Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK 8 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (OLD ELK DISTILLERY) - PDP - PDP140016 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)1 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 December 08, 2014 Linda Ripley 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: River District Block 8 Mixed-Use Development (Old Elk Distillery), PDP140016, 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. RESPONSES 12/2/15 PLANNING RESPONSE: Ripley Design Inc. CIVIL RESPONSE: Northern Engineering ARCHITECTURE RESPONSE: Oz Architecture TRAFFIC RESPONSE: Delich Associates Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: The screen wall along the east property line is 18 feet high. As such, it will need a detail that describes how this height is mitigated with materials and colors (or recesses and projections) so that the wall does not appear over-bearing and imposing. Also, please label the extent of the length of this screen wall as it is not clear how far south it extends. RESPONSE: The site wall along the east property line is now 10’ tall and has been reduced in length as dimensioned in the elevations. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Staff is concerned about how the trucks will exit the loading docks. Will there be direct access to Lincoln? If so, please indicate. If not, then it appears the trucks will have to make three separate maneuvers to return to Willow Street. Please clarify. RESPONSE: The trucks will make maneuvers in order to return back out to Willow St. 2 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please describe the height of the wall and fence combination along the south property line. RESPONSE: There is a desire to provide the ability to have a secure space within the middle plaza. A decorative 6’ fence will primarily be used. In several key areas 6’ to 8’ feature walls are proposed that will be a material that compliments the area and adds interest inside and outside of the plaza. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please label the smokestack, water tower and grain silos on the site and landscape plans. RESPONSE: There is no longer a smokestack. The Water Tower and Grain Silos are labeled as requested on the plans. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: On the building elevations, it would be helpful to have the elevation along Willow Street be shown from the sidewalk, as I'm understanding from the cross-sections and discussion at staff review that there may be additional "verticality" not expressed on the elevations down to the street sidewalk. RESPONSE: The surrounding hardscape is shown in the elevations to reflect the grade changes along the adjacent street and sidewalk. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 12/03/2014: Please provide verification that the transformers are City transformers with the access maintained by the City. 10/15/2014: Under the presumption that the transformers shown behind Willow Street are City maintained (and locked as a result) then the access doors swinging into right-of-way are acceptable. Otherwise if this is some sort of privately maintained system, the doors cannot be designed to swing out into right-of-way. RESPONSE: The transformers are City transformers. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 12/03/2014: The "proposed ground" indication behind the right-of-way is confusing in some areas as I'm wondering if the vertical change is part of the building or is it needing to be "ground" that would need some sort of retaining wall that the building would then sit on top of? I'd like verification on whether the vertical component of grade change, especially towards 13+00 and 13+50 is part of the building, or separate? (The general typical section on the cover sheet shows the building face.) 10/15/2014: With the grading plan showing a finish floor elevation of 71.90, is this intending to be consistent for the entire building? This would appear to be problematic with the proposed flowline design for Willow Street as the flowline is 3 to 4 feet lower than the finish floor towards the eastern side of the building and maintaining an ADA compliant attached sidewalk. 3 RESPONSE: This has been clarified on the drawings. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 12/03/2014: The revised design appears to minimize the amount of right-of-way utilization and would be acceptable (still utilizing an encroachment permit). 10/15/2014: Is the proposed 15" RCP west of the existing inlet referenced in the previous comment considered a private storm line? If so, the crossing of it in right-of-way should be minimized by having the line remain on private property and then cross into right-of-way behind the inlet. An encroachment permit would be needed for this crossing. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The design will attempt to eliminate or minimize the necessity for encroachment permits to the extent possible. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: The water line sheet on C3.1 needs to also show proposed ground in the profile view in addition to existing ground for verification that a minimum 3 feet of cover from finished grade is ensured. Patching limits for the water line should be shown as well; if this coincides with the existing pavement to be removed on the demo plan, why does this indication end at the start of the existing diagonal parking? RESPONSE: The water line sheet has been removed, as it is now being constructed as a Water Utility CIP. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: The ultimate design for Willow Street should be showing the left flowline in addition to the centerline and right flowline. The current design shows vertical curves in the sag and crest condition that do not meet minimum LCUASS requirements for vertical curves (minimum K values of 60). The design should be utilizing K values of 60 in the sag and crest condition. RESPONSE: The Willow Street design has been revised. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: We may want to start discussions not too long after a public hearing on how the property will be constructed and minimize or negate the use of right-of-way for staging, placement of materials, etc. RESPONSE: Agreed. