Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VIRA - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-05-304zSelected Issues Report Ci tip aF Fe3rt Cnl6nn Date: 5/12/2008 BELLA VIRA PDP - TYPE II & FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Details Number:27 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Provide spot elevations on south side of Overland Access. Also, provide proposed elevations for new edge of pavement (Final compliance issue). Number:28 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Please provide all necessary details from LCUASS. None of our standard drawings are currently shown. Number:29 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29105] For vault detail, splash guard is only shown on one side. If not proposed on the other side, change the note, and ensure that there is 1' clear flat area behind the sidewalk. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number:144 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 PFA requires a minimum turning radius of 25' inside and 50' outside. This requirement is not being met in the EA lane. Number:236 Created:6/28/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Carrying this comment through until the estimate has been received and the DA completed. [6/28/071 The project has gone from a single phase to a two phase development since the last submittal. The Overland Trail and bridge improvements are now being completed in the last phase. As previously discussed, the city will require an estimate for those improvements for our review and approval. Once the final cost has been approved by the City, it shall be included in the Development Agreement and a portion collected over each phase with each building permit to assure that these improvements are made in the future. Number:237 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] The project ID sign (including any footer) can not be located with in the utility easement. Number: 240 Created:6/29/2007 Pending Page 1 Number:24 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] (PH) [12/29/05] Under the standards at the time of this submittal, it is not permissable to have a named private drive. The proposed layout would be ok for an unnamed private drive, but to pursue a named one would either require a modification to the Land Use Code, or pulling and resubmitting after the new private drive standards are approved. With the latter option, all new Transportation Development Review fees would apply. Number:25 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Check with Poudre Fire Authority on fire access issues. They may have a problem with the private drive aisle width, since parking one side would reduce the area for their trucks down to about 16'. Number:26 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] The request has been granted. [12/29/05] A variance request will be needed to eliminate the 9' utility easement on the north side of Elizabeth. Number:33 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] When 12 or more units are served by a driveway, our standards (LCUASS 9.3.2C) require a minimum width of 28'. This standard applies for the proposed private drive. The width can be reduced when driveways are off of low traffic volume streets. As long as average daily volume is <1000 vehicles, the width of the drive can be 24'. However, any parking proposed will have to be in bumpouts, and not in the 24' width. Number: 38 [12/30/05] deleted Created:12/30/2005 Resolved Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Utility Plan Number:133 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 I've redlined your checklist for the missing info. Please update the plans and resubmit the checklist with the next submittal. [2/13/07] Please complete and submit the checklist in Appendix E4 for the next round and include all items in the design. Any item left off the plans required by the appendix or LCUASS will become a comment for the next round. Number:150 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2115/07] See LCUASS and E4 for other requirements missing from the plans. More detailed comments to follow when more information is given and the plans become legible. Topic: Utility Plan - 16" Waterline Number:162 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Just carrying this item through until the variance has been approved. [2/15/071 Minimum cover requirements are not being met. I will talk to Rick Richter in Pavement Management next week when he's back from vacation for some ideas. Number:164 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 Please provide the FCLWD signature block on these sheets. Page 10 Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design Number:160 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Need to show and dimension the 10' sidewalk in the cross sections. [2/15/071 Eliminate the parkway and construct a 10' attached walk. Design the bridge in accordance with city standards. Please provide all structural calcs. More comments to follow when a specific, detailed design has been submitted. Number:161 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15107] Please see attached comments from Jin Wang. Number:166 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Please see redlines for other comments. Number:298 Created:6/29/2007 [6/29/071 Please note that all railings must be aluminum or galvanized steel. Resolved Shop drawings must be submitted to Engineering for the city's review and approval prior to ordering the materialsl. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, Calculation Number:250 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] [6/29/07] Calculations show 10 kips and 20 kips wheel load. HS20-44 loading should be 8 kips and 32 kips. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, Letter Number:249 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. [6/29/07] Letter from EEC regarding the anticipated settlement of box culvert, should state design bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, not 1,000 psf. Update settlement if value changes due to bearing pressure change. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, S1 Number:251 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Project Description Note - Change 4' x 15-6" to 14'-0" x 4'-0". Number:252 Created:6129/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] General Application Note 6 - Remove Number:253 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Foundations Note 1(i) - Add "A copy of the letter of confirmation shall be submitted to the City." Number:254 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6129/07] Foundations Note 5 - Remove. Update note number that follows. Number:255 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Submittals Note 1 - Remove. There is no Material section. Update note number that follows. Number:256 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Quality Assurance Notes - Correct note numbering. Page 11 Number:257 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Special Inspection Notes - Correct note numbering. Number:258 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 1 - Remove one of the call out "Align inside walls of new box with walls of existing box, typ." Number: [6/29/07] detail 1. 259 Detail 1 - Remove <1>, lower right hand corner. Note do not have a reference in <1> was used in detail 3, same sheet. Created: 6/2912007 Resolved Number:260 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Civil sheet 13 called out here for final contour. [6/29/071 Detail 1 - Note reference civil drawing for final contour. Final contour not found in civil drawing. Number:261 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 2 - Structural backfill dim. Should be 1'-6" min. Need to call out slope of backfill. Number:262 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6129/07] Detail 2 - Skew length called out should be 15-6" Number:263 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 3 - Sidewalk should be 6" Topic: lJtility Plan - Bridge Design, S2 Number:264 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 5 - t1 & bl bar need to be #7@6" per calculation submitted, not #4@6° Number:265 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07) Detail 5 - d1 bar size need to be called out. Number:266 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 5 - Call out box size as 14'-0" x 4'-0". All dimensions shown here are perpendicular dimension. If skewed span dimension are call out, it should be secondary. Skew span dimension should be 15'-6" as shown on sheet S1, not 18'-6". Correct dimension and table. Number:267 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Z bar size need to be called out Number:268 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Is dl bar perpendicular to t1, t2, b1, & b2? Or it is parallel to the C.L. of CBC? Number:269 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Remove section B-B & C-C cut lines. No section shown. Number: 270 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved Page 12 [6/29/071 Detail 4 - Label called to add horizontal dowels per 3/S1. There is not dowel called out in 3/S1. Remove label and line. Number:271 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 4 - Label pointing to transverse bar (t1, t2, bl, & b2) say to skew bars parallel to C.L. of ditch. This is not correct. These bar should be perpendicular to C.L. of ditch or parallel the headwall. Shows correct rebar orientation on plan respectively. Number:272 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 4 - There is a label calling out "see plan". This is the reinforcing plan. Remove label. Number:273 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Show correct wingwall orientation. Number:274 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 1 - Note for this detail said that it only forjoint perpendicular to the C.L. of box. This box is on a skew and the joint is NOT perpendicular to the C.L. of box, thus for this box, this detail does not apply. Need detail that applies to joint NOT perpendicular to C.L. of box. Number:275 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] New detail does not seem to work. Is the dowel bar your load transfer mechanism? Explain new detail. [6/29/07] Detail 1 - If the detail still applies to this box, the detail called for drilling 2 rows of holes all round at every 6" spacing, in addition to 1 row of holes all round at every 24"for the dowel bar. Is this correct? Number:276 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 1 - Span in table need to be clarified and updated. Number:277 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] General Note 1 - CDOT Class D (Box Culvert) called out is 4,500 psi. Design calculation show the box is design for 5,000 psi concrete. Update accordingly. Number:278 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved 16/29/07] General Note 10 - The minimum lap splice length shown here is different from those in Sheet S4. Show correct length in this table and that of Sheet S4. Number:279 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Design Data - There is NO LRFD Strength Design Method in 16th edition of AASHTO. Update design data to what was actually used for design. Number:280 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Design Data Unit Stresses - f c should be 5,000 psi as per design calculation. Number:281 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Loading Data Live Load - There is no AASHTO HS 20-25 designation. Correct/Update. Page 13 Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, S3 Number:282 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/41071 Repeat comment. Horizontal bar at mid -wall still not called out. Coordinate with comment number 288. [6/29/07] Detail 4 - There is a label calling out for horizontal reinforcing through pilaster. What is the size and spacing of the horizontal bar. Update label. This detail does not match Detail 3 this sheet and Typical Section sheet S4. Number:283 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 4 - Update dimension. Overall width of parapet is 1'-4 %" + 3" + 8y,^ + 3^ +%" and 3%"+8'/z"+3%" Number:284 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Need concrete design calculations that show the bl & b2 bar @ 6" spacing still works for the reduced "d" dimension in concrete design. [6/29/07] Detail 5 — If this detail is an option, need design calculation for the thinner slab thickness of 10" less 3" reinforcing bar cover. No plywood allow, use sand. Number:285 Created:6129/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 1 - Section 5 cut line is not shown at the right location. Update. Number:286 Created:6/2912007 Resolved [9/4/07] [6129/07] Detail 1 - Update wingwall footing thickness dimension to 1'-4" as shown on other sheet and design calculation. Need to address with note or new detail the 4" difference in thickness with the bottom slab thickness of the box. Update this detail base on how it was address. Number:287 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [9/4/07] [6/29/071 Detail 3 - Correct parapet wall height from 4'-7'/z" to 4'-4'/z", as the top slab thickness is 15". Number: 288 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [914/07] Repeat comment. Coordinate with comment number 282. [6/29/07] Detail 3 - The detail shown here does not match Detail 4 this sheet or Typical Section, sheet S4. Correct and update. Horizontal bar missing. