Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY & STRAUSS CABIN CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER (FORMERLY HARMONY & I-25 NORTH) - FDP - FDP150030 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview November 25, 2015 Joseph J Kish Post Modern Development 144 N Mason St Unit #4 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Harmony and Strauss Cabin Convenience Shopping Center (formerly Harmony and I-25 North), FDP150030, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Clark Mapes, at 970-221-6225 or cmapes@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/5/15:Note #2 change ‘may’ to ‘will’. 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 has been changed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/5/15: We have had discussion regarding this and a variance would be granted. The surface over the line will be concrete and the applicant would have the option to provide a sleeve in accordance with the standards or could 2 construct the irrigation line with water tight DIP and no sleeve. 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: A variance request has been included with this submittal for the minimum cover and un-sleeved crossing of a private utility. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/5/15: Sheet 5 of 5 of the detail set also needs to be provided in the set as it has the joint details on it. 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: This has been added Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/5/15:The driveway radii are to be 20 foot per the table in chapter 8. No drainage is allowed to flow out the driveway across the sidewalk. Elevations shown on the detail identify that more than the allowed 750 sq ft is draining out the driveway. 09/16/2015: 19. Provide a driveway detail including the following: a. Radii b. Width c. Spot elevations d. Concrete to PL Response: The radii have been changed to 20’. A 2’ sidewalk chase has been added on the south side of Hacienda to ensure that less than 750 sf drain across the sidewalk. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/5/15:Have several locations that are not meeting the maximum grade break requirements. Also need to make sure that the design parameters of Figure 8-17 is being met at all proposed access points. 09/16/2015: 25. The ultimate profile designs for both sides need to be provided. Response: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/5/15:This is still applicable for the widening on Harmony and Strauss Cabin south of Harmony. 09/16/2015: 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: Plans have been modified to show a 4’ paved shoulder in these locations. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/5/15: The note just needs to be modified slightly. The turn lane will be concrete not the access drive. 09/16/2015: 29. The future ¾ will be concrete and has not been reviewed for design. Rather than get into those details now. Add note to the plan that ¾ access design is concept only. Response: This has been modified. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 3 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: The southernmost access point has been shifted north to obtain proper sight distance. An exhibit will be emailed directly to you. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/5/15: The information and exhibit that was provided identified that the sight design could not be met for access B. We did have a look at this and discuss some options. The City is not comfortable in lowering the design speeds for this roadway and will not support a variance to the sight distance standards. Thus the solutions are modifying the road or the access. We feel that the best option is for Access B to be moved north to a point in which the sight distance can be met. This will reduce the intersection spacing between access B and the access to the north. Ideally this change should be made not just on these plans, but also on the ODP before it is filed. 9/16/15:31. Also need to look at the sight distance from Access B due to the vertical rise in the road. As identified in the ODP if sight distance can’t be met then the access point may need to be relocated. Response: See response to Comment 30. The ODP will be updated with this information. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 32. Now is the time that we need the design and grading information for the northern portion of Strauss Cabin. Response: An intersection detail has been added showing the grading design at this location. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 33. The Center turn lane on the Northern portion of Strauss Cabin needs to be a minimum of 12 feet in width. The other two lanes will work as shown as 14 foot lanes including the shoulder. Response: This has been modified. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 35. Cross Sections – Need to adjust text width so it is readable. Response: Text has been modified. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 36. Need to add some details to the plan and/ or update some details to current details. See plans for more information. Response: These have been added. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 09/16/2015: 38. The development will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the landscaping in the medians on Strauss Cabin Road. Notes as such will be placed in the DA identifying that this project is responsible for the installation and maintenance at such time the median is installed. This comment was carried forward from preliminary review. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 9/16/15:41. I returned comments on the turning templates the last review (April 2015) and am still waiting to receive modified exhibits. This just need to be emailed to me. This comment was carried forward from preliminary review. Response: This is complete and will be emailed to you. 4 Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 09/16/2015: 37. All off-site easements will need to be provided prior to approval of the plans. Response: These are being prepared and will be submitted upon completion. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 42. Harmony and I-25 lift station plans need to be submitted to the City for review and approval and will need to be signed prior to or in conjunction with this plan. This is because the last design that we had seen had shown part of this line being located within Kechter Roadway which is a City street. Response: These are a part of a separate set that have been submitted directly to the district. We are submitted copies of this separate set to you at this time. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 43. Line and curve table with all the curve and lines referenced is needed on the intersection detail sheet. Response: This has been added. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 44. For any of the off-site easements and/ or ROW that will be dedicated to the City I suggest submitting the legals for these items so they can be reviewed. It typically takes 2 weeks to get the legal reviewed. In addition to the legals the processing fees (TDRF) for each deed to be processed need to be submitted, the deed, and eventually the recording fees for each document will need to be provided. Response: These will be submitted shortly. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 45. For the off-site easements that will be dedicated to the FCLWD, we do not need to check the legals or the deeds, but we will need copies of the recorded easements prior to signing the utility plans. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: 46. On the signing an striping plan - a sign need to be shown to be installed at the entrance to the drive that indicates that Hacienda Drive is Privately Maintained. Response: This has been added to the set. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, , kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/03/2015: To clarify my previous comment, prairie dog removal on this site should be required before development or construction work begins. Trapping/transplant efforts or euthanasia are legal options for prairie dog removal. Euthanasia efforts must occur through the use of approved toxicants, and trapping and transplanting of prairie dogs requires prior approval of Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Note that bulldozing active prairie dog colonies is not an acceptable method of removal. Furthermore, since prairie dogs are present at this site then surveys are needed for western burrowing owls. The following should be observed: 5 - If construction is to occur between March 15 and October 31, the area should be checked for the presence of burrowing owls prior to any earth-moving taking place. The owls are susceptible to being buried and killed in their holes by construction activity during the nesting season. - If construction is done between November 1 and March 14, it is very unlikely that owls would be present since they migrate out of the state during the winter, so owls surveys would not be needed if construction occurs within this timeframe. 09/16/2015: Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), 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: Thank you for the clarification. It is our intention to eradicate and begin construction prior to March 14th, but we have no objection to having this language in the development agreement. 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 Colorado Parks and Wildlife standards. This issue will be included in Development Agreement language. Response: Noted, this will be provided prior to construction. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 11/03/2015: Following up on my previous comment, please note the requirements of section 3.2.4 of the land use code and with city of fort collins light and power utility, that all lighting fixtures provided with the development shall use a concealed, fully shielded light source and shall feature sharp cut-off capability so as to minimize up-light, spill light, glare and unnecessary diffusion. 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: We have added shields to the lights on the north and south borders of the site. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/05/2015 11/05/2015: In regard to LED light fixtures, cooler color temperatures are harsher at night and cause more disruption to circadian rhythms for both humans and wildlife. Please consider a warmer color temperature (closer to 2700K) for your LED light fixtures. Response: We have not been able to locate 2700K LED bulbs for this project, but we have changed to the natural white option which is 4000K. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com 6 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/06/2015: CONTINUED See comments 7,9 and10. 09/14/2015: Tree Mitigation inventory comments: Tree number 39 is shown to be transplanted. Can it be kept in place or is it too close to the new curb. 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 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. If any trees end up being transplanted label the symbol on the landscape plan with the species being transplanted and the exiting tree number. Verify that new locations are provided for any transplanted tree. 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. Use the new 8 tree protection specifications in place of the 7 used. These new notes are available from the City Forester. 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 Actual Mitigation is shown as negative one for some trees to remove. That is incorrect. Use the recorded mitigation number. Recalculate mitigation to reflect more trees to retain and for trees shown to be transplanted that can be kept in place. Response: Noted, see responses below. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/06/2015: CONTINUED Use of Lanceleaf Cottonwood in place of Narrowleaf cottonwood would avoid the problems associated with the excessive sucking habit of Narrowleaf Cottonwood. 09/14/2015: 7 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: We have updated all of the Cottonwoods to Narrowleaf. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: Show the locations of street lights on all City Streets and provide the code required separation between lights and trees. Response: Street lights have been shown on the Landscape plans and their location has been coordinated with light and Power. 40’ clearance has been given to all lights in the public ROW. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: Mitigation trees are not shown on the plan. Provide the required 27 upsized mitigation trees. Mitigation trees should be sized as follows. List the upsized mitigation trees in Plant List and identify where the mitigation trees are planted by Placing an M by the tree identification Canopy shade trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height Response: This has been added to the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: Use the newly developed landscape notes on the plans. These notes are available from the City Planner for the project. Response: We have not received these from the planner as of yet but will incorporate as soon as we do and get a PDF out for your review. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: Existing Trees along Harmony Road previously shown to be retained are now all either transplanted or removed. Contact the City Forestry to discuss the reason this change has been made and provide an explanation why retaining trees at their location along Harmony Road is not feasible. Response: We have attempted to protect these trees throughout most of the development review process. Recently it has been determined that the boxelder lateral that supplies Harmony Gardens, which runs directly to the south of the row of trees along Harmony Road needs to be reworked due to the Harmony and Strauss cabin intersection improvements, and it needs to be lowered 2’ from the existing flowline. This puts the trees in serious jeopardy as the side slopes of the reconfigured lateral extend past the tree trunk. We have determined that the best course of action would be to transplant as many as possible and remove the other trees. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/06/2015 11/06/2015: Edit tree transplanting note number one on sheet 10 of 18. All trees to be reviewed and evaluated by the projects qualified tree 8 transplanting contractor prior to transplanting or removal. Any recommended adjustments to the transplanting plan shall be submitted to the City Forester for approval. If any trees that are scheduled for removal are able to be transplanted, or trees scheduled for transplanting need to be removed, please contact the Landscape Architect for coordination. Any changes to the tree transplanting plan recommended by the projects qualified tree transplanting contractor and submitted to the City Forester shall be accounted for in the projects tree mitigation. Response: Note updated. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: Current drawings show most of the proposed transformers in the drip zone of proposed trees. Since it is expected that the electrical capacity for each building is unknown due to uncertainty in the types of tenants, the transformers will have to be installed at a later date. Therefore line crews will have to have room to set a transformer and pad and not be obscured by the trees. 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. Response: Proposed trees have been moved. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: Street light design along Strauss Cabin will have to be slightly adjusted in order to meet City standards for proper spacing. Strauss Cabin is identified as an arterial roadway classification. One tree located near southernmost street light will have to be relocated to accommodate this spacing. It is assumed that each tree located next to a street light on Strauss Cabin is an ornamental type tree? Please contact Todd Vedder with Light and Power department. Response: The lights along Strauss Cabin have been updated to match your November 4, 2015 emailed redlines. The conflicting tree has been moved. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/05/2015 11/05/2015: SECURITY GATES For planning purposes the design of the fire access gate, south of Building One, needs to be submitted to PFA for review and approval. Code language provided below. > IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. 2012 IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply 9 with all of the following criteria: 1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall be locked with an approved Knox Padlock, or chain and padlock. 7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official prior to installation. 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. Response: Note added to site plan that gate design and locking devise must be approved by fire official prior to installation. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/05/2015 11/05/2015: SIGNAGE DETAIL Please add a fire lane sign detail, complying with Figure D103.6 of the fire code to the "Signing and Striping Details" plan. The detail shall include sign dimensions with directional arrows. Refer to Appendix D of the 2012 IFC for further guidance. Response: These details have been added to the detail sheet. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/05/2015 11/05/2015: LOCATION OF FIRE LANE SIGNAGE The proposed plan for fire lane signage requires a few minor adjustments. Red line plans will be submitted to Brian Williamson at TST. Response: The locations have been updated based on the redline comments. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/05/2015 11/05/2015: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT PFA has been working offline with the project team to make minor adjustments to the site plan where buildings exceed 30' in height. A revised plan will be submitted. Response: We have increased the southernmost drive aisle on the north side of Hacienda to 26’ and added notes to the building elevations to cover the buildings over 30’. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/25/2015 11/12/2015: Changes to the erosion control plans were not received or submitted from the 8/25/2015 review. These materials will need to be reviewed for adequate compliance to the redlined issues pointed out in prior reviews. 10 Erosion Control Report and Escrow Calc would be acceptable if all erosion control BMP references to Bales are removed and adequate BMPs are used in their place. Straw Bales are not a valid BMP in Fort Collins and should be stricken from all documents submitted. 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 @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: These redlines were received. The Bale Grate Protection has been removed from the Escrow Calcs and Erosion Control Plan. Our checklist for this submittal does not show the need for a new SWMP report, so we are submitting revised Escrow Calcs, but not the full report. If one is required please let us know and we will submit it directly to you. Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/02/2015: I am still concerned about the lack of erosion protection at the end of Hacienda Drive and at Concentration Point 10. 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: Turf Reinforcement Mat was shown on the Erosion Control Plans in the previous submittal and is now also shown on the grading plan for clarity. The specific type has also been noted and an installation detail has been added to the detail sheets. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/02/2015: This comment still needs to be addressed. 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. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/03/2015: Add something that instructs the contractor to grade the area to a 4845.19 NAVD88 elevation. Also include a note that this work will have to be proceeded by an approved floodplain use permit and no-rise certification. 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 ½-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: These notes have been added to the plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11 11/02/2015: This comment still needs to be addressed. 09/14/2015: Sheet 12 of the plan set; erosion protection east of the end of Hacienda Drive? Response: See response to Comment #5. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/02/2015: Add a note to the sheets that show the rip-rap in the floodway that a floodplain use permit and no-rise certification will be required. 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 ½ Foot Rise Effective Floodway will have to be preceded by a floodplain use permit and no-rise certification. Response: The riprap has been modified so that it is no longer in the floodplain. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/03/2015: Please include a reference to the detail drawing and detail sheet number for the rip-rap at the end of ST-B. 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: This has been added 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 inlets are located at the upstream end of Storm Line D. These have been shown on previous submittals as “12” Drain Basins”. I have added information in the Notes section on the storm plan and profile that specify these as Nyloplast inlets and reference the detail sheet drawing. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/03/2015: Now Sheet 53; a sediment trap is still needed. Note 2 should state that the gravel layer should either be CDOT No. 4 aggregate or AASHTO #57. The perforated underdrain should be 6-in, rather than 4. The geotextile fabric should not be wrapped under the gravel layer. 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 Hamdan, 970.224.6035 (bhamdan@fcgov.com) on the rain garden detail as well as any other LID and BMP requirements. Response: A sediment trap has been added to the detail, but is quite small due to the confined available space. Note 2 has been revised and the perforated underdrain is now shown as 6in. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/03/2015: Now Sheet 53; the City Bioswale Cross Section Detail shows a rectangular bottom. the bioswales on these plans are triangular. The UDFCD bioswale cross section detail is a triangular channel, but does not have the sand media, the gravel layers, etc. 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: The City Bioswale detail is no longer needed and has been removed. Swale C-C and D-D 12 will both follow the “Triangular Swale Section” detail. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/03/2015: Now Sheet 55 of the plan set. Please reference the detail drawing and detail sheet number. 09/14/2015: 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: A reference to the detail sheet and number has been added. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/02/2015: This comment still needs to be addressed. 09/14/2015: Please include sediment traps at the entrances to all bio-swales and to the various rain gardens. Response: All bioswales have been removed from the plans and replaced with “Triangular Swale Sections”. Sediment traps have been added to the raingardens. Please see the Raingarden Detail. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: On Sheet 8 of 55. Since Swale D-D is not proposed to be a bio-swale and has a slope less than 2%, either provide a concrete pan, or a soft pan. We can provide detail drawings of a soft pan design if needed. Response: Swale D-D will be a “Triangular Swale Section” with underdrain. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: On Sheet 8 of 55. Add a note with the temporary swale C-C, stating that a floodplain use permit and no-rise certification will be required. Response: This note has been added. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: On Sheet 22 of 25, and any storm sewer sheets which have the note about Type C inlets in the rain gardens, include a reference to a detail drawing and detail sheet number. I don't believe a Type C inlet detail is included now, so one will have to be included. Response: The Type C detail has been added and reference to this detail has been added to the Notes section of the storm plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: On the spillway detail, the descriptions within the cross hatched area below the spillway are illegible. Also, one note mentions that the extent of the rip-rap is shown on the plans. Sheet 54 does not include any dimensions. It should be on one sheet or the other. On Sheet 54, refer to the spillway detail and the detail sheet number (53). Response: The detail has been fixed and the extents of the riprap area are now shown on the Interim and Final Erosion Control Plans. Reference to these dimensions and where to find them is noted on the Overall Drainage Plan. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: Include detention pond information with WSEL, volume, release rate, etc. Response: These have been added to the Overall Drainage Plan Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: The 54-inch storm sewer (ST-B) will eventually be routed south through the overall site. Please show the future alignment on Sheet 54. Will the grades of this pipe work with existing and proposed conditions? Response: This line is now 60” and the future alignment and outfall locations are now shown on the 13 Overall Drainage Plan. Proposed grades and the outfall elevation into the future detention pond has been checked. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: Please include an LID table on the Drainage Plan (Sheet 55). Response: LID tables have been added to the Drainage Plan Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: On Sheet 55, show the side slopes for Swale B-B. similar to C-C and D-D. Response: Typical slopes have been added. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: The LID table does not match the drainage plan and grading plan. The LID techniques to be applied to do not match what is in the plans. For instance, N-4 has permeable pavers, but is not being claimed as such in tables G-1 or G-2. Also, basin N-10 is shown as going to a bio-swale, but C-C is a temporary swale, which means that eventually N-10 will not be an LID basin and won't count towards the 50% minimum acreage. Swale B-B is not a bio-swale, but the LID table shows N-3 draining to a bio-swale B-B. Response: The drainage report has been updated with recent changes to pervious paver locations and the removal of bioswales. We are no longer taking LID credit for temporary swales. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: Include bio-retention/rain garden sizing calculations in the drainage report to verify that they satisfy the treated acreage being claimed. Response: Raingarden sizing worksheets have been added to Appendix G. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: In the detention pond design section of the drainage report (3.2.6), there is discussion about the need for a no-rise certification for the new spillway, using historical elevations when the floodplain was mapped. This area was part of a LOMR 14-08-0580P, effective 12.15.2014. The no-rise certification needs to reflect the elevations used in that LOMR. Response: This section has been revised. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 11/02/2015: The labeling has changed, but it is still incorrectly worded. 09/14/2015: On the landscape plans, the ½ Foot Rise Effective Floodway is mislabeled on sheets 5 and 7 Response: This has been corrected Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/02/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. Please correct the index on sheet 1 as marked. See redlines. 09/17/2015: Please correct the index on sheet 1 as marked. See redlines. 14 Response: This has been corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/02/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 09/17/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/03/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. 09/17/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/02/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. 09/17/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/03/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 09/17/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: These have been masked Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been fixed Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/02/2015: There are line over text issues. The boxes around the text on sheets 6-9 are creating line over text issues. See redlines. 09/17/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/02/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 09/17/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/03/2015 11/03/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been corrected Topic: Plat Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 11/03/2015: We have not received monument records. Please email them directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com 09/17/2015: Please provide current acceptable monument record for the northwest corner of section 3. This should be emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com Response: These will be emailed directly Department: Traffic Operation 15 Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@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: No additional redlines were received. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: 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@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please add a note to the elevations sheets that all mechanical and utility equipment will be screened. Response: Note Added.