Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY & STRAUSS CABIN CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER (FORMERLY HARMONY & I-25 NORTH) - FDP - FDP150030 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS20 09/18/2015: Please add a note to the elevations sheets that all mechanical and utility equipment will be screened. Response: This note has been added. 19 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: What does "Shaded Zone V mean? See redlines. Response: Please refer to Note 4. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet numbering. See redlines. Response: Matchlines have been corrected. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please reference Note #1 on sheet 1. See redlines. Response: Note has been updated. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please be consistent with the notes in reference to the dedication of a Box Elder Ditch easement. See redlines. Response: The Box Elder easement being dedicated is for access and not for the ditch itself. The ditch remains undefined as noted on the cover sheet. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please add a definition for SFCSD & SFSD-FCLWD to the legend. See redlines. Response: Definition has been added. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Titles have been updated. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: any signing and striping redlines will be available by Friday. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/1612015: We'll need to work on the timing of the signal construction, and any interim signage at the intersection before the signal is installed. How that will occur should be addressed in the development agreement. Response: Noted. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 18 Response: These have been corrected. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please correct Note #9 aas marked on sheet 8. See redlines. Response: Note has been corrected. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There is a missing matchline sheet number on sheet 11. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Masks have been added. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Addressed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Addressed. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: The sheet titles do not match the index on sheet 1. See redlines. Response: Addressed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please provide current acceptable monument record for the northwest comer of section 3. This should be emailed directly to Jeff at icounty @fcoov.com Response: This will be emailed directly. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please add "PLS No." or "Illegible" to the northwest corner of section 3. See redlines. Response: This has been fixed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please add bearings and/or distances as marked. See redlines. Response: These have been added. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please add the linework for the 15' utility easement along the west side of Outlot B. See redlines. Response: This has been added. 17 Topic: Plat Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: On the plat, the "Portion of the Lot Not Included ..." is mislabeled as Lot 2 rather than Lot 1 on sheets 5 and 6. Response: This has been corrected. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty(a)fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please add "Subdivision Filing No. 1" to the titles on all sheets. See redlines. Response: Added. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please change the Benchmark Statements to match the following information in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.)(X'. Response: This has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/1712015: Please correct the index on sheet 1 as marked. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09117/2015. There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: These have been rotated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. 16 improved spillway? Will it be built as part of this development? If so, include the plan with location, dimensions, etc. and add a note to this sheet that a floodplain use permit and no -rise certification will be required. If it is built as part of another phase, please note that here. Response: This will be constructed with the first phase. The plans for this are on the Storm Detail sheet. Current notes on this sheet are intended to cover all floodplain activities and have included the requirements for floodplain use permits and no -rise certification. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/1412015: Sheet 53 of the plan set; show and label the rain gardens, and label the impervious pavers. Response: These are both now shown and labelled. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09114/2015: Sheet 53 of the plan set; call out the rip -rap at the end of ST-B, and reference the detail drawing. Will this be buried rip -rap? Response: This will not be buried riprap. Riprap has been called out. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 53 of the plan set; include a basin summary table. Response: Basin summary has been added. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Please show the overflow path, and overtopping elevations, if the rain gardens and pavers plug. The concern is that the water will not back up into buildings. We would like 1 foot of freeboard between the overtopping elevations and nearby buildings. Response: We will plan to submit this as a separate exhibit. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Please include sediment traps at the entrances to all bio-swales and to the various rain gardens. Response: See response to comment #23. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Several sections of sidewalks are shown using permeable pavers. We are fine with permeable paver sidewalks, but they those areas cannot be included in the 25% permeable paver criteria. Response: Pavers have been moved to the parking areas. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: We recommend a impervious tributary ratio of 2:1, not to exceed 3:1. Please adjust the basins with ratios in excess of 3:1 so that they meet City criteria. Response: Basins have been adjusted. We will submit a separate exhibit showing this information. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: On the landscape plans, the''/2 Foot Rise Effective Floodway is mislabeled on sheets 5 and 7 Response: This has been corrected. 15 shown on a storm water profile sheet and does not have elevations shown here. It appears to have 3 area inlets on the grading plan. It should be shown somewhere on this plan set. Response: This profile has been added and called out as storm line "L". Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 42 and the other detail sheets of the plan set; please label the detail drawings with the specific types of details shown on each sheet. e.g. erosion control details. Response: Labels have been modified. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 45 of the plan set; the detail drawing for rip -rap installation is also shown on Sheet 51. Response: Additional detail has been removed. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 51 of the plan set; an emergency spillway detail is included. I didn't find an emergency spillway on the plan set. If it is not needed, please remove the detail drawing. Response: This is the emergency spillway located at the south end of the Existing Gravel Pond #2. Please refer to the Overall Drainage Plan for exact location. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 51 of the plan set; where will the Nyloplast drain basin be used? Is it a clean out for the underdrains? If so, please reference the detail drawing on the appropriate plan sheets. Response: The Nyloplast drain basins are being used on storm line "L". This is called out as a 12" Drain Basin on the storm plan and profile. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 51 of the plan set; please adjust the rain garden detail so that the dimensions and types of soil used match Standard Detail D-53. Please add a sediment trap to the detail. Will the geotextile liner be permeable? Please feel free to work with Basil Harridan, 970.224.6035 (bhamdan@fcgov.com) on the rain garden detail as well as any other LID and BMP requirements. Response: The detail has been modified to more closely match Detail D-53. Additional discussions need to occur on both the liner type appropriate for these raingardens and sediment trap design for these confined spaces. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 51 of the plan set; please include a detail drawing for the bio-swales and identify which swales will have that designation. Response: Due to challenges (surcharging) with the depth of the underdrain in the D-53 detail, we are needing to remove the "bio-swale" classification from the plan set and instead go with the Triangular Swale Section from Urban Drainage Volume 3, Figure GS-1. This will have a 4" perforated underdrain with an invert located 1' below the swale flowline. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 52 of the plan set; an existing spillway to be improved is shown on the south edge of Ex. Gravel Pond #2. Where are the plans for the 14 GS-1. Depth of the underdrain will be 1' to invert of the 4" perforated pipe. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 12 of the plan set; erosion protection east of the end of Hacienda Drive? Response: We have added turf reinforcement mat at this location. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 14 of the plan set; numerous small boxes are shown on the plans throughout the parking areas. Are they light poles? If so, please check for conflicts between the poles and ST-C, ST-G, and numerous underdrains. Response: These are light poles. We have revised the storm alignments so they don't conflict with the poles. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 14 and numerous other sheets of the plan set; the portion of the rip -rap at the east end of ST-B is shown in the Yz Foot Rise Effective Floodway will have to be preceded by a floodplain use permit and no -rise certification. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 24 of the plan set; show the size, dimensions, description, etc. for the rip -rap at the end of ST-B. Response: Description has been added to sheet 24. This is not proposed to be buried riprap. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 24 of the plan set; add a note that all storm sewer pipes and inlets will be inspected by the City. This note should be included on all storm sewer plan and profile sheets. Response: This note has been added on all storm sewer plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 24 of the plan set; call out the ground water elevation at the outlet of ST-B. Response: Groundwater elevation is now shown. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 24 of the plan set; please show the HGL in ST-B. We are concerned about the standing water (due to the groundwater elevation), but we're not sure the effect the water will have if we do allow it. Do you have any examples where other entities have allowed this in the past? Have the pipe sizing calculations included the standing water? Response: The groundwater elevation is roughly 4838.00. We have used 4838.40 as the tailwater condition for modelling due to additional water coming from swales C-C and D-D. Please refer to page 10 in the drainage report and the UD Sewer files in Appendix C that state the tailwater as 4838.40. The HGL has been added to the profile. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 25 of the plan set; the invert of the pipe from the north at the 57ype R inlet at the north end of ST-D is shown lower than the invert of the outlet to the south. Response: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 27 of the plan set; the pipe between Buildings 5 and 6 is not 13 Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 8 of the plan set; in the channel detail drawing at the top of the page the minimum depth of Section C-C is less than 1 foot more than the 100-year depth. A minimum of 1 foot freeboard is required Response: It is difficult to obtain the 1 foot of freeboard in this area without filling in the floodplain so we are requesting the 130% rule be allowed for this portion of the swale in lieu of the 1 foot of freeboard. At the minimum depth (15) this portion of the Swale can convey 24.02 cfs. The design flow is 7.3 cfs, so the minimum cross section can convey 330% of the 100-yr flow. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated. 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 8 of the plan set, is erosion protection planned at the east end of Hacienda Drive and east of the curb cut at the northeast corner of the site (concentration point 10)? Response: A turf reinforcement mat has been added to the Erosion Control Plan at the end of Hacienda Drive and at the 2' curb cut (concentration point 10). Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 8 of the plan set; the slope of the drainage channel along the southern edge of the property is shown as 0.73%. It is shown as 0.65% in the swale table, and on other sheets of the plan set. Response: This has been corrected to read "0.65%" on sheet 8. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 8 of the plan set; temporary swale C-C along with substantial regrading is shown within the effective''/z foot rise floodway. No -Rise Certification is required for work in the floodway. How do you propose to satisfy the no -rise requirement for this channel? Response: Most, if not all, of the grading in this area will be in the form of minor cuts rather than fill so we do not expect to create an adverse condition with the No -Rise Certification. Regardless, we would like to meet on this, and Comment #8 below, in the near future to discuss in detail. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 8 of the plan set, the LOMRF area within the floodway must be graded to pre-LOMRF grades. It appears that the entire area was at an approximate elevation of 4845 ft. NAVD88. Please show a proposed elevation of 4845 in the wedge shaped parcel in that 1/2-foot rise effective floodway. We are concerned about ending up with a large sump area and are open to pitching the area to either the temporary swale C-C along the west edge of the wedge or to the south or east. This work can be included in the floodplain use permit and no -rise certification that will be required for the temporary swale C-C. Response: When the Weitzel Pond grading is complete the grades will slope at roughly 0.2% from the northeast to southwest. As stated in comment #7 above, we would like to meet and discuss further. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Sheet 8 of the plan set; swales C-C and D-D are shown with longitudinal slope less than the 2% minimum allowable slope. I believe they will both be bio-swales. If that is correct, please note their designation on the plans. If they won't be bio-swales they must meet the 2% requirement. Response: If we follow the standard City detail, the underdrain is much deeper than the flowline of the swale and will end up surcharging backup the line. We are unable to get a 2% slope on these swales so are proposing to use the Triangular Swale Section from Urban Drainage Volume 3, Figure 12 09/03/2015: EMERGENCY ONLY FIRE ACCESS DRIVE Repeat of prior comment: Fire -only access connections may be designed with roll-over curbs and may be gated with prior approval. Vertical curbs or bollards are not permitted without special approval of the fire marshal. Response: A rolled curb is proposed for the fire access connection to Strauss Cabin Road. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/03/2015 09/03/2015: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT As the intent of the site is eventually to connect with development to the east, I would recommend extending the proposed limits of the EAE on Hacienda Drive all the way to the property boundary in preparation for that eventual connection. Response: We are not sure at this time whether the future Hacienda Drive will continue east on the same alignment, or have a slight curve/deflection. Therefore we would rather hold off on extending the EAE until we are positive of the future alignment. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/03/2015 09/0312015: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION Building addressing shall be a minimum of 8' in height. Due to building setback distances, a route -finding and identification system will be required for the site. Monument signage would seem the best manner to address this issue. A plan needs to be submitted for review and approval. Code language provided below. > IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Response: Noted. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlamna fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/25/2015 08/25/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (see redlines), Erosion Control Report (Needs to be submitted), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Needs to be calculated). If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlarnefcclov.com Response: The Erosion Control Plan has been revised and the Erosion Control Report and Security Calculations are included with this submittal. Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylorcDfcgov.com 11 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/03/2015 09/03/2015: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT Buildings exceeding 30' in height have additional fire lane requirements as outlined in prior staff comments dating back to July of 2014. At this time it appears that some building heights will prompt redesign of the proposed fire lanes. Code language provided below. See also 2012 IFC, Appendix D for more details. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WHERE REQUIRED 1012 IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WIDTH 2012 IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - PROXIMITY TO BUILDING 2012 IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Response: We are attempting to schedule a meeting with the Client, the Architect and PFA to resolve this issue. We are not anticipating any site changes, most likely some additional dimensions and clarifying notes on the building elevations. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/03/2015 09/03/2015: MARKING Fire Lane - No Parking signs will be required throughout the site where it is not otherwise obvious that parking is prohibited along the fire access routes. Please include this on future plan sets. Code language provided below. > IFC503.3: Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices that include the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times ad be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. Response: Please refer to Site Plan for NO PARKING signs. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/03/2015 10 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Street lighting along public roads (Strauss Cabin Rd and Harmony) will need to be coordinated with Light and Power to meet City of Fort Collins standards. Shade trees are required to maintain 40 feet of clearance and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of clearance with street lights. Please indicate these on the Landscape Plans. Response: Proposed street light locations are now shown on the Utility Plan and Landscape Plan along Strauss Cabin Road. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: At this time there is no power that feeds this development. A future ductbank is planned to run on the east side of Strauss Cabin and south of Harmony. The timeframe for this will be determined on a Long Range plan study and development of this area. Please advise Light & Power as soon as possible when scheduling for construction on this development is known so we can plan accordinly for power demand. Response: Noted, this project is currently scheduled for the Spring of 2016. As that becomes more firm we will contact light and power. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Please review our Electric Construction Policies Practices and Procedures document to ensure standards for transformers, meters, street lighting etc. are met. A link to this document is below. http://www.fcgov.com/uti I ities/busi ness/bu ilders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Response: These have been reviewed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Before a design can be developed for construction the following items will need to be provided: -Approved Plat -Approved Site Plan, Utility Plan and Landscape Plan -C-1 forms and one -line diagrams (if available) for each commercial building -AutoCAD drawings for the Site Plan and Utility Plan Response: Noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Utility Easements are not clearly defined on the drawings. Please show more indications of UE preferrably on Site Plan. Easements must be wide enough to ensure a 1Oft separation between electric and any water lines running parallel. Response: There is a blanket UE over the entire lot except for the building envelopes. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416-28691 ilvnxwiler(a)poudre-fire.org Topic: General 9 Do not use Swamp White Oak as it is not adapted to most Fort Collins soils. Do not use Northern Red Oak as it is not adapted to most Fort Collins area soils. Consider using Thunderchild crabapple in place of Canada Red Chokecherry. CR chokecherry tends to produce a lot of sucker growth. Consider using Accolade Elm in place of Triumph Elm. Accolade is proven in the Fort Collins area where many new elms have not been fully evaluated. Consider using a better adapted tree in place of the Horsechestnuts used in parking lot areas. Coffeetrees work well in these locations. Response: These changes have been made. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: List trees as Balled and Burlapped (B&B)in the Plant list. Also list percentage of each tree species used and adjust quantities use if necessary to meet the Minimum species diversity standard LUC 3.2.1 D 3. Response: this has been updated on the Landscape Cover. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tveddercDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: New development charges will apply. A link or our online commercial Electric Development Fee Estimator is below. It is assumed no builders or tenants are chosen for these commercial lots, therefore the electrical demand is unknown. If this is the case then only square footage and front footage charges are needed before electrical can be installed on -site, with the exception of transformers. Please contact Todd Vedder @ 224-6152 with questions. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Commercial Service Forms (C-1) will need to be submitted for each commercial meter. A link to a copy of our C-1 forms are below: http://www.fcqov.com/utilities/imq/site specific/uploads/c-1 form.pdf Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: One line diagrams will need to be submitted for each commercial meter. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated through Light and Power. Transformers will need to be located within 10ft of paved surface and have clearances of 8ft in the front and 3ft on the sides and rear. If the transformer is not located in a UE then a pocket easement will need to be obtained for the trasnformer pad. Response: Approximate transformer locations are now shown on the Utility Plan utility esmt covering the proposed transformer locations. There is a blanket 8 with the species being transplanted and the exiting tree number. Verify that new locations are provided for any transplanted tree. Response: This has been added to the landscape plans. Add this sentence to none number 2 under Tree Transplant Note number 2: Written recommendations by the qualified tree transplanting contactor shall be provided to the City Forester prior to any tree transplanting. Response: This note has been added. Use the new 8 tree protection specifications in place of the 7 used. These new notes are available from the City Forester. Response: These have been added. The following existing trees appear to have revived in health from early season moisture since the tree evaluation was performed earlier this year. The following trees shown to be removed can be kept in place and not removed. 