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, S4 Number:289 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] General Note 2 — Add "Top of footing shall be flush with top of box bottom slab" Number:290 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Need to renumber notes that follow Note 3 which was removed. [6/29/07] General Note 3 — Remove. Not shown. Number:291 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] General Note 5 — This minimum splice length table is different from sheet S2. Update. Number: 292 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved Page 14 [6/29/07] Design Table - Need to label "e" dimension. Number:293 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29107) Typical Section - Change the dimension 8" to 8%". Number:294 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Typical Section — Fill slope label and arrow did not point to anything. Number:295 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Typical Section - Change footing thickness to V-4" as per design calculation and design table shown on this sheet. Remove all notes and dimension associate with ** Number:296 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Plan still have Class B and Class D concrete called out. [6/29/07] Design Data — Change design data or add note that the concrete has to be 5,000 psi as it needs to be poured monolithically with the bottom slab of box culvert. Topic: Utility Plan -Cover Number:145 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] More corrections required since the index has changed since the last submittal. [2/15/071 Correct the index (see redlines) and add the box culvert design to this set and number as part of the set. Number:200 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Please include the date of the soils report and who wrote it. There is nothing specific listed to refer the reader to. [6/27/07] Reference the soils report here (see redlines) or as line 49 in the General Notes, sheet 5. Number:201 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3/07] The legend has been updated to include the existing and proposed easements, however, the lineweights appear almost identical. Please use a grey line for existing and a darker lineweight for proposed. It helps to varify the line type as well. [6/27/07] The legend is incomplete and need to label the "easement line" as "existing" or "proposed". Missing quite a few lineweights either here or on individual sheets. Can either update the cover legend or add the various lineweights to each individual sheet as they apply. Number:243 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/3/07] This has been done on the cover sheet of the utility plans but has not been carried through to the plat. The various plan sets need to be coordinated so that they all present the same information. Does WAPA want to sign off on the landscape plan as well? There are several improvements proposed within their easement. [6/29/07] Need to type the name out of the president of the ditch company OR add a line for him to print out his own name in addition to the signature line. Topic: Utility Plan - Cross Sections Number:154 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Need to show the electrical ductbank at station 9+00 and dim from the bottom of the box.. Page 15 [6/29/07] Please dimension parkways and sidewalks. Please label existing sidewalks as "existing". Please call out the dimension from the top of pipe or structure to the subgrade where ever the minimum cover requirement is being met. [2/15/07] Missing information - please refer to LCUASS. Number:163 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Please expand the cross section grid to include the waterlines, structures, etc. [2/15/071 Need to show this line in the street cross sections. Number:232 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3107] Need to show the electrical ductbank at station 9+00 and dim from the bottom of the box. [6/27/07] Please extend the grid to include the structures and pipes located beneath the street section. Number:233 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Please dimension all sidewalks, parkways, etc. Number:246 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is made under the Plan and Profile section as well. Number:306 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Just keeping this comment alive until the rough/final grading sheet issue is resolved. [6/29/07] All grading shown outside the row must be shown on the Grading sheets. Number:307 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] The cross section at station 9+00 is incorrect. Topic: Utility Plan -Details Number:165 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] See redlines. Remove 7-19, 11-08, 7-9F and the ped ramp details. Add 701, 708, 1413, 1601. 1602 and the new ped ramp detail. Email me at sjoy@fcgov.com and I'll send you the cad file. Add "onsite" to the concrete details. Sheet 38 - see redlines. Number:214 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Missing sidewalk chase details. Topic: Utility Plan - Drainage and Erosion Control Number:218 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Perhaps removing some of the layers will help with the scannability and legability of the sheet. The way you submitted it last time was fine... only information related to Drainage and Erosion Control is required on this sheet. Number:219 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Sidewalk Chase size is incorrectly called out. Need to refer to city detail and sheet #. Page 16 Topic: Utility Plan -Existing Conditions Number:204 Created:6127/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Remove Note 4 from all sheets. Our standard Note 5 prevails. Number:205 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 Correct (all sheets) Note 5 to read: 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. Number:206 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 Sheet 7 - Demo Note 4 states that you are to protect in place and to move or remove by utility. How can you do both at the same time? Either it is staying or you are moving or removing. Number:342 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Label easements as existing or proposed to match the plat. Topic: Utility Plan - Final Grading Number:136 Created:2/13/2007 Pending [913/07] Repeat. [6/27/07] Call out the detail and sheet # for all sidewalk chases, etc. [2/13/071 Call out the detail and sheet # for the modified curb cut and sidewalk chase. Number:137 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [2/13/07] Please label all slope ratios. Number:138 Created:2/13/2007 Pending [9/3/07] The wall section shown incorrectly labels the UE as a 15' setback. Please correct. [6/27/07] The landscape plan is showing this as a 6' tall stucco and brick wall. No portion of the footing my lie within the utility easement. Please provide a cut section of the wall showing the footing and the UE so that it is very clear to the subcontractors where the wall may be placed. [2/13/07] What is the dark line shown on the SW corner of Overland and West Elizabeth - a retaining wall or fence? Wasn't included in the legend... Number:211 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Refer to detail and sheet number where necessary. Provide a cross section of the trail, construction notes if any, materials, and refer to detail and sheet number if not placed on this sheet. Number:213 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3107] Still missing this information, see comments under Rough Grading. Also, new notes 10 and 11 on sheet 12 refer to rough grading sheets for final grading. We still need final grading. If the rough grading is the final grading, then please label this area as final on the rough grading sheets and show the approximate limits. [6/27/07] Sheet 13 - Missing portions of the design along Overland Trail and the bridge area. Unable to review the areas not shown. Number:300 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Missing lot corner spot elevations. Page 17 Number:301 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Please dimension all sidewalks and trails. Label trail connections with type of material being used. Number:346 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Proposed grading does not tie into existing grading. Please see redlines. Number:347 Created:913/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Correct phase lines, all sheets, so that Phase One completes the curb returns into Phase Two. Number:348 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Label easements as existing or proposed. This has been a repeat comment under other Topics so I've created a new comment for each sheet that this information needs to be clarified to make sure we get the sheets labeled correctly. Number:349 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Proposed grading is shown tying into lot lines. Are the lines contour lines as well? Just a question... Number:350 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Correct misspelling on Sheet 11. Topic: Utility Plan -General Number:207 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved (9/3/07] The building department will determine whether or not a handrail is needed in this area. Please see them as soon as possible. If the handrail is required, then widen out the walk as previously directed and coordinate the plan sets. Need to expand the note to include additional direction. See utility plan redlines and make the same reference in the landscape plans. [6/27/07] There is a new landscape wall shown on the south side of Elizabeth that wasn't previously shown before. It appears that you are meeting the 2' minimum setback but wondered how you will be landscaping between the sidewalk and wall. If I might suggest widening out the sidewalk 2' to meet the wall, you won't have a maintenance issue. Figure 16-1 really restricts what you can put in there and just from a practical point of view, it's really hard to get anything to grow in there anyway. You could taper the sidewalk to meet the widened section with a 45 degree angle or curve it in a way that makes sense. Whatever you think is best and will be safe later. Number:210 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 Remove revisions from the title block, each sheet. The plans haven't been approved yet, therefore there are no revisions. Number:212 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3/07] [6/27/071 See redlines for other comments. Number:228 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 This is a repeat question from the previous redlines... but why is the curb and sidewalk jogging at the west end of Elizabeth? This needs to be corrected. Page 18 "Update - per the last discussion, the applicant is proposing a change from VC to Rollover curb midblock. The city only allows a change in curb type at the intersections because of the additional cost and difficulty in maintaining the transition area, plus it causes the sidewalk to job like what's proposed. No variance can be granted because what you are proposing is not as good or better than the standard and it does cost the city additional time and money in maintaining this area. See 1.9.4 if you wish to pursue the variance. Topic: Utility Plan - General Notes Number:148 Created: 2/1512007 Resolved [2/15/07] Remove D - this is redundant. Number:203 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Line 49 has not been addressed appropriately. Either reference the name, date and prepared by information here or on the cover sheet. [6/27/07] See redlines. Number:299 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Line 48 of the General Notes requires a little more information. Need to site the section of the code that was varied as well as what the standard is and what the variance granted. Topic: Utility Plan -Grading Number:134 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [2/13/07] Proposed contours do not tie into existing contours in all locations. Number:139 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [2/13/071 Need to include the box culvert design in the utility plan set and label the sheets as part of this set. Topic: Utility Plan - Intersection Details Number:231 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6127/07] See 7-27 and 7-28 for all required spot elevations that need to be called out. Need to show the transition length on all intersections. If the minimum transition length is not provided with the next submittal, then that will generate another comment so please be sure to meet the minimum. If the minimum has not been met with THIS submittal but I can't tell because it's not dimensioned, then correcting the situation will change the spot elevations and flowlines as well. More comments could follow based on the new information. This statement or disclaimer applies everywhere. If the information changes, then it's basically a new review and new comments can be generated. Topic: Utility Plan - Plan & Profiles Number:149 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15107] Dimension all crosspans and show them in the profiles. Number:151 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Just carrying this item through until the variance is approved. [2/15107] Minimum cover requirements are not being met. Please refer to 12.2.2 Number:152 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] All transitions must occur at the PC of an intersection. [2/15/07] Please provide a transition detail for the VC to rollover curb. Page 19 [9/3/07] [6/29/071 The site, landscape, utility and plat plans need to go through each comment under the different sections so that all comments and plan sets can be properly coordinated. Some comments made under the Utility Plan section, for instance, will affect the site and landscape plans as well. Number:297 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Section 3.8.11 of The Land Use Code requires fences to be articulated. Number:338 Created:9/312007 Resolved [9/3/07] Please coordinate the various plan sets so that they all match and present the same information. In other words, comments given under "General", "Plat", "Site", etc, will effect the other plan sets as well. Number:358 Created:9/4/2007 Pending [9/4/07] All plan sets: The Vicintiy Map covers too large an area making the text too small to read or scan. Suggest going to a 1 "=1000' scale and reducing the area shown. Number:359 Created:9/4/2007 Pending [9/4/07] All plan sets: See redlines for other minor comments. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: General Number:8 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] The general notes are incomplete. Many are either missing entirely or missing part of the note. I can e-mail you the full note set if you need it. Please discuss any notes that you feel are not applicable on an individual basis with me. Unless otherwise approved, they should be verbatim. Number:30 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [9/3/07] Please submit another paper round before going to mylars. This does not have to be an "official" round if no other departments have the need other than myself. The scanning issues on the various plan sets are still problematic and mylars will be rejected if presented "as is". [6/27/07] Repeat comment. The scanning issues will need to be resolved before the mylars can be signed. I highlighted a couple of the utility plan sheets to give you an idea of some of the problems. All line over text labeling needs to be corrected on all sheets. Please come in and see me or JR in Tech Services if you have any questions about E6. [2/13/07] The plan sets are still not meeting the requirements set forth in Appendix E6. In some cases, the font is too small to even read let alone review. Please bring the plans up to standard. More comments to follow once the labeling becomes legible. [4/6/06] [12/29/051 Scanability is an issue on many of the sheets. Some line types are too light, some overlapping text problems. Please refer to redlines, Appendix E-6, and talk with J.R. in our technical services department regarding how to clean up the drawings. Number:31 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/051 Refer to redlines for additional minor comments. Number:32 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12129/05] Please provide a copy of the "Final Affadavit and Agreement" referenced on the plat. Page 2 Number:153 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 Please use a VC, sheet 17. Number:220 Created:6127/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 Because there are no waterline plan and profile sheets, you will need to provide the waterline profiles on the street plan and profile sheets. All minimum cover requirements apply. Number:221 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Please call out the cover depth to any pipe or structure that does not meet section 12.2.2. on all plan and profile sheets (street and utility). Will need to update the variance letter to list out all locations where this requirement is not being met as well. Number:222 Created:6/2712007 Pending [9/3107] Please carry cross slopes out to at least one decimal place. [6/27/07] The city requires all CL stationing and where FL and CL stationing is used separately, you'll need to provide spots at all PCs and VCs on the plan view and label with the cross slope so that I can verify that the min/max cross slope requirement is being met. Number:223 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Grade breaks can not exceed those stated in 7.4.1.6.3. Number:224 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/271071 Label the station and elevation of the end of both FL's for the the culdesac so that I can make sure they match up. I redlined the first culdesac to ask if two particular points were the same. Make sure the max grade break isn't being exceeded as well. Number:225 Created:6127/2007 Resolved [6/271071 Cross slopes of the culdesac or any street can't exceed 2%min or 3% max. Number:226 Created:6/2712007 Resolved [6127/07] The wrong intersection detail sheet is being referred to on each plan and profile sheet. Number:227 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Please provide more overlap between matchlines. There are missing gaps in some cases. Number:229 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27107] Overland Trail - Note 2 says that all curb returns are 20' unless otherwise noted. Please note both curb return radii on Overland because they are not 20'. Number:230 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 Overland Trail - Missing information. Number:247 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Overland Trail - All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is made under the Plan and Profile section as well. Page 20 Number:248 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] [6/29/07] Overland Trail - All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is under the Cross Section section as well. Number:304 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07) Overland Trail - Max grade break has been exceeded but could be easily solved with another grade break thrown in between the two. The CL profile is missing the existing grade - is it because it's the same as the proposed? Perhaps labeling it that way would make it more clear. Number:305 Created: 6/2912007 Resolved [6/29/07] Station 4+00 is showing a taper in the pavement to meet existing dirt or pavement? But sheet 27 is not showing any taper at all. Which is correct? If the plan view on 27 is correct, then correct the cross section. If the cross section is correct, correct the plan view on 27 and how will the drainage be handled? What's currently shown won't work. Number:308 Created: 6/2912007 Resolved [6/29/071 Please relabel Sheet 27 as "Ultimate (Phase 2) Overland Trail Plan and Profile". Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Utility Plan - Plan & Profiles Number:21 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [6/27/071 Still need to [2/13/07] Repeat comment. Also, now missing centerline profiles. Please stack all of the profiles vertically so that they line up. Please provide separate intersection spot details (can do all on one sheet if you like). The spots shown on the plan view are too small to read and will not scan. Please refer to E6 for minimum font size requirements. Minimum cover requirements are not being met (see 12.2.2 of LCUASS). Missing info - crosspans aren't dimensioned, centerline profile needs to continue to centerline of intersecting street, need to show all existing utilities that may be crossing the street in the plan and profiles (district, etc), missing slope %, taper doesn't meet standard on Overland. [4/6/06] [12/29/051 Flowline profiles will be needed in addition to centerline profiles for final compliance. Also at final, we'll want to see station and approximate locations of all utility crossings, and driveways. Number:78 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [2/13/071 [4/6/06] Please extend street profiles to the centerline of intersecting streets. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Utility Plan - Rough Grading Number:135 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Still missing some lot corners. [2/13/07] Please provide spot elevations for all lot corners and at the PC's of corner lots as well. Number:209 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] The key maps aren't correct. The area blocked out is not what is actually shown on the sheet. Please correct all key maps, each sheet. Page 21 Number:343 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Provide reception numbers for easements dedicated by separate document. Number:344 Created:9/3/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Per an email discussion, these sheets were going to be changed to Final Grading in response the the lack of grading shown around the box culvert/Overland Trail on the Final Grading sheet. This is going to be confusing as the rought grading spots are different than the final grading spots and there are several notes on the rough grading plan that refer the reader to the Final Grading. What about creating a sheet 13b just for the final grading on Overland? That should clarify the drawings better and give everyone what they need. Number:345 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] There is a new note number 6 shown. Please add verbage something to the effect that the wall must be placed a minimum of 2' behind the sidewalk. Since this is quite a drop, you may want to consider installing handrails for liability reasons. Number:353 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] The key map is still showing the wrong area shown on sheet 10. This was a redline comment from the last round and has not been corrected. Topic: Utility Plan - Signing and Striping Number:156 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved (6/27/071 Repeat. [2/15/07] Please route Traffic Engineering with the next round so that they can review this sheet. Topic: Utility Plan - Typical Street Sections Number:155 Created: 2/1512007 Resolved [2/15/07] Correct the local residential section, see redlines. Topic: Utility Plan - Underdrain Number:158 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 Please provide an updated underdrain report. Number:159 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Minimum slope requirement is not being met. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Number:157 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Please note that driveways may not be placed over the waterline to any lot. Please note this on the site plan as well. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Phasing Plan Number:215 Created: 6/2712007 Resolved [6127/071 Please note to construct the waterline stub 10' back (or ?) into Phase 11. That way you won't have to tear any of your Phase I work up later to tie in. Number:351 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Please correct Phasing Lines, all sheets... see previous comments under other topics and carry this comment through any sheet where phasing is shown. Page 22 Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan Center Number:352 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Driveway locations now shown but the sewer service is hard to read. Text is blurry for the individual services, perhaps the pen width is too large for that small of a font. Please see E6 for minimum font size as well. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan East Number:217 Created: 6/2712007 Pending [9/3107) Now labeled as such, however, no detail and sheet were referenced. Please provide. [6/27/07] The existing ADS pipe under Elizabeth must be removed entirely from the row. Right now the plans are showing it only removed from curb to curb. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan West Number:216 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 Please show all driveway locations on all lots with less than 50' of frontage on all utility plan sheets where applicable. Remove the word "conceptual" from the driveway location note and correct note 7 to read: Driveways on individual lots may not be placed over water services. The driveway locations need to be shown on the site plan and the landscape plan along with the same note. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: Traffic Number:60 Created:1/18/2006 Resolved [5/3/06] Still have not received these plans to review. Must provide prior to final. Not to hold up hearing though. [1/18/06] Landscape and Signing and Striping plans were not received. Please provide with further submittals. Number:61 Created:1/18/2006 Resolved [5/3/06] See previous comment. [1118/06] Signing and Striping Plan should include the Elizabeth and Overland intersection Scope of area should include the full length of any turn lanes serving that intersection. Plan should also include street and lane dimensions. Number:62 Created:1/18/2006 Resolved [5/3/06] See previous comment. [1/18/061 Project will need to restripe the north bound direction at Elizabeth to include a left turn lane. Number:63 Created:1/18/2006 Resolved [1/18/06] Current TIS, based on an incorrect number of units, causes an APF issue on the east leg of the Overland and Elizabeth intersection (overall LOS = F). Please revise TIS and resubmit. Number:64 Created:1/18/2006 Resolved (1/18/061 Traffic Op's has issues with the 24' width of Vira Dr. The narrow width coupled with parking on one side is not enforceable and will only create discontent from the residents Page 23 when their concerns and complaints with inadequate roadway width, poor sight distance and illegal parking can not be mitigated. Traffic Op's has existing experience with this inadequate design and its inherent problems, and therefore do not support the design. Number:65 Created:1/18/2006 Resolved [1/18/06] Please provide a queue analysis, in the revised TIS, for the east bound Elizabeth movement. Traffic Op's has concerns about closeness of east Vira Dr to Overland. Number:66 Created:1/18/2006 Resolved [1/18/06] Is the multi -family component apartments or townhomes, rental or owned? Number:73 Created:218/2006 Resolved [2/8/06] Development will need a Variance for his MF access drive being closer than 460' to the Overland Trail and Elizabeth intersection. ******** Due to re -interpretation of Table 7-3 LCUASS, and that Traffic continues to agree with a minimum of 150' separation between the nearsest edge of ROW of the Multi -family access and the nearest existing edge of ROW of Overland Trail, Traffic waives its need for a variance on this issue.****** Number: 111 [8/21 /07] [5/3/06] Ok to go to hearing. Number: 320 [8/21/071 No final issues. Created:5/3/2006 Resolved Created:8121/2007 Pending Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number:56 Created:1/13/2006 Resolved [1113/06] Please install crossing ramps at both locations where the internal path crosses Sunflower Drive. Number:57 Created:1/13/2006 Resolved [4/18/06] Repeat comment/question. (1/13/061 Would it be possible to better align the pedestrian crossing of West Elizabeth (west side of Overland) so that the crossing isn't skewed. I understand that there are some utility conflicts but would like to see if we can fix this. Thanks. Number:58 Created:1/13/2006 Resolved [1/13/06] Path Configuration: Seems like the proposed "soft surface path" within this development makes sense for some of this area, but not all of it. As we discussed at Staff Review, the portion of the path west of Sunflower can remain soft surface, but needs to be increased in width to 6'. All other portions of path serve to provide pedestrian connectivity (they also directly impact PED LOS) and should be increased to 6' in width as well as be constructed of concrete, per LCUASS. I'd also like to see the eastern most portion of this system (from E. Fiore Ct. out to W. Elisabeth) be realigned slightly to the east in order to more closely match the desire line of a bicyclist or pedestrian as they approach W. Elizabeth and its interesection with Overland Trail. I have provided a redlined site plan to current planning, as well as a copy for the applicant for further clarification. If there are any questions please do no hesistate to call. Thanks. Page 24 Topic: Site plan Number:132 Created:2/13/2007 Unresolved [2/13/071 No further comments but we do need to discuss themaintenance responsibility for that portion of sidewalk (north side of W.Elizabeth) which lies adjacent to CSU property. Page 25 Page 1 of 1 Sheri Langenberger - Re: Overland Trail Design From: Sheri Langenberger To: John Minatta; Susan Joy; Ward Stanford Date: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:21:57 PM Subject: Re: Overland Trail Design CC: Jon Sweet John We did have a chance to talk about this yesterday and did come to a decision The row for the roadway should be dedicated to the current 1/2 width standard along your frontage (57 1/2 feet), but the designed pavement width for the roadway will be 70 feet. Since this is the same width that the Ponds @ Overland Trail was designing your design needs to extend the 70 foot pavement width to the north along your frontage. As a part of the design we will need to know the exact locations of the WAPA power poles are. The power company wants no part of the pavement surface of the roadway under the canopy of the power lines. Therefore we will need to verify where the curb and gutter will lay as a part of the on site and off -site design. If needed the roadway will be narrowed to keep the pavement from being under the power lines. As for the striping on the roadway for the interim situation (before it is actually striped as a 4 lane facility) Jon you just need to work with Ward or Eric regarding how the lanes should be striped and what the transitions need to be. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this. Sheri >>> 'John Minatta" <johnminatta@comcast.net> 03/30/07 9:37 AM >>> What is the result of your discussion regarding the Overland Trail ultimate design? John Minatta, 690-2662 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\swamhoff\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001.H... 6/8/2007 Selected Issues Report c;tv of ric'ni1;,,, 2/22/2008 BELLA VIRA PDP - TYPE II & FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All Date: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number:144 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 PFA requires a minimum turning radius of 25' inside and 50' outside. This requirement is not being met in the EA lane. Number:236 Created:6/28/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Carrying this comment through until the estimate has been received and the DA completed. [6128/07] The project has gone from a single phase to a two phase development since the last submittal. The Overland Trail and bridge improvements are now being completed in the last phase. As previously discussed, the city will require an estimate for those improvements for our review and approval. Once the final cost has been approved by the City, it shall be included in the Development Agreement and a portion collected over each phase with each building permit to assure that these improvements are made in the future. Number:237 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07) The project ID sign (including any Tooter) can not be located with in the utility easement. Number:240 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/3/07] [6/29/07] The site, landscape, utility and plat plans need to go through each comment under the different sections so that all comments and plan sets can be properly coordinated. Some comments made under the Utility Plan section, for instance, will affect the site and landscape plans as well. Number:297 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Section 3.8.11 of The Land Use Code requires fences to be articulated. Number:338 Created:9/3/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Please coordinate the various plan sets so that they all match and present the same information. In other words, comments given under "General", "Plat", "Site", etc, will effect the other plan sets as well. Number:358 Created:9/4/2007 Pending [9/4/07] All plan sets: The Vicintiy Map covers too large an area making the text too small to read or scan. Suggest going to a 1 "=1000' scale and reducing the area shown. Number: 359 Created:9/4/2007 Pending Page 1 [9/4/07] All plan sets: See redlines for other minor comments. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: General Number:8 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] The general notes are incomplete. Many are either missing entirely or missing part of the note. I can e-mail you the full note set if you need it. Please discuss any notes that you feel are not applicable on an individual basis with me. Unless otherwise approved, they should be verbatim. Number:30 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [913/07] Please submit another paper round before going to mylars. This does not have to be an 'official' round if no other departments have the need other than myself. The scanning issues on the various plan sets are still problematic and mylars will be rejected if presented "as is". [6/27/07] Repeat comment. The scanning issues will need to be resolved before the mylars can be signed. I highlighted a couple of the utility plan sheets to give you an idea of some of the problems. All line over text labeling needs to be corrected on all sheets. Please come in and see me or JR in Tech Services if you have any questions about E6. [2/13/07) The plan sets are still not meeting the requirements set forth in Appendix E6. In some cases, the font is too small to even read let alone review. Please bring the plans up to standard. More comments to follow once the labeling becomes legible. [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Scanability is an issue on many of the sheets. Some line types are too light, some overlapping text problems. Please refer to redlines, Appendix E-6, and talk with J.R. in our technical services department regarding how to clean up the drawings. Number:31 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12129/05] Refer to redlines for additional minor comments. Number:32 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12129/05] Please provide a copy of the "Final Affadavit and Agreement' referenced on the plat. Number:55 Created:1/11/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Still Missing on detail sheets [1/11106] District Utilities signature block should be provided on all sheets. Number:74 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] This plan set would benefit largely from including a separate existing conditions/demolition and removal plan sheet. Then, you can pull off existing features from many other sheets where they are not really needed. Number:75 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] (PH) Bella Vita Dr, must also be dedicated as an emergency access easement. You will probably want to specify the easement area separately from the Tract A on the plat, since the parking bumpouts would not be able to be used if dedicated as emergency access. Number: 76 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved Page 2 [2/12/071 None of the plan sets meet the scanning requirements set forth in Appendix E6. Please remove all shading, correct overlapping text, use the minimum greyscale so that the lineweights are legible and scannable, etc. [4/6/06] There are many instances of overlapping text and contours on all sheets. Number:77 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [416/06] (PH) Please show the offsite trail connection to the Ponds trail on the SE corner of the site. Number:79 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] (PH) On the Overland Trail improvements sheet, you are showing an "interim condition" for the existing access location. This access should be removed and closed, since no phasing has been proposed. Number:80 Created:416/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Please show striping to indicate the location of the bike lane north of the barricade. Number:81 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Please remove the car shapes from the utility plans- they only clutter the sheet. Number:82 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Label and dimension all utility easements on the utility sheets. Number:83 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] The section of Elizabeth between the eastern Bella Vita access and Overland Trail should not have any parking on -street. Number:84 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] District Utilities signature block is not included on details sheets. Number:85 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Please refer to redlines for additional minor changes and comments. Number:86 Created:4/7/2006 Resolved [417/06] (PH) The parking space closest to Elizabeth on the eastern portion of Bella Vita Dr. should be eliminated. It defeats the purpose of widening out the entrance Number:87 Created:417/2006 Resolved [4/7/06] (PH) Please add pedestrian access ramps at the ends of all the culdesac bulbs per LCUASS Fig. 7-14. Number:89 Created:4/12/2006 Resolved [4112/06] I'd like to see a copy of the decree and permanent injunction requiring that the city water line easement be used to dispose of runoff from the equine center improvements. We need to determine if you will be allowed to regrade in this easement and if any additional new easements are needed to carry the runoff if this is changed. Number:91 Created:4/19/2006 Resolved [4/19/06] Per LCUASS Section 7.7.4, concentrated flows across a sidewalk are not allowed. Engineering has set the maximum area of impervious area allowable at 750 s.f. Please Page 3 Number:55 Created:1/11/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Still Missing on detail sheets [1/11/06] District Utilities signature block should be provided on all sheets. Number:74 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] This plan set would benefit largely from including a separate existing conditions/demolition and removal plan sheet. Then, you can pull off existing features from many other sheets where they are not really needed. Number:75 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] (PH) Bella Vita Dr. must also be dedicated as an emergency access easement. You will probably want to specify the easement area separately from the Tract A on the plat, since the parking bumpouts would not be able to be used if dedicated as emergency access. Number:76 Created:4/612006 Resolved [2/12/071 None of the plan sets meet the scanning requirements set forth in Appendix E6. Please remove all shading, correct overlapping text, use the minimum greyscale so that the lineweights are legible and scannable, etc. [416/06] There are many instances of overlapping text and contours on all sheets. Number:77 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] (PH) Please show the offsite trail connection to the Ponds trail on the SE corner of the site. Number:79 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] (PH) On the Overland Trail improvements sheet, you are showing an "interim condition" for the existing access location. This access should be removed and closed, since no phasing has been proposed. Number:80 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [416/06] Please show striping to indicate the location of the bike lane north of the barricade. Number:81 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Please remove the car shapes from the utility plans- they only clutter the sheet. Number:82 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6/06] Label and dimension all utility easements on the utility sheets. Number:83 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [416/06] The section of Elizabeth between the eastern Bella Vita access and Overland Trail should not have any parking on -street. Number:84 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [4/6106] District Utilities signature block is not included on details sheets. Number:85 Created:4/612006 Resolved [4/6/06] Please refer to redlines for additional minor changes and comments. Number:86 Created:4/7/2006 Resolved Page 3 adjust the design of your cul-de-sacs to meet this requirement. This will aptly on Fiore Ct. and on Pratolina Ct. Number:99 Created:4/21/2006 Resolved [4/21/06] Please add a splash guard to the other side of the water main vault, and flatten the grade in order to provide more cover over the 16" water line that runs under the area. Topic: Grading plans Number:9 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Please provide key maps as you have for the other sheets. Number:10 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] For final, please provide more spot elevations in culdesacs so we can verify that cross slopes and flowline slopes are met. Number: 11 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] Terry Farrill has indicated that offsite grading on FC Loveland property is ok as shown. [12/29/05] Sheet 7: In several locations, you're showing offsite grading to tie in your contours. Grading and/or construction easements would be required in these locations with letters of intent from the affected property owners received prior to hearing. This also applies on the south side of the site, where it appears that you plan to construct sidewalk along the FC- Loveland Water District's frontage. Number:12 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] All grading should tie into existing contours. Some contour lines simply end without explanation. Number:13 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] It should be noted that the existing access out to Overland Trail will be closed and replaced with curb and gutter with Phase 2 construction. Number:14 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/051 The grading and construction easement shown in Tract B is probably not necessary unless the intent is to sell off Tract B to another owner. Number:15 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Flowline slopes shown in the E. Fiore Ct. culdesac look flat. Minimum is 1%. This is a final compliance issue. Number:16 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Where slopes exceed 4:1 affecting public improvements, our standards (LCUASS 7.7.2) require retaining walls. It's appears that these slopes are exceeded near the storm drain pipes under Elizabeth. Number:17 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/051 Wherever you are showing curb cuts, there should also be a sidewalk chase shown and labeled. Also, reference the appropriate details. Number: 18 [12/29105] deleted. Created: 12/2912005 Resolved Page 4 Number:19 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Please label and dimension all existing and proposed sidewalks and accesses. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Landscape Plan Number:208 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] [6/27/071 See comment 207 under Utility Plan - Rough Grading. Number:235 Created:6/28/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Need WAPA signature on the landscape plan still. [6/28/071 Need to show, dimension and label the WAPA easement on all plan sets (site, landscape, utility and plat). WAPA will need to sign off on the plan sets if any improvements are proposed within their easement. Number:238 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Please label each landscape wall with either tow, bow or height. Number:241 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Missing a layer? See redlines. Number:244 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Remove all revisions from the title block. Number:302 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Please see comment 216 Number:321 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Scannability continues to be a problem with the plan set. Please refer to Appendix E6 for all scanning requirements and bring the set into conformance. Number:322 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Remove the word "Final" from the cover sheet title block as well as the comma, "details and notes". Remove the word "Final" from the title block on sheets 2-5. Remove the word "Enlargements" from sheet 3's title, use "Details". Number:323 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Label all easements as "existing" or "proposed" to match the plat and utility plan. Please fill in all reception numbers for the easements dedicated by separate document. Number:324 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Change the phase lines to match the utility plan's phasing to the PCs of the driveways and Overland Trail connection. Number:325 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Need to show the UE in detail 14, sheet 3, if this section is being used along the row, close to the UE. Need to refer to this detail and sheet number within the planset where ever its used. Page 5 Number:326 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] The typical parkway landscape detail #6 does not apply along the north side of Elizabeth Street where it fronts the CSU property. Please note this somehow or provide a separate section for that area. Number:327 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Please note that driveways may not be placed over the individual water services to the lots. Number:328 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Can't tell which line is the water line and which line is the sewer line for lots 1-6 along Elizabeth. Number:336 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] See comment 243. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan Del-aughter Topic: Landscape plan Number:88 Created:4/7/2006 Resolved [4/7106] Add dimension arrows for the easements on the site and landscape plans. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Plat Number:140 Created:2/14/2007 Resolved [6/26/07] [2/14/07] From Technical Services - Boundary and legal close. Number:141 Created:2/14/2007 Resolved [2/14/07] From Technical Services - What are the grey shaded areas - they cover other text. (from engineering - shading will not scan, please remove. See Appendix E6 for other scanning requirements). Number:142 Created:2/14/2007 Resolved [2/14/07] From Technical Services - Plat must have outer boundary monument at 1400' max distance. Number:143 Created:2/14/2007 Resolved [2/14/07] From Technical Services - Clearly indicate "Private Streets and Drives" on plat. Number:146 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Remove "to be vacated upon the completion of necessary drainage improvements". That is a separate process if not vacating by this plat. Number:147 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 Remove the word "permanent" from the 10' utility easement. All easements are permanent until vacated. Number:167 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Please see redlines contained within the utility plan set. Number: 196 [9/4/07] Created:6/26/2007 Pending Page 6 [6/26/071 From Technical Services: 1. Boundary and legal close. 2. Many missing bearings, distances, see redlines. Several dimension problems. 3. Show WAPA easement. 4. Delineate block boundaries with heavier lineweights. Illustrate blocks or remove blocks all together. Number:202 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Please remove all revisions in the title block before printing the mylars. The plat will not be accepted with this information shown. [6/27/07] Remove all revisions from the title block. Number:337 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] See comment 243. Number:339 Created:9/3/2007 Resolved (9/31071 Please remove all revisions in the title block before printing the mylars. The plat will not be accepted with this information shown. Number:340 Created:9/3/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Please label all easements as existing or proposed. If existing, need to label with how it was recorded (reception number?). Please provide all reception numbers for the easements being shown as dedicated by separate document. Number: 341 [9/3/07] See redlines. Created:9/3/2007 Pending Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Plat Number:6 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Tract D should be Drainage and Access Easement and Neighborhood Park. Open space implies that it will be managed by the City Natural Resources Department. Remove Open Space designation from all other Tracts as well. Number:7 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [416/06] Repeat [12/29/051 Remove centerlines on easements- they just clutter the drawing. Number:54 Created:1/11/2006 Resolved [2/13/07] [1/11/06] Technical Services Comments: 1. Boundary closes 2. Can't use East & West on Fiore Ct. 3. May be a more logical way to use the streets Elizabeth, Banyon, and Sunflower- see Redlines. 4. Vira can not be used as a street or drive name since Vera is already in use Number:90 Created: 4/1912006 Resolved [6/27/07] Tract C is now labeled as being owned and maintained by the city. If so, then the city will need to sign the plat as an owner as well. Page 7 [2/131071 Please place a signature line on the plat for any entity or persons having an easement dedicated to them. [4/19/061 The Ditch Company should sign all applicable plan sheets, as well as the plat. Number:98 Created:4120/2006 Resolved [2/13/071 [4/20/06] Tech. Services Comments: 1. Easements need to be locatable on the plat. 2. Note the origin of ROW dedication for Overland Trail. 3. Fix overlapping text. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Site Plan Number:239 Created: 6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Please label each landscape wall with either tow, bow or height. Number:242 Created: 6/2912007 Resolved [6/29/07] Missing a layer? See redlines. Number: 245 Created: 6/29/2007 [6129/07] Remove all revisions from the title block. Number: 303 [6/29/07] Please see comment 216. Created: 6/29/2007 Resolved Resolved Number:329 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Remove the word "Final" from the title and title block. This is just the process you were going through. Number:330 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Scannability, still continues to be a problem with the plan set. Please see Appendix E6 for all scanning requirements and bring the plans up to standard. Mylars can not be signed until this is done. Suggest changing the scale on the vicinity map to 1 "=1000' and reduce the area shown so that all text is legible. See LCUASS for vicinity map requirements. Number:331 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Details 2 and 3 on Sheet 2 are not typical... there are lots fronting Vertical Curb. Need to provide another typical section for those. Number:332 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Remove the landscaping from the site plan. Number:333 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/31071 Label all easements as existing or proposed (needs to match the plat and utility plans). Provide reception numbers for the easements recorded by separate document. Number:334 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3107] Phase lines need to match the utility plans. Number:335 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Sheet 4 calls out conflicting row dimensions on W. Elizabeth Street. Page 8 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Site plan Number:34 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Site plan shows a privacy fence located in the 15' utility easement. This is not likely to be allowed- would need approval from all utilities. Number:35 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [8/16/06] [12/29/05] Site plan shows a 21' WAPA power line easement. This is not shown on the plat, and should probably be vacated with the plat since the ROW will serve the same purpose. Number:36 Created:12/30/2005 Resolved [12/30/05] The phase line shown on the site plan/ tract line on the plat and plans should be expanded to include all Phase 2 structures. We really need more detail in general regarding the phasing (what is to be done with each phase- removal of structures, grading, and construction should be addressed). Number:37 Created:12/30/2005 Resolved [12/30/051 See redlines for additional revisions. Topic: Streets Number:20 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] A third pedestrian access ramp is required at all T-intersections, including where the private drive connects to Elizabeth. Access ramps are also required every 300', although ramps can be incorporated into driveways to meet this requirement. Number: 22 [4/6/06] Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/051 Sheet 10: Please reference the design mentioned in Sunflower Dr. note. Number:23 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] At final compliance, we'll need to see street cross sections at 50' intervals Number:24 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] (PH) (12/29/051 Under the standards at the time of this submittal, it is not permissable to have a named private drive. The proposed layout would be ok for an unnamed private drive, but to pursue a named one would either require a modification to the Land Use Code, or pulling and resubmitting after the new private drive standards are approved. With the latter option, all new Transportation Development Review fees would apply. Number:25 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Check with Poudre Fire Authority on fire access issues. They may have a problem with the private drive aisle width, since parking one side would reduce the area for their trucks down to about 16'. Number:26 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] The request has been granted. Page 9 [12/29/05] A variance request will be needed to eliminate the 9' utility easement on the north side of Elizabeth. Number:33 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] When 12 or more units are served by a driveway, our standards (LCUASS 9.3.2C) require a minimum width of 28'. This standard applies for the proposed private drive. The width can be reduced when driveways are off of low traffic volume streets. As long as average daily volume is <1000 vehicles, the width of the drive can be 24'. However, any parking proposed will have to be in bumpouts, and not in the 24' width. Number: 38 [12/30/05] deleted Created:12/30/2005 Resolved Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Utility Plan Number:133 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] I've redlined your checklist for the missing info. Please update the plans and resubmit the checklist with the next submittal. [2/13/071 Please complete and submit the checklist in Appendix E4 for the next round and include all items in the design. Any item left off the plans required by the appendix or LCUASS will become a comment for the next round. Number:150 Created: 2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] See LCUASS and E4 for other requirements missing from the plans. More detailed comments to follow when more information is given and the plans become legible. Topic: Utility Plan - 16" Waterline Number:162 Created: 2/15/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Just carrying this item through until the variance has been approved. [2/15/07) Minimum cover requirements are not being met. I will talk to Rick Richter in Pavement Management next week when he's back from vacation for some ideas. Number:164 Created: 2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Please provide the FCLWD signature block on these sheets. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design Number:160 Created: 2/15/2007 Resolved [6129/071 Need to show and dimension the 10' sidewalk in the cross sections. [2/15/07] Eliminate the parkway and construct a 10' attached walk. Design the bridge in accordance with city standards. Please provide all structural calcs. More comments to follow when a specific, detailed design has been submitted. Number: 161 Created: 2/15/2007 [2/15/071 Please see attached comments from Jin Wang. Number: 166 Created: 2/15/2007 [2/15/07] Please see redlines for other comments. Number: 298 Created: 6/29/2007 Resolved Resolved Resolved Page 10 [6/29/071 Please note that all railings must be aluminum or galvanized steel. Shop drawings must be submitted to Engineering for the city's review and approval prior to ordering the materialsl. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, Calculation Number:250 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] [6/29/071 Calculations show 10 kips and 20 kips wheel load. HS20-44 loading should be 8 kips and 32 kips. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, Letter Number:249 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. [6/29/071 Letter from EEC regarding the anticipated settlement of box culvert, should state design bearing pressure of 2.000 psf, not 1,000 psf. Update settlement if value changes due to bearing pressure change. Topic: Utility Plan -Bridge Design, S1 Number:251 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Project Description Note - Change 4' x 15'-6" to 14'-0" x 4'-0". Number:252 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29107] General Application Note 6 - Remove Number:253 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Foundations Note 1(i) - Add "A copy of the letter of confirmation shall be submitted to the City." Number:254 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Foundations Note 5 - Remove. Update note number that follows. Number:255 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Submittals Note 1 - Remove. There is no Material section. Update note number that follows. Number:256 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Quality Assurance Notes -Correct note numbering. Number:257 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Special Inspection Notes - Correct note numbering. Number:258 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6129/071 Detail 1 - Remove one of the call out "Align inside walls of new box with walls of existing box, typ." Number:259 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 1 - Remove <1>, lower right hand corner. Note do not have a reference in detail 1. <1> was used in detail 3, same sheet. Number:260 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Civil sheet 13 called out here for final contour. Page 11 [6/29/07] Detail 1 - Note reference civil drawing for final contour. Final contour not found in civil drawing. Number:261 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 2 - Structural backfill dim. Should be 1'-6" min. Need to call out slope of backfill. Number:262 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 2 - Skew length called out should be 15'-6' Number:263 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6129/07] Detail 3 - Sidewalk should be 6" Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, S2 Number:264 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 5 - t1 & bl bar need to be #7@6" per calculation submitted, not #4@6" Number:265 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 5 - dl bar size need to be called out. Number:266 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 5 - Call out box size as 14'-0" x 4'-0". All dimensions