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 12/03/2014: Bike parking in right-of-way shown on the site plan should be removed as any bike parking in right-of-way is approved through a separate process outside of the development plan. Since these are approved via a revocable permit, it's indication on the site plan would be contradictory. 10/15/2014: The site plan shows the placement of bike racks along the Willow Street sidewalk. These bike racks appear to be bike racks that are required under the Land Use Code and when required by code, would need to be located outside of public right-of-way. RESPONSE: Bike parking is indicated on the plan as being shown for reference only. It is understood that a separate City permit will be required and the bike parking shown within the ROW is not being counted toward the project bike parking. This is noted under the bike parking table on the Land Use Breakdown. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 12/03/2014: In general the information provided appears to be acceptable. The interim cross 4 sections should however be providing existing cross slopes to compare how the new pavement section ties into existing. With the interim cross-sections appearing to not match with the ultimate, it would be viewed that the new pavement is interim and would be removed in the ultimate condition, requiring the escrow of pavement for the local street portion abutting Lot 1. 10/15/2014: The development plan needs to provide information on how, (with the curb and gutter being installed along Willow Street), would the street layout work from a horizontal and vertical perspective. What would be the striping, parking, bike and travel lane operation for the full Willow Street resulting from this (horizontal control/striping plan) with the railroad track in mind? How will (from a preliminary design information standpoint at this time) the roadway drain and provide typical cross-sections along Willow Street for this. RESPONSE: The Willow Street design has been revised. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 12/03/2014: Carried over, just for indication that it again appears that the local street portion of pavement for Lot 1 will need to be provided with the interim paving not coinciding with the ultimate paving. 10/15/2014: Under the presumption that ultimate curb, gutter and sidewalk is installed along Willow Street, the local street portion of curb, gutter and sidewalk is satisfied, with the City reimbursing .5 feet of sidewalk width. Depending on whether Willow Street pavement is correspondingly installed in what can be determined is the ultimate location and at local street width will determine whether local street pavement obligation is satisfied or would need to have an established repay collected. The Linden Street repay for the local street portion is required and indicated in the development agreement for the project. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The design will attempt to satisfy ultimate local street frontage requirements to the maximum extent feasible. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 12/03/2014: The revised plan does provide for a radius style driveway. LCUASS specifies a 15' radius for a high volume driveway at a collector. A 10' radius is specified on the plans. If the 10' radius is wanting to be utilized instead of the 15', we would need to review turning template information for this. 10/15/2014: 9.3.2.A.1 of LCUASS would require that the driveway access onto Willow Street be done with a radius style drive approach (LCUASS detail 707). If there's a desire to keep the driveway pan design instead of the driveway radius, this can be explored under a LCUASS variance. We would want to have vehicle turning template information to verify that the turning movements can be accomplished within the driveway pan design. RESPONSE: This design will receive further discussion, pending the final fire protection strategy developed in conjunction with PFA. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: Carried over as the plans only show a subdrain on the south side, but I was understanding that subdrain dewatering system may be proposed on the north side from the utility coordination meeting discussion. 10/16/2014: Discussion at the utility coordination meeting brought up the installation of a perimeter drain/subdrain system. The placement of this private system should ideally be designed to not be in right-of-way and efforts to prevent or at least minimize placement in right-of-way are fully explored. The describing of the dewatering system and the amount of flows brings up the concern that a subsurface water report in accordance with 5.6.2.A of LCUASS should be provided for review and documentation. RESPONSE: There is no longer a basement or a permanent dewatering system (subdrain). 5 Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/06/2014 10/06/2014: The acreage on the plat did not match the acreage on the TDRFee calculation sheet. Using the acreage being plated the project owes an additional $259.50 for the PDP TDRFees. RESPONSE: This fee was paid at the previous submittal on 11-12-14. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/14/2014 10/14/2014: Provide a final landscape plan identifying all plant material by species and size. RESPONSE: Noted, this detailed plan will be provided at the Final Compliance Submittal. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/14/2014 10/14/2014: Overall, staff is very pleased with this project and its ability to largely meet the intent and provision of the R-D-R Zone District Design Standards and Guidelines and its compatibility with the surrounding Old Town National Register Historic District. The step backs, articulation, and differentiation through the use of durable and high-quality materials all aid in breaking up the building¿s large massing and assist in its compatibility with the surrounding historic agricultural/industrial context. RESPONSE: Previous Response on 11/12/2014: Thank you for the affirmation and support of our design and intent to comply with the recently adopted R-D-R Design Standards and Guidelines Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/14/2014 10/14/2014: Staff has concerns regarding the design of the "pub" element on the building¿s southwest corner. This section of the building does not appear to meet the design intent of the R-D-R Zone, and is not in line with the agricultural/industrial vision for this industrial district. It is important to note that in its discussions regarding the R-D-R Zone District Design Guidelines and Standards, City Council was very clear about its desire to see projects in the area be authentic to the existing historic industrial/agricultural character of this district, rather than the commercial character found in the historic buildings on the other side of Jefferson in the Old Town Historic District. This vision - which is articulated in the R-D-R Zone District Design Guidelines - describes the inappropriateness of elaborate architectural treatments such as decorative cornices, moldings, door and window surrounds, and awnings, in favor of simple, even austere, elements. Additionally, the pub appears to be closely mimicking a faux historic building, one that would not have been built in this District. Buildings and stylistic components 6 should take reference from the historic character of this District, while still clearly distinguishable as products of their own time. RESPONSE: Previous Response on 11/12/2014: We are continuing to study and evolve the design of the Pub element along Linden to provide the appropriate architectural character of this element and its integration into the building and the character of this district. This will be further developed for an upcoming Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/14/2014 Before the project is ready for Hearing, it will need to receive a recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission to the Decision Maker. RESPONSE: Previous Response on 11/12/2014: The exterior design will be presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission for comment and approval prior to the Hearing. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/01/2014 12/01/2014: Concerns remain regarding the "pub" element on the Linden Street elevation and its compatibility/appropriateness to the R-D-R Zone District, and that it does not meet the intent of the zone district's Design Guidelines and Standards. Additional information on the character and detail of this building has been requested of the applicant. Staff looks forward to receiving this information once it becomes available. RESPONSE: As we continue to evolve the design of the Pub and integrate design feedback from the Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting, we will provide additional character and detail of this element to Staff. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/10/2014 10/10/2014: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting Pre-Submittal meetings are offered 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 7 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado 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. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. River District – project specific concerns: 1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required. 2. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. 3. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. 4. Low VOC interior finishes. 5. Distillery occupancy requires haz-mat review from Building and Fire depts. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 RESPONSE: Previous Response on 11/12/2014: The above listed provisions have been reviewed and integrated into the design and analysis of this project. We had a very productive pre-submittal meeting with Russel Hovland on 11.05.2014 to present and discuss these issues as they relate to this building and look forward to further collaboration as the design continues to be refined. Department: Light And Power Contact: Janet McTague, 970-224-6154, jmctague@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 10/15/2014: Light and Power will need a completed C-1 form indicating size and type of electric power needed. We will also need to coordinate a transformer location that is within 10' of a paved surface and accessible by a line truck. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 10/15/2014: Power will be coming from Lincoln Ave. in order to avoid tearing up new facilities in Linden St. We will need to coordinate a route for the power to take. Two possible routes include along Lincoln and Willow to get to the property site or through the property access on Lincoln Ave. Light and Power will work with the property developer/owner to obtain easements if necessary. 8 RESPONSE: This will be further discussed between the Project’s Electrical Engineer and Light & Power. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/15/2014 10/15/2014: We will need to coordinate street-lighting with street trees. Large shade trees need to be at least 40' from streetlights and ornamental trees need to be at least 15' from the lights. RESPONSE: This separation requirement has been accounted for on the Landscape Plan. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/05/2014 12/05/2014: FIRE ACCESS > The concept plan for the dead-ended EAE on the east side of the building with no turnaround is acceptable in principle; however the proposed width of 15’ remains a question. PFA recognizes the delivery and alcohol storage area is notably constrained and not many options are available for widening the EAE under the current plan. PFA wishes to table review of the EAE width until other questions regarding the overall building plan and distillery operation are flushed out so it can be evaluated holistically. Should the project team find it possible to increase the EAE width, PFA is available to revisit this subject sooner. > The submitted plans continue to detail Willow Street with center parking (see both "Cover Sheet and "Willow Street Striping Plan"). PFA will continue to work with city staff to resolve the conflict with the ultimate design plan for Willow Street but as