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, 21, 22, 23 Response: See Above. Actual Mitigation is shown as negative one for some trees to remove. That is incorrect. Use the recorded mitigation number. Response: This has been corrected. Recalculate mitigation to reflect more trees to retain and for trees shown to be transplanted that can be kept in place. Response: See Above. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Street Tree comments: Select street trees from the City of Fort Collins Street Tree list. The following species are used as street trees but are not on the City of Fort Collins Street Tree List. The species needs to be changed to an approved species. Swamp White Oak Northern Red Oak Narrow leaf cottonwood Show the locations of street lights on all City Streets and provide the code required separation between lights and trees. The trees shown in the pork chop island at Strauss Cabin and Harmony appear to be a sight distance problem. Planting trees in this area is not advised. Response: These revisions have been made. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Narrow leaf cottonwood are shown in several location is parking lot islands and peninsulas. This species should not be planted in these areas because of its prolific sucker production. Use an alternate Canopy shade tree in these locations that is suitable to these locations. Response: These have been changed to other species. Comment Number: 4 09/14/2015: Tree selection comments: Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 7 and prior to prairie dog removal, please submit the results of a burrowing owl survey completed by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist, and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. Note the timing requirements of these surveys are between March 15 and October 31, as no burrowing owls are expected to be present between November 1 and March 14 . This issue will be included in Development Agreement language and is required due to the presence of prairie dogs on the site. Response: This survey will be completed before October 315i of this year and will be submitted as soon as it is ready. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), please submit a letter explaining how and when prairie dog removal occurred at the site and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. This issue will be included in Development Agreement language. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Please add shields to the lights along the north and south borders adjacent to the habitat buffers. See redlines for details. Response: These areas are not habitat buffers, they are parcels for a flood control channel to the north and future development to the south. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tbuchanan((Dfcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015: Tree Mitigation inventory comments: Response: In addressing comments from the first submittal the Box Elder lateral that feed Harmony Gardens has to be lowered by 2 feet to provide adequate cover at the crossing of Strauss Cabin Road. This results in a significant amount of grading in the area of the existing trees along harmony road. To this end, we have identified as many trees that we can transplant as possible and relocate on the site. The mitigation and landscape plans have been updated to reflect these changes. Tree number 39 is shown to be transplanted. Can it be kept in place or is it too close to the new curb. Response:See above. Provide the required number of upsized mitigation trees. Mitigation trees should be sized as follows. Canopy shade trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height Response: This is listed on the tree mitigation plan and upsized plants in the plant table. Existing trees 1, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are shown to be transplanted. Why can these trees not be kept in place? Why are they being transplanted? They appear to be in adequate condition and contribute to the site at their current location. Response: See Above. If any trees end up being transplanted label the symbol on the landscape plan 9 09/16/2015: 23. Label the split between ultimate and interim design on the left flowline. Response: This location has been noted. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 24. Is the right edge an interim edge profile or is this aligning with the ultimate? Response: The ultimate will be an extension of the right edge. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 25. The ultimate profile designs for both sides need to be provided. Response: Ultimate flowline profiles have been added. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 26. Need to see the ultimate x-sections. Need to see how what's being proposed to be constructed fits with the ultimate. Needed to help identify what may be reimbursable. Response: The ultimate line work for the road and curb was included in previous submittals on the street cross sections. We have expanded these cross sections to include the ultimate sidewalk and ROW location. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09116/2015: 27. What is the paved shoulder width that you are proposing? It needs to be a minimum of 4 feet where you are adding to the roadway widths. Response: This requirement needs further clarification as it might impact both Harmony and Strauss Cabin Road. For now we are keeping the shoulders as previously submitted until this can be discussed in detail. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 28. At Access A -Ultimate design. How will a full movement to the western property be accommodated? Response: At this point we don't have enough information on the property to the west of Strauss Cabin to do a detailed layout of future possible dedicated turn lanes. The ultimate design of this area is conceptual (similar to Comment #29 below), so for now we are requesting that we do not show future turns lanes to the western property. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 29. The future % will be concrete and has not been reviewed for design. Rahter than get into those details now. Add note to the plan that % access design is concept only. Response: Note has been added. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 30. Please provide an exhibit that shows that the vertical sight distance can be met at the crown of the road. Per my look it is close. Response: This has been checked and confirmed. We will email an exhibit directly to you for review. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, kkimpleMcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 6i 09/16/2015. 15. CDOT concrete M-402 details need to be included in the plans. Need to identify on the plans if curb and gutter is to be integral or not. Response: The CDOT M-412 detail has been added to the set. The curb and gutter will be a separate pour. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09116/2015: 16. Need a detail for the intersection and the splitter island. Some of the items that need to be included are: a. Elevations b. Slopes c. Curves d. Lengths e. Widths f. Treatment g. Outflow curb h. Inflow curb Response: This intersection detail has been added. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 17. What is the existing grade being tied into on Harmony Road? Response: Please see the intersection detail for tie grades. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 18. Slope at SW corner does meet minimum requirements. Need to see intersection detail and elevations to see if this works. Response: There is not a curb and gutter in this location and drainage sheet flows off the road, so the profile is misleading when evaluating minimum slope criteria. The intersection detail shows more clearly how the intersection drainage will work. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 19. Provide a driveway detail including the following: a. Radii b. Width c. Spot elevations d. Concrete to PL Response: This has been added to the set. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 20. Identify the Centerline station for the driveway. Response: Centerline stationing has been added. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 21. What is the inlet elevations and size? These need to be labeled on the profile. Response: Inlet labelling has been added. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015. 22. Identify what the center line station is where ultimate improvements change to interim. I will need this information for the Development Agreement(DA) Response: This information has been added. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 n Response: We have met with Box Elder (Les Thompson) and they have agreed the structure can be relocated "in like kind" and in the location shown on the plans. A profile has been added showing the extension of the existing 36" RCP. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09116/2015: 8. Hacienda Drive entrance - need an intersection detail for this. Radii, concrete to PL, elevations ... Response: This has been added. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 9. The grading plans indicate that these plans are based on the ponds being filled. Therefore that plan set will need to be approved before this set can be approved and that work will need to occur before this project can be completed. Notes as such will be included in the DA. Response: The notes have been modified to explain that the grading shall tie at a 4:1 slope to existing if the pond grading does not occur prior to these construction activities. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 10. The Irrigation line under Harmony Road (ST-A) is not meeting minimum cover requirements. The line needs to be designed so that minimum cover can be met. How much cover do you have? Also irrigation lines are a private utility and will need to be sleeved and will need to obtain an encroachment permit during construction (see section 12.2.5.A. Response: We have lowered the existing lateral ditch in an attempt to keep this irrigation line under the road as low as possible. Currently we are showing approximately 2.3' of cover from top of the carrier pipe to the finished grade of the road. We have added an encasement pipe to line, which will further decrease the cover. We will be applying for a variance. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 11. Storm line ST-B. What is the cover with the ultimate cross section? Is the type D inlet an interim location or is this the ultimate location and if interim what is the proposed ultimate design and will it meet cover requirements? Response: This pipe has been revised to a 29"x45" elliptical RCP to increase the cover. The inlet is in the interim location and will be further to the west in the ultimate condition. There will be just over 4' of cover from the top of the elliptical pipe to finished grade when it's connected to the future inlet location. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 12. Storm pipe while located within the ROW shall be RCP. Response: This section of storm line has been changed to RCP. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 13. There is a subdrain shown within the 15 foot utility easement along Strauss Cabin Road. This private line is not allowed within that easement and needs to be relocated out of this easement. Response: This underdrain has been removed from the 15' U.E Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 14. The Harmony approach needs to be constructed in Concrete. Response: This is now being shown as concrete Response: A phase line has been added to the overall Landscape Plan. 9 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 2. Landscape Plans — A note needs to be added that identifies that the Developer/ Property Owner is responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping including that within the parkway and right-of-way. Response: This note has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 3. The traffic Study that was submitted with the final plans is not the most recent traffic study for the site. Response: Updated traffic study, dated March 2015, is included with this submittal. Also included is a memo update to this study dated April 8, 2015. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 4. Plat — an access easement across lot 1 for the pedestrian connection is needed. Response: "Access" has been added to the blanket utility and drainage esmt across Tract A to accommodate pedestrians. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 5. There are notes in several locations that identify that items or utilities are to be relocated. To where are they to be relocated? Need to identify on the plans where they are to be relocated and if easements do not exist for this then they will need to be provided. Need to see where the proposed new location is so that we know that it will work with the other improvements. Response: The existing power pole and telephone pedestal in the southwest corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin are to be moved approximately 4' off the edge of proposed pavement. On the southeast corner of the same intersection, the street light is to be moved, as shown on the utility plan, to behind the proposed curb and gutter. The exact location will need to be coordinated with CDOT. The relocation of the existing power pole in this same area will need to be coordinated with PVREA and will likely be removed as this line goes underground. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 6. Sheet 2 note #4 - this note does not work. If there is to be any additional phasing of the utilities then revisions to these plans are needed. As shown on the plans and identified in the Development Agreement all utilities for Phase 1 will need to be installed and accepted and all public road improvements completed prior to the issuance of any building permit. Once that infrastructure is in the buildings can be phased, but if you wish to phase the parking lot infrastructure and landscaping then a minor amendment would be needed to modify those plans to show the proposed phasing. Changes to the phasing shown on the utility plans could also cause the need to modify the development agreement. This note needs to be removed from the plans. Response: This note has been revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 7. Design for the extension of the Box Elder structure under Harmony Road needs to be included in this plan set. Plans for the diversion structure needs to be included in this plan set or can be a separate plan set with the ditch company, but will need to be approved and a copy provided to the City prior to approval of this plan set. 2 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Site Plan Detail p. 3 and Landscape Plan p. 6 — Please label the ditch and indicate a bridge or culvert crossing. Likewise, label the drain pan thing north of the parking lot, and maybe the dashed line I assume is a grass swale. Response: Notes have been added to the Site Plan and Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Label the double -dashed line, whatever that is, through the middle of the Harmony buffer/swale area on the landscape plan, and also on the site plan if applicable. Look at the site plan — there's a single dashed line and I can't tell what it is. Response: These Easements have been labeled. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Landscape Plan —Tree planting along Harmony should be simplified, with more Lanceleaf and Plains Cottonwoods. See orange comments on plans. This includes putting any misc. transplants closer to buildings, separated from groves and clumps of cottonwoods. Response: This area has been redesigned to incorporate the grove spacing, allow view corridors and avoid utility conflicts. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Landscape Plan —Tree planting along Harmony —Why no trees in the parkway? See orange comments on plans. Why no trees between the ditch and the sidewalk? See orange comments on plans. Response: We have added some of the deciduous transplants to this area. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Assortment of Oaks along Strauss Cabin — use groupings of 3 or 5 street trees, and confirm with Forestry whether some of those oaks are worth the risk. Swamp White in particular could be really scraggly and may fail. Response: This area has been simplified on the plans based on these suggestions and those from Forestry. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Minor point - check labels on transplant trees — I don't see "CT — Tran." On the plant list. Response: The transplants are located at the very bottom of the plant table. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: For everyone's sake, increase the font size on the plant list on sht. 9 and 10 and reduce white space. Or, just remove those lists! It's nearly impossible to use the symbols in any useful way. Response: We have increases these as much as possible. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenbergeraOfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 1. Landscape Plans — the Utility plans are showing phasing. If you are planning on doing phasing that needs to be shown on the landscape plans as well. qijINC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS To. Clark Mapes City of Fort Collins Community Development Re: Response to Comments for Harmony and Strauss Cabin CSS Date: 10/14/2015 Clark. Below you will find our responses to the comments from the City from our first Round of Review. Thanks Brian Williamson and Jon Sweet TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers 760 Whalers Way Building C, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.226.0557 (main) Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Need a signature block for Box Elder Ditch Company. Response: This has been added to specific sheets as applicable. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Site Plan Notes Note 3, revise to say : Land uses comprise convenience shopping center and other secondary uses under H-C zoning. Response: Changed Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: CDNS sig block: you COULD remove the redundant long title after the word "APPROVED". It could just say "APPROVED ON THIS..." Response: I think this is a standard signature block so we have left it alone. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/29/2015 09/29/2015: Site Plan Detail Sheet 3, Note 1, edit to say : ...CLARIFIED THROUGH MINOR AMENDMENTS OR MAJOR AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH BUILDING Response: Changed.