shown here are perpendicular dimension. If skewed span dimension are call out, it should be secondary. Skew span dimension should be 15'-6" as shown on sheet S1, not 18'-6". Correct dimension and table. Number:267 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Z bar size need to be called out Number:268 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Is dl bar perpendicular to t1, t2, bl, & b2? Or it is parallel to the C.L. of CBC? Number:269 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Remove section B-B & C-C cut lines. No section shown. Number:270 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 4 - Label called to add horizontal dowels per 3/S1. There is not dowel called out in 3/S1. Remove label and line. Number:271 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Label pointing to transverse bar (t1, t2, b1, & b2) say to skew bars parallel to C.L. of ditch. This is not correct. These bar should be perpendicular to C.L. of ditch or parallel the headwall. Shows correct rebar orientation on plan respectively. Number:272 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - There is a label calling out "see plan'. This is the reinforcing plan. Remove label. Number:273 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Show correct wingwall orientation. Page 12 Number:274 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 1 - Note for this detail said that it only forjoint perpendicular to the C.L. of box. This box is on a skew and the joint is NOT perpendicular to the C.L. of box, thus for this box, this detail does not apply. Need detail that applies to joint NOT perpendicular to C.L. of box. Number:275 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [914/07] New detail does not seem to work. Is the dowel bar your load transfer mechanism? Explain new detail. [6/29/07] Detail 1 - If the detail still applies to this box, the detail called for drilling 2 rows of holes all round at every 6° spacing, in addition to 1 row of holes all round at every 24"for the dowel bar. Is this correct? Number:276 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/291071 Detail 1 - Span in table need to be clarified and updated. Number:277 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] General Note 1 - CDOT Class D (Box Culvert) called out is 4,500 psi. Design calculation show the box is design for 5,000 psi concrete. Update accordingly. Number:278 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] General Note 10 - The minimum lap splice length shown here is different from those in Sheet S4. Show correct length in this table and that of Sheet S4. Number:279 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Design Data - There is NO LRFD Strength Design Method in 16th edition of AASHTO. Update design data to what was actually used for design. Number:280 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Design Data Unit Stresses - f'c should be 5,000 psi as per design calculation. Number:281 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29107] Loading Data Live Load - There is no AASHTO HS 20-25 designation. Correct/Update. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, S3 Number:282 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Horizontal bar at mid -wall still not called out. Coordinate with comment number 288. [6/29/07] Detail 4 - There is a label calling out for horizontal reinforcing through pilaster. What is the size and spacing of the horizontal bar. Update label. This detail does not match Detail 3 this sheet and Typical Section sheet S4. Number:283 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Detail 4 - Update dimension. Overall width of parapet is 1'-4°. %" + 3" + 8%" + 3" + %" and 3%" + 8'/2" + 3%". Number:284 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Need concrete design calculations that show the bl & b2 bar @ 6" spacing still works for the reduced "d" dimension in concrete design. Page 13 [4/7/06] (PH) The parking space closest to Elizabeth on the eastern portion of Bella Vita Dr. should be eliminated. It defeats the purpose of widening out the entrance Number:87 Created:4/7/2006 Resolved [4/7/06] (PH) Please add pedestrian access ramps at the ends of all the culdesac bulbs per LCUASS Fig. 7-14. Number:89 Created:4/12/2006 Resolved [4/12106] I'd like to see a copy of the decree and permanent injunction requiring that the city water line easement be used to dispose of runoff from the equine center improvements. We need to determine if you will be allowed to regrade in this easement and if any additional new easements are needed to carry the runoff if this is changed. Number:91 Created:4/19/2006 Resolved [4/19/061 Per LCUASS Section 7.7.4, concentrated flows across a sidewalk are not allowed. Engineering has set the maximum area of impervious area allowable at 750 s.f. Please adjust the design of your cul-de-sacs to meet this requirement. This will aplly on Fiore Ct. and on Pratolina Ct. Number:99 Created:4/21/2006 Resolved [4/21/06] Please add a splash guard to the other side of the water main vault, and flatten the grade in order to provide more cover over the 16" water line that runs under the area. Topic: Grading plans Number:9 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/051 Please provide key maps as you have for the other sheets. Number:10 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/051 For final, please provide more spot elevations in culdesacs so we can verify that cross slopes and flowline slopes are met. Number:11 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] Terry Farrill has indicated that offsite grading on FC Loveland property is ok as shown. [12/29/05] Sheet 7: In several locations, you're showing offsite grading to tie in your contours. Grading and/or construction easements would be required in these locations with letters of intent from the affected property owners received prior to hearing. This also applies on the south side of the site, where it appears that you plan to construct sidewalk along the FC- Loveland Water District's frontage. Number:12 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] All grading should tie into existing contours. Some contour lines simply end without explanation. Number:13 Created: 12129/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] It should be noted that the existing access out to Overland Trail will be closed and replaced with curb and gutter with Phase 2 construction. Number:14 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12129/05] The grading and construction easement shown in Tract B is probably not necessary unless the intent is to sell off Tract B to another owner. Page 4 [6/29/07] Detail 5 — If this detail is an option, need design calculation for the thinner slab thickness of 10" less 3" reinforcing bar cover. No plywood allow, use sand. Number:285 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Detail 1 - Section 5 cut line is not shown at the right location. Update. Number:286 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [9/4/07] [6129/07] Detail 1 - Update wingwall footing thickness dimension to 1'-4" as shown on other sheet and design calculation. Need to address with note or new detail the 4" difference in thickness with the bottom slab thickness of the box. Update this detail base on how it was address. Number:287 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [9/4/07] (6/29/07] Detail 3 - Correct parapet wall height from 4'-7%" to 4'-4'/2", as the top slab thickness is 15". Number:288 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Coordinate with comment number 282. [6/291071 Detail 3 - The detail shown here does not match Detail 4 this sheet or Typical Section, sheet S4. Correct and update. Horizontal bar missing. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design, S4 Number:289 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] General Note 2 — Add "Top of footing shall be flush with top of box bottom slab" Number:290 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Need to renumber notes that follow Note 3 which was removed. [6/29/07] General Note 3 — Remove. Not shown. Number:291 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/291071 General Note 5 — This minimum splice length table is different from sheet S2. Update. Number:292 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Design Table - Need to label "e" dimension. Number:293 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Typical Section - Change the dimension 8" to 8'/". Number:294 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Typical Section — Fill slope label and arrow did not point to anything. Number:295 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Typical Section - Change footing thickness to 1'-4" as per design calculation and design table shown on this sheet. Remove all notes and dimension associate with ** Number:296 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/4/07] Repeat comment. Plan still have Class B and Class D concrete called out. Page 14 [6/29/07] Design Data — Change design data or add note that the concrete has to be 5,000 psi as it needs to be poured monolithically with the bottom slab of box culvert. Topic: Utility Plan -Cover Number:145 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] More corrections required since the index has changed since the last submittal. [2/15107] Correct the index (see redlines) and add the box culvert design to this set and number as part of the set. Number:200 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Please include the date of the soils report and who wrote it. There is nothing specific listed to refer the reader to. [6/27/07] Reference the soils report here (see redlines) or as line 49 in the General Notes, sheet 5. Number:201 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3/07] The legend has been updated to include the existing and proposed easements, however, the lineweights appear almost identical. Please use a grey line for existing and a darker lineweight for proposed. It helps to varify the line type as well. [6127107] The legend is incomplete and need to label the "easement line" as "existing" or "proposed". Missing quite a few Iineweights either here or on individual sheets. Can either update the cover legend or add the various Iineweights to each individual sheet as they apply. Number:243 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/3/07] This has been done on the cover sheet of the utility plans but has not been carried through to the plat. The various plan sets need to be coordinated so that they all present the same information. Does WAPA want to sign off on the landscape plan as well? There are several improvements proposed within their easement. [6/29/07] Need to type the name out of the president of the ditch company OR add a line for him to print out his own name in addition to the signature line. Topic: Utility Plan - Cross Sections Number:154 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Need to show the electrical ductbank at station 9+00 and dim from the bottom of the box.. [6/29/07] Please dimension parkways and sidewalks. Please label existing sidewalks as "existing". Please call out the dimension from the top of pipe or structure to the subgrade where ever the minimum cover requirement is being met. [2/15/07] Missing information - please refer to LCUASS. Number:163 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Please expand the cross section grid to include the waterlines, structures, etc. [2/15107] Need to show this line in the street cross sections. Number:232 Created:6127/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Need to show the electrical ductbank at station 9+00 and dim from the bottom of the box. [6/27/071 Please extend the grid to include the structures and pipes located beneath the street section. Page 15 Number:233 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27107] Please dimension all sidewalks, parkways, etc. Number:246 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is made under the Plan and Profile section as well. Number:306 Created:6/29/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Just keeping this comment alive until the rough/final grading sheet issue is resolved. [6/29/071 All grading shown outside the row must be shown on the Grading sheets. Number:307 Created:6/2912007 Resolved [6/29/07] The cross section at station 9+00 is incorrect. Topic: Utility Plan - Details Number:165 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] See redlines. Remove 7-19, 11-08, 7-9F and the ped ramp details. Add 701, 708, 1413, 1601, 1602 and the new ped ramp detail. Email me at sjoy@fcgov.com and I'll send you the cad file. Add "onsite" to the concrete details. Sheet 38 - see redlines. Number:214 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07) Missing sidewalk chase details. Topic: Utility Plan - Drainage and Erosion Control Number:218 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27107] Perhaps removing some of the layers will help with the scannability and legibility of the sheet. The way you submitted it last time was fine... only information related to Drainage and Erosion Control is required on this sheet. Number:219 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Sidewalk Chase size is incorrectly called out. Need to refer to city detail and sheet #. Topic: Utility Plan - Existing Conditions Number:204 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Remove Note 4 from all sheets. Our standard Note 5 prevails. Number:205 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Correct (all sheets) Note 5 to read: 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. Number:206 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Sheet 7 - Demo Note 4 states that you are to protect in place and to move or remove by utility. How can you do both at the same time? Either it is staying or you are moving or removing. Number: 342 Created:9/312007 Pending Page 16 [9/3/07] Label easements as existing or proposed to match the plat Topic: Utility Plan - Final Grading Number:136 Created:2/13/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Repeat. [6/27/071 Call out the detail and sheet # for all sidewalk chases, etc. [2/13/07] Call out the detail and sheet # for the modified curb cut and sidewalk chase. Number:137 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [2/13/07] Please label all slope ratios. Number:138 Created:2/13/2007 Pending [9/3/07] The wall section shown incorrectly labels the UE as a 15' setback. Please correct. [6/27/07] The landscape plan is showing this as a U tall stucco and brick wall. No portion of the footing my lie within the utility easement. Please provide a cut section of the wall showing the footing and the UE so that it is very clear to the subcontractors where the wall may