Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2016-06-09F6rt Collins /111� April 23, 2015 RE: Aspen Heights Road Plans - Suniga Road (New Vine) and Redwood Street, 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 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, Sheri Langenberger, at 970-221-6573 or slangenberaer(cDfcgov.com. At this time I have not received comments back from Traffic Operations on the striping plans or from Jesse on the Erosion Control report that was just recently submitted. I will forward any comments as soon as I receive them. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Clark Mapes, 970.221-6225, cmapesCcD-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 03/7/15 FROM COMCAST, Don Kapperman. If comcast fiber needs to be relocated it is a developers expense. There is a vault between the New Vine Drive and Osiander on the east side of Redwood Street. Please call in for locates to see if it is needs to be relocated. I can met on site if it needs to be lowered or moved. 970-567-0245 02/09/2015: FROM COMCAST, Don Kapperman, 567-0245: Currently have a fiber line in the east side of Redwood that needs to be in an easement. Please verify fiber run. Would like to receive a revised plat, site plan and landscape plan. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenbergerbfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 Please have Greeley and NEWT sign the utility plan mylars before they are submitted to the City for signature. 02/09/2015: Greeley and NEWT will need to sign the utility plans. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan(Mcpov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The placement of ornamental trees in a 2 foot 9 inch wide landscape area (shown in section A on sheet L 7.0) where the median narrows appears to be inadequate for long term growth and survival of the proposed ornamental trees. Forestry asks that that ornamental tree not be planted in landscape areas less than 4 feet on this project to insure adequate growth and survival. Alternative plant choices of appropriate shrubs and grasses should be explored to provide landscape effect in these narrow areas in place of the ornamental trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Tree species suggested changes: Specify the Texas Red oak as Shumard Oak. Change the Prairie Rose Crabapple to Red Barron Crabapple Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please add this landscape note if it does not already appear on the plans. The sol in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six inches by tilling discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand square feet of landscape area. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please include these notes under a separate heading labeled Tree Notes on sheet L.10.0. Eliminate duplication of the following notes in other areas on the plan. 1. A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other City property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. 2. Contact the City Forester to inspect all tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. 3. Street tree shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor. 4. The developer shall replace all dead and dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established of an approved species and of acceptable le condition prior to acceptance. 5. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility standards, separation between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees shall be centered in the middle of the parkway. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. Page 5 of 10 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/08/2012 02/08/2012: The TIS analyzed the College and Conifer intersection with a north bound right turn lane. Unfortunately one does not currently exist at that location. It is being built with the current improvements so analyzing it in the short and long term is appropriate. Please revise the TIS appropriately. This was addressed in a memorandum from Delich and Associates dated 3-16-13. This memorandum is included with the submittal materials. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: The bus stop is shown on the landscape plan but not the other documents. Please show and label the bus stop on the site plan as well. Please re check dimensions, the stop does not appear to be 12' x 18'. The concrete pad is 12' x 18', shown on all plans. The shelter itself will be detailed at a later date. 01/10/2012: Routes 8 and 81 serve this area of the city along Blue Spruce Drive and Conifer Street. An improved north bound stop is located on the north side of Conifer, just west of Redwood Street, but a south bound stop needs to be integrated into this site. Applicant shall locate a 12' x 18' pad approximately 50'-80' west from the intersection of Redwood and Conifer Streets. Exact location should be coordinated with site plan to provide direct access into the site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: Keep in mind if you do off site improvements. 01/10/2012: The existing stop located at the food bank is in rough condition, if off site improvements are proposed in this area, Transfort requests providing an accessible pad for a bus shelter. A bus stop at the food bank is outside of the scope of this project. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: Revise as noted on the redlined utility plans. 01/10/2012: Water main valving will be evaluated with next submittal. It appears that some valves can be eliminated. Agreed Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/09/2012: Include at final. 01/10/2012: Plan and profile sheets(s) will be required for the 12-inch water main. Plan and profile sheets have been provided for all wet utilities. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: The connections to the existing water mains in Conifer and Redwood will be made with a 22 tapping saddle. Revise notes accordingly. Agreed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Label the tees for all fire hydrant connections as swivel tees. Agreed Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: At final, pothole the ELCO water main in Conifer to determine if a lowering of the 8" line is required. If yes, provide a complete design, a detail and include a steel casing. This existing line will be potholed prior to finalization of the design, and the proposed design re vised, if necessary. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: On Sht 2 under Waterline Notes, add "Water mains shall be DIP with polywrap or PVC with tracer wire". This note will be added. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Add the Std Details for tracer wire and locator stations. This standard detail will be added. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Add steel casing at the location where sanitary crosses below the three culverts on Lupine. Will water main be above or below these culverts? If below, add casing. Steel casings will be added. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Label all water main lowerings on the project and provide a detail of each with pipe elevations noted. Include casings on all water/sewer lines crossing below storm lines 24" or larger. These will be added, as necessary. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: See redlined utility for additional comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012 04/09/2012: Show water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans and adjust plantings to comply with the required separations. Complete. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416-2313, nbealsc&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.5 There shall be enough areas provided for the Trash/Recycling needs of the project and residents. There are only eight trash/recycling enclosures identified on the plans this is not enough to meet the needs of the project neither is the location convenient for all the tenants. The project needs more trash/recycling enclosures and more locations to be conveniently accessible for all tenants. There are 13 trash enclosures shown on the revised plan. These include 3 CY dumpster and 2-96 gat recycling bins. 23 Discussions with the local trash collection companies confirmed this should be sufficient. if not, then trash collection can occur more frequently. 04/05/2012 With the addition of the trash enclosure locations the Land Use Code requires them to be setback at least 20 ft from a public sidewalk. Some locations seem to be closer than 20 ft to sidewalks along Lupine Drive and Blue Spruce Drive.Also please provide a detail of the trash enclosure with elevations. Trash enclosures have been placed at least 20 ft from public sidewalks. Plan view and elevations are shown on the Site Plan. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012 04/05/2012: Where are the site plan details and elevations for the clubhouse? Are there any structures in the recreation area? Site Plan and building elevations are provided on the site plan, landscape plan and building elevation sets respectively. 24 The ffrederic6on Group, Planners and Landscape Architects City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attention: Mr. Ted Shepard RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing PDP 110018, Round No. 1 Dear Ted, Attached are replications of the review comments received from the City regarding the referenced project, along with responses to each of the respective comments. The City's comments are presented in regular black text, with the corresponding responses presented immediately below the comment in italicized blue text. If you have questions regarding any of the comment responses, please contact either myself at (970) 674-3323 or Larry Owen at (970) 226-0264. Sincerely, The Frederickson Group, LLC Deanne Frederickson Owen Consulting Group, Inc. Larry C. Owen, P.E. Comment Responses l 312612012 Fc`�rt �oilins /00"� 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/devel opmen treview January 25, 2012 Deanne Frederickson The Frederickson Group, LLC 7711 Windsong Rd Windsor, CO 80550 RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP110018, 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 Responses 2 312612012 Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221.6343, tsheaardMcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The site, landscape and architectural elevations for the clubhouse, pool, sport court, etc. will be needed at the time of submittal for Final Plan, not Building Permit as indicated in the note. The site design for the clubhouse and recreation area will be included with the Final Development Plan. The note on LS2 has been changed to reflect this. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please provide a symbol or label that indicates the front of the dwellings face either a public street or a major walkway spine. The plans should be clear that the fronts do not face the parking lots. A small triangle has been added to each building on the Site Plan to designate the front of the building. In all cases, the buildings front on either a public street or a major walkway spine. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: We will need to have a discussion with our Environmental Planner and Stormwater as to the extent of landscaping the City's detention pond in and in conjunction with the prairie dog removal mitigation plan. A prairie dog management plan is included with the second round of review comments. This plan is based on lengthy discussions between the Staff Environmental Planner, Lindsay Ex, the Consultant Wildlife Biologist, Eric Berg, the Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Judy Scherpelz, and two removal consultant agencies (Roe Environmental and Pest - Rite). Landscape treatments in the Storm water detention basin and conveyance channel include native grasses, shrubs and trees to provide informal wildlife foraging areas. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: A walkway is needed along the private drive along the north side of the clubhouse area. This walkway must be a minimum of six feet in width since the parking stalls are only 17 feet in length. Be sure to add ramps where this walkway intersects with the parking lot drive. A 6' pedestrian walkway has been added, as requested. Comment Responses 3 312612012 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Asper the Zoning comment, there should be two additional walkways traversing the north/south drainage channel in addition to the public sidewalk on Lupine. At the southern end of the drainage channel, this walkway/bridge can be combined with the walkway indicated at the south edge of the buildings as there is no need to duplicate. Again, be sure that ramps are added where this walkway intersects with the drive aisles. Two walkways have been added to traverse the north -south drainage channel at the suggested locations. These walkways will include pedestrian bridges over the channel and ramps, as necessary. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Along public streets, street trees must be two inches in caliper, not 1 1/2 inch. The note on page LS-2 has been removed. All street trees on public roadways shall be 2" cal. As indicated on the plant list page LS-1 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: For the Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (including the Two Family Dwellings where there are more than three bedrooms i.e. Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride) be sure to use 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) in calculating the minimum parking required. Off street parking calculations have been included on the Title Page to show how the plan exceeds the requirements as stated in the Development Code. The plan does not propose any extra occupancy rental houses at this time. However, the developer intends to convert the single family detached dwelling units to extra occupancy rental houses in the future. Therefore, we have also calculated what the ultimate parking requirements would be for comparison to the actual number of parking spaces provided within the project. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: Per 3.6.5, and in conjunction with the comments from Transfort, please indicate the location of the bus stop(s) and show how these bus stops are connected to the project with logically located walkways. The existing and proposed bus stop locations have been shown on the Site Plan, along with sidewalks within the project to connect the proposed bus stop to the internal pedestrian network. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: On site plan sheet 11 of 14, at the south end of the clubhouse/amenity area, please indicate that this is the clubhouse area. Are there any plans for how the clubhouse relates to Lupine Drive? Will there be a mail kiosk in this area? Is there sufficient area for a Comment Responses 4 312612012 one or two -car pull-in/pull-out for dropping off rent checks or any other such frequent activity? These seems like a logical location for how the clubhouse or leasing office relates to the community at -large. The applicant and consultant team agree with this assessment. Lupine is public R.O. W. and as such allows public parking along the frontage of the recreation area. It is anticipated that "no - parking -loading zone" signs will be posted along this frontage. Appropriate mail kiosks, bicycle and short-term parking will be provided at this location for frequent tenant activities. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/2212012: There has been some discussion regarding the continuation of the "trail' along Redwood. Please coordinate with Engineering as to the location and specifications for this trail and indicate on the appropriate site plan sheets. The existing trail, south of the currently developed portion of Redwood St., lies partially within the footprint of the proposed southward extension of Redwood St. As such, it will be removed as part of the road construction. A sidewalk will be constructed along the full length of the west side of Redwood St, and the Redwood St. cross-section (minor collector) includes a 64ide striped bike lane in each direction. The combination of the detached sidewalk and the striped bike lane will replace the existing "trail'. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: On landscape sheet 3 of 11, there is a detail for the typical treatment for Extra Occupancy Rental Houses and Two Family Dwellings. Is a similar detail needed for the Multi -Family units? Multi -family landscape treatments will be similar to the landscape treatments for the single-family detached and two-family dwelling units. Typical landscape treatments for the multi -family units have been included on the plan for further review. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: Be sure to add ramps wherever a private walkway intersects with a parking lot drive aisle. Ramps and crosswalk markings have been added to the Site Plan where private walkways intersect parking lot drive aisles. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: As a minor point, could you please put the name Vine in quotations and indicate that the use of the name is simply as an interim placeholder until such time as City Council designates a new name. Comment Responses 5 312612012 This change has been made to the drawings. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: Please be thinking about putting together a list of possible names for the drive aisles needing to be named for addressing purposes as per Poudre Fire Authority. These names will then be run through our screening system in conjunction with the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority to check for duplicates, sound-alikes or difficult to pronounce names. Names do not need to be finalized at the P.D.P. stage. A list of possible names has been compiled and tested on the LETA system for the project private driveways. These names have not yet been approved by the Developer, and will be shown on the Final Development Plan. Comment Responses 6 312612012 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenbergerMcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine: The plans appear to show that only the north half of New Vine will be constructed with this project. The full section of New Vine (4 lane arterial section) will need to be built along the frontage of this property. This site has responsibility to build the local street frontage along the full north frontage from Redwood to the west property line of Lot 3 and the local street frontage along the south frontage from Redwood to the west property line along Lot 5. From the west edge of Tract 5 to the western property line Lot 3 the project is eligible for reimbursement from Old Town North. The center portion of the street (the oversized portion) will be reimbursed through Street Oversizing Fund participation. The drawings have been revised to indicate that the full cross-section of Vine Dr. (with the exception of the south -side tree lawn and sidewalk west of Lot 5) will be constructed in conjunction with the Aspen Heights project. xComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine: A full design for Vine Drive will be needed. As you work on this please remember that the median needs to be designed to include a sub drain, water tap, and the landscaping for the median needs to be planned out and designed. The median will also need to be design to meet horizontal and vertical design standards. A full design for Vine Dr. will be provided as part of the Final Plan Review phase of the project. The horizontal and vertical design information for Vine Drpresented in the Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal for Aspen Heights is a replication of the design presented in the "Public Improvement Plans, East Vine Drive Relocation" received from the City. If this information provided by the City is incorrect, please advise us immediately. A landscape plan for the median is included in the Landscape Plan set. A Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine:As we get to designing the Redwood/ New Vine intersection this will need to be looked at in a bit more detail. Since the row for New Vine does not exist yet to the east the full intersection with curb returns can not be constructed at this time. We will want to make sure that what is built can be easily tied into with the future extension. At this time, we have shown the full extent of the intersection layout, with the portion east of the Redwood St. right-of-way shown in dashed lines. We will design the full extent of the intersection, with the realization that it will not be possible to construct the full extent until right-of-way is acquired, some time in the future. We will anticipate working with you to define the limits of Continent Responses 7 312612012 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please include the following note in larger print in a box with a bold line on all landscape sheets. A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and Curb. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Add the following notes under separate heading labeled Inspections and Warrantee on sheet L 10.0. 1. Landscaping shown on these plans shall be secured prior to installation with a letter of credit, escrow, or performance submitted to the Zoning Department for 125% of the value of the landscaping and installation. Release upon approval by the City of Fort Collins of the final maintenance inspection. 2. Meetings: a. Landscape contractor shall hold pre -construction meeting with a representative of the City of Fort Collins Parks Division and Forestry Division prior to work. Contact the City Forester to arrange attendance at the pre -constitution meeting. b. Arrange for a minimum of two inspections during installation with a City of Fort Collins Parks Division and Forestry Division representative. c. A final installation installation inspection shall be scheduled by the Developer and Landscape Contractor at the end of the two year maintenance period . Upon completion of all punch list items at this meeting a two year maintenance warrantee period will begin. d. The Developer shall be responsible for complete maintenance of the medians for two full growing seasons from the date of approved final inspection. Maintenance shall be provided by a professional landscape maintenance business. Regular maintenance shall be providing to keep all landscaping and plantings healthy and attractive. Under no circumstances shall weed growth be allowed to establish and mature. Irrigation shall be regularly monitored to insure landscape plants are receiving the appropriated amount of water. e. A final maintenance inspect ion shall be scheduled by the developer/landscaper with City of Fort Collins Forestry and Parks Division representatives. Punch list items will be provided to the developer and must be addressed. The City of Fort Collins will take over maintenance after approval of final maintenance inspection. f. Provide final as -built drawings to the City of Fort Collins Parks Department prior to gaining approval of for the final maintenance inspection and release. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlamCadfcstov.com Topic: Erosion Control Page 6 of 10 construction as part of the Final Plan Review phase of the project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 k 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: I can not tell if the grade lines tie into existing grades within the property lines and right-of-way lines at this time. Additional clarification is needed to show how all the grading work is proposed to tie into existing. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Contours have been added to the drawings to show the proposed grading of the site and how this proposed grading ties into the existing grades around the perimeter of the site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 x 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: No proposed grade lines are shown within Vine and Redwood. This is needed to show how the grading work for these streets will work and to determine what if any off -site easements will be needed for the work. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Design contours have been added throughout the project site, including along Vine Dr. and Redwood St., and these have been extended to show how the design grading ties into the existing grades around the perimeter of the site and along the off site road rights -of -way. It is our intent that the grading be such that no off -site grading easements will be required. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 K 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: Need to show how you plan to end the west end of Vine and Lupine. And how the grades will tie into existing grades. Also need to show Type III barricades being installed in these two locations. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The PDP drawings have been revised to show the proposed interim design for the west end of Vine Dr. The design profile for Vine Dr., as shown in the drawings provided to us by the City, shows the proposed centerline grade at the west boundary of the Aspen Heights property as being approximately 2 - 3 feet above existing ground. If we were to terminate the street improvements at the west boundary of the property, we would have to extend the subgrade fill approximately 10 feet onto the adjacent property, and acquire an easement on property that will ultimately be right-of-way regardless. Alternately, we can temporarily terminate the street improvements 10' east of the west boundary of the Aspen Heights site, leaving room within the site for the subgrade fill slope. It is our opinion that the latter solution is preferable, and the drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 x 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: What grading is needed, if any, in Blondel to achieve the minimum cover over the waterline you are showing to be installed? Sheet PP11 of the Vine Dr. design drawings provided to us by the City shows a design profile for the water main connection in Blondel St. We will install the water main connection to essentially Comment Responses 8 312612012 this profile, and will place till over the installed pipe to provide a minimum cover depth of 4.5 feet. The fill will be placed in a trapezoidal cross-section straddling the pipe, with a minimum crest width of 8 feet, and the fill will be compacted such that it is acceptable as a subgrade for the future road construction of Blondel St. The utility drawings for the Aspen Heights project have been revised to show this fill over the water main extension. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Driveways: All driveways into the parking lots and private drives need to be designed and shown as type I driveways. Based on the total trip generation and the number of parking spaces on site none of the driveways will have enough traffic to be considered high volume drives. They are currently being shown as if they were street intersections. The driveway entrances throughout the development have been revised to be Type I driveways. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 k01/20/2012: Driveways and Grading: Per LCUASS no storm flows are to flow over the sidewalk and out the driveway. Understanding that no flow is not always achievable, the policy is that a maximum of 750 square feet of area is allowed to flow out a driveway. You have driveways/ parking areas that exceed that amount. For those areas you can take the drainage into a pan and out through a sidewalk culvert into the street. Provision has been made in the design of the driveway drainage systems to divert the overland flow into a separate channel and sidewalk chase to avoid excessive discharge of runoff across the sidewalk at the driveway intersection. The drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 k01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: As identified in the conceptual comments and shown by these plans additional row is needed along Conifer and Redwood to accommodate the standard parkway and sidewalk section, This additional row and the standard 9 foot utility easements behind the row need to be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The project drawings and the subdivision plat for the development have been revised to show the dedication of additional right-of-way along the south side of Conifer St. and along a portion of the west side of Redwood St. to accommodate the required sidewalk within the right-of-way. Comment Number:11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 x 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: Redwood and Conifer Streets are considered Collector streets on the MSP. As such upon construction of improvements along these roads the developer will be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement for the oversized portion of the roadways that are constructed by this development. Comment Responses 9 312612012 Comment noted. We will work with you at the appropriate time to ensure that the necessary applications for reimbursement are completed and submitted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: I have circle and noted several areas on the plans where it looks like there might be a conflict between the sidewalks and handicap ramps and other items along the roadways. Some are utilities and others I am not quite sure what they are. We will need to look at these areas in more detail and determine how things can work and what utilities may need to be relocated. We have investigated the areas of possible conflict and have identified the existing utilities on the project drawings and, where necessary, have indicated a proposed solution to any conflicts. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 '101/20/2012: Blue Spruce: Each end of Blue Spruce as it ties into Conifer and New Vine needs to be widened out to a 36 foot cross section for a distance. This will help to accommodate the traffic movements at these intersections. Thirty six feet will allow room for 3 travel lanes that will accommodate someone waiting to turn left, someone turning right and allow room for a vehicle to turn into the site. I can provide some example of this from other plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing). The design of Blue Spruce Dr. has been revised at the north and south ends of the street within the Aspen Heights development has been revised to provide for outbound left -turn lanes. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 X 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce: The Curves on Blue Spruce. I don't believe that these meet the minimum centerline arc length requirement, Section 7.4.1.A.4. But do believe this solution with an adequate tangent is better than meeting this requirement and having a portion of the road shift over. Please put together a variance request for this. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The centerline geometry of Blue Spruce Dr. has been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 x Plan and Profile Sheets: Lupine. Need to provide a 500 foot off -site design for this street. The design profile for Lupine St. has been extended to include possible future extension for a distance of 500' west of the Aspen Heights site. Comment Responses 10 312612012 Xomment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Lupine. Horizontal curves are not to be started or ended close to the top of a crest curve or the bottom of a sag curve. Section 7.4.A.5 LCUASS. This is currently occurring in two locations along Lupine. The centerline geometry of Lupine St. has been revised to eliminate conflicts between horizontal and vertical curves. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: There are several vertical curves in which the minimum curve length is not being provided. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18 The street profiles have been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. "Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Curve information is needed on these plans. The centerline curve data has been added to the drawings, as requested. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Need to label the curb return radii for all street intersections. Curb return radii labels have been added to the drawings. +Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce. Per the information on the plat the minimum tangent length between curves is not being met. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The centerline geometry for Blue Spruce Dr. has been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. kComment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Redwood. Where you are showing tying into the existing roadway you are exceeding the minimum grade break allowed. The profile for the southward extension of Redwood St. has been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. Comment Responses 11 312612012 Topic: General Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed. Please provide a credit against the Transportation Development Review fees applicable to the Clubhouse / Recreation area. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 v 01/20/2012: The project summary indicated that a modification of standards request was submitted regarding a setback from New Vine Drive. I did not receive this documentation. The site plan for the project has been revised to eliminate the condition that would necessitate a request for a modification of standards. The request for modification of standards is hereby withdrawn. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 ,/01/20/2012: The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. Pursuant to discussions with City staff, we have retained the name "New Vine Drive" for the time being, understanding that this will be changed at some point prior to final approval of the project. We will make appropriate changes to the labeling on the drawings at that time. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 x01/20/2012: The soils report indicates that perched water conditions maybe found on this site. If this occurs whether before construction or during construction this site will need to be designed or redesigned to include an under drain system under the public streets. The concern regarding the possibility of perched water conditions is noted, and we will make appropriate design modifications if such conditions are realized. x Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: A pedestrian connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off -site Comment Responses 12 3/26/2012 sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the y� ultimate location along this roadway. The City Capital project for North College Ave is underway and upon completion of that College Ave will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing) \��\ The drawings have been modified to add a 54ide temporary asphalt pedestrian connection along 1 the south side of Conifer St. from the project site to College Ave. This temporary pedestrian connection will be constructed immediately adjacent to the back of the existing curb, to minimize the need for grading of the adjacent site. -e- Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As we continue with rounds of review I will look into placement of manholes and make sure they are designed so they are not within the wheel path of the travel lance or within a bike lane. 12.2.3.E LCUASS Comment noted. We anticipate such refinements during the Final Plan Review phase of the project. )(Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: This is a project that is going to take a lot of meetings and discussion to make sure that everything is designed as needed and comes together as a good final plan. Comment noted. We look forward to constructive cooperation with City staff to minimize the number of meetings and the length of the review and approval process. 4omment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: It appears that sight distance easements will need to be provided at the Conifer/ Redwood intersection, the Lupine/Redwood intersection, along Lupine at the curves, and possibly along Blue Spruce at the curves. These have not yet been shown and need to be calculated and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Site distance easements, where necessary, have been shown on the drawings and on the plat. -� Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The utility plan check sheet that was submitted was returned — please note comments on this and items that are incomplete. I tried to repeat most of these in my comments, but this maybe helpful. We did not receive a redline copy of the Utility Plan Check List. We understand that some required items were inadvertently omitted in the initial submittal, and we have tried to ensure that our current Comment Responses 13 312612012 drawing revisions have addressed these omissions. ,Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Two City of Fort Collins benchmarks need to be provided on the plans. Currently one is provided. A second benchmark reference has been added to the project drawings. YComment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Parking setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the distance from the flow line to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I don't know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted. (best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers) The site layout has been revised to increase the setback of the off-street parking stalls from the edges of the public streets. We have prepared an analysis of daily traffic volumes to and from the parking lots, and have determined that a setback of 40' is appropriate in all cases. A copy of the analysis is included with this resubmittal. v Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: 1 have noted on the plans some additional details that will eventually need to be provided. The noted additional details will be added to the drawing set as we proceed to final design. u Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The reimbursement for the row along Vine Dr that is being dedicated above that required for a local street connection will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Comment noted. ,Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Upon construction of Redwood the developer can file a repay for the portion of the east side of the road that this development constructs adjacent to undeveloped property. Comment noted. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 Comment Responses 14 312612012 01/20/2012: The driveway widths for the private drives have been shown so far only on the site plans. In accordance with Section 9.3.2(a) of the LUCASS the driveways that serves parking areas for more than 3 units need to have an entry width of 28 feet. Per discussions with City staff, the driveway width for parking lots serving more than 3 dwelling units have been widened to 28 feet, within the right-of-way, tapering to 24 feet, to match the aisle width, at the near edge of the first parking stall. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 1/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Site Distance easements have been included in the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to show the street trees and parkway landscaping along lot 5 that will need to be installed with this project. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Landscape treatments within the tree lawn along Lot 5 adjacent to New Vine and Redwood have been added to the landscape plan. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to show the proposed Vine Drive median landscaping. (plans need to identify that median landscaping will be provided with this project. I would doubt that we will be able to have a final agreed upon landscape plan for the median before hearing) Preliminary landscape treatments for the median are shown on the Landscape Plan. Final plant specification will occur at the time of Final Development Plan submittal. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Trees within the row and sight distance easements need to be limbed up to 6 feet from grade. The plans indicated that it was 5 feet. The notes have been revised accordingly. Topic: Mite Work Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 Comment Responses is 312612012 01/20/2012: At this time I do not have enough information to know if any off -site easements will be necessary for the site or road construction. As the review progresses and additional grading and design information is provided this can be determined. Letters of intent from any property owners from which easements are needed are to be provided prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. A letter of intent is a letter from the property owner identifying its intent to grant the easement(s) necessary to accomplish the proposed design. Proposed grading contours have been added to the drawings throughout the site and along Vine Dr. and Redwood St., including tie-ins to existing contours. The design is such that we do not anticipate the need for any off -site grading easements. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: We have plat language that was updated last May. I can email it to you if you would like me to. Just let me know what your email is. Mine: slangenberger a(�.fcgov.com We have received the updated plat language from the City and have forwarded it to the surveyor for inclusion on the revised plat. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to clearly identify who is to own and maintain all of the lots. The language on the plat states that the Owner will be responsible for maintaining all of the lots. The identity of the Owner has been changed on the plat to reflect the entity that will own the property and the development by the time the plat is finally approved and recorded. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Site distance easements have been added to the plat, where necessary. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As I understand it PFA is going to require that the private drives be named, as it is necessary for the units to be addressed. Once named the private drive names need to be placed on the plat and clearly identified that they are private drives. A list of possible names for the private driveways has been developed, but the names have not yet been approved. Upon final approval of these names, the plat and the project drawings will be updated accordingly. Comment Responses 16 312612012 Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The areas that are to be named private drives also need to be general access easements. The labeling of the private driveways has been revised to indicate that these corridors are designated as general access easements as well as utility and emergency access easements. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements. Site distance easements have been shown on the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Plat. Continent Responses 17 3126,12012 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2015 01/20/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (With Corrected Redlines), Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions (Recalculated based on the changes to the plans) please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sbovle(&-fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please call out separation distances for all crossings in the storm sewer profiles. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please add a narrative to the Drainage Report indicating which storm sewer pipes are permanent and which will be abandoned once the NECCO outfall is constructed. For clarity, it may also be helpful to add that information to the storm sewer P&P sheets as callouts. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Per City Drainage Criteria, detention and water quality are required as part of the development for the adjacent roadways. Per the NECCO design, this detention and water quality is accounted for in the regional NECCO pond. Please revise all proposed storm sewer routing to convey runoff from Basins OS4, OS8, OS9, OS11, OS12, OS13, and OS14 to the regional pond and include these basins in the interim detention volume calculations. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Minimum pipe slopes are not being met with this design. Please revise accordingly or provide information in the Drainage Report as to why the minimum slopes cannot be met. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: If, after revising the storm sewer layout per Comment 4, a sump condition exists as shown for MH510 in the existing design, please investigate the use of a sump and soft bottom instead of a concrete manhole base for this manhole in order to avoid long-term standing water in the manhole. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Inlet calculations in the Drainage Report do not match the plans for Inlets 504 and 509. Please review and revise accordingly. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please show existing contours on the Swale Plan & Profile. With the revised storm sewer layout per Comment 4, is this swale needed? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: It does not appear the storm sewer pipe on the north side of Suniga Road has been profiled in this plan set. Please add profile to the revised plan set. Is it possible to move this inlet and pipe segment to align with the existing manhole approximately 40' downstream of the proposed tie-in location? Page 7 of 10 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex _fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Wetland mitigation locations and specifications need to be on the site, landscape and utility plans. In this submittal, I only saw them on the Utility Plans. A wetland mitigation plan has been completed and reviewed by the Consultant Wildlife Biologist. This plan is included as a separate submittal item, and will be forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers with a request for approval and appropriate permitting. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Environmental planner signatures will need to be added to the Utility Plans. Provision has been made for the Environmental Planner to sign the project drawings. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: It sounds like the mitigation and monitoring plan will be received upon the next submittal. The monitoring plan should include the n-s spine in the center of the project, which is being designed as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Also note that the City and ACOE have generally similar requirements, but the mitigation plan may need to address specific City concerns, especially if the wetlands are deemed to be non jurisdictional. The wetlands have been deemed jurisdictional per ACOE. One of the critical components for City staff will be whether the proposed mitigation location has sufficient hydrology to support a wetland. Also, as per Section 3.4.1(0) of the Land Use Code, a copy of the ACOE mitigation permit will be required to be submitted to the City for proof of compliance. A wetland mitigation plan has been completed and reviewed by the Consultant Wildlife Biologist. This plan is included as a separate submittal item, and will be forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers with a request for approval and appropriate permitting. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Noxious weeds - the Development Agreement and Mitigation Plan should include a discussion on how the site will address noxious weeds, e.g., the field bindweed and Canada thistle found on the site. Mitigation Notes include appropriate management of noxious weeds. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: ECS Comments - how does the riparian forest that runs along the southern Comment Responses 18 312612012 boundary of the property align with the proposed plan? It appears this forest is within the Vine Drive ROW. How will the loss of this forest be mitigated through the site plan? The boundaries of the mapped riparian forest are in the area south of the proposed New Vine Drive alignment, and as such will remain largely undisturbed by development. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: As this project proposed to remove a raptor foraging area and a prairie dog colony over 50 acres, at least a three -pronged approach should be taken to mitigate the loss of these resources. A prairie dog management plan is included with this submittal package. This has been reviewed by the Consultant Wildlife Biologist (Eric Berg). 1. The applicant should verify that relocation of the prairie dogs is not an option. It has been determined that relocation of prairie dogs is not an option. There are no public lands in the region that are accepting prairie dogs — they are at capacity at this time. If it is not an option, then efforts to trap and donate the prairie dogs to the ferret or raptor center should be discussed. The management plan proposes removal and euthanization of prairie dogs for use as a food source for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program. 2. The regional detention pond on the site should be designed to maximize the urban habitat opportunities, e.g., every effort should be made to design and construct the regional detention basin as a native habitat, including native grass and forb species in the design. The proposed seed mix in the landscape plan is an excellent start toward achieving this but do we think the base of the detention pond will be dry or wet? If the pond will be wet, then a wetland seed mix should be considered for the site (including the wetland mitigation area). In addition, shrubs and trees surrounding the pond should be installed to enhance the vegetation diversity (both structurally and species -specific). A wetland will be established within the regional detention pond, including the use of appropriate grasses, forbs and shrubs. A variety of native shrubs will also be planted along the margins of the detention basin and drainage corridor. This is shown conceptually on the Landscape Plan. Species will be identified on the final Landscape Plan. 3. In addition, because there will be a loss of raptor habitat, staff is exploring mechanisms to create additional or enhance existing prairie habitat (that could serve raptors upon restoration) in other areas across the City (mitigating for the loss of this habitat), e.g., at McKee Farm in southeast Fort Collins. Let's plan a separate meeting to discuss these comments in more detail. It is understood that appropriate meetings have occurred regarding this issue. The Wetland Continent Responses 19 312612012 Mitigation Plan, Prairie Dog Management Plan, and Tree Mitigation Plan are included with this submittal. Proposed mitigation measures appear to be appropriate and are consistent with Municipal Code requirements. If additional fees or assessments are sought in relationship to habitat losses, it should be presented by staff for consideration and negotiation by the Developer, the Consultant Team and associated legal council. It is understood that this will be presented in the Development Agreement for the project. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/1012012: A note on all of the plans saying the following, "See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone" may need to be added in future reviews, depending on how the mitigation areas are designed. This note has been added to the General Notes, pg LS-1, and to the Wetland Mitigation Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2012 01/11/2012: Staff concurs with the ECS that a burrowing owl survey will need to be conducted, prior to construction, to determine if the owls are present on the site. Prior to releasing the Development Construction Permit, staff will need a letter of clearance from the USFWS confirming there are no known nesting sites on the property. A burrowing owl survey will be conducted and reported prior to construction. Comment Responses 20 312612012 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tbuchanan(Mcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Note 6 on sheet 1 should be changed to the code requirement for soil improvement. The following note has been incorporated into note 6 on LS 2: -The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 Add these notes to address the tree permit requirment: The following notes have been included with the General Notes on LS-1: - A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. • The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Explore the addition of ornamental trees in the front lawn or bed space of units along public streets. These lawn areas between the building and sidewalk to be reviewed for full tree stocking. The prototypical landscape treatments for housing units have been modified to include a choice for ornamental trees or large shrubs. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 Comment Responses 21 312612012 01/18/2012: Add this note: Tree removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by code. This note has been added to the General Notes section on LS-1 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: "Landscape tree lawns outside of the project perimeter shall be installed by the developer of Aspen Height and maintained by the City of Fort Collins". Contact Rodney Albers ( 224 6024) in Storm Water and Steve Lukowski (416 2063) in parks to discuss their requirements, and what additional statements they may require on the plan. Steve Lukowski indicated that he didn't know how off -site landscape treatments would be maintained. He noted he would discuss this with Sherri Langenburger and report back. Until we hear otherwise, the note will remain on the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: "Street Trees on Local Roadways, internal to the development site can be a minimum of 1.5° caliper at the time of planting Please explain why a smaller than the required 2.0 inch caliper tree would be specified here. This note has been removed. All street trees along public roadways will be a minimum of 2" caliper per City Code. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees in site distance areas should have the first branch at 6 feet. Comment noted. This has been corrected in the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01118/2012: Please provide a statement as part of the tree mitigation information on why the existing trees on the site need to be removed. A complete tree inventory and mitigation plan has been completed and submitted with the revised landscape plan. Tree mitigation will occur with the incorporation of additional trees and increased sizing of already specified street trees along major roadway corridors. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Utility separations for trees: Six feet between water and sewer service lines. Ten feet between trees and water and sewer main lines. Comment noted. This has been corrected on page LS-1 note 11c. Comment Responses 22 312612012 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Planting beds along high use and visibility walls should be 5 feet wide. Planting beds along high visibility walls (ie the fronts of the buildings facing the public R.O. W.) will be 5' wide. Other beds, such as those facing the major walkway spine will average Fin width to allow for an irregular shape of foundation planintings along the fronts of the buildings. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees should beat a 30-40 spacing. They appear to beat this spacing but there is a note that mentions 50 feet. The landscape note that said "35-50' spacing" has been changed to 30-40' spacing Dwg LS2. Comment Responses 23 312612012 Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221.6206, Weinberg a(Dfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 Staff has not identified any designated landmarks, nor any potentially eligible landmarks, that would be effected by this project. Comment noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 Should any properties over 50 years of age be identified in the vicinity of the project, they will need to be evaluated under 14-72 of the Municipal Code and Land Use code Section 3.4.7. Comment noted. Comment Responses 24 312612012 Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224.6152, dmartine(Mcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Street trees along the dedicated City streets will need to be adjusted to provide required clearances to streetlights. Once Light & Power designs the street lighting system a copy of the plan will be sent to the landscape architect. The Landscape Plan will be adjusted as necessary, upon receipt of a street lighting design, to ensure that required separations between street lights and street trees are maintained. A note stating that trees shall be placed no closer than 40' from streetlights is stated on page LS-1. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Light & Power Engineering is unable to determine if adequate space is provided for electric utility facilities. In order to design the electric utility system, Light & Power Engineering will need to know the number of dwelling units in each building, and if electric space heating will be used or not. The developer intends to use natural gas heat, with electric appliances, etc. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700. An electronic copy of the Overall Utility Plan has been provided to Light & Power Engineering for their use in designing electric utilities services for this project. The following table indicates the number of dwelling units in each building: • "A" units 2 dwelling units per building • "B" units 2 dwelling units per building • "C" units multi -family dwelling units — with 3, 4 & 5 dwelling units per building • `D" units Single -Family detached dwelling unit "E" units Single -Family detached dwelling unit Total number of dwelling units = 220 See "Residential Unit Summary" on the Site Plan cover sheet for breakdown of dwelling units. Comment Responses 25 312612012 Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.221.6635, raonzalesC�poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: REQUIRED ACCESS: Emergency Fire Access Easements (Fire Lanes) DEFINITION: An emergency access easement is an easement through or upon private property, properly platted and dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for the sole purpose of providing emergency access. It is intended to provide an area designed for the safe and effective deployment of emergency response services. Emergency services shall be allowed to drive, park and/or stage any emergency vehicle or equipment upon this easement at any time. The easement may be upon public streets (except arterial streets), parking lots, private streets and private drives; this easement shall not be upon any defined pedestrian walkway. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the easement unobstructed, including parked vehicles, and to maintain its visibility at all times for emergency access and firefighter safety. DESIGN: The easement is required to meet the design specifications outlined in the locally adopted fire code, as amended by the City of Fort Collins, and in the Land Use Code. It shall be designed to withstand the imposed weights of fire apparatus, 40-ton. It is required to have a minimum width of 20 feet, with a 25 foot inside turning radius and a 50 foot outside turning radius; and it shall have 14 foot of clear air space. No canopy trees under 14 feet shall overhang into the fire lane. If the fire lane(s) cannot be provided, all buildings beyond 150 feet from the public right of way are deemed out of access and required to be fire sprinklered. This distance is measured as the hose would lay, and not as the crow flies. Please verify this distance on the site plan or the overall utility plan. Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided Each of the private driveways have been designated as Emergency Access Easements and have been designed in accordance with the criteria set out in the comment above. Thus, all buildings within the development are within 150 feet of either a public street or an emergency access easement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: WATER SUPPLY: The water supply for this project shall provide a hydrant no further than 400 feet to every structure, and on 800 foot centers thereafter. The required volume is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. All buildings are within 400 feet of a fire hydrant and spacing between hydrants is less than 800 Comment Responses 26 312612012 feet in all cases. The City has assured us that water flow from hydrants within the project can be expected to exceed 1, 500 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Address numerals are required to be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background. The numerals shall be posted on the front of the building. As is currently designed, only the perimeter buildings which front on a public street can meet this requirement. All other interior buildings appear to front on a walkway spine, which cannot be named. Therefore, the private drives, fire lanes, must be properly named and addressed for emergency services to locate. Each of the private driveways within the development will be named and each of the buildings will be uniquely addressed to facilitate location of individual buildings by emergency responders. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All proposed street names shall be submitted for review and approval by LETA prior to being put in service. A list of possible street names has been selected and tested in the LETA system. This list will be submitted to the developer for approval before they are shown on the Final development plan. Alternative street names will also be provided in the event one or more of the street names are not acceptable. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: Any hazardous materials shall be declared utilizing the HMIA, as described in LUC 3.4.5. This would include the use of pesticides, and pool chemistry. Notification will be provided of all hazardous materials used or stored on site. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All multi -family units shall be fire sprinklered in accordance with the IRC. Building designs will be in accordance with the latest adopted version of the IRC. Continent Responses 27 312612012 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Can the proposed 24" stubout and manhole at Sta 19+25 and inlet and manhole at Sta 17+00 be moved to line up with the proposed bends and manholes added at these locations? Also, please remove the bend at Sta 12+00. Bends are not a preferred alternative to changes in alignment, especially in storm sewer as small as the proposed 36". Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please daylight Pipe 447 into the proposed detention pond. As designed, there is no outlet for the water captured in this system. Pond grading to the ultimate condition in this area may be required in this location. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: What is the purpose of the sidewalk chase and rundown at Road Sta 31+25? If there is drainage that needs to be captured and conveyed to the pond in this location, please add an inlet and pipe connection to the proposed outfall pipe. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Offsite construction easements will be required for any work outside the right-of-way in Basin OS 10 and at the Lake Canal outfall. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: What do the proposed contours at Osiander Street and Redwood Street tie into? Please show existing grading so that tie-in locations can be adequately established. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please call out slope grades at the Lake Canal outfall and proposed detention pond. 4:1 is the maximum allowable side slope in these areas. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please show the extents and label width of the proposed spillway. Will downstream scour protection be warranted? If not, please address in the drainage report. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please fix label sizing issues on the Detention Pond Revisions Sheet. Comment Number: 18 V Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please see redlined plans for erosion control comments and additional minor stormwater comments. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icounty(Mcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Page 8 of 10 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416.2418, wlamargue(a�foov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Floodplain comments 1. A portion of the project is in the FEMA-designated Dry Creek floodplain and floodway. It is acknowledged that the southward extension of Redwood St. will lie partially within the FEMA- designated 100-yr floodplain and will cut across the upstream end of the floodway for Dry Creek. 2. Please include the floodplain and floodway boundaries on the all the plan sheets for which the floodplain is mapped. The floodplain and floodway boundaries have been shown on the applicable project drawings. 3. The plat shows the Redwood St. and New Vine Drive roads are shown to be constructed in the Dry Creek floodway. Because these roads will change the floodway boundary, a CLOMR and a LOMR will be required. In addition, this CLOMR/LOMR will need to reflect changes in the hydrology due to the construction of the pond. Please contact Marsha Hilmes-Robinson at mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com or 970-224-6036 to arrange a meeting to discuss the CLOMR/LOMR process and the timing of improvements. Discussions with City staff regarding the impacts of the proposed street construction on the Dry Creek floodplain and floodway reached the consensus that there is little concern regarding ultimate approval of a CLOMR covering this location, with the only reservation being the time that may be involved in processing the application through the FEMA review process. Accordingly, it was agreed that while a CLOMR/LOMR will be necessary, the requirements for a CLOMR would not impede City review and approval of the proposed designs for on -site improvements. We have been in contact with Marsh Hilmes-Robinson and are proceeding with preparation of the CLOMR analysis, which will be submitted independently from the current resubmittal. 4. The floodway is not correctly identified on the plat. Please identify and distinguish between the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. The plat has been revised to show a correct depiction and labeling of the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. 5. Please include further discussion in the drainage report regarding the existing location of the floodway and floodplain and the proposed floodplain mapping changes. Comment Responses 28 312612012 Further discussion of the existing floodplain and floodway, and the impacts of the proposed roadway construction on the mapping of the floodway and floodplain, will be included in the Drainage Report as the CLOMR analysis advances. 6. Any vegetation placed in the floodway must be documented to be of a type and quantity such that upon maturity it will not increase the base flood elevations. Appropriate documentation of any vegetation placed in the floodway will be provided. It is anticipated that any such vegetation will be minimal. 7. A floodplain use permit is required for any work in the floodplain or floodway. The permit fee is $325 which includes review of the hydraulic modeling for the CLOMR/LOMR. A floodplain use permit will be obtained. 8. Please see the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists for additional items needed on the plans and in the drainage report. All floodplain regulations can be found in Chapter 10 of City Code. The 50% floodplain development review checklist has been completed and is included with this resubmittal. 9. The floodplain use permit, and development review checklists are available on our website at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The Development is within the Dry Creek Master Plan basin which contains the planned and designed future NECCO improvements. This development is required to construct several NECCO improvements on and around the site. A meeting to discuss these requirements is needed. A NECCO improvement plan is included for reference. These requirements are outlined in the following comments. Numerous discussions have been had with City staff, subsequent to receipt of these review comments, and an agreement has been reached regarding the extent to which NECCO improvements are to be installed by the Aspen Heights developer. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding setting out the details of that agreement is included with this resubmittal. The memorandum addresses the requirements set out in Comments 3 —11 below. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The regional NECCO pond needs to be excavated to final grade including low flow channel and outlet structure. Comment Responses 29 312612012 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build the NECCO regional pond outfall storm sewer to the eastern edge of Redwood Street right-of-way. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build storm line bl from the outfall into the regional pond up to the existing storm sewer in Conifer including the inlets on lateral b9 in Blue Spruce drive. This will allow for existing ditch south of Blue Spruce Drive to be eliminated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build storm lateral c6a from the outfall into the regional pond up to the west end of the Developer's property. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: If the entire final cross-section of Vine Drive is required to be built with this development then storm line c2 needs to be built from the outfall into the regional pond up to the west property line. . Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: A pumping system is required to pump the site's drainage up to the Lake Canal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The Developer will be reimbursed for anything above there appropriated share of NECCO improvements when funds are available. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is the responsibility of the Developer. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The hydraulic (including inlets, storm sewers, street capacity, etc.) and erosion control design for this Development will be reviewed during final compliance after a public hearing. Comment Responses 30 312612012 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221-6588, icountyO-fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Revisions have been made to the project drawings to address the items identified in the comments below. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: No comments on the Street Cross Sections Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23 & 25. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There is a mislabelled match line sheet number on sheet 9. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 13 & 20-24. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: The index on sheet 1 doesn't match the sheet numbering in the title block. This has been corrected with the inclusion of a Tree Mitigation Plan and Wetland Mitigation Plan that were not included in the original submittal set. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Sheets 9 & 11 are missing from the plan set. This has been corrected with the inclusion of a Tree Mitigation Plan and Wetland Mitigation Plan that were not included in the original submittal set. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/1912012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 2. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Comment Responses 31 312612012 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The boundary & legal description close. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please change the section location in the legal description to match the subtitle. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The bottom of the sheets are cut off. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/1812012: Please correct the spelling of "owner" on sheets 2 & 3. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There are line over text issues. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01118/2012: The record bearing for the south line of Section 1 is incorrect. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There are easements that need to be labelled. See redlines. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please change the section location in the legal description to match the subtitle. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There is a street running through the middle of sheet 2 with no name. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/1812012: Please add "See Sheet 1" to Detail "A" on sheet 2. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please move the tie information as shown on sheet 3. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/19/2012: Please correct the spelling of "Principal" in the legal description on sheet 1. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 2, 7 & 14. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 9 & 11. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There is missing text on sheet 13. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Comment Responses 32 312612012 Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970.221.6197, emcardl ,)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Routes 8 and 81 serve this area of the city along Blue Spruce Drive and Conifer Street. An improved north bound stop is located on the north side of Conifer, just west of Redwood Street, but a south bound stop needs to be integrated into this site. Applicant shall locate a 12' x 18' pad approximately 50'-80' west from the intersection of Redwood and Conifer Streets. Exact location should be coordinated with site plan to provide direct access into the site. The project drawings have been revised to show a pad for a bus stop located along the south side of Conifer St., west of Redwood St. The pad is located further west than suggested in the comment, in order to avoid impeding visibility west along Conifer St. for northbound vehicles at the Conifer / Redwood intersection. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The intersection of Blue Spruce and Conifer may need a light with the addition of this development's traffic. Buses already experience difficulty heading east on Conifer Street. The Traffic Impact Study for the project does not indicate the need for signalization at the intersection of Conifer St. and Blue Spruce Dr. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The existing stop located at the food bank is in rough condition, if off site improvements are proposed in this area, Transfort requests providing an accessible pad for a bus shelter. This request will be considered, but upgrading of the existing off -site bus stop is not included in the scope of the project at this time. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Sidewalks need to be shown on site plan to show how pedestrians access the site. As this is a student housing project, it is expected that the bus stop would be frequently used, please provide an enhanced access to the bus stop near the intersection of Redwood and Conifer. The project Site Plan has been revised to show connecting sidewalks between the bus stop and the development within the site. Comment Responses 33 312612012 Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington _fcaov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Show the existing ELCO water main in Conifer on the utility plans. The EL CO water main in Conifer St. has been added to the utility plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Due to the shallowness of the sanitary sewer, information is needed at preliminary to insure that the sanitary sewers for the development can be designed with acceptable grades and depths of cover. This information must also include storm drain elevations at crossings to see if conflicts exist. Design calculations have been performed to confirm that the sewer mains can be installed at acceptable grades and depths of cover, and to confirm that there are no conflicts with storm main crossings. A copy of those calculations is included with this resubmittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Water main valving will be evaluated with next submittal. It appears that some valves can be eliminated. Water main valving will be reviewed and adjusted as part of the final design, per discussions with City staff. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Plan and profile sheets(s) will be required for the 12-inch water main. Plan and profile sheets for the 12" diameter water main in New Vine drive will be provided, along with plan and profile sheets for other utilities, as part of the Final Plan Review phase of the project. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Show water and sewer services. Water and sewer services to the respective buildings within the project have been added to the utility drawings. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Indicate number of units in the multi -family buildings. Comment Responses 34 312612012 A table has been added to the Overall Utility Plan setting out the number of dwelling units in each building. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Schedule a meeting for a general review of water and sanitary sewer locations and general routing. The requested meeting was held. Comment Responses 35 312612012 Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(&-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(B) Permitted uses included Extra Occupancy Rental Houses, Two Family attached, Multi -Family, and Single family on lots less then 6000 sq ft. Note that if applicant is proposing single family it would need to be an addition of a permitted use because the proposed lot sizes are greater then 6000 sq ft. If single family is not intended then the plans need to state Extra Occupancy rental house with no reference to single family, be sure this is consistent throughout the application and plans. The plan proposes a mix of single-family detached, two-family and multi -family dwellings. There are a total of 5 lots that exceed 6000 sq.ft. each. The buildings will not be placed on individual lots. The plan does not proposed single-family attached dwellings (which must be on lots of less than 6000 sf. The plan does not propose extra occupancy rental houses; however, we note that such use is a potential future use. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(D) Land Use standards is a minimum of 5 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of five stories. Current plans show only 2 story buildings there is a possible opportunity to increase building heights, which would also meet the North College Corridor Plan standards. The applicant does not wish to increase the height of the buildings. However, a clock tower or some other vertical element can be added to the Club House building if required by City Staff in response to the North College Corridor Plan. Also, if proposing single family housing it is limited to 40% of the development. Section 4.19 (D)(1) states"... Single-family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area." Staff advises that the CCN zone in the vicinity is the geographically distinct district area. We calculate the CCN zone to be approximately 140 acres in size. The potential area approved for single-family in the zone (Old Town North) together with the proposed single-family in Aspen Heights totals approximately 36.92 acres, which does not exceed 40% of the CCN zone.. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(E) All Development in the CCN shall also comply with the North College Avenue Corridor Plan to the extent the plan applies to the property to be developed. The entire 31 acres of the development is within one-half mile of North College Avenue which is contained within the North College Avenue Corridor Plan boundaries. Comment Responses 36 312612012 It is understood that the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan is in compliance and is consistent with the North Fort Collins Avenue Corridor Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 3.2.1 (C) A detailed landscaping plan is required at the Final Development Plan stage. The typical landscaping treatments currently provided in the Project Development Plan is not enough detail to say if it meets the standards of the Land Use Code. It appears that the Preliminary Landscape Plan, as shown and corrected is in sufficient detail to demonstrate the ability to meet the Land Use Code. It is understood that the Final Landscape Plan will provide detailed plant specification for trees and shrubs as indicated on the preliminary plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.2 Access, circulation, and parking for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles shall be provided. Access, circulation, and parking for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles are provided in excess to requirements of the Fort Collins development code. Landscape islands that break up the parking lot spaces should line up with each other to provide a straight crossing for the pedestrian reducing interaction with vehicles. Landscape islands line up where a pedestrian walk is present. Other islands are placed within the parking areas to provide shade. Two Pedestrian/bicycle bridges should be placed to cross over the 50ft drainage easement. One on either side of Lupine Drive. Preferably on the south end of the drainage continuing the pedestrian walk from east to west and one continuing the pedestrian walk from east to west about 100ft north of Lupine Drive. Pedestrian bridges are shown as requested. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/0312012: 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) Pedestrian crossing drive aisles or internal roadways require the crosswalk to be continuous across the drive aisles/ways. This means the change in grade shall be for the vehicle and not the pedestrian. This will apply to all pedestrian crosses over any drive way/aisle. Comment noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 Comment Responses 37 312612012 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the following information in the EXACT format shown below. If your project is started on NAVD88 datum: 1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum: 2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION 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' Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the marked sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please change Vine Drive & New Vine Drive to Suniga Road, and Redwood to Redwood Street. See redlines. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up on all sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet references. See redlines. Page 9 of 10 01/03/2012: 3.2.2(K) Outlines the parking requirements of the proposed uses. Because requirements are based on number of bedrooms details on the exact number of bedrooms for each building and the locations shall be provided to determine if parking is in compliance. (This will require floor plans for each type of building) The parking calculation tables have been revised to demonstrate required parking vs. the number of parking provided. In all cases provided parking exceeds the requirements — not including additional parking that can occur on the public R. 0. W. Once exact numbers are determined then bicycling and handicap parking requirements can also be determined if they are in compliance. Exact bicycle rack locations shall also be placed on the plans Prototypical bicycle rack locations are shown on the landscape plan. It is understood that this is sufficient detail for the purposes of Project Development Plan. If required, these pads will be shown on the Final Site Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.4(A) Site lighting plan with details of light fixtures shall be provided for private lighting. Right now it appears that there is no private lighting. For security reasons it would seem that parking lots and walkways would need lighting. No lighting is planned for the development with the exception of wall -mounted entry lights and street lights that will be specified by the City Light and Power Division. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.5 There shall be enough areas provided for the Trash/Recycling needs of the project and residents. There are only eight trash/recycling enclosures identified on the plans this is not enough to meet the needs of the project neither is the location convenient for all the tenants. The project needs more trash/recycling enclosures and more locations to be conveniently accessible for all tenants. This is understood, and additional trash enclosures have been placed on the site. With the absence of guidelines regarding trash enclosure placement and quantities, the developer believes current placement is adequate to meet the needs of the local residents. Comment Responses 38 312612012 �r JeHc on GrouP- Marmvrs and Landscape Archite= December 14, 2011 Ted Shepard, Chief Planner City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Transmittal of PDP application materials Aspen Heights Fort Collins Response to Staff Comments Dear Ted, Attached to this cover letter are the staff review comments from the Concept Review Team meeting that was held on August 1, 2011. Consultant responses are shown in BLUE text. Thank you for your review of these comments, and the overall review the Project Development Plan for Aspen Heights Fort Collins. Sincerely, Deanne Frederickson The Frederickson Group, LLC 7711 Windsong Drive, Windsor, CO. 80550 (970) 674-3323 deanne@iTFGColorado.com August 2, 2011 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS Meeting Date: August 1, 2011 Item: Aspen Heights Student Housing Applicant: Deanne Frederickson 7711 Windsong Rd. Windsor, CO deanne@tfgcolorado.com Land Use Data: This is a request to develop a student housing complex on 31 acres south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. The development features 247 dwelling units divided between 33 single family detached units and 214 two-family dwellings (duplexes). All single family detached dwellings would include four bedrooms and would be classified as Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. For the two-family dwellings, there would be a mix of two and three bedroom options. There would be a total of 702 bedrooms. All buildings would be two -stories. All internal drives are proposed to be private. The plan, as submitted includes 221 dwelling units: 81 of which are Single -Family extra - occupancy units (4-5 bedrooms each), 62 two-family units (2-3 bedroom units) and 78 multi- family units (2-3 bedroom "row -houses). There are a total of 712 bedrooms represented, each of which would be leased individually to students of Fort Collins. Comments: Zonin Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2366, obarnesbfcaov.com 1. In a phone conversation with the applicant, it's my understanding that the single family homes are actually going to be Extra Occupancy Rental Houses, intended for occupancy by 4 or 5 people. In the CCN zone, this use is allowed by Basic Development Review. However, the duplexes are allowed subject to a Type 1 Review. Therefore, the entire project must be processed as a Type 1, Administrative public hearing review. The site data table needs to clearly state the intended land uses. The clarification is noted. The site data table does identify the land uses, as required. 