remains 25 feet of lot width for a building envelope. The elevations appear as if the width of the houses is considerably less than 25 feet. The applicant is encouraged to take advantage of the parking being in the alley and make the front porches as wide as the house. R Single family elevations were examples for style and context only and NTS. They have been removed to avoid confusion. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: For the two-family attached dwellings, Staff appreciates the effort to provide two building styles. Please indicate on the site plan how these two styles are distributed. In order to mitigate the potential of the alley becoming overly repetitive, Staff encourages the design team to consider either introducing and additional building style or further individualizing the Unit A entrances so that there is a greater degree of distinctiveness among the 24 entrances divided among the 12 buildings. R The “back” elevation now shows 2 options for each building A and building B, creating building types 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B. Site plan has been labeled as such. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Since Unit A does not really have any available and functional 11 outdoor space, please provide a dimension for the second floor balconies and decks. R Deck depths will vary per lot due to building code restrictions. Minimum depth is 4ft. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: For readability, please remove contour lines from the site plan. R Noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: On the Lighting Plan, by using only five fixtures, there appears to be excessive illumination in close proximity to each fixture which overly impacts the adjoining dwellings. Perhaps using additional fixtures, but at lower lumens, these hot spots could be eliminated. Perhaps the parking lot light fixtures could be eliminated with illumination being provided by building-mounted lighting. R Lighting plan has been updated to show more lights at lower lumens and shorter pole height to avoid light in two-family attached windows. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: If the public alley is to be named, please be sure that the name is not a duplicate or phonetic sound-alike with any existing name within the boundary of the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority. Here is the link to the Larimer County list of existing street names: http://www.larimer.org/streets/ R The alley has been named “Emmaus Lane”. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/17/2016 06/17/2016: A meeting was held on June 17, 2016 with City Staff from Traffic Operations, Engineering and Planning to discuss issues related to adding new housing on the north side of Osiander given the existing width of Osiander. At this meeting, it was determined that the applicant will provide a series of pull-outs on the north side of Osiander to provide a widening in case two cars passing each other, with a parked car on the south side of Osiander, do not feel comfortable passing and need extra room. The applicant agreed to provide a schematic design for Staff review in advance of the second round submittal. R Per meeting with Planning, Engineering and Traffic 5 “bump outs” now occur on Osiander Street to mitigate the issue of two cars passing each other on Osiander. Two bump outs are created by the existing Baum St. and alley to the east of Baum Street. Three 20’x4’ bump outs have been included on the north side of Osiander as well. See Site Plan for locations and blow up typical. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/03/2016 06/03/2016: Erosion Control Material for this site is based off the old standards, 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. and can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion . See redlines for corrections in the Erosion Control Plan. The Erosion Control Report (Stormwater Management Control) submitted was incomplete and not current neither for City Erosion Control Requirements nor for State SWMP requirements. The Site will also have to supply an Erosion Control Escrow Calculations based on the correct calculation method. If you need clarification concerning the erosion 12 control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com R All erosion control items now meet current City of Fort Collins requirements. Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: Add notes to the appropriate pages stating that an approved floodplain use permit prior to beginning any work proposed within the existing floodplain. R The following note has been added to several sheets including the storm sewer plan and profile sheet where the storm sewer is in the floodplain area. NOTE: An approved floodplain use permit is required prior to beginning any work proposed within the existing floodplain. Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: It is difficult to decipher what is proposed and what is existing. Please do a better job of differentiating. R Plans have been updated for clarification. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The Grading plan is difficult to read and hard to depict flow patterns. The city suggests a 1 inch = 30 ft scale. R Grading Plans have been updated for clarification. 30 scale plans have been provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The F.F. elevations are required for all the proposed structures. R FF elevations have been added. Also, the lot corner elevations are not labeled on the furthest northern lots. R All lot corner elevations are now labeled. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The conveyance for basins 4,5,6 & 9 after flows leave the parking areas is not depicted on the grading or drainage plan. Please show on the plans how flows will leave the hard surface and enter the swale. Please label any curb cuts, inlets, etc. and show the proposed conveyance through the proposed sidewalk. R Plans have been updated for clarification. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The drainage report discusses that the SWMM model produced with this report for the 36-inch storm sewer under Suniga Dr. does not include the original planned flows to the west. The model needs to include all flows that are currently planned to flow into this storm sewer and the additional flows of this development, including the swale just south of Suniga Road. Please revise the SWMM model. R SWMM model has been updated. Additional conveyance may be required to convey the flows from this development to the regional detention pond. 13 R SWMM model has been updated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The design information for the NECCO 36-inch storm sewer plan and profile needs to be from the as-built drawings. Please clarify what information is currently shown. R The NECCO 36" storm sewer P&P data has been adjusted for record drawing data noted on Sheet 32 of 43 from the “Offsite Streets NECCO Plan and Profile”. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The Low Impact Development standards are required for this development per the Conceptual Review comments. Please reference these comments for details. R Acknowledged. Applied. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: There may be more comments forthcoming upon further review of the plans associated with this project. R Understood. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: The title needs to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. R Plans updated Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please make corrections to the sub-title as marked. See redlines. R The final utility plan cover sheet main title has been revised to match the Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: R We show this exact information on the Cover Sheet and again on the LCUASS note sheet. PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED 14 = NAVD88 - X.XX’. R See LCUASS Note 40 on Sheet 2 Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: All benchmark statements must match on all sheets. R They all match now. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Why is the Basis Of Bearings statement different from the Subdivision Plat? R Basis of bearing has been updated to match the plat. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. The sheets marked are just showing examples of the issues. Please correct all issues throughout the plan set. R Plans have been updated for clarification. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. The sheets marked are just showing examples of the issues. Please correct all issues throughout the plan set. R Plans have been updated for clarification. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. The sheets marked are just showing examples of the issues. Please correct all issues throughout the plan set. R Acknowledged. Plans have been updated for clarification. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: The title on all sheets needs to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. R Plans updated Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: The title needs to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. R Plans updated Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please make corrections to the sub-title as marked. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com R Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please show who owns & maintains the Tracts. See redlines. R Acknowledged 15 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please check the area in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please label the bearings on the boundary in a clockwise direction. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please make note of the discrepancies in the Boundary Line Curve/Line Data Table. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please define "RB" in the legend. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please add bearings, distances, and/or curve data as marked. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: The plat needs a note explaining the 2 found pins for curve C2. The Old Town North plat does not show this curve. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: What is the 60' Easement per Book 2222 Page 2082 for, and who is it dedicated to? R Acknowledged Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Curve C418 is missing from the Boundary Line Curve/Line Data Table. See redlines. R Acknowledged Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: The title on all sheets needs to match the Subdivision Plat. See redlines. R Acknowledged Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please make corrections to the legal description. See redlines. R Acknowledged 16 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/15/2016 06/15/2016: Please make corrections to the sheet index. See redlines. R Acknowledged Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: Comment pending further discussion-The current width of Osiander Street can not functionally handle the on street parking and two way traffic. There are a number of ways to modify the operations of the parking and traffic to create a functional solution. Some ideas include: 1.) No on street parking, 2-way travel 2.) Parking on one side, 1 way travel 3.) Widen the section to accommodate parking on one or both sides and two-way travel. R Per meeting with Planning, Engineering and Traffic 5 “bump outs” now occur on Osiander Street to mitigate the issue of two cars passing each other on Osiander. Two bump outs are created by the existing Baum St. and alley to the east of Baum Street. Three 20’x4’ bump outs have been included on the north side of Osiander as well. See Site Plan for locations and blow up typical. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: 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 R Noted. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The utility plans are difficult to determine what is existing and proposed. Please clarify with line types what is existing and proposed. R Plans have been updated for clarification. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 06/08/2016: The proposed public sewer main is roughly 12 feet from the north easement line where 15 feet is required. Please revise the sewer layout to provide 15 feet to the edge of the easement while maintaining 10 feet of separation from the water line. R Alignments have been adjusted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/08/2016 17 06/08/2016: Please show the curb stops and the meter pits for all the water services on the Utility Plan. R Done. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 The concept of two-family attached dwellings require that each owner pay the capital expansion fees associated with a two family dwelling whether they use it as two units or not. Please include this information when talking with potential owners. This could be 10,000-20,000 in extra fees. R Noted Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: Accessory studio units should be called studio dwelling units. R Plans updated Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/14/2016 06/14/2016: What is the purpose of the community office? What happens to the office when the lots are sold? R The building is now a community clubhouse to provide a functional space for neighbors to use for meetings / birthday parties / events, etc. The clubhouse is placed on an individual lot.