be placed. [2/13/07] What is the dark line shown on the SW corner of Overland and West Elizabeth - a retaining wall or fence? Wasn't included in the legend... Number:211 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Refer to detail and sheet number where necessary. Provide a cross section of the trail, construction notes if any, materials, and refer to detail and sheet number if not placed on this sheet. Number:213 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [913/071 Still missing this information, see comments under Rough Grading. Also, new notes 10 and 11 on sheet 12 refer to rough grading sheets for final grading. We still need final grading. If the rough grading is the final grading, then please label this area as final on the rough grading sheets and show the approximate limits. [6/27/07] Sheet 13 - Missing portions of the design along Overland Trail and the bridge area. Unable to review the areas not shown. Number:300 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Missing lot corner spot elevations. Number:301 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Please dimension all sidewalks and trails. Label trail connections with type of material being used. Number:346 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Proposed grading does not tie into existing grading. Please see redlines. Number:347 Created:9/312007 Pending [9/3/07] Correct phase lines, all sheets, so that Phase One completes the curb returns into Phase Two. Number:348 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3107] Label easements as existing or proposed. This has been a repeat comment under other Topics so I've created a new comment for each sheet that this information needs to be clarified to make sure we get the sheets labeled correctly. Page 17 Number:349 Created:913/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Proposed grading is shown tying into lot lines. Are the lines contour lines as well? Just a question... Number:350 Created:9/312007 Pending [9/3/07] Correct misspelling on Sheet 11. Topic: Utility Plan -General Number:207 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] The building department will determine whether or not a handrail is needed in this area. Please see them as soon as possible. If the handrail is required, then widen out the walk as previously directed and coordinate the plan sets. Need to expand the note to include additional direction. See utility plan redlines and make the same reference in the landscape plans. [6/27/071 There is a new landscape wall shown on the south side of Elizabeth that wasn't previously shown before. It appears that you are meeting the 2' minimum setback but wondered how you will be landscaping between the sidewalk and wall. If I might suggest widening out the sidewalk 2' to meet the wall, you won't have a maintenance issue. Figure 16-1 really restricts what you can put in there and just from a practical point of view, it's really hard to get anything to grow in there anyway. You could taper the sidewalk to meet the widened section with a 45 degree angle or curve it in a way that makes sense. Whatever you think is best and will be safe later. Number:210 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Remove revisions from the title block, each sheet. The plans haven't been approved yet, therefore there are no revisions. Number:212 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3/07] [6/27/07] See redlines for other comments. Number:228 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] This is a repeat question from the previous redlines... but why is the curb and sidewalk jogging at the west end of Elizabeth? This needs to be corrected. *Update - per the last discussion, the applicant is proposing a change from VC to Rollover curb midblock. The city only allows a change in curb type at the intersections because of the additional cost and difficulty in maintaining the transition area, plus it causes the sidewalk to job like what's proposed. No variance can be granted because what you are proposing is not as good or better than the standard and it does cost the city additional time and money in maintaining this area. See 1.9.4 if you wish to pursue the variance. Topic: Utility Plan - General Notes Number:148 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Remove D - this is redundant. Number:203 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Line 49 has not been addressed appropriately. Either reference the name, date and prepared by information here or on the cover sheet. [6/27/07] See redlines. Page 18 Number:299 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Line 48 of the General Notes requires a little more information. Need to site the section of the code that was varied as well as what the standard is and what the variance granted. Topic: Utility Plan -Grading Number:134 Created:2/13/2007 Resolved [2/13/07] Proposed contours do not tie into existing contours in all locations. Number:139 Created:2113/2007 Resolved [2/13/07) Need to include the box culvert design in the utility plan set and label the sheets as part of this set. Topic: Utility Plan - Intersection Details Number:231 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] See 7-27 and 7-28 for all required spot elevations that need to be called out. Need to show the transition length on all intersections. If the minimum transition length is not provided with the next submittal, then that will generate another comment so please be sure to meet the minimum. If the minimum has not been met with THIS submittal but I can't tell because it's not dimensioned, then correcting the situation will change the spot elevations and flowlines as well. More comments could follow based on the new information. This statement or disclaimer applies everywhere. If the information changes, then it's basically a new review and new comments can be generated. Topic: Utility Plan - Plan & Profiles Number:149 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Dimension all crosspans and show them in the profiles. Number:151 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/27107] Just carrying this item through until the variance is approved. [2/15/07] Minimum cover requirements are not being met. Please refer to 12.2.2 Number:152 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] All transitions must occur at the PC of an intersection. [2/15/07] Please provide a transition detail for the VC to rollover curb. Number:153 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Please use a VC, sheet 17. Number:220 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Because there are no waterline plan and profile sheets, you will need to provide the waterline profiles on the street plan and profile sheets. All minimum cover requirements apply. Number:221 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07) Please call out the cover depth to any pipe or structure that does not meet section 12.2.2. on all plan and profile sheets (street and utility). Will need to update the variance letter to list out all locations where this requirement is not being met as well. Number:222 Created: 6/2712007 Pending [9/3/07] Please carry cross slopes out to at least one decimal place. Page 19 [6/27107] The city requires all CL stationing and where FL and CL stationing is used separately, you'll need to provide spots at all PCs and VCs on the plan view and label with the cross slope so that I can verify that the min/max cross slope requirement is being met. Number:223 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6127/071 Grade breaks can not exceed those stated in 7.4.1.13.3. Number:224 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27107] Label the station and elevation of the end of both FL's for the the culdesac so that I can make sure they match up. I redlined the first culdesac to ask if two particular points were the same. Make sure the max grade break isn't being exceeded as well. Number:225 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Cross slopes of the culdesac or any street can't exceed 2%min or 3% max. Number:226 Created:6/2712007 Resolved [6/27/07] The wrong intersection detail sheet is being referred to on each plan and profile sheet. Number:227 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/071 Please provide more overlap between matchlines. There are missing gaps in some cases. Number:229 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Overland Trail - Note 2 says that all curb returns are 20' unless otherwise noted. Please note both curb return radii on Overland because they are not 20'. Number:230 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Overland Trail - Missing information. Number:247 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Overland Trail - All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is made under the Plan and Profile section as well. Number:248 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] [6/29107] Overland Trail - All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is under the Cross Section section as well. Number:304 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29107] Overland Trail - Max grade break has been exceeded but could be easily solved with another grade break thrown in between the two. The CL profile is missing the existing grade - is it because it's the same as the proposed? Perhaps labeling it that way would make it more clear. Number:305 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6129/07] Station 4+00 is showing a taper in the pavement to meet existing dirt or pavement? But sheet 27 is not showing any taper at all. Which is correct? If the plan view Page 20 on 27 is correct, then correct the cross section. If the cross section is correct, correct the plan view on 27 and how will the drainage be handled? What's currently shown won't work. Number:308 Created:6/2912007 Resolved [6/29/07] Please relabel Sheet 27 as "Ultimate (Phase 2) Overland Trail Plan and Profile". Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Utility Plan - Plan & Profiles Number:21 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [6127/07] Still need to [2113/07] Repeat comment. Also, now missing centerline profiles. Please stack all of the profiles vertically so that they line up. Please provide separate intersection spot details (can do all on one sheet if you like). The spots shown on the plan view are too small to read and will not scan. Please refer to E6 for minimum font size requirements. Minimum cover requirements are not being met (see 12.2.2 of LCUASS). Missing info - crosspans aren't dimensioned, centerline profile needs to continue to centerline of intersecting street, need to show all existing utilities that may be crossing the street in the plan and profiles (district, etc), missing slope %, taper doesn't meet standard on Overland. [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Flowline profiles will be needed in addition to centerline profiles for final compliance. Also at final, we'll want to see station and approximate locations of all utility crossings, and driveways. Number:78 Created:4/6/2006 Resolved [2/13/07] [4/6106] Please extend street profiles to the centerline of intersecting streets. Department: Engineering Topic: Utility Plan - Rough Grading Number: 135 [6/29/07] Still missing some lot corners. [2/13/07] Please provide spot elevations for all well. Issue Contact: Susan Joy Created:2/13/2007 Resolved lot corners and at the PC's of corner lots as Number:209 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] The key maps aren't correct. The area blocked out is not what is actually shown on the sheet. Please correct all key maps, each sheet. Number:343 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Provide reception numbers for easements dedicated by separate document. Number:344 Created:9/3/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] Per an email discussion, these sheets were going to be changed to Final Grading in response the the lack of grading shown around the box culvert/Overland Trail on the Final Grading sheet. This is going to be confusing as the rought grading spots are different than the final grading spots and there are several notes on the rough grading plan that refer the reader to the Final Grading. What about creating a sheet 13b just for the final grading on Overland? That should clarify the drawings better and give everyone what they need. Number:345 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] There is a new note number 6 shown. Please add verbage something to the effect that the wall must be placed a minimum of 2' behind the sidewalk. Since this is quite a drop, you may want to consider installing handrails for liability reasons. Page 21 Number:353 Created:9/312007 Pending [913/071 The key map is still showing the wrong area shown on sheet 10. This was a redline comment from the last round and has not been corrected. Topic: Utility Plan - Signing and Striping Number:156 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Repeat. [2/15/07] Please route Traffic Engineering with the next round so that they can review this sheet. Topic: Utility Plan - Typical Street Sections Number:155 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Correct the local residential section, see redlines. Topic: Utility Plan - Underdrain Number:158 Created:2115/2007 Resolved [21151071 Please provide an updated underdrain report. Number:159 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 Minimum slope requirement is not being met. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Number:157 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved (2/15/07] Please note that driveways may not be placed over the waterline to any lot. Please note this on the site plan as well. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Phasing Plan Number:215 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [6/27/07] Please note to construct the waterline stub 10' back (or ?) into Phase II. That way you won't have to tear any of your Phase I work up later to tie in. Number:351 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Please correct Phasing Lines, all sheets... see previous comments under other topics and carry this comment through any sheet where phasing is shown. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan Center Number:352 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Driveway locations now shown but the sewer service is hard to read. Text is blurry for the individual services, perhaps the pen width is too large for that small of a font. Please see E6 for minimum font size as well. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan East Number:217 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Now labeled as such, however, no detail and sheet were referenced. Please provide. [6/27/071 The existing ADS pipe under Elizabeth must be removed entirely from the row. Right now the plans are showing it only removed from curb to curb. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan West Number:216 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved Page 22 [6/27/07] Please show all driveway locations on all lots with less than 50' of frontage on all utility plan sheets where applicable. Remove the word "conceptual" from the driveway location note and correct note 7 to read: Driveways on individual lots may not be placed over water services The driveway locations need to be shown on the site plan and the landscape plan along with the same note. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number:56 Created:1/13/2006 Resolved [1/13/06] Please install crossing ramps at both locations where the internal path crosses Sunflower Drive. Number:57 Created:1/13/2006 Resolved [4/18/06] Repeat comment/question. [1/13/06] Would it be possible to better align the pedestrian crossing of West Elizabeth (west side of Overland) so that the crossing isn't skewed. I understand that there are some utility conflicts but would like to see if we can fix this. Thanks. Number:58 Created:1/13/2006 Resolved [1/13/06] Path Configuration: Seems like the proposed "soft surface path" within this development makes sense for some of this area, but not all of it. As we discussed at Staff Review, the portion of the path west of Sunflower can remain soft surface, but needs to be increased in width to 6'. All other portions of path serve to provide pedestrian connectivity (they also directly impact PED LOS) and should be increased to 6' in width as well as be constructed of concrete, per LCUASS. I'd also like to see the eastern most portion of this system (from E. Fiore Ct. out to W. Elisabeth) be realigned slightly to the east in order to more closely match the desire line of a bicyclist or pedestrian as they approach W. Elizabeth and its interesection with Overland Trail. I have provided a redlined site plan to current planning, as well as a copy for the applicant for further clarification. If there are any questions please do no hesistate to call. Thanks. Topic: Site plan Number:132 Created:2/13/2007 Unresolved [2/13/07] No further comments but we do need to discuss themaintenance responsibility for that portion of sidewalk (north side of W.Elizabeth) which lies adjacent to CSU property. Page 23 Number:15 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Flowline slopes shown in the E. Fiore Ct. culdesac look flat. Minimum is 1%. This is a final compliance issue. Number:16 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Where slopes exceed 4:1 affecting public improvements, our standards (LCUASS 7.7.2) require retaining walls. It's appears that these slopes are exceeded near the storm drain pipes under Elizabeth. Number:17 Created:1212912005 Resolved [12/29105] Wherever you are showing curb cuts, there should also be a sidewalk chase shown and labeled. Also, reference the appropriate details. Number: 18 [12/29/05] deleted. Created:12/29/2005 Resolved Number:19 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Please label and dimension all existing and proposed sidewalks and accesses. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Landscape Plan Number:208 Created:6/27/2007 Resolved [9/3/07] [6/27/07] See comment 207 under Utility Plan - Rough Grading. Number:235 Created:6/28/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Need WAPA signature on the landscape plan still. [6/28/07] Need to show, dimension and label the WAPA easement on all plan sets (site, landscape, utility and plat). WAPA will need to sign off on the plan sets if any improvements are proposed within their easement. Number:238 Created: 6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Please label each landscape wall with either tow, bow or height. Number:241 Created: 6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/071 Missing a layer? See redlines. Number: 244 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Remove all revisions from the title block. Number: 302 [6/29/071 Please see comment 216 Created: 6/29/2007 Resolved Resolved Number:321 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/31071 Scannability continues to be a problem with the plan set. Please refer to Appendix E6 for all scanning requirements and bring the set into conformance. Number: 322 Created:913/2007 Pending Page 5 I From: <tfarrill@aol.com> To: <ddelaughter@fcgov.com> Date: 4/17/2006 12:38:51 PM Subject: Bella Vira Dan, Per our discussion this morning, the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District has no objections to the proposed work as submitted to the District on the above mentioned project. There is no work proposed within the fenced area of the District. All work along the District's property will need to be coordinated with the District. Terry v From: "John Minatta" <johnminatta@comcast.net> To: <tfarrill@aol.com> Date: 3/30/2006 1:47:53 PM Subject: Bella Vira Hello Terry I hope you had an opportunity to look over the pdf file from JSD. It looks as though the improvements to the ROW along FCLWD's Overland Trail frontage will not require any disturbance to your property or fence outside of the ROW, with the exception of the box culvert extension. It appears there will be a small amount of grading necessary on the insides of the ditch bank. The city would like a letter from FCLWD that acknowledges and approves of the proposed ROW improvements adjacent to your property line - that is if you have no objections to the design presented. The city would also like FCLWD to state its willingness to cooperate and not restrict access whenever these proposed improvements are constructed. We are re -submitting the PDP on Tuesday April 4th and would appreciate a repsonse per the cities request on or before that date. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Best Regards, John Minatta CC: "Steve Olt" <SOLT@fcgov.com>, "Dan DeLaughter" <ddelaughter@fcgov.com>, "Jon S" <jons@jimselldesign.com> [9131071 Remove the word "Final" from the cover sheet title block as well as the comma, "details and notes". Remove the word "Final" from the title block on sheets 2-5. Remove the word "Enlargements" from sheet 3's title, use "Details". Number:323 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Label all easements as "existing" or "proposed" to match the plat and utility plan. Please fill in all reception numbers for the easements dedicated by separate document. Number:324 Created:9/312007 Pending [9/3/07] Change the phase lines to match the utility plan's phasing to the PCs of the driveways and Overland Trail connection. Number:325 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Need to show the UE in detail 14, sheet 3, if this section is being used along the row, close to the UE. Need to refer to this detail and sheet number within the planset where ever its used. Number:326 Created:9/312007 Pending [9/3/07] The typical parkway landscape detail #6 does not apply along the north side of Elizabeth Street where it fronts the CSU property. Please note this somehow or provide a separate section for that area. Number:327 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Please note that driveways may not be placed over the individual water services to the lots. Number:328 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Can't tell which line is the water line and which line is the sewer line for lots 1-6 along Elizabeth. Number: 336 [9/3/07] See comment 243. Department: Engineering Topic: Landscape plan Created:9/3/2007 Pending Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Number:88 Created:4/7/2006 Resolved [4/7/06] Add dimension arrows for the easements on the site and landscape plans. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Plat Number:140 Created: 2/1412007 Resolved [6126/07] [2/14/07] From Technical Services - Boundary and legal close. Number:141 Created:2/14/2007 Resolved [21141071 From Technical Services - What are the grey shaded areas - they cover other text. (from engineering - shading will not scan, please remove. See Appendix E6 for other scanning requirements). Number:142 Created: 2/1412007 Resolved [2/14107] From Technical Services - Plat must have outer boundary monument at 1400' max distance. Page 6 Number:143 Created:2/14/2007 Resolved [2/14/071 From Technical Services - Clearly indicate "Private Streets and Drives" on plat. Number:146 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Remove "to be vacated upon the completion of necessary drainage improvements". That is a separate process if not vacating by this plat. Number:147 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/07] Remove the word "permanent" from the 10' utility easement. All easements are permanent until vacated. Number:167 Created:2/15/2007 Resolved [2/15/071 Please see redlines contained within the utility plan set. Number:196 Created:6126/2007 Pending [9/4/07] [6/26/071 From Technical Services: 1. Boundary and legal close. 2.. Many missing bearings, distances, see redlines. Several dimension problems. 3. `SF ow WAPA easement. 4. Delineate block boundaries with heavier lineweights. Illustrate blocks or remove blocks all together. Number:202 Created:6/27/2007 Pending [9/3107] Please remove all revisions in the title block before printing the mylars. The plat will not be accepted with this information shown. [6/27107] Remove all revisions from the title block. Number: 337 [9/3/07] See comment 243. Created:9/3/2007 Pending Number:339 Created:9/3/2007 Resolved [9/31071 Please remove all revisions in the title block before printing the mylars. The plat will not be accepted with this information shown. Number:340 Created:9/3/2007 Resolved [913/071 Please label all easements as existing or proposed. If existing, need to label with how it was recorded (reception number?). Please provide all reception numbers for the easements being shown as dedicated by separate document. Number: 341 [913/07) See redlines. Created:9/3/2007 Pending Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Plat Number:6 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] Tract D should be Drainage and Access Easement and Neighborhood Park. Open space implies that it will be managed by the City Natural Resources Department. Remove Open Space designation from all other Tracts as well. Page 7 Number:7 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] Repeat [12/29/05] Remove centerlines on easements- they just clutter the drawing. Number:54 Created:1/11/2006 Resolved [2/13/071 [1/11/06] Technical Services Comments: 1. Boundary closes 2. Can't use East & West on Fiore Ct. 3. May be a more logical way to use the streets Elizabeth, Banyon, and Sunflower- see Redlines. 4. Vira can not be used as a street or drive name since Vera is already in use Number:90 Created:4/19/2006 Resolved [6/27/071 Tract C is now labeled as being owned and maintained by the city. If so, then the city will need to sign the plat as an owner as well. [2/13/07] Please place a signature line on the plat for any entity or persons having an easement dedicated to -them. [4/19/06] The Ditch Company should sign all applicable plan sheets, as well as the plat. Number:98 Created:4/20/2006 Resolved [2/13/07] [4/20/061 Tech. Services Comments: 1. Easements need to be locatable on the plat. 2. Note the origin of ROW dedication for Overland Trail. 3. Fix overlapping text. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy 7bpic: Site Plan Number:239 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6129/07] Please label each landscape wall with either tow, bow or height. Number:242 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Missing a layer? See redlines. Number:245 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Remove all revisions from the title block. Number 303 Created:6/29/2007 Resolved [6/29/07] Please see comment 216. Number:329 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Remove the word "Final" from the title and title block. This is just the process you were going through. Number:330 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Scannability still continues to be a problem with the plan set. Please see Appendix E6 for all scanning requirements and bring the plans up to standard. Mylars can not be signed until this is done. Suggest changing the scale on the vicinity map to 1 "=1000' and reduce the area shown so that all text is legible. See LCUASS for vicinity map requirements. Page 8 Number:331 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Details 2 and 3 on Sheet 2 are not typical... there are lots fronting Vertical Curb. Need to provide another typical section for those. Number:332 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Remove the landscaping from the site plan. Number:333 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Label all easements as existing or proposed (needs to match the plat and utility plans). Provide reception numbers for the easements recorded by separate document. Number:334 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Phase lines need to match the utility plans. Number:335 Created:9/3/2007 Pending [9/3/07] Sheet 4 calls out conflicting row dimensions on W. Elizabeth Street. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Site plan Number:34 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29105] Site plan shows a privacy fence located in the 15' utility easement. This is not likely to be allowed- would need approval from all utilities. Number:35 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [8116/06] (12/29/05] Site plan shows a 21' WAPA power line easement. This is not shown on the plat, and should probably be vacated with the plat since the ROW will serve the same purpose. Number:36 Created:12/30/2005 Resolved 112/30/05] The phase line shown on the site plan/ tract line on the plat and plans should be expanded to include all Phase 2 structures. We really need more detail in general regarding the phasing (what is to be done with each phase- removal of structures, grading, and construction should be addressed). Number:37 Created:12/30/2005 Resolved [12/30/051 See redlines for additional revisions. Topic: Streets Number:20 Created: 12129/2005 Resolved [12/29/051 A third pedestrian access ramp is required at all T-intersections, including where the private drive connects to Elizabeth. Access ramps are also required every 300', although ramps can be incorporated into driveways to meet this requirement. Number:22 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [4/6/06] [12/29/05] Sheet 10: Please reference the design mentioned in Sunflower Dr. note. Number:23 Created:12/29/2005 Resolved [12/29/05] At final compliance, we'll need to see street cross sections at 50' intervals Page 9