2. Residential building setbacks for this zone are regulated by Sec. 3.5.2(D) of the LUC. The 'prototypical lot layout' shows a 10' front setback. Per Sec. 3.5.2(D)(2), a front setback (building setback to a street right-of-way line) must be at least 15' (30' from an arterial street). If the proposed 10' setback is along a local or collector street, then that can only be approved through the alternative compliance described in Sec. 3.5.2(D)(2)(a). In the phone conversation with the applicant, it was disclosed that they are proposing to plat The site as one large lot, Aspen Heights Fort Collins PDP Submittal 12-14-11 rather than as one lot per building. The code would allow just the one large lot, and required building setbacks would only apply to the perimeter lot lines of the lot. The Project Development Plan actually proposes five lots, separated by the respective public rights -of -way that will be dedicated in conjunction with the project. All buildings fronting on a public right-o-way will be subject to a minimum of 15-foot front setback. An alternative compliance request will not be required for this application. 3. Required parking for the Extra Occupancy Rental Houses is .75 spaces per occupant. Required parking for the duplexes is based on bedrooms (1.5 spaces per one bedroom unit, 1.75 spaces per two bedroom unit and 2 spaces per three bedroom unit. Please be aware that Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(b) allows for parking along public or private streets that are internal to the project may be counted to meet minimum parking requirements. The Project Development Plan provides a total of 786 off street parking spaces, creating an overall ratio of 1.1 parking spaces per bedroom. This ratio exceeds the minimum requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The total number of parking spaces cited here does not include parking that would be allowed on the public R.O.W. 4. Where parking and/or driveways are located adjacent to a perimeter side or rear lot line, a minimum 5' wide landscape buffer area is required along the lot line. Where a drive or parking is adjacent to the perimeter lot line along Conifer or Redwood, the required landscape area is a minimum of 10'. If the parking lot contains more than 100 spaces, at least 10% interior parking lot landscape islands is required. If the parking lot contains less than 100 spaces, then the amount is 6%. Parking lots adjacent to lot lines include a minimum of 10' buffer yard for adequate screening. This occurs primarily along the west property line. Landscape islands are provided throughout the parking areas to meet or exceed the requirements of interior landscape treatments. 6. The project must provide trash enclosures and bike racks. Trash enclosures are shown throughout the development plan for easy access by resident users. The detail for trash enclosures are per City of Fort Collins standards, including public access and adequate room for trash dumpster and recycling bins. A single, inverted U bike rack is provided for each structure throughout the site. This will provide a total of 260 bicycle parking spaces. 6. Handicap parking spaces required. The number of such spaces is based on the total number of parking spaces provided (see table in Sec. 3.2.2(K)(5) of the LUC. The Land Use Code specifies 2% of the total parking spaces should be handicap spaces, -for parking areas containing more than 501 and less than 1,000 spaces. The development plan for Aspen Heights indicates 24 handicap spaces, which represents 3.1% of the total number of off- street parking spaces. This exceeds the Code requirement. 7. Per Section 3.5.2(B) of the LUC, the project must have at least 4 different types of housing models (i.e. different floor plans, exterior materials, roof lines, footprint, etc). Aspen Heights Fort Collins 2 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 The building elevations provided with the Project Development Plan demonstrate a total of 14 different housing styles. There are multiple styles for each of the dwelling unit types, including single-family (extra occupancy), two-family and multi -family dwelling units. Water -Wastewater Enalneerina Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6864, rbuffinoton[c0caov.com 1. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in the area include an 8-inch water main and a 10-inch sewer in Conifer and a 12-inch water main and a 15-inch sewer in Redwood. The information regarding existing utility mains is noted. The utilities have been located in the field and are reflected on the Project Development Plans. 2. Sewer depths in this area range from 5.5 to 7.5 feet deep depending on location. This may present some challenges to getting sewer service to portions of the site unless significant fill is placed. Sewer depths have been determined at proposed tie-in locations and the design for extension of new sewer mains throughout the development reflects the need to maintain adequate cover at key locations (e.g., at crossings beneath the drainage channel). 3. There is an ELCO water main in Conifer, which may limit the access to the sanitary sewer in Conifer. The ELCO water main in Conifer St. is not a factor in the design of the sewer system, since the system conveys flows to the south and east to a tie-in point with the existing sewer main in Redwood St. 4. A 12-inch water main will be required in re -aligned Vine Drive, which is bordering the south side of the site with a connection to the 8-inch main in Blondel. The comment is noted. The designs for the project include a 12" water main in Vine Drive, with a connection to the existing 8" water main in Blondel. 6. A utility coordination meeting is strongly encouraged early in the site layout process to insure that adequate space is provided for all underground utilities. A utility coordination meeting was had with City staff, and the information received was very helpful. That information has been reflected in the designs for the project. 6. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: httr)://www.fcoov.com/standards The City's water conservation standards will be reflected in the landscaping design for the project. 7. Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Aspen Heights Fort Collins PDP Submittal 12-14-11 3 Comment noted. 8. Separate water and sewer services will be required for each duplex unit. Per our discussions at the Utility Coordination meeting, we are interested in pursuing an agreement whereby there could be single service to each building, rather than each dwelling unit, given that the entire development will be continually under a common ownership, with no expectation or intention of selling separate units to individual owners. Transportation Planning Contact: MattWempe, 970-416-2040, mwempe(Mcaov.com 1. Realigned Vine Drive is designated as a four -lane arterial and enhanced travel corridor on the Master Street Plan. Redwood Street is designated as a collector street on the Master Street Plan. Please see the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for necessary right-of-way and designs. The LCUASS have been consulted with respect to the designs for the respective perimeter streets. We would like to point out that the traffic projections for Vine Drive do not appear to warrant the construction of a four -lane arterial street. A discussion of this finding is presented in the Traffic Impact Study. 2. Providing a local street connecting Blondel Street and Blue Spruce Drive would be preferable to the internal driveway network given the size of the property and the need for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian connections across Vine Drive and north to Larimer County social service providers. The Project Development Plans make provision for a public, local street connecting Blue Spruce Drive to Blondel, as suggested. It should be noted, however, that Blondel St. has not been constructed to a point where it would connect with the realigned Vine Dr. It is not considered the obligation of this project to complete the missing portion of Blondel St. 3. Realigned Vine Drive is designated as an enhanced travel corridor. There is the potential for a transit stop in this area. Please coordinate with Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort, kravenschlag@fcgov.com, 970.221.6386, on any necessary transit improvements. As the project evolves and progresses through the City review and approval process, we will coordinate with Transfort regarding infrastructure that may be necessary and appropriate for an enhanced travel corridor. 4. An internal bicycle and pedestrian network will be necessary to meet level of service standards within the property. The network will need to provide connections to adjacent streets at various points and nearby existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The drive isles and walkways within the proposed development are interconnected with the public R.O.W. network and associated sidewalks to create an integrated system for pedestrians and cyclists. Tree -lined pedestrian walks are provided along all public rights -of -way and within each of the walkway spines. Bicycle parking is provided at a rate of at least two bicycle parking spaces per building. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 4 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 6. A bicycle and pedestrian level of service analysis will be required as part of the traffic impact study. Please contact Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner, mwempe@fcgov.com, 970.416.2040, to scope the study. A bicycle and pedestrian level of service analysis has been conducted and is documented in the Traffic Impact Study. 6. Where will bicycle parking be located? Please consider both short-term visitor and long-term resident parking needs. The ideal location is on a hard surface, well -lit, near the main building entrance, secure, and protected from the elements. This can include both indoor and outdoor bike parking. Inverted U bicycle parking racks will be installed on a concrete pad at the rear of each of the residential buildings. The parking is situated very close to the buildings and within easy access to the drive -isles. In addition, bicycle parking facilities will be provided at the clubhouse and sports amenities area. Stormwater Enalneerina Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6066, gschlueterMcoov.com 1. Portions of this property in the southeast corner of the lot are located in the 100-year FEMA regulatory flood fringe and floodway of the Dry Creek basin, and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10 of City Code. The extent of the floodplain in the southeast corner of the property has been researched and mapped. The floodway will be a consideration in the final design and construction of portions of Vine Drive and Redwood Street, but will not be a factor with respect to any other aspect of the development. 2. An approved floodplain use permit is required prior to mobilization for any site work in the floodplain such as detention ponds, bike paths, sidewalks, roadway, utilities, landscaping, culverts etc. A floodplain use permit will be obtained, prior to proceeding with any construction in the floodplain. 3. No -rise certification is required for all site work within the floodway. Re- certification of no -rise is required for as -built conditions. No -rise certification will be provided, as necessary. 4. No storage of materials or equipment shall be allowed in the floodway. Whether temporary (during construction) or permanent. No materials or equipment will be stored in the floodway. 6. Any change to the floodway boundary will require approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) by FEMA. Aspen Heights Fort Collins S PDP Submittal 12-14-11 It is not expected that the proposed construction will result in any change to the floodway boundar. . 6. The floodplain Administrator for the Dry Creek basin and this project is Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, 970-224-6036, mhilmesrobinson(a-fcaov.com. We will communicate with Ms. Hilmes-Robinson regarding all proposed improvements within the floodplain. 7. A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. Appropriate Drainage and Erosion Control Reports will be prepared, as required. 8. The Stormwater Utility and the URA purchased 9.425 acres of the site for a regional detention pond as part of the NECCO project. As part of the sale, Lagunitas Companies purchased an easement that will allow temporary retention (at 2 times the total 100 year runoff volume) on the site for this development. The applicant was given information on the NECCO project. Comment noted. Subsequent discussions with City staff have explored provisions to construct an interim detention facility, within the footprint of the ultimate regional detention facility that can be drained by gravity, thus eliminating the need to develop a larger, retention facility. This concept is reflected in the Project Development Plans submitted herewith. 9. Water quality treatment is also required as described in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://Www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_critmanual vollll.htm) A temporary retention pond with a pump would qualify as extended detention if it meets the 40 hour drain time. The design of the interim detention facility makes provision for water quality treatment of runoff, in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. 10. Since the NECCO project is not built the site will need to drain to a temporary retention pond that needs to drain in 72 hours to meet state requirements. A pumping system will be needed drain the pond to the Lake Canal. There would need to be an agreement with the canal company. Contact information is: Lake Canal Reservoir Company - Don Magnuson, Superintendent (352-0222); Rodney Nelson, President, 6312 E. Harmony, Fort Collins CO 80525 (482-4108); Dale Trowbridge, Office Manager, (352-0222). We have had discussions with the Superintendent and the Board of Directors of the Lake Canal Irrigation Company regarding discharge of accumulated storm runoff from the interim detention facility into the Lake Canal channel. The Board has considered our proposal and has approved it in principle. We will maintain ongoing communications with the LCIC as the project progresses. 11. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Dry Creek Master Drainage Plan as well the City's Design Criteria and Construction standards. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 6 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 The design of stormwater management improvements for Aspen Heights will be in conformance with the requirements of the Dry Creek Master Drainage Plan as well as the City's Design Criteria and Construction Standards. 12. The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,313.00/acre ($0.1449/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City's web site at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and -developers/plant-investment-development -fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or erosion control measures shown on the site construction plans. Comment noted. The appropriate fees will be paid, as required. Fire Authority Contact: Carle Dann, 970-219-6337, CDANNAPoudre-fire.oM 1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION AND FEE Poudre Fire Authority assesses development review fees for submitted projects. Please contact Carie Dann for more information, at cdann@poudre-fire.org. Development review fees are included with this Project Development Plan application materials. The on-line submittal will occur shortly. 3. REQUIRED ACCESS - Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA's jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. - Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (26 feet on at least one long side of the building when the structure is three or more stories in height). If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet.2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(L). Emergency access easements will be dedicated via the subdivision plat, covering all the private parking aisles within the scope of the project, and the private parking aisles will be constructed Aspen Heights Fort Collins PDP Submittal 12-14-11 so as to provide access for emergency vehicles to within 150 of any point on the exterior of a huilding within the development. 4. STREET NAMES - Street names shall be reviewed and verified by LETA (Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority) prior to being put in service. PLEASE NOTE: This project will probably require that the private drives be named. (2006 International Fire Code 505.2) There will be two public roadways within the site — both of which will be extensions of existing roadways: Lupine St from the east and Blue Spruce from the north. No private streets will be incorporated into this development plan, and no new street names are required. A procedure for addressing of individual buildings will be discussed with City staff and LETA, as appropriate. 6. WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. (2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B) Hydrant type and spacing will be in accordance with City and Fire Department requirements. 6. TURNING RADII The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. (2006 International Fire Code 503.2.4 and Appendix D103.3). All curb return radii have been designed to be in compliance with Fire Department requirements. 7. ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum six-inch high numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). If the numerals are mounted on a side of the building other than the side off of which it is addressed, the street name is required to be posted along with the numerals. PLEASE NOTE: Some residences may be required to install address numerals on both the front and rear of the structures. (2006 International Fire Code 505.1) These requirements will be taken into consideration in the preparation of detailed designs for the respective buildings, and addressing details will be reviewed with City staff. Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, Iex(cDfcgov.com 1. An Ecological Characterization Study is required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site is within 500 feet of a known natural habitat (riparian forests, prairie dog colonies, and potential habitat for raptors and burrowing owls, etc.). Please note the buffer zone standards of 50' for patches of riparian forest. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 8 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please reduce the text size to fit in the symbols as marked on sheet 31. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please change Vine Drive & New Vine Drive to Suniga Road. See redlines. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet references. They are all off by one sheet, except for sheet L6.0. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up on all sheets. See redlines. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sbovle(ccD-fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Profiles are required for all water mains 12" and larger. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please show and label all existing and proposed right-of-way and easement lines on the Utility Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please show meter pit and curb stop locations for the proposed irrigation service on Vine Drive. The curb stop should be within the Utility Easement with the meter pit located behind the easement. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please label ownership of the existing 42" and 60" water lines in Suniga Road and show any associated utility easements. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: The median landscape drain is shown tying into a pipe that will ultimately be abandoned. Please revise so the landscape drain has a permanent outfall. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please indicate pipe size and length of the proposed water line stub west of Blue Spruce Drive. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please show the proposed valve location on the proposed 12" main connection at Suniga Road and Redwood Street. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please add all appropriate utility details to the plan set. See redlines for a list of possible details needed. This list may not be all-inclusive. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please see redlined plans for additional minor comments. Page 10 of 10 An Ecological Characterization Study and a Wetland Delineation Report were prepared by Eric Berg, Wildland Consultants, Inc, and submitted to Lindsay in early December. The existing wetland areas within the drainage ditches that traverse the development site, and which will be impacted by the proposed development, will be mitigated within a portion of the Interim Stormwater Detention Pond, to be located on a designated parcel immediately adjacent to the development site. This approach was discussed with City staff and agreed to in principle. Details of the mitigation will be developed in coordination with City staff, and will be subject to review and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. The reconfigured drainage channel through the development site, as well as the non -mitigation areas of the detention basin, will be revegetated with an approved seed mix, the specification for which is to be provided by Fort Collins City staff. Shrubs will also be planted to provide for separation and wildlife foraging. 2. Within the 50' buffer zone (or as determined per the performance standards), according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. Please ensure that your ECS discusses the existing vegetation and identifies potential restoration options. If it is determined to be insufficient, then restoration and mitigation measures will be required. The ECS should also discuss options for addressing the site's population of prairie dogs (protection, relocation, etc.) and any other species associated with this population, e.g., burrowing owls. Comment noted. The presence of burrowing owls is not expected, but will be definitively determined through a survey conducted in the spring. Assuming no evidence of burrowing owls, the prairie dog colony will be humanely euthanized. 3. With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off -site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Lighting will be limited to City -installed street lighting, along the public streets, and building - mounted, down -directional lighting at the building entries. Since there will be no area lighting, it was agreed that a lighting plan is not required with the Project Development Plan. 4. The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that " (4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. As several of the trees within this site appear to have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221-6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. A meeting was held on site with Tim Buchanan on December 13, 2011. There are a number of trees on the site that would meet the criteria as stated in 3.2.1(C). Discussions occurred related to the impacts to the significant trees are largely due to the detention pond design as assigned by the NECCO project, rather than directly related to the project. There will also be tree mitigation needed to replace the removal of mature trees for the construction of Vine St and Redwood Streets. Tim Buchanan agreed that he would discuss tree protection / tree mitigation / and the requirements that would be placed on the Aspen Heights project. An inventory will be Aspen Heights Fort Collins 9 PDP Subinittal 12-14-11 conducted at a future date, and a mitigation plan will be presented with the next round of submittal documents included in the Final Landscape Plan. 5. The City's green building program has many programs that may benefit your project. Resources are available at the Green Building web page: hftp://www.fcgov.com/greenbuilding/. Of particular interest may be the Integrated Design Assistance Program, which offers financial incentives ' and free technical support to those interested in delivering high-performance buildings that exceed building code requirements for energy performance. Gary Schroeder (970-221-6395) is the contact person for this program. This is the direct link to the web page for this program: hftp://www.fogov.com/conservation/biz-idap.php. Comment noted. The building architect has been made aware of this opportunity. 6. With respect to landscaping and design, Section 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re -landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Reveille Bluegrass is one option for having bluegrass lawns and using less water. The landscape design features all plant materials that are listed on the City of Fort Collins Plant List. Most tree and shrub species are considered to have low to medium water usage. Engineerina Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenbergerb-fcgov.com 1. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. Comment noted. Appropriate fees will be paid when due. 2. The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: hftp:/Avww.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php The required fees have been researched and have been included with the submittal package, as applicable. 3. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. An inspection of existing infrastructure will be made with City staff, prior to commencing construction, and all necessary repairs / replacements will be incorporated into the scope of work. Any damage done during construction will also be repaired / replaced. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 10 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 4. Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. The TIS will help to determine what off -site improvements are needed to serve this site and meet Level of Service requirements. A scoping meeting was held with Joe Olson, prior to proceeding with the Traffic Impact Study, and the discussions had during that meeting are reflected in the TIS. 6. Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: hftp://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm The designs for public street improvements are consistent with the requirements of LCUASS. S. This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. Additional right-of-way maybe necessary to accommodate the detached sidewalk along Conifer and Redwood Streets. Right-of-way for the unbuilt portions of Redwood Street and Vine Drive shall be dedicated with this project. Right-of-way will be dedicated, as necessary, for the unbuilt portion of Vine Drive. It is not anticipated that any additional right-of-way will be required for the completion of Redwood St. or for the detached sidewalk along Redwood. If additional right-of-way is required for a detached sidewalk along Conifer St., appropriate land will be made available, through dedication of either additional right-of-way or an access easement. 7. Improvements to Conifer Street, Redwood Street, and Vine Drive adjacent to the site and any off -sites needed for the site to meet Level of Service requirements will need to be constructed with this project. The frontage adjacent to the pond at the NW corner of Redwood Street and Vine Street are also considered this properties responsibility as per Stormwater the adjacent property surrounding the pond is also responsible for this. This project is responsible for the design and construction of these improvements. The cited improvements are being presented in the Project Development Plan as part of this project. 8. Currently there is a Trail within the unbuilt portion of Redwood Street. I imagine it as was done south of this site the trail shall be placed along the west side of the property and serve as the sidewalk for the west side of the street as well as a trail. The exact relocation of the trail is up to Parks. In it's current location, the existing trail / bike path will conflict with the construction of the missing portion of Redwood St. The trail will be removed and reconstructed as a detached sidewalk along the west side of Redwood St., and will be reconnected to the existing trail at the southern terminus of the new portion of Redwood St. 9. Redwood and Conifer Streets are considered Collector streets on the MSP. As such, upon construction of improvements along these roads the developer will be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement for the oversized portion of the roadways that are constructed by this development. Aspen Heights Fort Collins Il PDP Subinittal 12-14-11 Comment noted Application will he made for appropriate reimhursement 10. Upon construction of Redwood the developer can file a repay for the portion of the east side of the road that this development constructs adjacent to undeveloped property. (for the east curb and local portion on the east side). Comment noted. Application for reimbursement will be made. 11. Vine Drive is considered an Arterial Roadway on the MSP. As such, upon construction of improvements along this road the developer will be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement for the oversized portion of the roadway that is constructed by this development to ultimate standards. Interim improvements are not eligible for reimbursement. Comment noted. Application for reimbursement will be made. 12. Since there is not a median in Lupine Street the access point proposed across from this street is not allowed to have a median in it at where it intersects Redwood Street. The access point needs to match Lupine. Further into the site the driveway can widen out and a median can be placed. As a result of discussions with City staff regarding the initially proposed median, a decision has been made to remove the median. This is reflected in the submittal drawings. 13. The proposed access point onto Vine Drive will most likely be a right -in right -out access point only. This will need to be noted as such on the site and utility plans. Review of the City's preliminary design drawings for Vine Drive indicates a full -movement access at the intersection with Blondel. The Project Development Plans for Aspen Heights anticipates having such a full -movement access. 14. If for some reason Vine or Redwood is not extended through to other streets temporary turnarounds will need to be provided at the end of any street that doesn't connect through. Comment noted. At this point, it is not anticipated that any dead-end streets will be generated by the project. 15. In accordance with Section 3.6.3(F) of the Land Use Code this development needs to provide local street connections along the west property line at spacing not to exceed 660 feet. This is currently not being accommodated. Provision has been made in the layout of the proposed development to extend Lupine St. further west into the adjacent property, at such time as that property is developed. 16. It appears that sight distance easements will need to be provided at the Conifer/ Redwood intersection, and Lupine/Redwood intersection. Site distance easements will be provided, as necessary. 17. Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 12 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 Comment noted. 18. This site is adjacent to CDOT roadway and the applicant may need to obtain access permits from CDOT. The applicant is unaware of any CDOT right-of-way adjacent to this site. -- 19. A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. A Development Construction Permit will be obtained prior to commencing construction. Electric Enaalneerinaa Contact: Bruce Vogel, 970-224-6167, bvoaelAftuov.com 1. Power is available from existing facilities in Conifer Street, Redwood Street, and Blondel Street. Comment noted. 2. The units that are directly under the Platte River Power Transmission overhead line (115,000 volts) along Redwood Street will need to be relocated due to the power line easements that are in place along the O.H. line route. The layout of the proposed development has been revised to respect the PRPA easement. 3. Would highly recommend blanket utility easements and a utility coordination meeting, as the site plan appears to be very tight for adequate space and separation for all utilities. A utility coordination meeting has been held with City staff and representatives of outside utilities, at which location of utilities and provision of appropriate easements was discussed. 4. Will need to coordinate meter and transformer locations. Meter locations were discussed at the utilities coordination meeting. This information was passed on to the building architects. 6. Normal electric development charges will apply. Comment noted. Current Planninsa Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tsheaard(Mcgov.com 1. Please carefully review Section 3.5.2 [C] — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking and the definitions of Connecting Walkway and Major Walkway Spine. These standards work in conjunction with Section 3.6.3 — Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards. Combined, these standards call for residential housing complexes to be arranged in the Aspen Heights Fort Collins 13 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 traditional manner of homes along neighborhood streets. In general, taken as a whole, the Land Use Code requires a fabric of streets and blocks. The project development plan features a network of public local streets that serve to integrate the project development site into the surrounding neighborhoods. Homes face the public roadways with parking provided at the rear of the buildings. A number of Major Walkway Spines are provided to integrate the remaining homes into the pedestrian network. 2. In order to comply with the above -referenced standards, Blondel Street should continue as a public local street through the property and intersect with Conifer Street in alignment with Blue Spruce Drive. Blondel Street continues through the project to intersect with Conifer Street. It is respectfully requested that the street name be "Blue Spruce" since it also meets Blue Spruce on the North side of the property. The name Blue Spruce, is more in keeping with the overall Colorado — based naming conventions and themes throughout the development. Furthermore, Blondel St. has not been fully constructed, south of the Vine Drive alignment, and therefore, is not considered a connecting street, at this point. 3. Current Planning would like to emphasize the comment made by Development Review Engineering that a public local street stub needs to be made at the west property line. Lupine Drive should strongly be considered as this east -west public local street. Combined, Blondel and Lupine would form the basis for the basis for the neighborhood streets. A public local street stub has been provided on the west side of the project midway between Vine and Conifer. 4. After the extension of two public streets into and through the site, the development may be allowed to be served by the soon -to -be -adopted Street -Like Private Drive. Please be aware that an important revision to the Land Use Code was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on July 21, 2011 and will be considered by City Council on August 16, 2011. This revision creates a new definition of a private roadway called the street -like private drive. (Please refer to the hand-out.) Buildings may front on these streets in lieu of a public street. Such streets may be named and buildings may be addressed off these streets in accordance with the Poudre Fire Authority and LETA street -naming criteria for local streets. The "street -like private drive" requirements were reviewed and considered for this project. However, the development team took an alternative approach by providing for public R.O.W connections and the use of Major Walkway Spines to layout housing throughout the project. 6. Overall, the site planning approach must provide the buildings with a clear street address and clear connections to the rest of the community so that visitors, residents and emergency service providers can easily find their way. Public streets and street -like private drives must be arranged to tie this project and the surrounding area together in a town -like pattern. Comment noted. We believe we have accomplished this with the Project Development Plan as shown. 6. Where buildings face Conifer Street and Redwood Street, there must be a connecting walkway to the public sidewalk. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 14 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 All housing units will have a connecting walkway from the front door of each unit to the detached sidewalk that exists, or will exist, along all public roadways and to the walkways provided in the Major Walkway Spines. 7. Please see the Development Review Guide at www.fcgov.com/drg. This online guide features a color -coded flowchart with comprehensive, easy to read information on each step in the process. This guide includes links to just about every resource you need during development review. Document reviewed. Thank you. a. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), including Article Three General Development Standards. The entire LUC is available for your review on the web at: hftg://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/ egin.htm. So noted. Thank you. 9. If this proposal is unable to satisfy any of the requirements set forth in the LUC, a Modification of Standard Request will need to be submitted with your formal development proposal. Please see Section 2.8.2 of the LUC for more information on criteria to apply for a Modification of Standard. There is one aspect on the Project Development Plan than will require a consideration for Modification of Standard. This has to do with placing multi -family units facing an arterial street (Vine). A Request for Modification of Standards and a Code analysis is provided under separate cover. 10. Please see the Submittal Requirements and Checklist at: hftp://www.fcoov.com/developmentreview/applications.r)hr). So noted, thank you. All submittal requirements have been met. A disk with .pdf versions of all submittal documents is included with the submittal as well. 11. The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Community Development and Neighborhood Services office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required documents for the appropriate development review process by City staff and affected outside reviewing agencies. Also, the required Transportation Development Review Fee must be paid at time of submittal. The following development review fees are included with this application: PDP Filing Fee: $5,879.00 APO Labels (296 labels, for property owners within a 1000' radius) $222.00 Sign Posting Fee: $50.00 Fire Protection Development Fee: $250.00 Transportation Development Review Fee: $34,421.25 12. When you are ready to submit your formal plans, please make an appointment with Community Development and Neighborhood Services at (970)221-6750. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 15 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 A submittal appointment was made on Monday, 12-12-11 for submittal prior to 3:00 on VVednesdey, December 142011. Pre -Submittal Meetings for Building Permits Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that new multifamily projects are on track to comply 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 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: 4. 2009 International Building Code (IBC) 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2008 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. 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 Desian: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Ener-gy Code Use: 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chapter 2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4. 3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5. Aspen Heights Fort Collins 16 PDP Submittal 12-14-11 City of. F6rt Collins 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 February 10, 2015 RE: Aspen Heights Road Plans - Suniga Road (New Vine) and Redwood Street, RP150001, 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 Engineer, Sheri Langenberger, at 970-221-6573 or slangenberger@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Clark Mapes, 970.221-6225, cmapes _fcpov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: FROM COMCAST, Don Kapperman, 567-0245: Currently have a fiber line in thte east side of Redwood that needs to be in an easement. Please verify fiber run. Would like to receive a revised plat, site plan and landscape plan. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenbergeraMcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02109/2015 02/09/2015: The plans need to be named: Utility Plans for Suniga Road from Blue Spruce to Redwood Street and Redwood Street from Lupine to Cajeatan Street. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Greeley and NEWT will need to sign the utility plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need turning templates to show that the median noses don't extend into the travel paths or need to be adjusted. Many of our median noses are not symmetrical to accommodate the turning movements. This can be exhibits and don't need to be on these plans. For all lefts at these two intersections Suniga Road/ Blondel/ Blue Spruce and Suniga Road/ Redwood. Show WB-67 with min 4 feet between the opposing tracks. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: New Vine Drive needs to be changed to Suniga Road throughout the plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Redwood Drive is shown shifting to the west. I need information on this — curve and tangent information. Also some additional curve and radii information is needed, it is noted on this sheet. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need centerline and tangent information for Suniga Road — it is not currently shown on the horizontal control plan or the profile sheets. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need to have the property lines turned on on many of the sheets. Example the grading sheet. I can't tell what is Old Town North property and what is this property. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Grading and drainage work is shown on Old Town North property. It appears that easements exist to allow for this. But you need to contact the property owner and coordinate this with them so that they are aware of what is being proposed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Redwood Grading plan — The note regarding saw cutting at the south end needs to indicate'Sawcut a minimum of 2 feet and connect to existing Redwood St.' The note regarding saw cutting at the north end needs to be different since the existing street surface here is concrete. It needs to state 'If the existing concrete edge is not acceptable to the Engineering Inspector full concrete panels will need to be removed to create an acceptable edge' Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The culvert under Redwood — What happens when a sidewalk needs to be installed on the east side of the road? Is this to be extended to a point behind the sidewalk? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Is the drainage work on the east side of Redwood within an existing easement? If so label and identify the easement, if not an off -site easement is needed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Sheet 9 needs a signature block Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: At both Blondel/ Suniga and Osiander/ Redwood intersection some temporary asphalt will be needed on those street stubs to accommodate the pedestrian crossings of these street. It can be a temporary patch —just label it as such so when the project that builds these roads complains about the grades it it is clear it was only temporary and they have to redo it. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The water main at the Suniga/ Redwood intersection needs to be extended east past the edge of pavement so the intersection will not have to be redone to extend this in the future. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Sleeving for future signaliiation needs to be installed at all 3 legs of the Suniga/ Redwood intersection. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Suniga profile - - What is the proposed slope at the west end tie to existing ground? - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. - The Aspen Heights plans show different the Blue Spruce/ Suniga intersection grades and slope across the cross pan. As proposed the Aspen Heights plans will need to be revised. - The Blondel grades don't match the approved design plans for Blondel. Either need to match the approved plans or provide a design that shows how this design ties to the end of the existing street. - Notes regarding 30% plans — Since the 30% plans did not provide flowline profiles the note should identify that it is the future flowline projected from the 30% plans. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Need profiles of the median edges. - Sag vertical curves at the flowline in a sump situation are not allowed. The flowline curves just east of the intersection need to be adjusted to show how they will work at .5% into the inlets. The sag VC along the centerline does not meet minimum curve length for the delta. Since this could impact the grades and elevations into the intersection this curve needs to be adjusted and shown as how it can meet standards. - The crest VC to east of Redwood doesn't meet minimum length requirements either, but you can leave it as it is — just add the following note to the plans. Vertical Curve lengths (for future) don't meet standards but match 30% design plans. Final design plans meeting standards to be completed prior to construction of this portion of the roadway (by others). Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: What are you proposing for the temporary curb? Is it regular curb, but just considered temporary or is it something else? Need to show where it is to start and stop and identify the type. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The power pole in the NW corner of Suniga Road and Redwood Street. How big is this pole and the pad that holds it? What are PRPA restrictions for grading around this pole? How does the pole impact the sidewalk location and ramp grades? A blown up detail of this area needs to be provided to make sure the clearances are met and truly determine where the ramps are to be located. Comment Number: 19 02/09/2015: Redwood profile Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 What are the existing grades and slopes being tied into at the south end? At the north end? Per the lines shown the south flowlines don't appear to tie together. - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. Have a couple of slopes that doesn't meet minimum slope requirements. Have several locations where exceeding the maximum grade break allowed. Need to see a design for Osiander to know that this all ties together. The existing Osiander design doesn't tie into the Redwood profile. The Suniga/ Redwood intersection doesn't need to be concrete. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: 1 provided a copy of the median curb design that was used and included on the Waterfield Third Filing plans and the one that is going to be used on Timberline. Either one of these can be used. The existing detail needs to be changed on both the landscape and utility plans. Comment Number: 21 . Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The plans show the underdrain tying into the interim drainage pipe. Another solution is needed since this is a temporary interim pipe and will be removed or filled in the future. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Cleanouts for the underdrain need to be provided every approximately every 100 feet and need to be shown on the plans. I have provided a copy of the underdrain detail and an example of a plan that shows the underdrain locations. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Utility and Landscape Plan - Need to show how the concrete nose of the median is to be provided per detail 801. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need street x-sections for Suniga and Redwood. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need addition elevations and information on the intersection Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 04/23/2015 04/23/2015: Sheet 13 - The new pipes under Blondel — these do not meet minimum cover requirements. In talking with Shane the distance from these pipes to the water line can be reduced to 1.5 feet that will gain an additional foot of cover bringing the cover to 2.4 feet (assuming the proposed grade line is the flowline profile. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 04/23/2015 04/23/2015: Sheet 14 — missing the City waterline under pipe 509 Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 04/23/2015 04/23/2015: Sheet 21— The Redwood Street Road PCR label under with arrows under the flowline profiles are pointing to incorrect locations. On the west profile you have two stations labeled as 16+46.93 Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 04/23/2015 04/23/2015: Sheet 29 — Blondel intersection detail - Need to remove the temporary pavement note. , Need to provide transition elevation and length. Need to provide curb return slopes on at the SE comer. Blondel/ Alley intersection detail — Need to identify that the curb return radii are 6 ft. Need to show how the 3 foot valley pan will be extended and tie around the curb return. Label the alley width. Show the truncated dome locations. The slope across the sidewalk cannot be 2.3%. Need probably a couple more spot elevations to clarify how this will be graded and built. Need to add Drawing #803 to the plan set as it contains additional detail information on how this intersection is to be constructed. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 04/23/2015 04/23/2015: Sheet 32 - Where is the profile for the line under Blondel. There is still a note under pipe 447 that identifies the City waterline location. The symbol representing the line has been removed but the note with the leader remains. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 04/23/2015 04/23/2015: Sheet 43 — have something strange going on with the centerline profile near the cross pan. A 8.3% slope does not work here. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 04/20/2015: This has not been corrected. 03/31/2015: This has not been corrected. 03/11 /2015: There are notes on sheet 7 that run into the titleblock. See redlines. 02/03/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. details (see plans). Also need a detail for the future Suniga/ Redwood when the road goes through to see how it will work then. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: For the storm line that runs under the sidewalk. Need notes on this sheet indicating that maintenance hole covers that are in the sidewalk shall have smooth flush lids that meet ADA standards or if possible the MH rotated and placed outside of the sidewalk area. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Detail 709 has been replaced with a more current design. The updated detail needs to be used is (D-1013). Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Additional details needed: 801— modify as needed for this situation. and 2201. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Grading sheets - Will need the power easement owners signature on the sheets showing grades and improvements under the easement. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Landscape Plans — sight distance triangles — I talked with Traffic Operations regarding the sight triangles and they would like these calculated using the current ASHTO standards. This should shorten the sight distances. To do so I will need a variance request that outlines what you've done (assumptions) and the distances that you came up with. This should be done by Lary since it needs to be done by a PE. Once we have a plan with the new distances Joe will review the plans with Clark to verify plant heights and identify and concerns. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: If you could send me a PDF copy of sheet 101 need to route that to the Parks department so they can review the proposed irrigation tap and sleeve locations for the median. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: It looks as though the intent was for street lights along Sungia Road to be placed in the median. I don't believe that will occur. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 O2/09/2015: Traffic Operation has marked up the signing and stripping plans in my redlined set with their comments. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tbuchanan(a)-fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The placement of ornamental trees in a 2 foot 9 inch wide landscape area (shown in section A on sheet L 7.0) where the median narrows appears to be inadequate for long term growth and survival of the proposed ornamental trees. Forestry asks that that ornamental tree not be planted in landscape areas less than 4 feet on this project to insure adequate growth and survival. Alternative plant choices of appropriate shrubs and grasses should be explored to provide landscape effect in these narrow areas in place of the ornamental trees. Comment Number: 2 02/03/2015: Tree species suggested changes: Specify the Texas Red oak as Shumard Oak. Change the Prairie Rose Crabapple to Red Barron Crabapple Comment Number: 3 02/03/2015: Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Please add this landscape note if it does not already appear on the plans. The sol in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six inches by tilling discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand square feet of landscape area. Comment Number: 4 02/03/2015: Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Please include these notes under a separate heading labeled Tree Notes on sheet L.10.0. Eliminate duplication of the following notes in other areas on the plan. 1. A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other City property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. 2. Contact the City Forester to inspect all tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. 3. Street tree shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor. 4. The developer shall replace all dead and dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established of an approved species and of acceptable le condition prior to acceptance. 5. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility standards, separation between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees shall be centered in the middle of the parkway. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. Comment Number: 5 02/03/2015: Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Please include the following note in larger print in a box with a bold line on all landscape sheets. A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and Curb. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Comment Number: 6 02/03/2015: Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Add the following notes under separate heading labeled Inspections and Warrantee on sheet L 10.0. 1. Landscaping shown on these plans shall be secured prior to installation with a letter of credit, escrow, or performance submitted to the Zoning Department for 125% of the value of the landscaping and installation. Release upon approval by the City of Fort Collins of the final maintenance inspection. 2. Meetings: a. Landscape contractor shall hold pre -construction meeting with a representative of the City of Fort Collins Parks Division and Forestry Division prior to work. Contact the City Forester to arrange attendance at the pre -constitution meeting. b. Arrange for a minimum of two inspections during installation with a City of Fort Collins Parks Division and Forestry Division representative. c. A final installation installation inspection shall be scheduled by the Developer and Landscape Contractor at the end of the two year maintenance period . Upon completion of all punch list items at this meeting a two year maintenance warrantee period will begin. d. The Developer shall be responsible for complete maintenance of the medians for two full growing seasons from the date of approved final inspection. Maintenance shall be provided by a professional landscape maintenance business. Regular maintenance shall be providing to keep all landscaping and plantings healthy and attractive. Under no circumstances shall weed growth be allowed to establish and mature. Irrigation shall be regularly monitored to insure landscape plants are receiving the appropriated amount of water. e. A final maintenance inspect ion shall be scheduled by the developer/landscaper with City of Fort Collins Forestry and Parks Division representatives. Punch list items will be provided to the developer and must be addressed. The City of Fort Collins will take over maintenance after approval of final maintenance inspection. f. Provide final as -built drawings to the City of Fort Collins Parks Department prior to gaining approval of for the final maintenance inspection and release. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, 'schiam@fcclov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated 01/20/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (With Corrected Redlines), Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions (Recalculated based on the changes to the plans) please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, icounty(_fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated 02/03/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the following information in the EXACT format shown below. If your project is started on NAVD88 datum: 1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum: 2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: 01 /20/2015 02/03/2015 a BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION 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' Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the marked sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please change Vine Drive & New Vine Drive to Suniga Road, and Redwood to Redwood Street. See redlines. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02103/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up on all sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 7 02/03/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 02/03/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet references. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please reduce the text size to fit in the symbols as marked on sheet 31. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please change Vine Drive & New Vine Drive to Suniga Road. See redlines. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet references. They are all off by one sheet, except for sheet L6.0. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up on all sheets. See redlines. September 17, 2013 Ted Shepard Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, FDP130010, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies along with comment responses for the Aspen Heights Student Housing Project. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: Please add more detail to the bus stop shelter. Please indicate details associated with benches (did not see any graphically or called out), lighting, trash receptacle, and correct the typo so it reads "No Advertising" not "No Add". Response 10: The typo has been corrected and no reads (no advertising). If a dome light is not provided for the bus shelter by the vendor, then the bus shelter will be lit with a pole -mounted fixture. The fixture information is provided with the lighting package, and will be "dark sky" rated. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenbergergfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/18/13: 05/01/2013: 1 will include language in the Development Agreement regarding the portion of Vine Drive and Lupine Street adjacent to the site that cannot be completed at this time. Response 11: Noted, please see phasing plans on sheets 66-70 of the utility plans which have been revised as a result of the August 6, 2013 phasing meeting. Lupine will be built in its entirety as part of the first FDP (on Site). Construction drawings for Redwood and New Vine will be submitted under a second FDP at a later date. Construction will occur subsequent to the approval of the Second FDP contingent upon approval of the CLOMR. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need to provide curb return profiles. 07/18/13: This information can be provided on the street intersection details or can be provide on the profile sheets. Response 15: Curb return profiles are now shown for curb returns on the street profile sheets 51-53. Flowlines are shown on the intersection details on sheet 18. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need intersection details. 07/18/13: Return comments indicated that spot elevations and slopes were provided on the grading plans. The spot elevations were not shown. Typically this information is not provided on a grading plan since it will be very difficult to provide all the spot elevation information at that scale. If this information is provided on the grading plans and we get it to work - a note will need to be placed on the plan profile sheets to see grading plans for intersection detail information. Response 16: Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer w s turned off in dvertently prior to printing. Intersection details have been enlarged and shown on sheet 18. A note has been added to the street profile sheets 51-53 to reference the intersection details. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Are the stationing information at the driveways the centerline station of the driveways? Need to identify the driveway widths. 07/18/13:You have indicated the driveway width at its narrowest point, please also provide a note on these three sheets that indicates what the driveway width from flowline to back of sidewalk is. Response 17: Yes, the stationing at the driveways is the centerline station, this is now noted. Driveways are 28' at the street flowline and this is now indicated on the street plans. A typical driveway is detailed on sheets 53 and referenced on the road centerline plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need striping plans. 07/18/13:Review of the striping plans is done by Traffic Operations, so please check with them regarding comments. Response 18: Please see sheets 27-30 and 54 for existing and proposed striping. With Traffic Operations comments addressed. These sheets will be sent directly to Ward Sanford for his review and comment. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans -The utility plans are showing a UGE/COMM line. Is this a private line or a public utility? The UGE line is public, the COMM line is private (fiber optic). If private it needs to be sleeved under the row, meet minimum cover requirements (profile), and a revocable permit will be needed prior to construction of this line. If they are public (Comcast, Xcel... ) then the franchised utility knows what is required. Response 38: Noted, all private fiber optic and landscape sleeves are shown on the plans and notes have been added to the sheets to indicate the minimum 3' of cover. Please refer to water profiles for sleeve sizes and locations. 2 Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/18/13: In regards to the variance request regarding the cover over several of the storm pipes. A variance will most likely be granted for the cover over the NECCO pipes on Lupine provide that the street area over the pipes and the adjacent inlets is done in concrete. I have shown the area to be in concrete on the plans (storm profile sheet). See my notes on this sheet. We do want to know what the final cover amount (what is the minimum cover amount at the lowest cover point) will be once the profiles are finalized. At the intersection of Blue Spruce and New Vine Drive a variance request will be granted for cover over this pipe provided that concrete is provided from the cross pan to a point past the pipe as I have shown on the plans. The variance request for the interim storm pipe in redwood the variance is grated on the basis that at such time as the ultimate improvements are constructed that the portion of the pipe system that does not meet minimum cover is removed at that time. I have not talked to Stormwater about this but will do so.05/01/2013: Utility Plans -Standards require that a minimum of 3 feet of cover be provided from the top of pipes to the top of asphalt for lines within and crossing public streets. Many of the stormpipes shown so far do not meet this requirement. May need to use multiple pipes, elliptical pipes, raise road grades, lower storm grades or a combination of these solutions. Response 44: Noted, per our August 18, 2013 meeting with Engineering, Stormwater, and Utilities we understand that a variance will be approved for the Lupine Crossing and the Blue Spruce/New Vine Drive Y cover requirement. Concrete pavement has been added at these locations as requested. In addition, Stormwater will accept sumps where shown due to the temporary nature of these storm systems. Cover depth is now shown at all critical storm/street crossing locations. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/18/13: A profile for this pipe was not included on the plans and a detail for the pan is needed. The detail should show the pans placement in relation to the property line. 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Prior to hearing you provided me an exhibit that showed a pan along the west property line. This plan does not show that. How will the drainage work along this property line? Response 47: See sheet 50 for the storm pipe profile and sections A -A and B-B on grading sheets 12 and 14 that show the pan along the west property line in relation to the property line and storm pipe. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/18/13: There were some spot elevations shown on the drainage plans, but these were not shown on the grading plan. I couldn't read many of the spot elevations and the flowline arrows shown on the grading plans didn't always seem to correspond with the basin lines and spots I could read. Need to provide the spot information on the grading plans, including high point elevations so it is very clear where the grade break is located. 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - The pans in the parking lots need to be directed to the curb chases and spot elevations provided to show that the flow is going to go out that way. May also need slight high points in the drive so flow is properly directed to the chases in the minor storms. Response 48: Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently prior to printing. Spot elevations are now shown and high points are more clearly indicated on the grading plans. See sheets 12-18. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/18/13: The grading was not shown on the set I received. 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Need to show the grading that will occur in Blondel Street for the installation of the waterline in this street. Response 51: Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently prior to printing. Spot elevations are now shown and grading at Blondel Street is shown. See sheet 14 and sheet 32. Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Site plan -currently the bus shelter is shown being placed over the sidewalk area. Please make sure that the shelter is shown being placed so that the sidewalk area remains clear. Response 62: The bus shelter has been moved south of the ROW/property line ( see sheet 6 of the Site Plan set) and a Transit Easement provided on the plat. The revised plat includes language provided by Sheri. Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: The asphalt sidewalk tie in. Either angle the tie in or provide a cover plate for the entire length of the sidewalk chase. Right now the sidewalk leads everyone to curb drop. Response 63: The sidewalk tie-in is now angled and the cover plate has a note to extend all the way to the existing curb on Conifer. The site plan has been updated to reflect this change. See site plan sheet 5, and Utility Plan sheet 17. Sheri has approved this configuration via e-mail. Comment Number: 64 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: 1 will need to get the temporary sidewalk design you placed on the plans reviewed by Rick to determine if this design is okay or if the design will be determined at the time the design for the streets is determined. Response 64: A note has been added requiring that the contractor check with Sheri Langenburger at the City prior to constructing the temporary sidewalk, to confirm the acceptability of the interim design. Sheets 17 and 4 have been forwarded to Rick Richter for his review and comment as part of this submittal. Comment Number: 65 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: The plans are showing the installation of the waterline in New Vine being installed with this plan set. Is that what you are intending to do? The profile for the water line shows revised grading and additional fill being placed over this line, but your grading plans do not show that you are going to be changing the grade in this area. 4 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970.221.6339, sboyle(&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 04/21/2015: This comment appears not to have been addressed. Please revise plans accordingly or provide some reasoning why this comment is not being addressed. 03/09/2015: 02/11/2015: If, after revising the storm sewer layout per Comment 4, a sump condition exists as shown for MH510 in the existing design, please investigate the use of a sump and soft bottom instead of a concrete manhole base for this manhole in order to avoid long-term standing water in the manhole. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970.221.6339, sboyle a,-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 04/21/2015: The service configuration has been shown correctly however, with the realignment of the water main, the service line connection to the main is not being shown. Please revise the service line to show connection to the main and call out service length and size. 03/09/2015: Curb stop is now shown in the street with the meter pit inside the right-of-way. Please revise so the curb stop is directly behind the curb and gutter and the meter pit just behind the sidewalk. 02/11/2015: Please show meter pit and curb stop locations for the proposed irrigation service on Vine Drive. The curb stop should be within the Utility Easement with the meter pit located behind the easement. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/21/2015 04/21/2015: It is not clear from the plan and note on SHeet 10 how the cross, valve, and water line stub is being installed. please revise plan and note to help clarify what is going on here. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/21/2015 04/21/2015: Given the long length of 12" water main proposed in Suniga Road, it would be preferable to have an intermediate valve. Please add a 12" valve where appropriate close to the middle of the 1347' water main run. Comment Summarxfor Landsacap Plans: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970.221.6225, cmapes(ci)_fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/12/2015 02/12/2015: Several plant associations need adjustment in their placement and massing. For example, high plains plants like rabbitbrush should be in open areas with no trees, and some of the grasses are not substantial enough to be used as individual specimens - ricegrass and sideoats grama for example. I will follow up with email and phone discussion. Response 65: Per Roger Buffington, we are installing the waterline with New Vine with the offsite plans instead of the onsite plans since the waterline will be too deep in some locations and too shallow in others if installed at current grade. Comment Number: 66 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Plan/ Profile sheets - 1.Per standards the grade into an inlet is to be .5%. You have a couple of locations where you are showing grades greater than this. 2. Vertical curves are required for any grade break that is greater than .40%. There are several location where this is exceeded. 3. A vertical curve needs to be provided at all of the crest grade breaks. You are showing them along the centerline, but are not showing curves along the flowline profiles. 4. 1 couldn't tell where some of the grade breaks along the flowlines occurred, please make sure the grade break locations and elevations are labeled. Response 66: Grade Breaks are now clearly indicated, grades at inlets are at 0.5%, and vertical curves have been added at locations greater than 0.4%. Comment Number: 67 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: All the details I asked for were provided, but many of them are old versions. I noted the ones that need to be updated to current versions on the plans. Response 67. Current versions are now shown on the plans. Comment Number: 68 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Phasing Plans Sheet 65 indicated that the phasing was shown in color. I didn't get color plans, nor do we record color plans. A note on sheet 65 indicated that you are trying to set this up so that any phase can go first. Note sure how you are going to identify that and identify everything that will need to be constructed with each phase depending on which order they actually occur. I highlighted on each phase sheet what roadway and sidewalk improvements will need to be done with that phase as if that phase was going to be the first phase constructed. Please note that the SW phase requires the New Vine frontage along this phase to be constructed prior to issuance of any building permits in that phase. With the first phase the offsite asphalt sidewalk will need to be constructed and a sidewalk link to this from which ever phase it is that is first will need to be made. Response 68: The phasing plans have been revised per our August 6, 2013 meeting. Comment Number: 69 07/18/2013: See redlines. Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 Response 69: Noted, all redlines have been addressed on the plans, highlighted, and commentary included where deemed appropriate. 5 Comment Number: 70 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: As a reminder as was discussed in the phasing meeting that we had in which it was discussed that the NE phase would be the first phase that no building permits in any of the additional phases will be issued until the New Vine Drive and Redwood Street improvements are under construction. Response 70: This has been updated per our August 6, 2013 meeting, the developer has been copied on all meeting notes and emails from the meeting summary and phasing is now reflected on the plans and specific phasing requirements will be reflected in the development agreement. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, Iexgfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 07/17/2013: Staff is currently drafting the DA language for this issue and corresponding with the applicant on the final cost of the off -site mitigation. 04/23/2013: Off -site mitigation for the loss of wetlands and prairie dog habitat will be coordinated with the City's Natural Areas Department prior to signing of the development agreement. Please let me know when a good time is to set up a meeting to resolve this issue. It might be best for the City to take a stab at the first draft of the agreement, would that work for you? Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 26 05/03/2013: Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 Sheet ENV-1 of 1 the Tree Inventory: Response 26: The Tree Mitigation Plan (previously named ENV 1) has been added to the landscape plan set and is named (LS-16). The letters PL are stated to mean Plains cottonwood but in the schedule PC is used. Please address. Acronyms have been corrected (previous response). Response 26: Acronyms have been corrected. The Boxes with the numbers are a little confusing. I suggest the following boxes and totals. Total number of required mitigation trees 79 Total Plains Cottonwood Total Peachleaf Willow Trees retained Trees removed Table has been corrected, as suggested. (previous response) Response 26: The table has been corrected and simplified to show total tree mitigation with total trees retained and total trees removed broken out separately. The number of total tree mitigation 0 has been adjusted per subsequent field visits discussions due to disturbance to existing trees from proposed storm utilities to the proposed detention pond. The number of 79 has been increased to 142. Add note number 10. If any trees in Gove D, G and H are removed at a future date then the City Forester will determine if mitigation needs to be revaluated. City Forester must approve any tree removal in these groves. It appears a small grove of trees will be impacted by the Storm water detention construction. This is graphically depicted on the tree mitigation plan and shown on the aerial photography. Numbers of impacted trees have been indicated on the plan. (previous response) Response 26: The area of impact and nearby existing trees were surveyed and staked in the field. The project LA met with both Tim and Ralph in the field to review. It was decided by Ralph and Tim to proceed as described in Comment #37 below. Add the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G Tree protection specifications have been added to the Tree Mitigation Plan. (previous response) Response 26: Tree protection specifications have been added to the Tree Mitigation Plan. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Previous comment number 23 still needs to be addressed. (Original comment 23 follows below) (Comment 23:)Please set up an on -site meeting with the City Forester and a representative form the Engineering Department (Marc Virata) to review the Redwood Street and Vine Street Alignment impact on the cottonwood trees located by these proposed roadways. Forestry would like to confirm the actual location of the proposed road improvements by these trees. The trees that will be impacted along the new roadway alignment for Redwood Drive and New Vine will be surveyed to determine if any trees can be preserved as a result of construction. This will be submitted with the Off -site roadway construction plans under separate cover. For the time being, tree mitigation upsizing of on -site trees will be calculated as if the tree stands in question will be removed in their entirety. This will be re -visited prior to construction. (previous response) Response 30: After an initial on -site meeting with Time and Ralph, the trees in respect to the anticipated alignment of Redwood was surveyed and staked in the field. The project LA met with both Ralph and Tim on a subsequent site visit to review the relationship of existing trees with future road alignment. It was a decided that by both Tim and Ralph that the trees would be mitigated as if they are all being removed. And, a note was added to the plans to have the final alignment of the road and tree surveyed and reviewed again by the City to determine if any trees could be saved prior to construction. Comment Number: 31 05/03/2013: Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 Provide planting detail for trees and shrubs in the detention pond area just off the border of the project. Include a water basin around trees and shrubs. Response 31: The evergreen tree, deciduous tree and shrub details have been revised to include a water basin for plants in non -irrigated, seeded areas. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: 7 Further define the maintenance responsibility of landscaping outside the limits of development. This includes trees and shrubs in the detention pond, surface maintenance of the detention pond, surface maintenance of parkways and landscaping in the median. Contact Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks, and Hank Richardson, Storm Water Utility, to obtain further definition if the City will take over maintenance of these areas and if so what their process would be for source of water, irrigation plan approval, establishment maintenance period and acceptance maintenance. Include appropriate notes to define the information and decisions provided by these two staff City Staff members. Response 33: E-mails were sent to Bill Whirty and Hank Richardson. The result is as follows: 1. Maintenance of all on -site landscape, including the tree lawns along Vine Drive and Redwood Drive will be provided by the developer. 2. Maintenance of the Landscape median will be provided by the City of Fort Collins Parks Department. (Note, a detailed landscape plan for this under separate cover related to the "off -site" development plan - to be reviewed and approved with the completion of the CLOMR now in progress.) 3. Any landscape shrubs and trees, shown within the NECCO - City -owned detention pond have been removed, and placed within the property limits of the Aspen Heights development, and will be maintained by the Developer. Comment Number: 34 05/03/2013: Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 The median landscape design needs to be coordinated with Pet Wray of the Planning Department for review and approval. Design should be to City Streetscape and Median standards. Response Number 34: The median landscape plan will be submitted with a future development plan - along with the approval of the CLOMR and construction documents for Redwood Drive and Future Vine Drive. This has been discussed and approved by staff. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: Revise note about canopy height on street trees in sight distance areas to say....... Trees to be maintained to achieve a 6 foot high canopy. Response 35: All (5) notes on sheets LS-5, LS-6, LS-7, LS-8 AND LS-10 have been updated per the language provided above. Comment Number: 36 07/26/2013: Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 There are 2 Texas Red Oak at the NW corner of Lupine and Blue spruce on Blue Spruce. They are labeled as 1 tree but there are 2. Response 36: The trees in question have been corrected. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 0 07/26/2013: Increase the number of mitigation trees for the additional impact to trees from the drainage work in and by Groves € D and G. Increased mitigation can be calculated as a percentage of grove removed multiplied by the total number of mitigation trees for each of these groves. Response 37(a): The mitigation tree quantities have been increased based on the suggested method. The percentage of stand "D" estimated to be disturbed is 81.3%. A total of 63 additional trees have been upsized. The additional upsized trees are reflected on the landscape plans and in the plant list. Stake construction impact areas from these drainage channels 10 feet from edge of disturbance and coordinate an on -site meeting with the City Forester so the increased tree mitigation impact can be verified. Response 37(b): Construction impact areas were surveyed and staked in the field. The stake locations were reviewed with the project LA, Tim Buchanan and Ralph Zentz. Add a note on the plans by the drainage channel impact to groves € D and G.... Prior to removal of any trees in Groves € D and G stake location of edge of disturbance and review with the City Forester to confirm which edge of construction trees can be retained or should removed. Response 37(c): The requested note was added to the Tree Mitigation Plan for tree stands "D" and „G„ Comment Number: 38 07/26/2013: Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 Add this note to the plans by the tree groves that will be impacted by the New Vine and Redwood. This includes tree groves A, B and C. Retain all trees in Groves A, B and C until time of road construction of the New Vine and Redwood. Prior to road construction trees in Goves A, B and C to be reviewed and evaluated by the City Forester to verify need for removal and to evaluate the location and condition of select trees for possible retention. Response 38: The requested note (above) was added to the Tree Mitigation Plan. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: Please revise Note number 5 on sheet ENV-1: All mitigation trees will be planted as part of phase one as shown on the landscape plan for the project. In some locations new street trees will be installed that are larger than the minimum to meet mitigation quantities. All street trees in sight distance triangles to be 3 inch caliper. Response 39: Note #5 was updated to indicate that mitigation trees will be planted in phase one (a.k.a. on -site phase). Please note that 'phase one' is comprised of multiple phases, all of which are M to be considered at on -site phases. Tree mitigation trees associated with each of these separate phases will be installed with their corresponding phase. See sheet LS-15 for the 'phase one' sub -phases. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: The 4 street trees on Blue Spruce just north of the New Vine are not labeled as to species. Response 40: The (4) trees have been labeled with species identified. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: Please show the American plum along the project perimeter to the detention pond with a smaller symbol in relation to the cottonwoods. Both cottonwood and American plum are shown as the same size symbol. Response 41: The symbols have been adjusted to reflect their respective plant sizes. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: Consult with the storm water utility to confirm that the Pinion Pine can be planted in the drainage channel without causing any functional problems to this facility. Response 42: Project LA consulted with Glen Schlueter and Jesse Schlam. Per a discussion with Glen, the trees have been moved above high water, which is approximately 3.5' from the bottom in the north drainage channel and 2.5' from the bottom in the south drainage channel. Comment Number: 43 07/26/2013: Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 Due to recent low availability of Texas Red Oak reduce the number of this species used as a street tree by one half on phase one areas. Consider using Front Yard American Linden for half of the Texas Red Oak used as a street trees in phase 1. Response 43: The Texas Red oaks have been reduced by over 50% on the landscape plans. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/05/2013 07/12/2013: 04/05/2013: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements to the clubhouse with Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700. Response 5: Noted. Permit plans have been submitted to the Building Department. This includes power requirements for the clubhouse. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/05/2013 10 07/12/2013: 04/05/2013: After the plan is finalized, an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) of the site plan needs to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOXC FCGOV.COM. Response 6: Noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013 07/12/2013: There are many locations (too numerous to mention here) where water or sewer lines need to be relocated to provide for installation of electric power facilities. The owner, developer, and their engineer were informed of these via email on July 8, 2013. Response 6: Noted, conflicts have been addressed and water/sewer services were moved as discussed in our July 16, 2013 meeting, and as shown in the redlines provided by Doug Martine. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013 07/12/2013: The utility plan shows a separate electric service to each dwelling unit. While this is possible, it doesn't seem logical. I suggest a meeting to include the owner/developer, their engineer, a representative from Building Inspection (Mike Gebo?) and Llght & Power Engineering (Doug Martine) to discuss this. Response 8: Electric services have been combined as recommended and the plans now reflect this. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, Jynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: FYI ONLY - Response to comment no. 5 (originated 01/05/2012): The HMIA pertaining to pool chemistry, storage of pesticides, etc. may be supplied at time of building permit. Response 10: Noted, thank you. Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: RESIDENTIAL WATER SUPPLY Further review of hydrant placement and possible infill along Conifer and Redwood Streets is required. It may be necessary to add a hydrant at the corner of Redwood and Lupine and another to Conifer Street between Redwood and Blue Spruce. A site plan detailing all locations of proposed hydrant and along with existing hydrants which surrounding the development is requested. Response 02: Please see sheet 19 for a site plan that shows existing and proposed hydrant locations as well as fire access on the private drives. Note that the private drives are within access easements. 2 additional hydrants have been added as suggested. 11 Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07124/2013: SECONDARY ACCESS PFA was not routed on the last round of reviews and I haven't seen the most current plan revisions. However, at the 7-24-13 Staff Review meeting, it appeared that prior PFA comments remain active with one comment to add concerning secondary fire access. The restrictions placed on the build out of Onsite Phase 4 require the prior completion of new Vine, which eliminates a need for a temporary access. While final connectivity to future New Vine Drive is to be delayed, a means of secondary access into the SW portion of the development site must still be resolved. Several options have been discussed to allow temporary fire access until New Vine Drive is built, however the PFA will need an access plan to be detailed on the plan set before the project can be approved. Response 03: Please see sheet 19 for a site plan that shows existing and proposed hydrant locations as well as fire access on the private drives. Note that the private drives are within access easements. The temporary fire access for the southwest portion is no longer needed since Vine drive will be constructed along with the southwest portion of the site. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, -ischlamPfcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/16/2013 04/16/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please resubmit Erosion Control Plan corrected with redlines. Please submit and Erosion Control Report, and Please submit 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 @ jschlamC fcgov.com Response 1: The Escrow was included in the drainage report previously submitted. All comments on the Erosion Control Plan have been revised. A separate Erosion Control Report (aka Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)) has been submitted for your review as discussed offline. In addition, we have addressed the following areas of concern: a) The silt fence on Conifer has been extended on the other side of the VTC. b) There will be drainage coming off the west side of the site but the inlet protection will capture any sediment and it is our professional opinion that a silt fence is not necessary on the west side of the site since the west property will not be disturbed. The future developer will install a silt fence when they develop their property. c) The main channel is generally very flat at approximately 0.10% slope. In addition, note the rip -rap has been installed in many parts of the channel. d) The Erosion Control Plan and Detail Sheet will be included with the Erosion Control Report 12 (SWMP) e) Wattles have been added around the outlet structure (WO). 0 A sequence chart has been added to the erosion control plan. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarqueO Cgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01 /2013: 1. Please address all the red -lined comments on the Plat, Site Plan, Construction Drawings and Drainage Report. 2. As was noted in the previous review, parts of Redwood Street and new Vine Drive are located in the Dry Creek floodway. The street improvements, installation of utilities, landscaping, etc. proposed for construction within that floodway cannot occur until a CLOMR has been approved by FEMA. The plans for this development cannot be approved until the CLOMR process has been completed. Response 2: All redlines comments have been addressed. Noted that plans for Vine and Redwood (separate plan set to be submitted at a later date) will not be approved until the CLOMR is approved. Comment Number: 9 07/23/2013: Comment Originated: 07/23/2013 1.On Sheet 4 of the Plat, please use different line types for the floodway and floodplain boundaries. The Plat, Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Utility drawings all now show different line types for the floodway and the floodplain. 2. The previous comments in the Drainage Report still need to be resolved. Those comments are attached to the latest Drainage Report. Please resolve the attached comments in addition to any and all new comments. Response 9.2: All redlines comments have been addressed. 3.On Sheet 5 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please use different line types for the floodway and floodplain boundaries, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary, and add a note: Refer to Drainage Plan for Floodplain Information. Response 9.3: A different line type has been used for the floodplain boundaries, additional portions have been added, and a note has been added to refer to the drainage plan for floodplain information. 4.On Sheet 6 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please use different line types for the floodway and floodplain boundaries, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary, include XS numbers and elevations (in NAVD88 and NGVD29) for all cross sections, and include elevations (again in NAVD88 and NGVD29) for each BFE. Response 9.4: A different line type has been used for the floodplain boundaries. Note that only NAVD88 and NGVD29 elevations were available for the floodway contours themselves per the FIRM Panel. We were unable to locate elevations for FEMA sections AI -AM as they are not shown on the 13 FIRM or City floodplain maps. 5.On Sheet 11 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please add the same floodplain notes already included on Sheet 6 of 69, and use different line types for the floodway and floodplain boundaries, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary, include XS numbers and elevations (in NAVD88 and NGVD29) for all cross sections, and include elevations (again in NAVD88 and NGVD29) for each BFE.- Response 9.5: A different line type has been used for the floodplain boundaries. Note that only NAVD88 and NGVD29 elevations were available for the floodway contours themselves per the FIRM Panel. We were unable to locate elevations for FEMA sections AI -AM as they are not shown on the FIRM or City floodplain maps. 6.On Sheet 16 of 69 of the Utility Plans , add a note: Refer to Drainage Plan for Floodplain Information, and make the floodplain boundary more distinct and label it. Response 9.6: A note has been added to refer to the drainage plan for floodplain information and floodplain information is shown clearly. See sheet 20. 7.On Sheet 18 of 69 of the Utility Plans, please use different line types for the floodway and floodplain boundaries, and add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary, 8.On Sheet 48 of 69 of the Utility Plans , label the southern boundary of the flood way, and add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary. 9.On Sheet 49 of 69 of the Utility Plans, label the southern boundary of the flood way, and add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary. 10.On Sheet 65 of 69 of the Utility Plans, add the missing portion of the floodplain boundary. Response 9.7-9.9: The floodplain information and floodplain information is shown clearly per redline comments. 11. Sheet 15 of the Site Plan is missing from the submittal packet. Response 11: Sheet 15 is provided. 12.On Sheets 2,3,4,12,13,14, and 15 of the Site Plan, please show the "FEMA 100-year Floodplain" boundary and "FEMA 100-year F000dway" boundary and label each of them. Include the line -types in a legend and make them distinct so they don't blend in with contours, property lines, etc. Response 12: The FEMA 100 year floodway boundary and the FEMA 100 year floodway are now shown with different line weights and labeled as requested. 13. In addition to the above comments, please make all other changes shown on the Plat, Site Plan, Drainage Report and Utility Drawings. Response 13: All redline changes and comment changes have been addressed. 14 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 02/12/2015: The sizes indicated for perennials and grasses on the plant list are not realistic. It's probably just an oversight regarding listing them as 1 gallon containers. I also would like to discuss several of the plants, which I think will be highly experimental in this median setting - for example, lavender and sand love grass. Others may not be appropriate but I would like to discuss - for example the mahonia, which would look very tattered for much of the year, and the hawthoms, which have a horizontal branching that I don't think can fit in the 7-foot wide median. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tuchanan Ofcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Originated: 02/12/2015 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/10/2015 03/10/2015: Evaluate adding a group of canopy shade trees in the median on sheet L 4.0 to the east of the juniper trees that are shown. The median is wide at this location and could accommodate a group of shade trees in this area. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/10/2015 03/10/2015: Please add Bullet Gall Resistant to the plant list on L 10.0 just after the name Bur Oak. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/10/2015 03/10/2015: Please label parkway surface as irrigated lawn or provide an acceptable alternative design for the surface. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/10/2015 03/10/2015: The ornamental trees labeled SRI and MB appear to not be listed in the plant list on sheet 1-10.0. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/10/2015 03/10/2015: Thank you for adding the notes under the heading Inspections and warrantee. Review for fine editing. Note letter C should clarify that the inspection is after the completion of the installation and not the two year maintenance period. The heading to these notes has sheet L 10.0 which can be removed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/10/2015 03/10/2015: Add Street tree notes to the title that is currently labeled Tree Notes and delete sheet L 10.0 from the title. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/10/2015 03/10/2015: Add to the Notes and specifications a description what the planting soil material will be in the medians. Specify what this quality soil material will be and that is to be placed in the medians to the described depth. On the cross sections label the area that will receive quality planting soil and reference the specifications that describe what it is. Review the specification for the median fill material with Steve Lukowski in the Parks Division and gain his approval on the median soil that is specified on the final plan. 14. Development review checklists for floodplain requirements can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents. Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans, drainage report, site plan, and utility drawings for submittal. Response 14: The floodplain checklist is included with the drainage report. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/24/2013: This to be included with the road plans. 05/01/2013: Repeat Comment. 01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is the responsibility of the Developer. Response 3: This analysis is being completed with the CLOMR analysis. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/24/2013: It is hard to read due to some line type and cluter issues. We can discuss best information to show on the grading plan and the drainage plan. 05/01/2013: More detail is needed on the grading plan to show these flows will actually flow north -south and not get caught between the two properties in low lying areas. 04/12/2012: All off -site drainage flowing onto the site needs to be direct through the site safely and per City's criteria. The western edge of the site looks like it needs more detail to determine if this will occur and if off -site easements are required. Response 6: Additional basins have been added to quantify this flow, please refer to the revised drainage plan and report. Also, please reference sections A -A and 8-8 on grading sheets 12 and 14. Please see sheet 50 for the storm plan and profile. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 07/24/2013: The grading plan does not have any spot elevations. The drainage plan has some. The grading plan should have all the spot elevations and the drainage plan should not. 05/01/2013: In general the grading plan needs to be more detailed to ensure proper construction. Suggest removing the drainage plan from the grading plan. The drainage basin lines are thick and interfere with grading info. Response 7. Sorry, the spot elevations were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently prior to printing. Spot elevations are now shown and grading is more clearly indicated on the grading plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Please label the contours on the grading plan. 15 Response 10: Sorry, the contour labels were complete but the layer was turned off inadvertently prior to printing. Contour elevations are now shown and grading is more clearly indicated on the grading plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: A building permit and structural design is required for any retaining walls 4 feet or higher. This is measured from top of wall to bottom of footer. It looks like some of the walls will qualify for a permit. Please add a note on the grading plan and site plan that a building permit is required and specify which walls require this. Response 11: Noted, a note has been added to the grading plans." All retaining walls 4' or higher will require a building permit." Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07124/2013 07/24/2013: Please specify when the grading for the pool is to be completed. This can be with a note on the plans stating that a grading plan is required with the pool building permit. Response 12: Noted, a note has been added to the grading plans to provide a grading plan for the pool with the pool building permit. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Please submit as soon as possible a cost estimate for the NECCO regional drainage improvements that are to be built with this project. Once this is submitted, preparation can begin on a cost -reimbursement program. Response 12: The cost estimate has been submitted offline directly to Glen Schleuter. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: The storm sewers have slopes less than our minimums. Response 14: Noted, due to the flat nature of the site, we were unable to steepen many storm sewers and still maintain cover and positive drainage. We have tried to provide a minimum of,25% slopes where possible. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Coordination is needed between City Engineering and Stormwater Staff to determine how to remove all proposed siphons for the storm sewer system. Response 15: Per our August 18, 2013 meeting with Engineering, Stormwater, and Utilities we understand that Stormwater will accept sumps where shown due to the temporary nature of these storm systems. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 0712612013 07/26/2013: In the culvert calculations, D50 should be 12 inches, not 6 inches. Response 16: Riprap calculations have been revised and a D50 of 12 inches minimum has been 16 used and is reflected on the plans. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: It appears the tail water assumptions are not correct in some of the culvert calculations. Response 17. Riprap calculations have been revised as the previous culvert calculations were only utilized to determine riprap sizes. Revised Riprap calculations are now included in the report. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/26/2013 07/26/2013: For the SWMM model, please provide the following input data: Initial storage impervious and pervious areas, Infiltration rate for pervious areas and decay rate, Node connectivity, Design storm used. Response 86: This information is now provided. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: Most of these have not been corrected. The line over text issues have been corrected per the redlines provided 05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: Please remove "floor plan" from the title of sheet A-41 in the index. There are no floor plans on that sheet. The "floor plan" reference has been removed. 05/06/2013: There are issues between the index on sheet A-1 and the actual sheet titles. See redlines. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: There are still text over text issues. See redlines. The line over text issues have been corrected per the redlines provided 05/06/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheets A-11 & A-23. See redlines. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: There is cut off text on sheet A-30 Cut off text has been corrected on sheet A-30 05/06/2013: There is cut off text on sheets A-11 & A-13. See redlines. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please mask all text that is in hatching on sheet A-25. See redlines. The text on top of hatching has been corrected. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 07/25/2013 07/25/2013: There is random text that needs to be removed from sheets A-23 & A-34. See redlines. The random text has been removed from sheets A-23 and A-34 as shown in the redlines. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 07/25/2013: There are still line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. 17 05/07/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 07/25/2013: There are still text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. 05/07/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 07/25/2013: This has not been corrected. 05/07/2013: Please rotate the "elevation" text on sheets 17-42, to make it plan readable. See redlines. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 07/25/2013: There is still cut off text on sheet 40. See redlines. 05/07/2013: There is cut off text on sheets 27, 30 & 34. See redlines. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 07/25/2013 07/26/2013: Please make sure all sheet numbering is correct. There are several sheets with issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 07/25/2013 07/26/2013: See comment #45 about what will be done for the street name of New Vine Drive. Response 30-50: Noted. Every effort has been made to address line over text and text overlap issues. A final check will be made prior to Mylar submittal. Topic: General Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: NEW VINE STREET NAMING: We are aware that Ted Shepard is working to name "New Vine Drive", but this project will likely be filed before a name is selected. Therefore, we are instructing the Surveyor to add "New Vine" Drive (Final name to be determined by City Council by Resolution) for this street name. The Subdivision Plat is the document that controls the street names, and all other plans will need to be changed to match it. Response 30-50: Noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: See comment #45 about what will be done for the street name of New Vine Drive. 05/06/2013: Please label Future Vine Drive on sheet LS-2. Response 24: Comment #45 reviewed. Labeled as indicated on redlines. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: There are still issues that have not been addressed. 05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Response 26: We have made every effort to alleviate line over text. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 07/25/2013: These have not been provided. 05/07/2013: Are there lighting plans with this project? If so, we will need to review them. 18 Response 44: There will be no lighting plans, lighting photometric plans provided for this project, as comment responses have stated previously. All lighting will be either standard Street Lighting, per Doug Martine, which is shown on the Landscape Plan, Site Plan and Utility plans. Any other lights will be wall mounted, with "dark sky" rating. Light fixture cut sheets have been submitted to Ted Shepard with this submittal set. Please remove this comment as satisfied. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: The centerline that is parallel to Redwood Street is not labeled. See redlines. 05/06/2013: Please label the centerline of the PSCO gasline easement along Blue Spruce Drive on sheet 3. See redlines. Comment Number 5: The PRPA center line and 60' easement limits are shown and labeled on sheet 4 of the plat Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: Please rotate the marked curve data labels 180 degrees. See redlines. 05/06/2013: Please make sure that all text is plan readable. Comment Number 7: The curve data labels can't be rotated because it is an AutoCAD dynamic label, and AutoCAD creates these automatically. The program will not let the user over -ride a dynamic label. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: There is a leader missing on sheet 3 along Conifer Street. See redlines. 05/06/2013: Please make sure that all easements have bearings & distances, and are locatable. Comment Number 9: The surveyor noted that a "crows -feet" leader was placed at the monument. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Ted Shepard is working to name "New Vine Drive", but this project will likely be filed before a name is selected. Therefore, we need "New Vine" Drive (Final name to be determined by City Council by Resolution) to be put in place of the current name shown on the Plat. Comment Number 47: The "New Vine Drive" naming is shown on the plat as suggested. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: There are still line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. 05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Response 16: We have made every effort to alleviate line over text. Corrected redlines. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: This has not been addressed with all street names. 05/06/2013: Please spell out the street names on all sheets. See redlines. Response 17. Street names spelled out and redlines corrected for the site plan sheets. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 07/24/2013: This has not been addressed with all street names. 05/06/2013: Please make sure that the street names match the names on the Subdivision Plat. Response 1 S: Street names corrected along with redlines. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 f17 07/24/2013: We are aware that Ted Shepard is working to name the street, but this project will likely be filed before a name is selected. See comment #45 about what will be done for the street name of New Vine Drive, 05/06/2013: Please explain "New Vine TBY shown on sheets 4 & 12. See redlines. Response 20: "New Vine" Drive was corrected per the redlines on the site plan sheets. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Please remove the box around the Redwood Street text on sheet 15. See redlines. Response 45: The box was removed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 07/24/2013: NOTES have not been revised. Continue comment. 05/02/2013: Traffic S & PM NOTES; please revise all instances of City of Fort Collins Engineer to state City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. This is a permanent NOTES change. Please revise your NOTES file. Response 5: Sorry, we thought we had all of these. All instances found have been revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Sheet 53: Please remove unnecessary lines in the roadway (ELCO water, Gas, etc). Please make the new S & S information stand out on the plans. As shown the more distinct or bold lines are the utility lines, stationing data, and other erroneous data. Please remove all other information that is not relevant to the roadway signing and striping so the existing and new S & S information is the distinctive and contrasting information. Response 7: Noted, the S&S plans have been revised to clarify the signage and striping. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Sheet 53: Please revise the S & S labeling so it's not intermingled with other lines such as lot and building lines. Please minimize the line weight of the all data that isn't relevant to the roadway and Signing and Striping information. Response 8: Noted, the S&S plans have been revised to clarify the signage and striping. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07124/2013: Sheet 53: Please revise the R1-1 size to be 36" x 36" and include the street name sign with the R1-1. Response 9: We have revised the stop sign size. However, the street name signs are already located at the northwest corner of the intersection (now indicated). 20 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Sheet 53: The dimensions of the south approach of Blue Spruce at Conifer should provide a storage length of 50' and a taper (no decel needed) of 180'. With that said, please remove the left turn lane striping altogether. Typically here, there isn't striping on the Local Residential street. The flairing of the roadway as it approaches Conifer is fine and will allow for the minor right turns or thru vehicles to continue around the higher volume left turn traffic. The length of the Haired roadway should accomodate the above stated minimum storage and taper lengths though. LARRY: Check traffic report to find out what the recommendation is. Response 10: Noted, the turn lane and striping on Blue Spruce have been removed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Sheet 53 (and cross sections): What is all the shading indicating (shading between the curb and sidewalk)? I recognize at Redwood and Conifer that the shading indicates the sight distance easement. The other locations look to be inside of the street right-of-ways and therefore an easement for sight distance isn't needed. If it is related to signing and striping or a sight distance easement outside of the right-of-way, please remove the shading on sheet 23. We are showing the full sight triangle. Where the Sight triangle exists outside of the right of way, an easement is shown on the plat. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: Sheet 53: Please add to the end of NOTES 1, "Contractor to contact City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations staff prior to final installation of signs and pavement markings for layout approval." Response 12: This note has been added to Sheet 53 (now 54). Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: No S & S plans received for any of the other streets. When will those be provided? Response 13: S&S plans will be provided for Redwood & New Vine under a separate plan set that will be reviewed along with CLOMR (floodplain removal) approvals. Lupine and Blue Spruce signs are shown on sheet 27 through 31. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: It seems the provide S & S plan should cover Blue Spruce (BS) and not Conifer since everything about Conifer is existing and not changing. Blue Spruce is the new street and the BS & Conifer changes could still be shown. Maybe there are no additional signs or striping on Blue Spruce to show, but it seems unnecessary to show Conifer which is also not receiving any changes beyond the BS intersection. Show what the development team deems appropriate but do remove/minimize all information not important to the roadway S & S. Response 14: Please see sheets 27-30 for onsite, Lupine, Redwood, and Blue Spruce S&S. Sheet 54 shows S&S for Conifer. This is typically not how we would separate the S&S sheets but is how it turned out after removing Redwood and Vine S&S sheets from this plan set. We are showing Conifer and Redwood streets so that you know what the existing S&S is. 21 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Please remove all cross walk striping on internal streets (Site and Landscape Plans). Re!sNun,e 4: i i ie �� u�� uvaif� sib iNiny u� � i �ieri`iai �ii eei� (�iie ar�u Lanu��aNe rlau�) have been removed. This striping was requested by Ted Shepard. It is understood that the two departments are in agreement with this step. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 07/23/2013: Repeat comment. This still needs to be addressed. 04/30/2013: Align the water mains to stay within the drives and a minimum of 5 feet from the curbs wherever possible. Response 3: Sorry, we missed a couple of locations as you redlined. These locations have been corrected to be a minimum of 5 feet off the curbs. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 07/23/2013: Repeat comment. 04/30/2013: Show curb stop and meter pit locations, and label water service sizes. Response 5: Curb stops and meter pit symbols are shown on all water services. All water services will be Y4" unless noted otherwise. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 07/23/2013: Repeat comment. A couple have been missed and some are labeled concrete encasement. 04/30/2013: Add steel casings where the water and sewer mains cross under storm drains 24" or larger. Label the diameter and thickness of the casings. Where applicable, move fittings out of casing area. Response 7. Noted, these locations have been corrected as requested. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 07/23/2013: Repeat comment. Show 24" ELCO water main in the profile of the 8" water main at Conifer and Blue Spruce. 04/30/2013: Pothole 24" ELCO water main and show in profile on 18. Response 8: The 24" ELCO water main is shown along with a note to pothole locate the water main prior to trench excavation. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 22 07/2312013: repeat comment. This needs additional work. 04/30/2013: At point where sanitary crosses under (or at bottom of) drainage channel, provide details showing how sanitary will be protected from scour and from freezing. Response 9: Please see the enlarged crossing detail on sheet 45. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 07/23/2013: Repeat comments. Show ALL water sanitary and/or storm crossings in ALL pipeline profile drawings. 04/30/2013: Show ALL water main and sanitary sewer crossings on the storm drain profiles. Response 10: Noted, missing crossings have been added to all profiles. Comment Number: 13 07/23/2013: Repeat comment. 05/02/2013: Show/label all irrigation taps. Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 Response 13: These were shown but have now been clarified. Note that there are only two irrigation taps - one for the east half and one for the west half of the site. One is located just southwest of the intersection of Lupine Drive and the main channel on Sheet 21 and the other is just south of the clubhouse on Sheet 22. Both are 2" services and are labeled as such. Comment Number: 14 07/23/2013: Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 05/02/2013: Now that water/sewer services and underground electric/communication lines are shown, it is strongly suggested that a utility coordination meeting be scheduled to work out potential conflicts. At present, it appears that there will likely be conflicts between meter pits and the underground electric/communication facilities and what appears to be gas mains. Response 14: The utility coordination meeting was held on May 15, 2013. Since then, the Aspen Heights design team has coordinated with all impacted utilities both online and in meetings and we confident that we have a buildable plan set with conflicts minimized or eliminated. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 07/23/2013: Repeat comment. Easements shown are inconsistent. In some locations, easements end at the back of parking which leaves no place for the curb stops and meter pits. In other locations, easements extend to the buildings. 05/02/2013: Meter pits cannot be installed in drive or parking areas. In some places, there does not appear to be adequate easement and space for the curb stops and meter pits. Response 15: Noted. Easements have been enlarged to provide space for curb stops and meter pits a minimum of 4' behind the back of curbs. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013 07/23/2013: The water main and sanitary sewer on Lupine at the crossing of the channel are not 23 adequately protected between the proposed storm drains. More work needed on this. Response 16: Please see the enlarged crossing detail on sheet 45. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013 07/23/2013: See redlined utility plans for additional comments. Response 17: All redlines have been addressed, thank you. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013 07/23/2013: Schedule meeting to review plans and comments in detail and to discuss possible solutions to various problems noted. Response 18: Meetings were held on July 6 and July 14 to vrork out various problems rioted. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013 07/23/2013: Please return redlined utility plans with next submittal. Response 19: Noted, redlines will be returned. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/15/2013 07/24/2013: Since the screening is proposed to be accomplished by landscaping, a note should be added stating that "The adequacy of the landscape screening for the mechanical/utility equipment will be field verified by City staff, and will need to be upgraded by the developer if found to be insufficient". Response Number 5: This note was added to the Landscape Plan on LS-2, per your request. 04/15/2013: Mechanical/utility equipment locations should be identified on the plans with notes on how such equipment will be screened. Note: A Landscape Phasing Plan is included with this plan set, as discussed with Staff (Noah Beals) This phasing plan is intended to show the landscape requirements for issuance of bulding certificate of occupancy. The Developer shall install landscape as shown or provide a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 24 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounlyOfcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 03/10/2015: There are still problems. See redlines. 02/04/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up on all sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/11/2015 03/11/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/11/2015 03/11/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. DATE: 7/18/13 PROJECT: Aspen Heights — student housing LOCATION: SW corner of Conifer and Redwood APPLICANT: Breckenridge Properties CONTACT INFO: Deanne Frederickson 970-674-3323 deanne@tfgcolorado.com ENGINEER: Sheri Langenberger PLANNER: Ted Shepard Round 3 — Second round of final Round 2 comments in red Round 3 comments in green Site plan — currently the bus shelter is shown being placed over the sidewalk area. Please make sure that the shelter is shown being placed so that the sidewalk area remains clear. I will include language in the Development Agreement regarding the portion of Vine Drive and Lupine Street adjacent to the site that cannot be completed at this time. New Vine Drive - Need to show the underdrain for the median in New Vine Drive and how it ties into the drainage system or the pond. Street Plans - Need to provide curb return profiles. This information can be provided on the street intersection details or.can be provide on the profile sheets. Street Plans - Need intersection details. Return comments indicated that spot elevations and slopes were provided on the grading plans. The spot elevations were not shown. Typically this information is not provided on a grading plan since it will be very difficult to provide all the spot elevation information at that scale. If this information is provided on the grading plans and we get it to work — a note will need to be placed on the plan profile sheets to see grading plans for intersection detail information. Street Plans - Are the stationing information at the driveways the centerline station of the driveways? Need to identify the driveway widths. You have indicated the driveway width at its narrowest point, please also provide a note on these three sheets that indicates what the driveway width from flowline to back of sidewalk is. Street Plans - Need striping plans. Review of the striping plans is done by Traffic Operations, so please check with them regarding comments. Utility Plans - The utility plans are showing a UGE/COMM line. Is this a private line or a public utility? If private it needs to be sleeved under the row, meet minimum cover requirements (profile), and a revocable permit will be needed prior to construction of this line. If they are public (Comcast, Xcel...) then the franchised utility knows what is required. Utility Plans - Standards require that a minimum of 3 feet of cover be provided from the top of pipes to the top of asphalt for lines within and crossing public streets. Many of the stormpipes shown so far do not meet this requirement. Mayneed to use multiple pipes, elliptical pipes, raise road grades, lowerzeco storm thgradesv er overeveraloftbe storm pipes combination 10A In regards to the variance request regarding variance will most likely be granted for the cover over the NECCO pipes on Lupine provide that the street area over the pipes and the adajacent inlets is done in concrete. I have shown the area to be in concrete on the plans (stone profile sheet). See my notes on this sheet. We do want to know what the final cover amount (what is the minimum cover amount at the lowest cover point) will be once the profiles are finalized. At the intersection of Blue Spruce and New Vine Drive a variance request will be granted for cover over this pipe provided that concrete is provided from the cross pan to a point past the pipe as I have shown on the plans. The variance request for the uiterun storm pipe in redwood the variance is grated on the basis that at such time as the ultimate improvements are constructed that the portion of the pipe system that does not meet minimum cover is removed at that time. I have not talked to Stormwater about this but will do so. Grading sheets - Prior to hearing you provided me an exhibit that showed a pan along the west property line. This plan does not show that. How will the drainage work along this property line? A profile for this pipe was not included on the plans and a detail for the pan is needed. The detail should show the pans placement in relation to the property line. Grading sheets - The pans in the parking lots need to be directed to the curb chases and spot elevations provided to show that the flow is going to go out that way. May also need slight high points in the drive so flow is properly directed to the chases in the minor storms. There were some spot elevations shown on the drainage plans, but these were not shown on the grading plan. I couldn't read many of the spot elevations and the flowl ne arrows shown on the grading plans didn't always seem to correspond with the basin lines and spots I could read. Need to provide the spot information on the grading plans, including high point elevations so it is very clear where the grade break is located. Grading sheets - Need to show the grading that will occur in Blondel Street for the installation of the waterline in this street. The grading was not shown on the set I received. The asphalt sidewalk tie in. Either angle the tie in or provide a cover plate for the entire length of the sidewalk chase. Right now the sidewalk leads everyone to curb drop. I will need to get the temporary sidewalk design you placed on the plans reviewed by Rick to determine if this design is okay or if the design will be determined at the time the design for the streets is determined. The plans are showing the installation of the waterline in New Vine being installed with this plan set. ' Is that what you are intending to do? The profile for the water line shows revised grading and additional fill being placed over this line, but your grading plans do not show that you are going to be changing the grade in this area. Plan/ Profile sheets — inlet is to be .5%. You have a couple of locations where 1.Per standards the grade into an you are showing grades greater than this. 2. Vertical curves are required for any grade break that is greater than .40%. There are several location where this is exceeded. 3. A vertical curve needs to be provided at all of the crest grade breaks. You are showing them along the centerline, but are not showing curves along the flowline profiles. 