the proposed building height is a condition of aerial apparatus access, it seems appropriate that long term references to center parking be removed from the plan sets. 10/14/2014: Potential problems exist for meeting access requirements. Further discussion is needed for this site. > FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS. The proposed 20' EAE on the east side of the building appears to be in conflict with deliveries and loading/off-loading of large trucks. Fire lanes are to maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance at all times. > AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS. In order to determining if aerial apparatus access requirements can be met at this site, details need to include the ultimate width of Willow Street and if parking is being allowed on either side or down the center of the street. Recent discussions have suggested that a redesign of Willow Street may limit your building height to a maximum of 30'. > ROOF ACCESS. Depending on the design and function of the tower element, roof access may be required. New buildings four or more stories in height shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.12. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. RESPONSE: Regarding Fire Access we are maintaining an Emergency Access Lane and will work with PFA to provide adequate access. The center parking layout along Willow has been removed from the submitted plans. Previous Response on 11/12/2014: Response:The design team met with PFA to address many of these issues on 11.05.2014 and have 9 provided the following revisions to address the above concerns: Fire Truck Access has been provided with 2 Fire staging locations, 1 along Linden at the Southwest corner of the site and the other along Willow at the Northeast corner of the site. In addition a widened service lane to provide an unobstructed path for fire truck access has been provided beyond the loading/unloading trucks for the facility. This has an unobstructed overhead clearance that is greater than 14’ in clearance. A no parking fire staging area is being provided at the Northeast corner of the site along Willow that is within the 30’ maximum distance for aerial fire apparatus access. Roof Access will be provided from an internal building stairway to the roof. This stairway will be provided with the required code signage indicating its roof access. Response: Fire Lane Specification: Per the discussions at the 11.05.2014 meeting, a 15’ emergency access easement is provided on the east side of the building. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/17/2014 10/17/2014: PUMP ROOM ACCESS Firefighter access to the fire pump room came up in our meeting and I wanted to follow up on that discussion. As the building is sprinklered, access to the pump room may be internal to the building with no exterior door. Access to the pump room, however, may not be through the H-3 occupancy. In that event, access to the pump room would be by means of an exterior door. RESPONSE: The Fire Riser Room will be directly accessible from an exterior door along Willow as indicated in the plans. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please see redlined plan set. RESPONSE: Applicable redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: I do not see an outlet control for the underground detention. Please advise if one exists as currently designed. RESPONSE: On-site detention is no longer required given the storm outfall improvements. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: How will water be prevented from backing up into the underground detention? RESPONSE: N.A. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: A portion of the site around the transformer and generator appears to drain offsite rather than to detention. Please revise grading or account for this undetained release. RESPONSE: N.A. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please add spot elevations to driveway area to clarify drainage pattern (see redlined grading plan). RESPONSE: The Grading Plan has been revised. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 10 12/03/2014: Please add spot elevations to eastern basin boundary to show flow is to detention. RESPONSE: N.A. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Sand/oil separator is not considered to be LID. Please revise LID table to show that LID requirements are met. RESPONSE: LID strategy has been revised. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: A 3:1 run-on ratio is allowed for porous pavers. The current ratio is showing to be approximately 4.5:1. RESPONSE: LID strategy has been revised. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please correct paragraph numbering in Section II of the drainage report. RESPONSE: The report has been revised. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/14/2014 12/02/2014: Repeat Requirements Stormwater's Plan set has redlines included. 10/14/2014: 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, 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: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: No plans were provided for review. 10/16/2014: No comments. RESPONSE: These were submitted but may not have been routed to you. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: Please add benchmark descriptions to sheet C0.0. All benchmark statements need to match on all sheets. 10/16/2014: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the following information in the format shown below. 1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK w/ DESCRIPTION (Provide 2 City of Fort Collins benchmarks) ELEVATION: 11 OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted: 2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) BENCHMARK w/ DESCRIPTION (Provide 2 City of Fort Collins benchmarks) ELEVATION: If using NGVD29 UNADJUSTED the following equation statement will be needed. NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED + X.XX¿ RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: Please make additional changes to the Basis Of Bearings as marked. See redlines. All Basis Of Bearings statements need to match on all sheets. 