4. I couldn't tell where some of the grade breaks along the flowlines occurredlease , p make sure the grade break locations and elevations are labeled. All the details I asked for were provided, but many of theirs are old versions. I noted the ones that need to be updated to current versions on the plans. Phasing Plans Sheet 65 indicated that the phasing was shown in color. I didn't get color plans, nor do we record color plans. A note on sheet 65 indicated that you are trying to set this up y that any phase can go first. Note sure how you are going to identify that and identify everything that will need to be constructed with each phase depending on which order they actually occur. I highlighted on each phase sheet what roadway and sidewalk improvements will need to be done with that phase as if that phase was going to be the first phase constructed. Please note that the SW phase requires the New Vine frontage along this phase to be constructed prior to issuance of any building permits in that phase. With the first phase the offsite asphalt sidewalk will need to be constructed and a sidewalk link to this from which ever phase it is that is first will need to be made. See redlines. As a -reminder as was discussed in the phasing meeting that we had in which it was discussed that the NE phase would be the first phase that no building permits in any of the additional phases will be issued until the New Vine Drive and Redwood Street improvements are under construction. Items to be addressed with 2nd final plan set — 04/10/12 As indicated in response letter tlus New Vine name can remain on the plans for the time being and will just need to be updated prior to final approval with what ever name has been determined before that time. 1/15/12 The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. New Vine Drive — Need to show the underdrain for the median in New Vine Drive and how it ties into the drainage system or the pond. Redwood - Need more information provided on the grades and profiles that are being tied into. Redwood - The plans are showing a low point north of New Vine and no inlets are shown at this time. New Vine Drive - Need to provide the 1000 ft off -site design at each end or if your design ties into the 30% design plans include those sheet(s) in this plan set. New Vine Drive - What station is the property line? New Vine Drive - what station is the end of the work and how will the grades tie into existing grades? Both ends. Are you proposing a temporary curb edge at the east end? New Vine Drive - The curve information is different than the prior plan? New Vine Drive - I am guessing that the median curb design will be the double curb. A detail for this will need to be provided. New Vine Drive - Need profiles of the median edges. New Vine Drive - Need infonnation on turn lanes, bay lengths, transition lengths. New Vine Drive - Need turning templates to show that the median noses don't extend into the travel paths. This can be exhibits and don't need to be on these plans. New Vine Drive - Need to design and provide for pedestrian refuge noses. New Vine Drive - The station information has not been provided you a doing profiles. Are you planning on doing flowline stationing or centerline? stationing you will need to show and use station equations. Utility Plans - Need to show an irrigation service to the median for the landscaping. Grading sheets - Need to show the sidewalk on the south side of Vine St that needs to be installed as per the URA agreement. Grading sheets - Need a grading sheet for the south portion of Redwood Drive. le in the NW Grading sheets -The last set of plans showed his pole and theopad that hod it rnWhat are the er of New Vine and Redwood Street. How big is p power companies restrictions for grading around these location. xcvating How does the em9 Not sure that the storm pipe can be in that close to p ole impact the sidewalk and ramp grades. Grading sheets - Showing a storm pipe extending past the Redwood Street row going into the property to the east. If this is to be built with this project than an easement for this construction is needed. TFreJeric6on 'wnow r GrouJovP.:.. July 3, 2013 Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department Development Review Center 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, FDP130010, Round Number 1 We offer the following responses to staff comments dated May 9, 2013. Consultant responses are noted in BLUE. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard(a)-fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: On the plat, please not that from a street -naming protocol, the suffix for both Steamboat and Copper Mountain should be "Lane," not "Street." Names have been corrected on the plat, landscape and site plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: Please label the bus stop on all sheets, both Site Plan and Landscape Plan. Bus Stop has been labeled on the Site Plan and Landscape Plan. A detail for the shelter is shown on sheet 6 of the Site Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: Staff looks forward to working with the design team on the details of the bus stop. As stated in a previous comment, the developer has the opportunity to create an identity for the project by customizing the bus stop in a way that reflects the clubhouse. Regarding the timing of installation of the bus stop, please add the following note: "Developer shall install the bus stop per the standards of transfort prior to issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy for the clubhouse. Bus Stop has been labeled on the Site Plan and Landscape Plan. A detail for the shelter is shown on sheet 6 of the Site Plan. The above note has been added to sheet 1 as requested. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: The Vail B is listed as a single family detached but appears from the elevation as a two-family. (There are two "A-22" sheets, looks like one should be "A-23).) The "Vail B" is a 4- bedroom, single-family detached. The elevation has been corrected, as has the page numbering and Index to Drawings. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: Be sure that bike racks do not interfere with landscaping. So noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: Staff will advise as to how best to label "New Vine" on the final documents. Please do not label it as "Pinon" as the name must be selected from an approved list and by City Council. "Pinon" is not on this list nor has it been selected by City Council. So noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: There is a typo on the cover sheet of the Site Plan. The correct Land Use Code citation for the parking table is Section 3.2.2(K)(1). Corrected Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: There are some trash enclosures that are not labeled on sheets 9 and 10 of the Site Plan. The enclosures are labeled. Enclosures outside of the match lines are only labeled on its respective sheet (not in the overlaps). Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Plat - I would imagine that the power company that has the major power line easement across the edge of the property will need to sign the plat. Signature blocks for Poudre Valley REA, and for Excel Energy have been added to the plat. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: See redlines on plat. Redlines have been addressed and returned for your review. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Site and Landscape plans - The off -site sidewalk is shown as asphalt on the site plan and concrete on the landscape plans and it is not currently called out on the utility plans. It can be asphalt, just make sure all the notes match. Please see sheet 97 of the Grading Plans for the offsite sidewalk connection detail. The alignment is shown on the Site Plan, Page 5. The sidewalk will be a temporary attached asphalt sidewalk that will be replaced with detached concrete sidewalk when the adjacent property is developed. All plans are labeled "asphalt". Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Site and Landscape plans - Need to show the power poles on these plans. Redwood power poles are shown on the landscape and site plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Site and Landscape plans - On the overall site plan, need to somehow clarify what portion of New Vine is being built and what portion is future. The phasing plan (Landscape sheet 2, and 65-68 on the Civil Set) shows the frontage of Vine from the flow -line back, on either side of Blue Spruce included in the SW phase of the project. All other Vine construction is shown as future on all plan sets. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Site and Landscape plans - Please show the new property line as the back of sidewalk along Conifer and Redwood since that is where it will be once the plat is filed and the sidewalk is built. The property line is shown back of sidewalk, and reflects the most recent line work submitted for the plat. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Site and Landscape plans - You will need to discuss the proposed pedestrian crossings of Lupine with Traffic Operations as they have criteria for when and where they are allowed and when they can be striped to determine if what you are proposing will work. There are no mid -block crossings along Lupine. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Site and Landscape plans - See additional comments on plans. Redlines have been addressed and returned for your review. 2 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: What plan sheet are you going to show the off -site sidewalk connection and design? 04/10/12 Need to show the full connection of this. Right now the plans show where it is to start, but do not yet show how it will tie into the existing walk along Jax. Please see sheet 17 of the Grading Plans for the offsite sidewalk connection detail. The alignment is shown on the Site Plan, Page 5. The sidewalk will be a temporary attached asphalt sidewalk that will be replaced with detached concrete sidewalk when the adjacent property is developed. All plans are labeled "asphalt". 1/15/12 A pedestrian connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off -site sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the ultimate location along this roadway. The City Capital project for North College Ave is underway and upon completion of that College Ave will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Need a cross section for Conifer Street showing the temporary sidewalk. A cross section is shown on sheet 17 of the Grading Plan. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: 1 will include language in the Development Agreement regarding the portion of Vine Drive and Lupine Street adjacent to the site that cannot be completed at this time. Noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: 04/10/12 As indicated in response letter this New Vine name can remain on the plans for the time being and will just need to be updated prior to final approval with what ever name has been determined before that time. Noted. New Vine Drive and Redwood Street will be on separate construction plans due to the CLOMR delays. 1/15/12 The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Due to the change in unit numbers (from the original submittal) and the addition of the club house the project owes an additional $638 for the PDP TDRF. A check for $638 is included with this submittal. 04/15/12 As requested, when the clubhouse is shown as part of these drawings the PDP fees for it will be determined and the credit applied to those fees. 1/15/12 Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - Need to show the underdrain for the median in New Vine Drive and how it ties into the drainage system or the pond. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need to provide curb return profiles. Curb return profiles are now provided on all street profile sheets. M Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need intersection details. Spot elevations and slopes have been added to the grading plan (30 scale) at all intersections. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Are the stationing information at the driveways the centerline station of the driveways? Need to identify the driveway widths. Driveway widths and centerline stations are now shown on the street profiles. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Need striping plans. Signing and striping plans are now included in the Utility Plans. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Street Plans - Minimum flow line grade in a sag curve shall be .5%. This needs to be shown and adjusted for several locations. Noted, flow line grades in sag curves are now a minimum of 0.5%. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Lupine - Need to show where the property line is and the improvements stop and how the grading will tie back into grade. Noted, Lupine will stop just short of the property line to so that all improvements and grading are onsite and offsite grading will not be required. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Lupine - Minimum flow line grade is .5% Noted, flow line grade in Lupine is now a minimum of 0.5%. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Redwood - Need more information provided on the grades and profiles that are being tied into. Noted, more information is now shown per your redlines Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Redwood - The plans are showing a low point north of New Vine and no inlets are shown at this time. Noted, this was from an older inlet. The low point is now removed. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - Need to provide the 1000 ft off -site design at each end or if your design ties into the 30% design plans include those sheet(s) in this plan set. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - What station is the property line? New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - What station is the end of the work and how will the grades tie into existing grades? Both ends. Are you proposing a temporary curb edge at the east end? New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - The curve information is different than the prior plan? New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 2 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - I am guessing that the median curb design will be the double curb. A detail for this will need to be provided. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - Need information on turn lanes, bay lengths, transition lengths. New Vine Drive - Need profiles of the median edges. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - Need turning templates to show that the median noses don't extend into the travel paths. This can be exhibits and don't need to be on these plans. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - Need to design and provide for pedestrian refuge noses. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: New Vine Drive - The station information has not been provided on these profiles. Are you planning on doing flowline stationing or centerline? If you are doing centerline stationing you will need to show and use station equations. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Detail 709 has been replaced with a more current design. The updated detail needs to be used. Detail 709 has been replaced with details City of Fort Collins Construction Details D-10 and D-108. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Additional details needed so far:1201, 1202, 1413,1601, 1607, 1606, and 2201. Median details will also be needed and those for the signing and striping. Additional details 1201, 120Z 1413, 1601, 1607, 1606, 2201, and signing and striping details have been added to the detail sheets. Median details will be included with the Vine Drive plan set, to be submitted under separate cover. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Need to show the street cuts that will be needed for the installation of the proposed utilities. Street cuts are now shown on the Utility Plans Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - The ramps at Conifer/ Blue Spruce and Lupine/ Redwood need to align with those across the street. Any conflicting utilities need to be moved to accommodate the ramps. The new ramps now line up with the existing ramp across the street. Notes have been added to relocate or adjust existing utilities. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Add the street cut note to all utility plan streets. It needs to be on all sheets showing street cuts. It is not adequate to have the note on the cover sheet. The street cut note has been added to all utility plan sheets. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - The utility plans are showing a UGE/COMM line. Is this a private line City Of F 6rt Collins /0, February 12, 201 f 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 RE: Aspen Heights Road Plans - Suniga Road (New Vine) and Redwood Street, RP150001, 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, Sheri Langenberger, at 970-221-6573 or slangenberger@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmaaesCaD-fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: FROM COMCAST, Don Kapperman, 567-0245: Currently have a fiber line in thte east side of Redwood that needs to be in an easement. Please verify fiber run. Would like to receive a revised plat, site plan and landscape plan. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-2214573, slangenberaerAftnov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The plans need to be named: Utility Plans for Suniga Road from Blue Spruce to Redwood Street and Redwood Street from Lupine to Cajeatan Street. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Greeley and NEWT will need to sign the utility plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need turning templates to show that the median noses don't extend into the travel paths or need to be adjusted. Many of our median noses are not symmetrical to accommodate the turning movements. This can be exhibits and don't need to be on these plans. For all lefts at these two intersections Suniga Road/ Blondel/ Blue Spruce and Suniga Road/ Redwood. Show WB-67 with min 4 feet between the opposing tracks. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: New Vine Drive needs to be changed to Suniga Road throughout the plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Redwood Drive is shown shifting to the west. I need information on this - curve and tangent information. Also some additional curve and radii information is needed, it is noted on this sheet. Page 1 of 10 or a public utility? If private it needs to be sleeved under the row, meet minimum cover requirements (profile), and a revocable permit will be needed prior to construction of this line. If they are public (Comcast, Xcel...) then the franchised utility knows what is required. S;vwvc,, di � jevvv aieuwy, i;lt- private internetlfiber optic lines and crossings are shown in the public street profiles. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Need to identify and label the bus stop improvements. Bus stop improvements are now labeled on the utility plans Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Need to show the corner of Redwood/Conifer and the improvements that are to be done here- ramps. The existing inlet - does it conflict with the ramps? The corners of Redwood & Conifer are now shown. The inlet and ramps do not conflict as the inlet is only a sin -le inlet and is shown actual size. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Are there ramps across from the ramps that need to be installed at Blue Spruce/Conifer, Redwood/Conifer, and Lupine/Redwood? If not then this project will need to install those as well. There are existing ramps across the street at all intersections except at the undeveloped parcel at the northeast corner of Conifer Street/Blue Spruce Drive. Since there is no sidewalk along the frontages of this property on both Conifer and Blue Spruce, it will be the responsibility of that developer to install sidewalk and ramps. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - The plans show constructing the stormpipes at the sw corner of the site all the way to the property line and the water line extending past the property line to the west. If these are to be constructed as shown easements will be needed for the off -site utilities and work. Otherwise the pipes will need to be shortened so that all excavation and work can be done within the property or row boundaries. The pipes are now shortened so that excavation work can be completed within property and row boundaries. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Need to show an irrigation service to the median for the landscaping. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Standards require that a minimum of 3 feet of cover be provided from the top of pipes to the top of asphalt for lines within and crossing public streets. Many of the stormpipes shown so far do not meet this requirement. May need to use multiple pipes, elliptical pipes, raise road grades, lower storm grades or a combination of these solutions. A request for modification of standard has been included with this submittal for your consideration. The situation has been remediated as much as possible; please consider this request Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Utility Plans - Need to clearly indicate what pipes are intended to be temporary. Temporary storm pipes as well as those that are for the future NECCO system are now labeled. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Need to show how the proposed grade lines tie into existing grade lines within the property boundaries and/or row or off -site easements will be needed. Grading is now shown to tie within property and row boundaries. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Prior to hearing you provided me an exhibit that showed a pan along the west property line. This plan does not show that. How will the drainage work along this property line? The pan is now shown and labeled. The pan will drain to via area inlets to storm drain and then into the interim detention pond. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - The pans in the parking lots need to be directed to the curb chases and spot elevations provided to show that the flow is going to go out that way. May also need slight high points in the drive so flow is properly directed to the chases in the minor storms. Spot elevations are now provided to show that the parking drains to the curb chases instead of across the driveway. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - At the north west corner of Lupine and Redwood — need to show the power pole and show how the grading can be done around the existing power pole. Also how does that impact the sidewalk and ramp grades. The grading around the power pole (now shown) will be within 6" of existing grade and the pole nor the sidewalk or ramps will not be impacted negatively since the power pole is outside the proposed sidewalk. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Will need the power easement owners signature on the sheets showing grades and improvements under the easement. Acknowledged, the Platte River Power Authority approval block is now included on the grading sheets. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Need to show the grading that will occur in Blondel Street for the installation of the waterline in this street The grading is now shown on Blondel over the water line. Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Need to show the sidewalk on the south side of Vine St that needs to be installed as per the URA agreement. New Vine comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Need a grading sheet for the south portion of Redwood Drive. Redwood comments will be addressed when the plan set is produced in coordination with the CLOMR. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - The last set of plans showed a power pole in the NW corner of New Vine and Redwood Street. How big is this pole and the pad that holds it. What are the power companies restrictions for grading around these and excavating around them? Not sure that the storm pipe can be in that close to the pole location. How does the pole impact the sidewalk and ramp grades. The power pole and widened sidewalk is now shown along with the ramps and how that will work. Grades are within 6"of existing grades at the power pole. There is approximately 7' of clearance between the power pole and the storm drain as currently designed. 7 Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Grading sheets - Showing a storm pipe extending past the Redwood Street row going into the property to the east. If this is to be built with this project than an easement for this construction is needed. The storm pipe will be stopped within the right-of-way so that an easement will not be required. Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Cover Sheet - A couple of notes on the cover sheet are missing information. The missing information is now shown on the cover sheet. Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Sheet 2 - See plans for comments. Sheet 2 plan comments have been addressed on the plans. Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Sheet 3 - General Note 41. The plans appear to be flowline stationing, which is okay this note just needs to change to reflect this. Sheet 3 now references both centerline and f/owline stationing. Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: An official written variance for the parking setbacks still needs to be submitted. See 1.9.4 of the LCUASS for letter criteria. 04/10/12 It looks like the parking setbacks to meet that for the smaller parking lots (40 feet) was applied to all the parking lots. A variance is needed and will need to be considered if this is the distance you also wish to use for the large parking lots as well. 1/15/12 Parking setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the distance from the flowline to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I don't know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted. (best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers). A letter of explanation and request for modification of standard is included with this submittal set for your consideration. Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Traffic Operations and Streets have requested to be routed copies of the utility plans, plat, site and landscape plans with the next round of review. Sufficient number of copies are included with this submittal and should be routed per the distribution list provided by Ted Shepard. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, Iexofcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 04/23/2013: Off -site mitigation for the loss of wetlands and prairie dog habitat will be coordinated with the City's Natural Areas Department prior to signing of the development agreement. Please let me know when a good time is to set up a meeting to resolve this issue. It might be best for the City to take a stab at the first draft of the agreement, would that work for you? It appears this will be included with the development agreement. The Developer would like to review the calculations as soon as possible, so they can budget for this. Please forward the calculations as soon as possible. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/23/2013 [7 04/23/2013: As all of the site's ecological value (except for the trees) will be mitigated for off -site, there is no longer a need for the establishment of a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the plans. Please feel free to remove that any references to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. So noted. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: The landscape architect needs to contact the City Forester to review and discuss several small changes that need to occur with the street tree design. Information will be provided on items that need to be addressed. Changes will need to be addressed before final plan. The project LA met with Tim Buchanan on site on two occasions. The majority of forestry questions were addressed. The existing trees located off -site are currently being surveyed. Construction impacts will be assessed once the survey is complete and the off -site plan set is submitted for review. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Sheet ENV-1 of 1 the Tree Inventory: The letters PL are stated to mean Plains cottonwood but in the schedule PC is used. Please address. Acronyms have been corrected. The Boxes with the numbers are a little confusing. I suggest the following boxes and totals. Total number of required mitigation trees 79 Total Plains Cottonwood Total Peachleaf Willow Trees retained Trees removed Table has been corrected, as suggested. Add note number 10. If any trees in Gove D, G and H are removed at a future date then the City Forester will determine if mitigation needs to be revaluated. City Forester must approve any tree removal in these groves. It appears a small grove of trees will be impacted by the Storm water detention construction. This is graphically depicted on the tree mitigation plan and shown on the aerial photography. Numbers of impacted trees have been indicated on the plan. Add the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G Tree protection specifications have been added to the Tree Mitigation Plan Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: The City Forester recommends using a different ornamental tree than Princess Kay Plum. Experience has shown that it is very short-lived in Fort Collins. Princess Kay Plum has been replaced with Ivory Silk Tree Lilac and Thunderchild Crabapple. 0 Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: General Note21.1.2 should be changed to take out this sentence. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorist shall be removed by owner. sentence has been removed. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Some landscape contractors prefer to plant trees only 2-3 inches high. This comment is just for consideration. Tree details have been changed. Please review. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Previous comment number 23 still needs to be addressed. Please set up an on -site meeting with the City Forester and a representative from the Engineering Department (Marc Virata) to review the Redwood Street and Vine Street Alignment impact on the cottonwood trees located by these proposed roadways. Forestry would like to confirm the actual location of the proposed road improvements by these trees. The trees that will be impacted along the new roadway alignment for Redwood Drive and New Vine will be surveyed to determine if any trees can be preserved as a result of construction. This will be submitted with the Off -site roadway construction plans under separate cover. For the time being, tree mitigation upsizing of on -site trees will be calculated as if the tree stands in question will be removed in their entirety. This will be re -visited prior to construction. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Provide planting detail for trees and shrubs in the detention pond area just off the border of the project. Include a water basin around trees and shrubs. Details have been edited to include a water basin for shrubs non -irrigated seed areas. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Please add this sentence at the end of General Note number 8. This includes trees and shrubs in the detention pond and all trees, shrubs and irrigated lawn in parkways and in the median located outside of the project perimeter. This note was added to Note number 8. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Further define the maintenance responsibility of landscaping outside the limits of development. This includes trees and shrubs in the detention pond, surface maintenance of the detention pond, surface maintenance of parkways and landscaping in the median. Contact Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks, and Hank Richardson, Storm Water Utility, to obtain further definition if the City will take over maintenance of these areas and if so what their process would be for source of water, irrigation plan approval, establishment maintenance period and acceptance maintenance. Include appropriate notes to define the information and decisions provided by these two staff City Staff members. Maintenance responsibility will be assigned in the Development Agreement for the Off -site improvements that will be submitted under separate cover. The shrubs along the north and west perimeter of the detention pond will be maintained by the Aspen Heights Developer. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: The median landscape design needs to be coordinated with Pet Wray of the Planning Department for review and approval. Design should be to City Streetscape and Median standards. so noted. Final design will be submitted along with the Off -site Constrution documents which will be submitted for review under separate cover. 10 Department: Light and Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartinec&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number.• 1 Comment Originated. 0410512013 04/05/2013: The sewer manhole on the west side of Blue Spruce (appx.120 ft. north of Lupine) needs to be relocated into the street instead of being in line with the parkway. Acknowledged, the sewer manhole has been moved as requested. Comment Number.- 2 Comment Originated- 0410512013 0410512013: The water services to many buildings are shown going to very near the corner of the building. These need to be relocated toward the center of the building to provide 10 feet clearance to the electric service and meter which will be on the side corner of the building. Acknowledged, the water and sewer services have been relocated to provide 10 foot of clearance between electrical where possible and 5' elsewhere (approximate max depth of bury) as discussed in your email on 5/24/13. Comment Number. • 3 Comment Originated.- 0410512013 04/05/2013: The sewer service to the 3rd building east of Blue Spruce on the west side of Echo Mountain Ln. needs to be relocated so it doesn t go through the island. This will allow for a pad type electric transformer to be placed in the island. Acknowledged, sewer service has been relocated Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/05/2013 04/05/2013: The sewer service to the 4th building east of Blue Spruce on the south side of La Garita Ln. needs to be relocated so it doesn't go through the island. This will allow for a pad type electric transformer to be placed in the island. Acknowledged, sewer service has been relocated. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/05/2013 04/05/2013: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements to the clubhouse with Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700. Acknowledged, the developer is coordinating with Light & Power Engineering regarding the clubhouse power requirements. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/05/2013 04/05/2013: After the plan is finalized, an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) of the site plan needs to be sent to Terry Cox at TCOX(aD-FCGOV.COM. Acknowledged, the required AutoCAD drawing will be sent to Terry Cox when the plan is finalized. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869,�ynxwiler@�oudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: FYI ONLY - Response to comment no. 5 (originated 01/05/2012): The HMIA pertaining to pool chemistry, storage of pesticides, etc. may be supplied at time of building permit. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: RESIDENTIAL WATER SUPPLY Further review of hydrant placement and possible infill along Conifer and Redwood Streets is required. It may be necessary to add a hydrant at the corner of Redwood 11 and Lupine and another to Conifer Street between Redwood and Blue Spruce. A site plan detailing all locations of proposed hydrant and along with existing hydrants which surrounding the development is requested, iire uiiiiiy Niau #WW aituws a,i aAiaiijry arlu Piupuavu itywania surrounding the developments. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, 1schlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/16/2013 04/16/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please resubmit Erosion Control Plan corrected with redlines. Please submit and Erosion Control Report, and Please submit 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 @ ischlamafcpov.Com. Acknowledged, the erosion control plan is now shown with redlines addressed along with the utility plans and the drainage report. The Erosion EscrowlSecurity Estimate is included in the Drainage and Erosion Control Report. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: 1. Please address all the red -lined comments on the Plat, Site Plan, Construction Drawings and Drainage Report. 2. As was noted in the previous review, parts of Redwood Street and new Vine Drive are located in the Dry Creek floodway. The street improvements, installation of utilities, landscaping, etc. proposed for construction within that floodway cannot occur until a CLOMR has been approved by FEMA. The plans for this development cannot be approved until the CLOMR process has been completed. Acknowledged, red -lined comments are now addressed as requested. Redwood and new Vine Drive have been separated from the development utility plans to allow for separate processing of the CLOMR. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Repeat Comment. 01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is the responsibility of the Developer. Acknowledged, this analysis will be provided with the CLOMR. Redwood and new Vine Drive have been separated from the development utility plans to allow for separate processing of the CLOMR. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: No hydraulic design submitted. Drainage report looks to be similar to the preliminary drainage report. 01/17/2012: The hydraulic (including inlets, storm sewers, street capacity, etc.) and erosion control design 12 for this Development will be reviewed during final compliance after a public hearing. Acknowledged, a hydraulic design was submitted, but to better analyze the site drainage, a SWMM model has been provided along with inlet sizing, storm sewer sizing, street capacity calculations, etc. Please see the revised drainage report. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Repeat Comment. 04/12/2012: Please show all the capital improvements to be built with this development on the plans that was agreed upon in the letter dated March 20, 2012 by Owen Consulting. Acknowledged, all agreed upon improvements are shown. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: More detail is needed on the grading plan to show these flows will actually flow north -south and not get caught between the two properties in low lying areas. 04/12/2012: All off -site drainage flowing onto the site needs to be direct through the site safely and per City's criteria. The western edge of the site looks like it needs more detail to determine if this will occur and if off -site easements are required. Acknowledged, additional detail requested is now shown including along the western edge of the site as well as in the low lying areas to provide positive drainage. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: In general the grading plan needs to be more detailed to ensure proper construction. Suggest removing the drainage plan from the grading plan. The drainage basin lines are thick and interfere with grading info. : Acknowledged, additional detail requested is now shown to provide positive drainage. The drainage and grading plans are also separated to clarify the design. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Please verify the pond excavation will not affect any of the existing trees. The pond excavation will impact a small tree stand on the north side of the detention pond where at the outfall. The majority of the trees will not be impacted. Please review the tree mitigation plan included with the Landscape Plan, and coordinate with Tim Buchanan, who has been apprised of tree removal plans. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountk@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Acknowleged. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: There are issues between the index on sheet A-1 and the actual sheet titles. See redlines. The sheet index has been corrected, along with the addition of several new elevations. The index should be correct at this time. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please correct the number on sheet A-23. Complete Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 13 05/06/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheets A-11 & A-23. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: There is cut off text on sheets A-11 & A-13. See redlines. Complete. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please mask all text that is in hatching on sheet A-25. See redlines. Masking is sometimes not successful when translating AutoCad drawings to other formats. This will only be used when absolutely necessary. Thank you for your patience. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See.redlines. Complete Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/0712013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: There are matchline issues on sheets 14, 15, 37, 38, 41 & 42. See redlines. Match lines have been corrected. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Please correct the title of sheet 15. See redlines. Corrected Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: There are 2 keymaps shown over top of one another on sheet 16. See redlines. Corrected Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Please rotate the "elevation" text on sheets 17-42, to make it plan readable. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Please move the north arrow down away from the linework on sheet 18. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: There is cut off text on sheets 27, 30 & 34. See redlines. Corrected. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: No irrigation plans as referenced in the index on sheet LS-1 were in our review set. Full irrigation plans to be provided for building permit review, prior to construction. Irrigation plans are not included in the Landscape Set at this time. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please label Future Vine Drive on sheet LS-2. "Future Vine Drive" has been labeled. The official street name has yet to be determined. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 14 05/06/2013: Please correct the sheet number of LS-3. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet LS-6. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please correct the matchline number on sheets LS-8 & LS-12. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: What is the black block at the bottom left corner of sheet LS-14? The white -out / mask feature in AutoCAD sometimes shows up as a black box in the PDF version of the drawing sets. These will be limited as much as possible and monitored in the final submittal sets. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Are there lighting plans with this project? If so, we will need to review them. There will be no lighting, with the exception of City street lighting and wall mounted lighting at the entries of each building. No lighting plan is required at this time. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add the Lienholder signature block. There are no lienholders for this property. The property owners are Breckenridge Group, Fort Collins Colorado, LLC. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please add a note on sheet 1 with the proposed use, ownership and who will maintain the Tracts. Proposed use is residential homes and open space; ownership and maintenance of the entire project will be accomplished by Breckenridge Group, Fort Collins, Colorado, LLC. This is stated on the plat. The entire project will be leased by the bedroom, primarily to students. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please add "Lot Areas" to the tables on sheet 2. See redlines. complete Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please remove the zoning information from sheets 2, 3 & 4. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please label the centerline of the PSCO gas line easement along Blue Spruce Drive on sheet 3. See redlines. Complete. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please add a note to the Blocks, to see sheet 2 for the lot areas. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please make sure that all text is plan readable. Complete. 15 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need centerline and tangent information for Suniga Road — it is not currently shown on the horizontal control plan or the profile sheets. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need to have the property lines turned on on many of the sheets. Example the grading sheet. I can't tell what is Old Town North property and what is this property. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Grading and drainage work is shown on Old Town North property. It appears that easements exist to allow for this. But you need to contact the property owner and coordinate this with them so that they are aware of what is being proposed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Redwood Grading plan — The note regarding saw cutting at the south end needs to indicate 'Sawcut a minimum of 2 feet and connect to existing Redwood St.' The note regarding saw cutting at the north end needs to be different since the existing street surface here is concrete. It needs to state 'if the existing concrete edge is not acceptable to the Engineering Inspector full concrete panels will need to be removed to create an acceptable edge' Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The culvert under Redwood — What happens when a sidewalk needs to be installed on the east side of the road? Is this to be extended to a point behind the sidewalk? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Is the drainage work on the east side of Redwood within an existing easement? If so label and identify the easement, if not an off -site easement is needed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Sheet 9 needs a signature block Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: At both Blondel/ Suniga and Osiander/ Redwood intersection some temporary asphalt will be needed on those street stubs to accommodate the pedestrian crossings of these street. It can be a temporary patch —just label it as such so when the project that builds these roads complains about the grades it it is clear it was only temporary and they have to redo it. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The water main at the Suniga/ Redwood intersection needs to be extended east past the edge of pavement so the intersection will not have to be redone to extend this in the future. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Sleeving for future signalization needs to be installed at all 3 legs of the Suniga/ Redwood intersection. Page 2 of 10 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please label the 50' drainage easement at the south end also. See redlines. Complete. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please make sure that all easements have bearings & distances, and are locatable. Complete. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: It looks like the symbol is not on the actual boundary at the northwest corner of Lupine Drive & Redwood Street. Either adjust the symbol or provide a bearing & distance to the actual corner. Corrected. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please make sure that all easements are labeled correctly. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please label the east line of the southwest quarter of the section. Complete Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please label the FEMA 100-year floodplain line shown on sheet 4. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please clarify the bearing & distance shown on sheet 4. Is it for the centerline of Redwood Street? Complete. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please provide current monument records for the public land corners shown. Monument Records are included with this submittal set, and are on the submittal disk. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please spell out the street names on all sheets. See redlines. Complete Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please make sure that the street names match the names on the Subdivision Plat, Complete Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Why are the setbacks along Conifer & Redwood Streets shown to the old right of way line? See redlines. The setbacks have been adjusted to reflect 15' from the new R.O.W. line Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Please explain "New Vine TBD" shown on sheets 4 & 12. See redlines. The official name for the "New Vine" roadways has not yet been determined. Ted Shepard has assembled a searing committee to suggest a new name for City Council approval. Until a name has been determined, the project will move forward with "New Vine" TBD label. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 16 05/06/2013: There is some text shown at the top of sheet 13. If it is not needed, please remove it. See redlines. Corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: No S&S plans received. Please provide with subsequent submittals. Acknowledged 03/12/2012: (PDP Comment) Please include signing and striping plans with subsequent submittals. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: No Plat provided. Unable to verify addition of sight distance easements shown on Utility and Site Plans. Please provide with subsequent submittals. Acknowledged 03/12/2012: (PDP Comment) Looks like a small sight distance easement may be necessary at the SW corner of Redwood and Conifer. Please verify. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 05/02/2013: Traffic S & PM NOTES; please revise all instances of City of Fort Collins Engineer to state City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. This is a permanent NOTES change. Please revise your NOTES file. Acknowledged, all instances of Traffic S & PM notes have been revised Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 05/02/2013: Please add the following notes to the Street Improvement Notes: 31. The Developer shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan, in accordance with MUTCD, to the appropriate Right -of -Way authority. (Local Entity, County or State), for approval, prior to any construction activities within, or affecting, the Right -of -Way. The Developer shall be responsible for providing any and all traffic control devices as may be required by the construction activities. 32. Prior to the commencement of any construction that will affect traffic signs of any type, the contractor shall contact Local Entity Traffic Operations Department, who will temporarily remove or relocate the sign at no cost to the contractor; however, if the contractor moves the traffic sign then the contractor will be charged for the labor, materials and equipment to reinstall the sign as needed. 33. The Developer is responsible for all costs for the initial installation of traffic signing and striping for the Development related to the Development's local street operations. In addition, the Developer is responsible for all costs for traffic signing and striping related to directing traffic access to and from the Development. Acknowledged, notes 31-33 have been added. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 17 04/30/2013: Please remove all cross walk striping on internal streets (Site and Landscape Plans). There will be no mid -block pedestrian striping along the internal streets. Striping was suggested by pianninn Staff NO ano nnw in rnnrrrrrenrP with vrnir a.ccPcsmPnt Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: In most cases, at locations where water mains intersect, the number of valves should be equal to the number of pipes coming into that point minus one. See redlined utility plans. Acknowledged, # of valves have been corrected. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: At fire hydrant locations revised the notes to indicate 8" x 6" swivel tee with thrust block and 6" gate valve. Acknowledged, 8"x6" swivel tees are now shown. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Align the water mains to stay within the drives and a minimum of 5 feet from the curbs wherever possible. Acknowledged, water main locations have been re -aligned as requested Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Provide water and sewer services for the clubhouse. Acknowledged, water and sewer services are now shown for the clubhouse Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Show curb stop and meter pit locations, and label water service sizes. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Add fire hydrant at intersection of "New Vine" and Blondel. Acknowledged, the hydrant south of Vine has been moved to the intersection Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Add steel casings where the water and sewer mains cross under storm drains 24" or larger. Label the diameter and thickness of the casings. Where applicable, move fittings out of casing area. Acknowledged, steel casings have been added for 24" and larger storm drain and waterlsewer crossings. Fittings have been moved out of the casing areas. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Pothole 24" ELCO water main and show in profile on Sht 18. Acknowledged, the 24" ELCO water main is now potholed and shown. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: At point where sanitary crosses under (or at bottom of) drainage channel, provide details showing how sanitary will be protected from scour and from freezing. Acknowledged, the crossing is now shown as encased Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Show ALL water main and sanitary sewer crossings on the storm drain profiles. Acknowledged, all water main and sanitary sewer crossings are shown on the storm drain 18 profiles. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: Add the Std Details noted on Sht 47. Acknowledged, the Std. Details requested have been added Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/30/2013 04/30/2013: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Acknowledged, all redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 05/02/2013: Show/label all irrigation taps. Acknowledged, irrigation taps are now shown and labeled Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 05/02/2013: Now that water/sewer services and underground electric/communication lines are shown, it is strongly suggested that a utility coordination meeting be scheduled to work out potential conflicts. At present, it appears that there will likely be conflicts between meter pits and the underground electric/communication facilities and what appears to be gas mains.: Acknowledged, a utility coordination meeting was held on May 15, and coordination efforts have been coordinated to a point that the design shown will work during construction. Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/02/2013 05/02/2013: Meter pits cannot be installed in drive or parking areas. In some places, there does not appear to be adequate easement and space for the curb stops and meter pits. Acknowledged Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbealsc&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/15/2013 04/15/2013: Two of the building elevations labeled single family appear to actually be duplexes, "The Durango" and "The Vail B". This has been corrected, along with the addition of several additional building elevations. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/15/2013 04/15/2013: The parking and residential unit summary tables need to indicate how many two-family are 2 bedrooms and how many are 3 bedrooms. This is necessary for the single family attached also. The "A" units each have 2-bedrooms, the "B" Units each have 3 bedrooms. The "C" units have 2-bedroom units on each end, with 3-bedroom units in the center. The "D" units have 4 bedrooms, and "E" units have 5 bedrooms. This information is included on the Title Page of the Architectural Elevations. The Site Plan Data Table now includes bedroom information as it relates to parking requirements and eventual extra -occupancy requests for the "D" and "E" units. Also, an addressing plan and assigned addresses has been created. Please call Deanne Frederickson (970) 674-3323 to request a copy. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/15/2013 04/15/2013: Does the applicant want to identify what site and landscape improvements will be tied to what 19 buildings through a landscape phasing plan? Yes. An attempt at Landscape Phasing has been included on Page 2tif the n a cds} ap aPlan. nnctBasically, n#thP Developer Aaworylda ke;to Thov'"n"Id Iclub ikA hnircA initiail�i cn to be able to receive a C of O for this building independently with landscape improvements or a letter of credit). They would then like to build a few of the residential units adjacent to the clubhouse to be used as models. It is requested that foundation plantings are tied to the individual buildings while street trees and open space landscape are phased with the construction phasing of the project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/15/2013 04/15/2013: Where is the bicycle parking? The bicycle parking is now shown on the Site Plan and the Landscape Plan. There is bicycle parking provided for each building, and a number of them provided at the clubhouse. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/15/2013 how 04/15/2013: Mechanicallutility equipment locations should be identified on the plans with notes on such equipment will be screened. Meters will be placed on each building as shown on the site plan and the utility plans. Screening will be accomplished with foundation plantings along the frontage of every building. We DATE: 4/15/12 PROJECT: Aspen Heights — student housing LOCATION: SW corner of Conifer and Redwood APPLICANT: Breckenridge Properties CONTACT INFO: Deanne Frederickson 970-674-3323 deanne@tfgcolorado.com ENGINEER: Sheri Langenberger PLANNER: Ted Shepard Round 2 COMMENTS: 04/15/12 As requested, when the clubhouse is shown as part of these drawings the PDP fees for it will be determined and the credit applied to those fees. 1/15/12 Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed. 04/10/12 As indicated in response letter this New Vine name can remain on the plans for the time being and will just need to be updated prior to final approval with what ever name has bee determined before that time. 1/15/12 The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. 04/10/1.2 Need to show the full connection of this. Right now the plans show where it is to start, but do not yet show how it will tie into the existing walk along Jax. l/15/12 A pedestrian connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off -site sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the ultimate location along this roadway. The City Capital project for North College Ave is underway and upon completion of that College Ave will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing) 1/15/12 As we continue with rounds of review I will look into placement of manholes and make sure they are designed so they are not within the wheel path of the travel lance or within a bike lane. 12.2.3.B LCUASS 1/15/12 The utility plan check sheet that was submitted was returned — please note comments on this and items that are incomplete. I tried to repeat most of these in my comments, but this maybe helpful. 04/10/12 It looks like the parking setbacks to meet that for the smaller parking lots (40 feet) was applied to all the parking lots. A variance is needed and will need to be considered if this is the distance you also wish to use for the large parking lots as well. 1/15/12 Parking setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the distance from the flowline to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I don't know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted. (best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers) 1/15/12 I have noted on the plans some additional details that will eventually need to be provided. New Vine 04/1.0/12 When you are ready to work on this let me know and we can meet to look at the proposed turnlane lengths, pedestrian refuges, turning templates, striping and aspects as we move forward. 1/15/12 A full design for Vine Drive will be needed. As you work on this please remember that the median needs to be designed to include a subdrain, water tap, and the landscaping for the median needs to be planned out and designed. The median will also need to be design to meet horizontal and vertical design standards. Grading plans — 04/10/12 I am still not sure that everything ties into the existing contours. I just can't clearly see that proposed contours tie into existing contours within the property limits. 1/15/12 I can not tell if the grade lines tie into existing grades within the property lines and right- of-way lines at this time. Additional clarification is needed to show how all the grading work is proposed to tie into existing. (needs to be addressed before hearing) 04/10/12 Grade lines have been provided for Vine and part of Redwood. Another grading sheet is needed to show the contours all the way to where Redwood will tie into existing. 1/15/12 No proposed grade lines are shown within Vine and Redwood. This is needed to show how the grading work for these streets will work and to determine what if any off -site easements will be needed for the work. (needs to be addressed before hearing) 04/10/12 You have identified but not shown on the grading plan that Vine will be built short of the property line to accommodate the grading needed to tie back to existing grade. The project will need to provide funds for the frontage portion that can not be built prior to issuance of the first building permit (local obligation only). Lupine has not been shown this way, as well as all the drainage from the street and the pans are being directed onto the adjacent property. Where is the drainage going and what grading is needed here to accommodate the street and keeping this from being a low point that just holds water. As shown grading and drainage easements on the property to the west will be needed. A letter of intent to grant these easements will be needed from the property owner prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. 1/15/12 Need to show how you plan to end the west end of Vine and Lupine. And how the grades will tie into existing grades. Also need to show Type III barricades being installed in these two locations. (needs to be addressed before hearing) 04/10/12 Part of this is shown, but extends beyond the limits of the grading plans that have been provided so far. What grading is needed, if any, in Blondel to achieve the minimum cover over the waterline you are showing to be installed? Off -site easements 04/10/12 Based on the plans right now It looks as if off -site easements are needed from the property to the west (grading and drainage), property to the east of Redwood (grading and drainage). 1/15/12 At this time I do not have enough information to know if any off -site easements will be necessary for the site or road construction. As the review progresses and additional grading and design information is provided this can be determined. Letters of intent from any property owners from which easements are needed are to be provided prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. A letter of intent is a letter from the property owner identifying its intent to grant the easement(s) necessary to accomplish the proposed design. Driveways 04/10/12 The plans are looking closer to achieving this. There is still some work (pan changes, high point adjustments, and spot elevation information added to make sure drainage goes to the sidewalk culvert) that is needed to achieve this standard, but looks like it is possible and the standard can be met by final plans. 1/15/12 Per LCUASS no storm flows are to flow over the sidewalk and out the driveway. Understanding that no flow is not always achievable, the policy is that a maximum of 750 square feet of area is allowed to flow out a driveway. You have driveways/ parking areas that exceed that amount. For those areas you can take the drainage into a pan and out through a sidewalk culvert into the street. Conifer and Redwood 04/10/12 This has been done — we would just ask that the row along Redwood be tapered into the existing row or extended to Lupine rather than end bluntly. l/15/12 As identified in the conceptual comments and shown by these plans additional row is needed along Conifer and Redwood to accommodate the standard parkway and sidewalk section, This additional row and the standard 9 foot utility easements behind the row need to be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Plan and Profile Sheets 1/15/12 There are several vertical curves in which the minimum curve length is not being provided. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18 04/12/12 Add the street cut note to the utility plan sheets. Note: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. 04/12/12 The corner cuts for the dedication of row at the corners can be used, but the cut needs to be back far enough that the entire sidewalk is within the row. For most of the corners the row line will need to be moved back a bit to accommodate this. 04/12/12 See redlines for additional comments. Plat 1/15/12 Need to clearly identify who is to own and maintain all of the lots. 1/15/12 As I understand it PFA is going to require that the private drives be named, as it is necessary for the units to be addressed. Once named the private drive names need to be placed on the plat and clearly identified that they are private drives. Landscape Plans 04/10/12 The language you added is close to what the easement language is, but not quite consistant. I taped a copy of the easement language on the plan set so you will have the language. 1/15/12 Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Site Plans 04/10/12 The response indicated this was done and it looks that way on the plans, although I did not see the width dimensioned on the plans. With final plans the driveway location will need to be located (stations) and the width will be clarified that way. 1/15/12 The driveway widths for the private drives have been shown so far only on the site plans. In accordance with Section 9.3.2(a) of the LUCASS the driveways that serve parking areas for more than 3 units need to have an entry width of 28 feet. March 29, 2013 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Final Compliance Submittal: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP 110018 Follows are the review comments provided by City of Fort Collins Staff. Many of the comments no longer apply due to changes in the project — primarily due to the now limited extent of the Stormwater Detention pond, and how the wetlands will be handled. Comments are addressed below in BLUE ITALICS text. Thank you for your review of this project. April 16, 2012 RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP110018, 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: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com_ Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: A walkway is needed along the private drive along the north side of the clubhouse area. This walkway must be a minimum of six feet in width since the parking stalls are only 17 feet in length. Be sure to add ramps where this walkway intersects with the parking lot drive. There is a 7' walk along the private drive north of the clubhouse area. Ramps have been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: For the Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (including the Two Family Dwellings where there are more than three bedrooms i.e. Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride) be sure to use 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) in Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Suniga profile - - What is the proposed slope at the west end tie to existing ground? - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. - The Aspen Heights plans show different the Blue Spruce/ Suniga intersection grades and slope across the cross pan. As proposed the Aspen Heights plans will need to be revised. - The Blondel grades don't match the approved design plans for Blondel. Either need to match the approved plans or provide a design that shows how this design ties to the end of the existing street. - Notes regarding 30% plans —Since the 30% plans did not provide flowline profiles\ the note should identify that it is the future flowline projected from the 30% plans. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Need profiles of the median edges. Sag vertical curves at the flowline in a sump situation are not allowed. The flowline curves just east of the intersection need to be adjusted to show how they will work at .5% into the inlets. The sag VC along the centerline does not meet minimum curve length for the delta. Since this could impact the grades and elevations into the intersection this curve needs to be adjusted and shown as how it can meet standards. - The crest VC to east of Redwood doesn't meet minimum length requirements either, but you can leave it as it is — just add the following note to the plans. Vertical Curve lengths (for future) don't meet standards but match 30% design plans. Final design plans meeting standards to be completed prior to construction of this portion of the roadway (by others). Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: What are you proposing for the temporary curb? Is it regular curb, but just considered temporary or is it something else? Need to show where it is to start and stop and identify the type. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The power pole in the NW corner of Suniga Road and Redwood Street. How big is this pole and the pad that holds it? What are PRPA restrictions for grading around this pole? How does the pole impact the sidewalk location and ramp grades? A blown up detail of this area needs to be provided to make sure the clearances are met and truly determine where the ramps are to be located. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Redwood profile - What are the existing grades and slopes being tied into at the south end? At the north end? Per the lines shown the south flowlines don't appear to tie together. - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Have a couple of slopes that doesn't meet minimum slope requirements. - Have several locations where exceeding the maximum grade break allowed. - Need to see a design for Osiander to know that this all ties together. The existing Osiander design doesn't tie into the Redwood profile. - The Suniga/ Redwood intersection doesn't need to be concrete. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: 1 provided a copy of the median curb design that was used and included on the Waterfield Third Filing plans and the one that is going to be used on Timberline. Either one of these can be used. The existing detail needs to be changed on both the landscape and utility plans. Page 3 of 10 calculating the minimum parking required. The only Houses that would apply for extra -occupancy are the 4 and 5 bedroom sinale family homes. None of the two-family homes have more than 3 bedrooms per unit, and now include only the Aspen and the Frisco. The Keystone and the Telluride have been removed from the housing mix. The off-street parking calculations include enough parking to meet the code for extra - occupancy rental units. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Comment number four remains open. The east -west portion of this walkway (along the north side of the future clubhouse), does not connect to anything and is, therefore, isolated. Both ends need to be extended to the drives and intersect with the drives with ramps. It appears this has been corrected. The network of walks is fairly well connected throughout the development. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04114/2012: Comment number seven remains open. Be sure that the architectural elevations match the site plan cover sheet and parking data table. The Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride are shown to be two-family units with more than three bedrooms and thus would become Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. But the parking table indicates that only single family detached are to become Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. Please rectify. The Aspen and the Frisco are the only 2-family attached homes, and do not exceed 3 bedrooms per unit. The only units that would require extra occupancy designation would be the Single-family homes, which have 4 and 5 bedrooms. This has been clarified in both the Site Plan data sheet and the Architectural Elevations set. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: The parking data table could be improved by deleting the word "attached." By definition, the units are attached and the term "attached," in our Code, refers to single family attached dwellings which are townhomes on individual fee simple lots which is not the case here. Also, it is not accurate to indicate that there is only one unit in the multi -family. The plans indicate that the number ranges from 3 through 6. Also, in describing the multi -family, the terms "interior" and "exterior" are extraneous and have relationship to our Code. The multi -family units will in fact be townhomes on individual fee simple lots. The table has been simplified to reflect the appropriate City of Fort Collins terminology.- Single Family, Two-family, and Single- family attached. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Please add the Dwelling Unit Labels table to the Overall Site Plan, sheet 4 of 8. Dwelling Unit labels have been included on the Overall Site Plan, sheet 4 of 8. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04114/2012 04114/2012: On the Site Plan, sheet 5 of 8, and then continued on sheet 7 of 8, note that the parking lots on the west side of Blue Spruce, do not provide for a back up maneuver for the westerly -most stalls. This will require a driver to make an excessive number of maneuvers in order to back out of the stall and head east. The lots should be extended to the west to accommodate this backing maneuver. Correction made. 2 Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Overall, the pedestrian connectivity is much improved. But, the network still has some gaps. Internal mobility by pedestrians and bicyclists would be enhanced, and thus discourage internal trips by vehicles, with additional ramps and crosswalks on Lupine. On sheet 5 of 8, note that the two north -south walks that flank the drainage channel terminate at the public walks on Lupine. These walks should be extended to the flowline, with ramps, and with provision of a crosswalk. Otherwise the internal network is incomplete. The same comment applies to the north -south walkway located approximately 185 east of the channel. Mid -block crossings of street at the classification, level of Lupine is appropriate. Cautionary signage, combined with red curbing that restricts on -street parking, will add a measure of safety. 4 mid - block crossings are included along Lupine - on either side of the channel and at 2 additional locations east of the channel. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: On sheet 6 of 8, please refer to the aforementioned comment. The north -south walkway, on the west side of the clubhouse, needs to be extended to the flowline, with a ramp, with a crosswalk, to tie into the walkway on the south side of Lupine, to be similarly upgraded with an extension and ramp. At this time, these walks are off -set. This offset can be remedied with proper curvature in the walks so that the crosswalk is perpendicular to Lupine. These three additional crosswalks on Lupine will provide a measure of traffic calming and promote overall walkability within the project. Correction made as requested. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: This comments ties in with open comment number four regarding the treatment of the north side of the clubhouse tract. Essentially, the clubhouse is on a double -frontage lot. The north side is currently treated with a ramp that connects out to Conifer and the bus stop. This treatment is insufficient for this destination and the relationship to Conifer Street. At the least, the two parking stalls that flank the ramp should be removed and replaced with landscape islands. At the time of review for the clubhouse area, the north -facing area will need to feature a well -designed approach so it does not become a back door. Corrections made as suggested. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: On sheet 7 of 8, in the area of the 35-foot wide spine, the five foot walk terminates on the east into a parking stall. Again, this represents a discontinuous network. Please remove this stall and add a ramp so that the walks does not simply dead-end. Correction made as suggested. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012 04/14/2012: Also on sheet 7 of 8, the same comment applies as to the termination of the north -south walkway within the 35-foot wide spine. At the southern terminus, this walk simply dead -ends into a parking stall. Please remove this stall and add a ramp so that the bicyclist or pedestrian has somewhere to go. Correction made as suggested. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 04/16/2012 04/16/2012: There does not appear to be any fencing along the west property line. Staff recommends a three -rail open fence that is typically found along the City's bike trails. Further, this fence could equipped with a wire mesh which would be effective for pet control and catch litter and debris from the prevailing west / northwest wind. It does not appear that such a fence would interfere with stormwater drainage capability. A fence has been included along the west property boundary. This fence will have wire mesh on the lower half. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 04/16/2012 04/16/2012: Thank you for showing the bus stop and the 12' x 18' concrete pad along Conifer and the connecting walkway. Section 3.6.5 requires not only the transit stop but other associated facilities as well. In the case of a multi -family development at the scale of Aspen Heights, a bus shelter is required as well. While Transfort has a menu of standardized bus shelters from which to choose, I recommend that the developer consider customizing a shelter that would match the architectural style of the clubhouse and residential character of the overall project. That way, the bus shelter will gain identity as the Aspen Heights stop and provide a higher level of visibility for the project. Emma McArtle, at Fort Collins Transit was contacted to discuss details for the bus shelter. Elevations and details will reflect Transfort Standards and will be provided at the time of Building Permit application. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenbergercmfcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 When you are ready to work on this let me know and we can meet to look at the proposed turn lane lengths, pedestrian refuges, turning templates, striping and aspects as we move forward. 01/20/2012: New Vine: A full design for Vine Drive will be needed. As you work on this please remember that the median needs to be designed to include a sub drain, water tap, and the landscaping for the median needs to be planned out and designed. The median will also need to be design to meet horizontal and vertical design standards. At this point, the design of New Vine Street is based on the design drawings provided to us by the City. Revisions to the design can be made, but refining the geometry of the turn lanes will require that the City also provide us with traffic projections for the turning movements. We will arrange a meeting with City representatives to obtain this information and to discuss other factors that may be applicable to the design of these improvements. The landscaping plan shows the proposed landscaping of the median, and the irrigation plan makes provision for a water tap to serve this area. A sub -drain will be included if necessary. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/2012012 04/10/12 1 am still not sure that everything ties into the existing contours. I just can't clearly see that proposed contours tie into existing contours within the property limits.01/2012012: Grading Plans: I can not 4 tell if the grade lines tie into existing grades within the property lines and right-of-way lines at this time. Additional clarification is needed to show how all the grading work is proposed to tie into existing. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The grading plan has been revised to ensure that all proposed ground contours tie into existing ground contours around the perimeter of the site. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Grade lines have been provided for Vine and part of Redwood. Another grading sheet is needed to show the contours all the way to where Redwood will tie into existing.01/20/2012: Grading Plans: No proposed grade lines are shown within Vine and Redwood. This is needed to show how the grading work for these streets will work and to determine what if any off -site easements will be needed for the work. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Proposed grade lines have been added to the Plan & Profile sheets for New Vine Drive and Redwood Street. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 You have identified but not shown on the grading plan that Vine will be built short of the property line to accommodate the grading needed to tie back to existing grade. The project will need to provide funds for the frontage portion that cannot be built prior to issuance of the first building permit (local obligation only). Lupine has not been shown this way, as well as all the drainage from the street and the pans are being directed onto the adjacent property. Where is the drainage going and what grading is needed here to accommodate the street and keeping this from being a low point that just holds water. As shown grading and drainage easements on the property to the west will be needed. A letter of intent to grant these easements will be needed from the property owner prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing.01/20/2012: Grading Plans: Need to show how you plan to end the west end of Vine and Lupine. And how the grades will tie into existing grades. Also need to show Type III barricades being installed in these two locations. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Grading along the west property line will be such that all runoff is intercepted and directed to either an inlet and storm drain at New Vine Drive or to an inlet near the northwest corner of the site, and from there into the site drainage system. Details of the interim termination of New Vine Drive and Lupine Drive will include Type 111 barricades. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Part of this is shown, but extends beyond the limits of the grading plans that have been provided so far. 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: What grading is needed, if any, in Blondel to achieve the minimum cover over the waterline you are showing to be installed? Fill will be placed and compacted over the section of new water main in the Blondel right -of way to ensure adequate cover over the water main. The profile of the water main connection is based on the street profile provided by the City. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 The plans are looking closer to achieving this. There is still some work (pan changes, high point adjustments, and spot elevation information added to make sure drainage goes to the sidewalk culvert) that is needed to achieve this standard, but looks like it is possible and the standard can be met by final plans. 01/20/2012: Driveways and Grading: Per LCUASS no storm flows are to flow over the sidewalk and out 5 the driveway. Understanding that no flow is not always achievable, the policy is that a maximum of 750 square feet of area is allowed to flow out a driveway. You have driveways/ parking areas that exceed that amount. For those areas you can take the drainage into a pan and out through a sidewalk culvert into the street. Grading of the driveways has been designed to direct overland flow to a low point at a low corner of the parking area, where no drainage inlet is available, and from there via a pan and sidewalk chase to the adjacent street gutter. The driveway grading is designed to limit the area from which runoff may migrate across the sidewalk to not more than 750 s.f. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 This has been done - we would just ask that the row along Redwood be tapered into the existing row or extended to Lupine rather than end bluntly.01120/2012: Conifer and Redwood: As identified in the conceptual comments and shown by these plans additional row is needed along Conifer and Redwood to accommodate the standard parkway and sidewalk section, This additional row and the standard 9 foot utility easements behind the row need to be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The additional right-of-way dedication to accommodate the parkway and sidewalk will be shown on the plat. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: There are several vertical curves in which the minimum curve length is not being provided. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18 The vertical curves have been revised to comply with the LCUASS requirements. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/15/12 As requested, when the clubhouse is shown as part of these drawings the PDP fees for it will be determined and the credit applied to those fees. Agreed. 01/20/2012: Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 As indicated in response letter this New Vine name can remain on the plans for the time being and will just need to be updated prior to final approval with what ever name has been determined before that time. 01/20/2012: The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. We will defer to the City with respect to establishing a permanent name for "New Vine Drive" Once a name has been determined, the drawings 9 will be updated accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Need to show the full connection of this. Right now the plans show where it is to start, but do not yet show how it will tie into the existing walk along Jax. 01/20/2012: A pedestrian connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off -site sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the ultimate location along this roadway. The City Capital project for North College Ave is underway and upon completion of that College Ave will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The full length of the temporary sidewalk connection will be shown on the final plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As we continue with rounds of review I will look into placement of manholes and make sure they are designed so they are not within the wheel path of the travel lance or within a bike lane. 12.2.3.13 LCUASS Comment noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The utility plan check sheet that was submitted was returned - please note comments on this and items that are incomplete. I tried to repeat most of these in my comments, but this maybe helpful. Comment noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 It looks like the parking setbacks to meet that for the smaller parking lots (40 feet) was applied to all the parking lots. A variance is needed and will need to be considered if this is the distance you also wish to use for the large parking lots as well. 01/20/2012: Parking setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the distance from the flowline to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I don't know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted. (best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers) An analysis of parking lot traffic distribution was conducted which demonstrated that all of the parking lots within the development met the criteria for a 40' setback from the street flow line to the parking lot flow line. A copy of that analysis is attached. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: 1 have noted on the plans some additional details that will eventually need to be provided. Comments noted. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 The response indicated this was done and it looks that way on the plans, although I did not see the width dimensioned on the plans. With final plans the driveway location will need to be located (stations) 7 and the width will be clarified that way. 01/20/2012: The driveway widths for the private drives have been shown so far only on the site plans. In accordance with Section 9.3.2(a) of the LUCASS the driveways that serve parking areas for more than 3 units need to have an entry width of 28 feet. The driveway widths have been adjusted to provide a 28' width at the street. The driveway entrances are then tapered such that the width of the driveway at the property line is 24', per discussions with City staff. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012 0411512012: Add the street cut note to the utility plan sheets. Note: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. The requested note will be added to the utility plan sheets, where applicable. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012 04/15/2012: The corner cuts for the dedication of row at the corners can be used, but the cut needs to be back far enough that the entire sidewalk is within the row. For most of the corners the row line will need to be moved back a bit to accommodate this. The plat has been revised to show curves at the property line intersections, to accommodate the detached sidewalks. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012 04/15/2012: See redlines for additional comments. Comments noted. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 The language you added is close to what the easement language is, but not quite consistent. I taped a copy of the easement language on the plan set so you will have the language. 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing). Easement language was corrected per redlines dated 4110112. Topic: Mite Work Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 04/10/12 Based on the plans right now It looks as if off -site easements are needed from the property to the west (grading and drainage), property to the east of Redwood (grading and drainage). 01/20/2012: At this time I do not have enough information to know if any off -site easements will be necessary for the site or road construction. As the review progresses and additional grading and design information is provided this can be determined. Letters of intent from any property owners from which easements are needed are to be provided prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. A letter of intent is a letter from the property owner identifying its intent to grant the easement(s) necessary to accomplish the proposed design. The requirements for off -site easements remain unclear at the time of the first Final Compliance submittal. Once identified, the consultant team will pursue letters of intent and easement agreements prior to final approval. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: We have plat language that was updated last May. I can email it to you if you would like me to. Just let me know what your email is. Mine: slangenberger(a.fcgov.com. Because so much time has passed since the last review of this project, it is unknown if the plat language remains incorrect at the time. Please provide the correct plat language: send it to Deanneg&olorado. com, and/ will make sure it is corrected. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to clearly identify who is to own and maintain all of the lots. The entire project will be owned and maintained by Breckenridge Group Fort Collins Colorado, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company. The ownership is shown on the plat and all pertinent documents. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As I understand it PFA is going to require that the private drives be named, as it is necessary for the units to be addressed. Once named the private drive names need to be placed on the plat and to the individual dwelling units, per the City of Fort Collins GIS department. The drives are named on the plat, the site plan, the landscape plan and all other plan sets. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/13/2012: In addition to my comments below, from my discussions with the applicant, it appears that the trickle pan can be removed and that the pond can be graded in such a way to direct flow toward the mitigation area. This would mimic the current wetland's hydrology, which is also fed by stormwater flow. However, I've asked the applicant to also look at installing monitoring wells at the site, in several different locations, to assess whether or not the proposed mitigation area could have a hydrology regime supported by groundwater. Whether or not the applicant can install these monitoring wells should be determined prior to hearing. Per discussions with City Staff the Storm water detention pond will be downsized to incorporate only the detention needed for the Aspen Heights project. The rest of the NECCO related construction will occur at a later date. Because of this the entire wetland will be impacted, and will not be mitigated on site. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the wetland is not jurisdictional. City staff has indicated that an agreement can be drafted to allow for a "cash-in-lieu"payment for impacted wetlands. It is understood that this is in progress at this time. The following staff comments no longer apply to this application: 04/10/2012: Please label the n-s spine in the center of the project as well as the mitigation area as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site landscape, and utility plans. Please also add the following note to the site landscape and utility plans: "Please see Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable uses 0 within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." To be clear, while the wetland mitigation plan sheet shows graphically how the 0.30 acres will be mitigated for, a document detailing the mitigation and monitoring strategies will need to be developed and ultimately will be attached to the proiect's development agreement. Staff can provide you with examples of these plans. Note that at least three years of monitoring will be required depending on how quickly mitigation success can be achieved. Who is responsible for the mitigation's success? There are several disclaimers on this sheet saying who is not responsible, but responsibility is not clearly assigned either. Also I cannot find anything within the wetland mitigation plan sheet that indicates this site will have wetland hydrology. Please submit documentation that confirms site hydrology is present at this elevation. It appears the trickle pan may cut off the water flowing from the north, and it would be good to know how this affects the potential success of the mitigation effort. Other wetland mitigation plan comments are as follows: A. The area that is outlined as the wetland mitigation area has two different seed mixes - both wetland and upland Why are there upland seed mixes within the wetland mitigation area? Is the area between the 54 and 55 contours really expected to be a wetland? This coincides with my comment about wetland hydrology above. B. Drill seeding will increase the likelihood of success on this mitigation effort and is highly recommended by staff. C. Staff is assuming the contours and shape of the wetland mitigation area are conceptual at this time and will be fleshed out during final plan review. A couple of my comments during that discussion will be to have a more naturalistic/blurred edge for the wetlands (increase the undulation of the topography). We'd need to mitigation area. 01/10/2012: It sounds like the mitigation and monitoring_glan will be received upon the next submittal. The monitoring plan should include the n-s spine in the center of the proiect, which is being designed as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Also note that the City and ACOE have generally similar requirements, but the mitigation plan may need to address specific City concerns, especially if the wetlands are deemed to be non-iurisdictional. One of the critical components for City staff will be whether the proposed mitigation location has sufficient hydrology to support a wetland. Also, as per Section 3.4.1(0) of the Land Use Code, a copy of the ACOE mitigation permit will be required to be submitted to the City for proof of compliance. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/10/2012: A weed plan will need to be developed after the first growing season. As noted above, this can be incorporated into the mitigation and monitoring plan. The current note on the plan in insufficient, but this can be resolved during final plan review and in the development agreement. 01/10/2012: Noxious weeds - the Development Agreement and Mitigation Plan should include a discussion on how the site will address noxious weeds, e.g., the field bindweed and Canada thistle found on the site. The size of the detention basin has been reduced considerably. Wetland mitigation is no longer planned for the detention pond area. The detention basin will be seeded with native seed. If additional notes are needed for weed control, please provide the desired language. Thank you. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 04/13/2012: Based on the discussion at staff review today, it sounds like an agreement between the City and the applicant can be reached regarding off -site mitigation through the creation of prairie habitat elsewhere through the City via the City's Natural Areas Program. I will be meeting with Natural Areas staff `11 on April 19th to determine if this strategy is acceptable to them as well (as they will be the ones conducting the restoration). If this strategy is agreed upon by all parties, I can begin drafting a Memorandum of Understanding that, at the time of Development Construction Permit, the applicant will provide the City with the appropriate funds to create at least a 1:1 mitigation for the prairie dog habitat lost through this development. Staff strongly recommends considering a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio to account for the off -site nature of this mitigation effort. A Prairie Dog mitigation plan was submitted in response to PDP comments. This includes a one -week live trapping for donation to the Ferret Center. Fumigation will follow live trapping prior to construction. A copy of this plan is included in this submittal set. The applicant is aware that funding for habitat lost will be required and will be reflected in the Development Agreement associated with this project. 04/10/2012: As a relocation option for the prairie dogs has not been identified, the proposal to remove the prairie dogs and use them as a food source for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program is the next best option. Regarding the detention pond, it is unclear to me where grading will be temporary vs. permanent. In the areas that will be more permanent, is it possible to plant more shrubs and trees throughout the detention pond instead of just a native seed mix? Please review the more detailed landscape plan to determine if seed mixes and vegetation planting are now adequate. Regarding #3, staff does not see how the current management plan for the prairie dogs achieves Section 3.4.1(C) where the general standard refers to "restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community (either on -site or off -site) when a development proposal will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features." How is this project replacing or restoring the lost value? As it stands, staff can only find that the standards for prairie dog control have been met, as outlined in the Municipal Code, and not how the resource value lost at the site has been mitigated. If mitigation for this resource lost cannot occur . that is at least equal in ecological value to the loss suffered by the community because of the disturbance (see Section 3.4.1(E)(2)(b)), then a modification may need to be required. 01/10/2012: As this project proposed to remove a raptor foraging area and a prairie dog colony over 50 acres, at least a three -pronged approach should be taken to mitigate the loss of these resources. 1. The applicant should verify that relocation of the prairie dogs is not an option. If it is not an option, then efforts to trap and donate the prairie dogs to the ferret or raptor center should be discussed. 2. The regional detention pond on the site should be designed to maximize the urban habitat opportunities, e.g., every effort should be made to design and construct the regional detention basin as a native habitat, including native grass and forb species in the design. The proposed seed mix in the landscape plan is an excellent start toward achieving this but do we think the base of the detention pond will be dry or wet? If the pond will be wet, then a wetland seed mix should be considered for the site (including the wetland mitigation area). In addition, shrubs and trees surrounding the pond should be installed to enhance the vegetation diversity (both structurally and species -specific). The detention pond is considerably smaller than shown on the PDP. The native trees on the detention pond site will not be removed, and habitat will not be impacted as originally thought. Please review the Landscape Plan to determine the appropriateness of the landscape improvements to the detention pond area. 3. In addition, because there will be a loss of raptor habitat, staff is exploring mechanisms to create additional or enhance existing prairie habitat (that could serve raptors upon restoration) in other areas across the City (mitigating for the loss of this habitat), e.g., at McKee Farm in southeast Fort Collins. Let's plan a separate meeting to discuss these comments in more detail. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 11 Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The plans show the underdrain tying into the interim drainage pipe. Another solution is needed since this is a temporary interim pipe and will be removed or filled in the future. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Cleanouts for the underdrain need to be provided every approximately every 100 feet and need to be shown on the plans. I have provided a copy of the underdrain detail and an example of a plan that shows the underdrain locations. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Utility and Landscape Plan - Need to show how the concrete nose of the median is to be provided per detail 801. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need street x-sections for Suniga and Redwood. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need addition elevations and information on the intersection details (see plans). Also need a detail for the future Suniga/ Redwood when the road goes through to see how it will work then. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: For the storm line that runs under the sidewalk. Need notes on this sheet indicating that maintenance hole covers that are in the sidewalk shall have smooth flush lids that meet ADA standards or if possible the MH rotated and placed outside of the sidewalk area. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Detail 709 has been replaced with a more current design. The updated detail needs to be used is (D-10B). Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Additional details needed: 801 — modify as needed for this situation. and 2201. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Grading sheets - Will need the power easement owners signature on the sheets showing grades and improvements under the easement. 0�(1 Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 ` 02/09/2015: Landscape Plans — sight distance triangles — I talked with Traffic Operations regarding the sight triangles and they would like these calculated using the current ASHTO standards. This should shorten the sight distances. To do so I V' will need a variance request that outlines what you've done (assumptions) and the distances that you came up with. This should be done by Larry since it needs to be done by a PE. Once we have a plan with the new distances Joe will review the plans with Clark to verify plant heights and identify and concerns. „Cp Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 AQ 02/09/2015: If you could send me a PDF copy of sheet 101 need to route that to the Parks department so they can review the proposed irrigation tap and sleeve locations for the median. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: It looks as though the intent was for street lights along Sungia Road to be placed in the median. I don't believe that will occur. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Traffic Operation has marked up the signing and stripping plans in my redlined set with their comments. Page 4 of 10 04/10/2012: This note also needs to be added to the site plan and utility plans. 01/10/2012: A note on all of the plans saying the following, "See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone" may need to be added in future reviews, depending on how the mitigation areas are designed.. Please clarify if this is needed. There will be no wetland mitigation areas on the plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2012 01/11/2012: Staff concurs with the ECS that a burrowing owl survey will need to be conducted, prior to construction, to determine if the owls are present on the site. Prior to releasing the Development Construction Permit, staff will need a letter of clearance from the USFWS confirming there are no known nesting sites on the property. So Noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: On sheet LS-3 that is titled "Tree Mitigation Plan," you call out that several species are cotton -bearing cottonwood species. Note that if these species are within the buffer zones, e.g., those areas in bubbles labeled G and H, then they do require mitigation as per Section 3.2.1(F)(2)(c). This standard also applies to female boxelder trees. Let's discuss how to proceed on this item. The tree mitigation plan has been revised to reflect the new detention pond configuration. All tree species that will be removed as a result of this project ha ve been accounted for appropriately. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/13/2012: After the staff review, I talked with Eric Berg and he confirmed this area was not examined in the wetland delineation process. He indicated he will go into the field next week (the week of the 16th) and will check this area to see if it needs to be including in the delineation. 04/10/2012: From reviewing the wetland mitigation plan sheet, it appears this area coincides with some of the treed areas listed in the above comment. In addition, some of this area is depressional in nature but was not included within the original wetland delineation for this site. Please confirm that none of the proposed mitigation area is currently a wetland. Note that it also appears some of the trees discussed in the above comment are within the proposed wetland mitigation area - is there any way to preserve these trees and still achieve the mitigation objectives? The entire wetland that lies south of Conifer and extends through the Aspen Heights property as well as the city owned property has now been surveyed and mapped. This includes the wetland area that Ges south of New Vine in the Aspen Heights 'triangle"and partially within Old Town North. The complete reports were reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and deemed non jruisdictional. All reports and responses have been included with this Final Compliance submittal. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01 /18/2012: Note 6 on sheet 1 should be changed to the code requirement for soil improvement. -The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth 12 of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. So Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 Add these notes to address the tree permit requirement: •A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. -The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. Complete. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Explore the addition of ornamental trees in the front lawn or bed space of units along public streets. These lawn areas between the building and sidewalk to be reviewed for full tree stocking. So noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Add this note: Tree removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by code. Complete Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: "Landscape tree lawns outside of the project perimeter shall be installed by the developer of Aspen Heights and maintained by the City of Fort Collins". Contact Rodney Albers (224 6024) in Storm Water and Steve Lukowski (416 2063) in parks to discuss their requirements, and what additional statements they may require on the plan. Both parties were contacted but no additional recommendations were made. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: "Street Trees on Local Roadways, internal to the development site can be a minimum of 1.5" caliper at the time of planting". Please explain why a smaller than the required 2.0 inch caliper tree would be specified here. 2" Canopy trees will be planted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees in site distance areas should have the first branch at 6 feet. So noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please provide a statement as part of the tree mitigation information on why the existing trees on the site need to be removed. The only trees that will be removed are due to City required roadway and 13 storm drainage improvements. No other trees will be removed as a result of the Aspen Heights project. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/181201201/18/2012: Utility separations for trees: Six feet between water and sewer service lines. Ten feet between trees and water and sewer main lines. So noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Planting beds along high use and visibility walls should be 5 feet wide. So noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees should beat a 30-40 spacing. They appear to beat this spacing but there is a note that mentions 50 feet. Trees are spaced 30-40' where ever possible. There are City -required utilities at some locations that prohibit the even planting of street trees. The landscape plan demonstrates a full tree stocking of the, entire development area. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: The Following note should replace note number 6 on LS-2. -The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. Complete Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/1312012: The two requested notes about obtaining a planting permit for street trees and obtaining inspections on these trees doesn't appear to have been added to Sheet LS-1. Please check and add these two notes to the general notes. The Requested note about Tree Removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by Code also appears to still need to be added to LS-1. Complete Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Scotch pine is susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle and other insect problems. The City Forester recommends using another evergreen tree such as South West White Pine. So noted. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Street Tree Selection needs to be from the City Street Tree List. So noted. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Incorporate 124 upsized mitigation trees on the landscape plan. These need to be sized as follows and identified direct labeling and it the plant list. The upsized tree requirement is considerably reduced due to the reduction in the impacts to existing tree stands within the City owned Storm water detention pond area. The tree mitigation plan was revised, and upsized trees are clearly shown on the landscape plan. Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen Trees 8 Feet height 14 Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Use 3 inch caliper shade trees in Sight Distance Triangle Easements to provide for high canopies. So noted. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Confirm that none of the cottonwood trees shown to be removed are located in a natural area buffer. The only trees that will be removed are due to City -required roadway and storm drainage improvements. No other trees will be removed as a result of the Aspen Heights project. It is unknown if these trees are located in a designated natural area buffer. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/13/201204/13/2012: Contact Pete Wray in Advance planning to review and receive comments on the landscape design of the median to standard. So noted. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Provide a mix of tree types located in a manner that meet the requirements 3.2.1. C. D and other relevant sections of that Division. It appears that there are landscape areas that need to be addressed with tree planting that are currently not. A much more detailed landscape plan is included with this submittal. It includes full tree stocking. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Please replace the part of the notes referring trees to be limbed to 6 feet with this statement. Street landscaping including street trees shall be maintained in accordance with City codes and Policies. So noted. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Please set up an on site meeting with the City Forester and representative from the Engineering Department to review the Redwood Street and Vine Street Alignment impact on the cottonwood trees located by these proposed roadways. Forestry would like to confirm the actual location of the proposed road improvements by these trees. This meeting has not yet occurred. Please advise when an appropriate time to meet on site is, and who the appropriate representatives should be. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 04/13/2012: Final landscape plan shall provide for direct labeling of the displayed symbols for trees. The plant list should include final quantities. Quantities should provide for species diversity, with not over 15 percent is for projects with more that 60 trees. A much more detailed landscape plan is included with this submittal. Please Feview for appropriate compliance. Department: Light And Power Contact:, Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartineC fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/03/2012 15 04/03/2012: A landscape plan showing proposed street lights was sent to The Fredrickson Group on 4-3-12. The lights need to be shown on the landscape plan and tree locations adjusted to provide 40 ft. clearance between light standards and trees (15 ft. for ornamental trees). This plan was received and is reflected in the landscape plan, site plan and utility plans. Appropriate tree planting is provided. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: REQUIRED ACCESS: Emergency Fire Access Easements (Fire Lanes) DEFINITION: An emergency access easement is an easement through or upon private property, properly platted and dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for the sole purpose of providing emergency access. It is intended to provide an area designed for the safe and effective deployment of emergency response services. Emergency services shall be allowed to drive, park and/or stage any emergency vehicle or equipment upon this easement at any time. The easement may be upon public streets (except arterial streets), parking lots, private streets and private drives; this easement shall not be upon any defined pedestrian walkway. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the easement unobstructed, including parked vehicles, and to maintain its visibility at all times for emergency access and firefighter safety. So Noted. DESIGN: The easement is required to meet the design specifications outlined in the locally adopted fire code, as amended by the City of Fort Collins, and in the Land Use Code. It shall be designed to withstand the imposed weights of fire apparatus, 40-ton. It is required to have a minimum width of 20 feet, with a 25 foot inside turning radius and a 50 foot outside turning radius; and it shall have 14 foot of clear air space. No canopy trees under 14 feet shall overhang into the fire lane. If the fire lane(s) cannot be provided, all buildings beyond 150 feet from the public right of way are deemed out of access and required to be fire sprinklered. This distance is measured as the hose would lay, and not as the crow flies. Please verify this distance on the site plan or the overall utility plan. Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided. Fire access is provided along the public roadway system as well as the private drives. It appears appropriate access and placement of Are hydrants have all been designed to the above standards. Please clarify how fire acces can be better demonstrated - if needed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: WATER SUPPLY: The water supply for this project shall provide a hydrant no further than 400 feet to every structure, and on 800 foot centers thereafter. The required volume is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. So noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Address numerals are required to be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background. The numerals shall be posted on the front of the building. As is currently designed, only the perimeter buildings which front on a public street can meet this requirement. All other interior buildings appear to front on a walkway spine, which cannot be named. Therefore, the private drives, fire lanes, must be properly named and addressed for emergency services to locate. The private drives have been named, and an addressing plan has been confirmed. Addressing will be placed on the frontages of the buildings that are easiest identified on the sides that face the private drives and public roadways. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 - 01/05/2012: All proposed street names shall be submitted for review and approval by LETA prior to being put in service.. Street names have been submitted and approved. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: Any hazardous materials shall be declared utilizing the HMIA, as described in LUC 3.4.5. This would include the use of pesticides, and pool chemistry. So noted. Please advise the appropriate timing for this - at time of building permit? At time of CO? or immediately, as an attachment to the Final Compliance documents? Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All multi -family units shall be fire sprinklered in accordance with the IRC. The units that were previously idenufled as multi -family are now considered single-family attached placed on individual lots. The units will not be sprinklered, but will incorporate Are -separation walls per the appropriate building code. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Floodplain comments 1. A portion of the project is in the FEMA-designated Dry Creek floodplain and floodway. So noted. 2. Please include the floodplain and floodway boundaries on the all the plan sheets for which the floodplain is mapped. The currently mapped floodplain boundary has been included in the drawing base, so it should show up on all drawings pertaining to that area of the site. 3. The plat shows the Redwood St. and New Vine Drive roads are shown to be constructed in the Dry Creek floodway. Because these roads will change the floodway boundary, a CLOMR and a LOMR will be required. In addition, this CLOMR/LOMR will need to reflect changes in the hydrology due to the construction of the pond. Please contact Marsha Hilmes-Robinson at mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com or 970-224-6036 to arrange a meeting to discuss the CLOMR/LOMR process and the timing of improvements. Several discussions have been had with Ms. Hilmes-Robinson and work is ongoing regarding the CLOMR/LOMR. In addition, we have been advised that the City does not want us to proceed with an expanded interim detention basin as part of the Aspen Heights project. Once the road configuration (horizontal and vertical) is established, and the final size and configuration of the interim detention basin is confirmed, we will proceed with the CLOMR. 4. The floodway is not correctly identified on the plat. Please identify and distinguish between the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. The plat will be corrected to properly delineate and identify the floodplain and floodway. 5. Please include further discussion in the drainage report regarding the existing location of the floodway 17 and floodplain and the proposed floodplain mapping changes. Further discussion of the existing and proposed floodway and floodplain will be included in the drainage report once the revised delineation of the floodplain in determined. 6. Any vegetation placed in the floodway must be documented to be of a type and quantity such that upon maturity it will not increase the base flood elevations. No vegetation will be place in the floodway that will impede flow. 7. A floodplain use permit is required for any work in the floodplain or floodway. The permit fee is $325 which includes review of the hydraulic modeling for the CLOMR/LOMR. A floodplain permit will be obtained prior to commencement of construction. 8. Please see the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists for additional items needed on the plans and in the drainage report. All floodplain regulations can be found in Chapter 10 of City Code. The requirements of the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists will be incorporated into the plans and the drainage report. 9. The floodplain use permit, and development review checklists are available on our website at: hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is the responsibility of the Developer. Appropriate updates to the City's master plan model hydrology will be made, prior to finalization of the drainage regime for the project. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The hydraulic (including inlets, storm sewers, street capacity, etc.) and erosion control design for this Development will be reviewed during final compliance after a public hearing. Agreed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/1212012 04/12/2012: Please show all the capital improvements to be built with this development on the plans that was agreed upon in the letter dated March 20, 2012 by Owen Consulting. All agreed upon capital improvements will be shown on the drawings for this project. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: All off -site drainage flowing onto the site needs to be direct through the site safely and per City's criteria. The western edge of the site looks like it needs more detail to determine if this will occur and if off -site easements are required. No offske drainage flows onto the site, except that from Conifer St., which is collected at the northwest corner of the site and routed through the site drainage system. Runoff . from the vacant property immediately west of the site will be diverted to the south and into a storm main along the north side of New Vine Drive and through the interim detention basin. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 WE] 04/12/2012: For all off -site easements that are required for this development, letter of intents are needed before a public hearing. It is not expected that any offske easements will be required. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: Please investigate if the temporary outfall can be connected into the inlet at the northwest corner of Vine Drive and Redwood Street. This will reduce another crossing under Redwood Street and eliminate the manhole that is very close to the transmission line pole. A revised alignment for the temporary outfall piping has been developed and is presented on the revised project drawings. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012 04/12/2012: Please see the attached Erosion Control requirements for a guideline on the first submittal of the Final Plan Review process. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, 9county@fcgov.com Jeff The Building elevations, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Plat and Engineering drawings have all been re- worked. Redlines are returned with this response letter and submittal of the Final Compliance documents. Efforts have been made to make sure there are no line over text issues, match lines are correct, etc. In the future it is not necessary to list each error. A redline set will be sufficient. Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/10/2012: There is still one line over text issue on sheet A-2. 01/19/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/11/2012: There are still line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,12,17, 18,19, 20, 21 & 22. 01/1912012: There are line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23 & 25. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/11/2012: There are still mislabeled matchline issues on sheets 10,14,18, & 22. 01/19/2012: There is a mislabeled matchline sheet number on sheet 9. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/11/2012: Please remove the duplicate "Vine Drive" on sheet 11. 01/1912012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 13 & 20-24. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The sheet numbering jumps back & forth between 27 and 26 sheets. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The Blue Spruce Drive centerline plan & profile sheet and the Street Details sheet are listed `t on the title sheet, but are not in the plan set. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The City does not use the Black Bolt Survey anymore. Please call Technical Services @ 970-221-6588 to get a current copy of the City of Fort Collins Vertical Control. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: There are text over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 8, 9 & 20. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: There are profile values that are not known on sheet 19. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: Is sheet 21 the correct sheet for Vine Drive, or is sheet 22? Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012 04/11/2012: The keymaps on sheets 21 & 22 are incorrect. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Please label Vine Drive on sheet LS-2. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04110/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets LS-3 & LS-4. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: Sheet LS-5 has an incorrect "10" in the sheet number. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There are matchline issues on sheets LS-5, LS-6, LS-7, LS-8 & LS-9. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: The boundary & legal description close. 01/18/2012: The boundary & legal description close. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: This has not been corrected. 01/18/2012: The record bearing for the south line of Section 1 is incorrect. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: There is still missing information on sheet 3. 01/18/2012: There are easements that need to be labeled. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: Please add the ")" to the note. 01/18/2012: Please add "See Sheet 1" to Detail "A" on sheet 2. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There is a text over text issue on sheet 3. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There is cut off text on sheet 2 Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 411 04/10/2012: The corner cuts on the right of way of Blue Spruce Drive create a problem with the sidewalk design shown on the Site Plans. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: We would prefer that the 3' of right of way to be dedicated along Redwood Street be extended all the way to Lupine Drive. This will create a consistent right of way width, rather than 2 different widths. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 04/10/2012: This has not been corrected. The proper spelling is "Principal" in Land Surveying. 01/19/2012: Please correct the spelling of "Principal" in the legal description on sheet 1. Corrected. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 04/10/2012: This has been addressed. 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 9 & 11. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There are text over text issues on sheet 5. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 8. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: The corner cuts on the right of way of Blue Spruce Drive shown on sheets 5 & 7 will need to change, so that the sidewalk is completely inside of the right of way. A# chamfered corners have been rounded to match the back of sidewalk alignment. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012 04/10/2012: The right of way lines at the north end of Blue Spruce Drive on sheet 5 & at the east end of Lupine Drive on sheets 6 & 8 don't match the Subdivision Plat. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2012 03/12/2012: Please include signing and striping plans with subsequent submittals. This has not yet occurred, but will be included in the next submittal set. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/12/2012 03/12/2012: Looks like a small sight distance easement may be necessary at the SW corner of Redwood and Conifer. Please verify. Site distance easements are shown on the Landscape Plan and on the plat. These appear to be in compliance with the standards as set forth in L CUA SS. Topic: Traffic Impact Study 21