10/16/2014: Please correct the Basis Of Bearings as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 10/16/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: These have been corrected. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please tie the coordinate values on sheet C3.1 to the project boundary. RESPONSE: This sheet has been removed from the plan set. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: There is duplicated text. See redlines. RESPONSE: These have been corrected. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please make sure the title matches the Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE: Noted Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: No plans were provided for review. 10/16/2014: No comments. RESPONSE: These were submitted but may not have been routed to you. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: No responses were received, so we assume that the title will not change. 10/16/2014: Since this Plat covers Blocks 8 & 9, the title is a little misleading. Please consider another title. RESPONSE: Correct. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/02/2014: These have not been added. 12 10/16/2014: Please provide names & titles for the Owners & Lienholders signature blocks. See redlines. RESPONSE: These will be confirmed prior to creating Final Plat mylars. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/02/2014: This has been addressed. 10/16/2014: Please label the surrounding properties. See redlines. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/02/2014: These have been added, but "(Lot Line)" was not added as marked. See redlines. 10/16/2014: Please add bearings & distances as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/02/2014: You had the easements labeled with bearings & distances in the last submittal. Please label all easements sufficiently to mathematically locate them again (including ties). 10/16/2014: Please make sure that all easements are labeled/hatched, and are locatable. See redlines. RESPONSE: This will be done during Final Plan, after PDP hearing approval. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/02/2014: No closure was provided. 10/16/2014: The boundary & legal description do not close. Please provide a closure summary. RESPONSE: Closure summary has been provided. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/02/2014 12/02/2014: The easements being vacated will need an easement holder acceptance block and signature. RESPONSE: This has been added. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/02/2014 12/02/2014: To whom is the 6' Telecom Easement for? See redlines. RESPONSE: Revised to a ‘Utility Easement.’ Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/02/2014 12/02/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: These have been corrected. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/02/2014 12/02/2014: Are the ties for the corners found at the south end of the property meant to be the same? See redlines. RESPONSE: These have been corrected. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: Not all plans were provided for review, so we can not verify this. 10/16/2014: Please make sure the titles shown in the index on sheet 1 match the titles on each sheet. RESPONSE: These were submitted but may not have been routed to you. 13 Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/16/2014 12/03/2014: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 10/16/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Addressed Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Addressed Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please make sure the title matches the Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE: Noted Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/14/2014 12/02/2014: The addendum is received and accepted. At this time, no off-site traffic-related improvements are anticipated to be required with the project. 10/14/2014: The study indicates that intersections 'operate acceptably' with existing and future geometry. Please provide an addendum to the study to address what geometry is warranted per the LCUASS standards - both in terms of LOS and the geometric warrants for turn lanes. If auxiliary lanes are warranted with the Old Elk traffic - especially at Lincoln and Willow then that needs to be discussed. RESPONSE: The addendum, dated November 4, 2014, was accepted. As indicated above, no off-site traffic-related improvements are required. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/02/2014 10/02/2014: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Noted Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/14/2014 10/14/2014: Provide projected fire flow demands to allow review of the water main sizing. RESPONSE: The projected fire flow demands are being reviewed by Western States Fire Protection and will be provided in a subsequent submittal. 14 Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please revise the railroad crossing alignment to install 45 degree bends in order to shorten the crossing length. RESPONSE: N.A. (now a City project) Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Encasement pipes will be needed at the railroad crossing and the lowering under the future storm sewer. RESPONSE: N.A. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: The 16x16 Wye is not a connection supported by the City maintenance crews. Please revise the connection of the 8 inch and 16" main to include a 16x8 tee with 8"45 degree bend. RESPONSE: N.A. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: The 16" line will require a butterfly valve instead of the gate valve that is called out. RESPONSE: N.A. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: A 3" service connection is not able to be made. Please change the service connection to 4" and can be downsized to 3" prior to the meter pit. RESPONSE: This has been revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/03/2014 12/03/2014: Please clarify the fire line size. The plans call out a 6" line but the notes call out an 8" line. RESPONSE: The fire line size currently proposed is 6”. We could not find the reference to an 8” fire line.