Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTHEAST FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK - FDP - FDP160009 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSland planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement March 23, 2016 Clark Mapes City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO RE: Southeast Fort Collins Community Park, FDP160009, Round Number 1 Responses If have any questions regarding the responses in red contact Robin Rooney with Civitas Inc. For responses in blue please contact Mike Oberlander at Interwest Engineering Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General My understanding from the meeting is that another submittal is needed for Engineering, Stormwater, Technical Services and Environmental Planning. To save paper, I don’t think landscape plans are needed for that. Let’s coordinate a routing. I am assuming FC-Loveland Water District and SFC Sanitation District are resolved: The District does not allow trees, extensive landscaping, structures, etc. within 10 feet of District facilities or within District easements. The District will require a permanent and temporary construction easement for the installation of a 24-inch waterline. The property will need to petition into the sanitation District with a $50 per acre fee. There is a reimbursement for connection to the water infrastructure of approximately $62,566.76 as of September 3, 2014. There is an interest rate factor that will increase over time. The District will require another review of plans to resolve these comments. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/13/2016 03/13/2016: Street Trees: Standards call for street trees in groups of 3, 5, or more of each species. The idea is to be more definite and legible in defining the street as a space, and get more effect out of each species. For the benefit of people walking on the sidewalks, any chance to stagger groupings on the outside of the sidewalk to create stretches of allee, should be taken advantage of. The point is to more strongly establish the street and sidewalk as positive public spaces. There is no stronger spatial effect in landscaping than an allee. Is there a reason for the more random groupings-if so let's discuss. Response: This was a design strategy that was approved in schematic design with the City team as well as forestry. The idea behind this is to embrace the farm vernacular, and enhance the native appeal where one would not find trees planted in allees to the extents of the farm property. Intentional planting, such as tree allees, would generally occur adjacent with the physical development of the farm property. This is the design intention. Also, many of the proposed street trees fall in native seed areas. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/13/2016 Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 2 of 16 03/13/2016: Street Trees: It looks like there should be shade trees along the parking on Saber Cat Drive, for comfort and attractiveness of the parking. Also along Lady Moon to visually absorb and shade the parking. Response: We have met the requirements for street trees. Our layout has been approved by the city design team and the city forester. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/13/2016 03/13/2016: Street Trees: At the orchard on the south, if some of the flowering trees crossed over into the parkway to create a flowering allee in spring. In that case, the species should match the orchard rows, and so will vary along the street. Response: There is the true fruiting orchard area which runs north/ south and crosses the parking area. We also have a “false” orchard to the southeast of this. The intention is to represent an orchard with the flowering trees, but not require maintenance at the intensity of the true fruiting orchard. Visually these two will relate to one another with their variety of spring bloom. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: The index of sheets on the Cover Sheet needs to match the individual sheet names. See redlines. Also, please remove Landscape naming to the grading sheet. Response: Index and sheet names have been revised. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Update the date on the Drainage Report under Storm Drainage Notes on the General Notes Sheet. Response: The notes have been updated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Please add the standard sidewalk repair note to the Demolition Plan sheets in the Utility Plan and the Site Plan: "Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy." Response: Standard sidewalk repair note added to Demolition Plan Sheets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: ADA ramps will be needed at the northwest corner of Kechter Road and Lady Moon Dirve as well as the northwest corner of Saber Cat Drive and Lady Moon Drive. Response: There are existing ADA ramps in these locations. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 3 of 16 03/07/2016: Please work with Traffic Operations to determine the location of the pedestrian crossing should be located on Ziegler Road. If the crossing will be at the park driveway, please verify that the ramps line up with Sage Creek Road. Response: At this time there will be no striped or signalized pedestrian crossing at Ziegler. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Please provide an overall Demolition Plan Sheet. Response: An overall Demo sheet has been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: The sidewalk connection from Saber Cat Drive to Ziegler Road looks like it will interfere with the proposed sidewalk ramp. Please revise. Response: There is a minimum of 36” clear from the top of the ramp and the back of the walk. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Sheet UT-8 is not shown on the Utility Plan Key Map. Please provide. Response: Sheet UT-8 has been added to the Key Map. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Move the key map for the grading plan to the same corner on each grading plan sheet. Keep it consistent on each page to prevent any confusion. Response: The grading plan has been revised. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: The grading Sheets (LG-01 - LG-10) do not have the correct overall sheet numbers. Please adjust. Response: The grading plan has been revised. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Some of the callouts, references, cross sections within the Grading Plan need adjustment. See redlines. Response: The grading plan has been revised. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Please look at the plan and profile sheets for Ziegler Road and Lady Moon Drive. There are areas that exceed to 0.4% grade breaks. The curb returns at the driveways show slopes greater than 2%. These grades would not meet ADA across the ramps. The vertical curve for an arterial street has k values >= 90 and minimum lengths of 150'. These can be looked at further since it is in a deceleration right turn lane. Response: The profiles have been revised to meet the code requirements. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: There is a cross section on south Ziegler Road that exceeds the 4% cross section for reconstruction. The saw cut may need to move further west to meet the maximum slope. The cross sections on Lady Moon Drive needs to be looked at further. All portions exceed the 4% cross slope, while one cross Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 4 of 16 section doesn't meet the 1.5% minimum. As proposed, engineering would not support this design. Response: The flowline profile has been revised to reduce the cross slope. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/07/2016: Label Pedestrian Ramp Detail and the 1' Rollover Curb details on Sheet DT-6 as "On-Site Only" Response: Ramp detail and Rollover Curb detail labeled as “On-Site Only”. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/07/2016: Use Detail D-10B for a culvert with a detached walk instead of an attached walk. Response: The project now has both types of sidewalk culverts, both details are included. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/07/2016: Please show the access easements associated with the Poudre School District property (Sabre Cat Drive) on the Utility Plans. Response: The access easement is shown. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/07/2016: All ROW and alignment dedications need to be finalized prior to the approval of the utility plans. Please work with Real Estate Services to finalize the documents. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Label new ROW lines that is being dedicated with this project. Response: Proposed ROW is labeled and a detail is provided on sheet DT-9 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Is this a 100' buffer from McClelland Creek and 50' for the ditch? The buffer will be referred to in your Development Agreement as the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ). For the purposes of the DA, future inspections, and evaluating the overall establishment and success of the resource restoration and buffer, please label consistently as the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) on all sheets that show the buffer. Response: The NHBZ has been revised on all SP-XX sheets, as well as all LL-XX sheets. A revised legend has been included, as well as additional labels on all plans. There is not a ditch within this property. The required SF for the NHBZ is determined as 100’ buffer from the top of bank. We have then taken this SF, and modified the boundary to adhere to the design constraints. The revised NHBZ falls only in native seed areas within the park. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: On sheet SP-01 it is hard to differentiate the NHBZ from the 100-year floodplain and other dashed lines. Please use different symbology for the buffer, perhaps a dotted line, to better distinguish it. Also, please label the buffer on all sheets, such as SP-02 that shows the boundary but does not have a label. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 5 of 16 Response: This has been revised on all SP-XX sheets, as well as all LL-XX sheets. A revised legend has been included. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: The determination of the buffer line is unclear. If this is a 100' buffer it has been averaged with what appears to be 0' setback from top of bank in some areas and more than 100' in other areas. We recommend moving the buffer boundary to the edge of trails and borders the encompass native landscaping around the stream. Using these more clearly defined breaks in the landscaping will make it easier to review and monitor the success of the NHBZ over the long term. For clarity, please also include a table that shows the total area required for a straight 100' buffer versus the total area provided. Response: The NHBZ has been revised on all SP-XX sheets, as well as all LL-XX sheets. It is labeled as such as well. There is not a ditch within this property, so the NHBZ is determined as 100’ buffer from the top of bank. We have then taken this SF, and modified the boundary to adhere to the design constraints. The revised NHBZ falls only in native seed areas within the park, and clearly follows the proposed walkways and other site design elements. A table has been included on sheet SP-01 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: As per the Land Use Code, the buffer distance for stream corridors is measured from top of bank. Is "toe of slope" synonymous with "top of bank". How was this measured? Please use "toe of slope" to measure the buffer zone distances and re-label on all plan sets. Response: Toe of slope refers to a detail for bank reinforcement in the creek bed. This is not in any way related to top of bank alignment. The NHBZ has been determined based on the proposed top of bank alignment. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Turf grass is shown within some areas of the NHBZ, such as on sheet LL-02. Turf grass is not compatible with the intent of the NHBZ. Please see comment #3 regarding the delineation of the NHBZ and update accordingly. Response: The NHBZ has been revised. All turf grass is outside of this boundary. Native seed areas are within the boundary. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Is the area in the center of McClelland Creek on sheet LL-02 the nature play space? Please label as such and will you be providing a detail of this area? Response: This has been labeled. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: A note should be added to the landscape plan regarding the seed mixes proposed in the buffer may change based on what species respond best. All seed mix changes shall be approved by the City's Environmental Planner. Response: The proposed seed mixes are from the recommendation of the City’s Park Planning department and Natural Areas Department. They have been approved by the Storm Water Department. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Thank you for providing a photometric plan with this FDP submittal. With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 6 of 16 protected from light spillage from off-site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Please update the lighting fixtures and photometric plan to remove any light spillage and clearly label the NHBZ on all sheets. Response: The NHBZ has been revised. There is minimal light spillage into the NHBZ, but after additional review with Kelly K through email, the revised NHBZ has been approved. The proposed boundary is a simple boundary defined by site design. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Once updated, the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) needs to be labeled on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plans. A note should be added to the site, landscape, utility, grading, and storm sewer plan that the natural habitat area is meant to be maintained in a native landscape. This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future. Response: This note has been added to SP-01, and all LL-XX sheest. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Please add the following statement to the notes on any sheets that show the NHBZ: Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the buffer zone. Response: This note has been added to SP-01, and all LL-XX sheest. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Please add an Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans that show the NHBZ. Response: The NHBZ has been added to the utility plans. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: The tree inventory information needs some editing. All existing trees are numbered in the table on sheet SP03 but these same trees are not numbered on the direct label on sheet SP02. All existing trees need to be numbered in both the table an on the plan. Also in the direct label information should be marked with the word remove or remain. At the east end of the site there is a group of what appears to be 5 spruce to retain but the label only indicates 3. Evaluate with Ralph Zentz further if any of the Austrian pines in the large grove on the south edge of the project can be transplanted. This should be reviewed in an onsite meeting. Response: Existing tree inventory has been revised to include numbering on both sheets as well as “remove” and “remain”. There are (5) existing spruce labeled at the east side of the park. There are (2) to remove and (3) to remain; #71, 72 are removed, #76, 77, 78 are to remain. On further review with Ralph, the (12) Austrian along the north edge of the park near the existing BMX were not suitable for transplant. 12/15/2015: Continued: Tree inventory plan has not been provided in the plans Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 7 of 16 that were provided by Park Planning for review. This information must be provided to Forestry for review and included in the plan set before bidding. 09/18/2015: Provide inventory information on sheet SP 02 for street trees along Saber Cat and other exiting trees near the street that are not identified on the tree evaluation plan. Forestry has provided this information. These existing trees need to be identified by species, size condition and mitigation as others have been. Trees identified for transplanting by Forestry need to be recorded for transplanting. The locations where transplanted tree will be transplanted needs to be shown on the plan. Provide notes that describe the tree transplanting process such as time of year, size of root ball and after care. Clearly show which trees will be transplanted. Response: Tree inventory information was provided for street trees along the south edge of Sabercat, however this did not include the existing diameter of some of the trees. This has been revised. There are not any trees proposed for transplant. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: The Forestry Division tree protection specifications have not been added to the plan. There are 19 specification items that need to be placed on the plan. Response: These are now included as sheet SP-05 12/15/2015: Forestry tree protection specifications have not been included at this time. The Forestry specification should replace those currently on the plan. 09/18/2015: Use the Forestry Division tree protection specification on the plan in place of those being used. Place these specifications on the plan. Forestry Division tree specification are available from the City Forester. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: A on-site meeting needs to be schedule with Ralph Zentz to review the proposed prop design. Response: A meeting has taken place between Craig K. and Ralph 12/25/15: Continued: A design and notes will need to be provided for the prop to supper the limb. Work with Ralph Zentz for information on placement. An on-site meeting appears necessary and is recommended before the design is finalized. 09/18/2015: Existing tree number 25 has been identified as needing a prop to reduce risk. Provide appropriate notes and a design of the prop for this tree. It is suggested that this be defined in a detail. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: Planting details still need to be reviewed with Ralph Zentz to obtain comments. Revised detail will need to be approved by Forestry and included on the plans. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 8 of 16 Response: A meeting has taken place between Craig K. and Ralph 12/15/2015: Continued: There a number of items related to the tree planting details on sheets LP-13 and LP-14 that Forestry has comments on. Contact Ralph Zentz, Senior Urban Forester to receive Forestry comments on the edits requested to these details. Revised details will need to be approved by Forestry and included on the plans. 09/18/2015: Revise the planting detail to say set root ball 1 inch higher than the finish grade. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: Please confirm if all references to City Forestry providing the mulch has been removed. Response: All references have been removed. 12/15/2015: On sheet POC-00 a landscape note states that mulch is to be provided by the Forestry Division. This note should be removed. The project manager can check with Forestry when landscape work begins to determine if Forestry mulch can be provided for some or the entire project. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: This detail was not provided for review with this round of submittal. Response: This detail is not included as a part of the FDP submittal. It is included in the 95% CD set, which is not the same submittal. References to this detail have been removed from the FDP submittal. Upon discussions with Ralph, the species in this location has been revised. 12/15/2015: The detail for the harvest room on sheet LP-11 does not identify the type of trees at the north end of this area? Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: For the double row of Accolade Elm generally located at the SW section of the Park Forestry recommends adding tree diversity as follows. Incorporate some Choice City David Elm Ulmus davidiana ‘Choice City’ into the row of Accolade Elm. Response: This has been revised. 12/15/2015 Forestry is concerned with the degree that Accolade Elm is used on the plans where even-aged monocultures in a long row of the same species of tree occur. Forestry is asking that one or two additional shade tree species be strongly Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 9 of 16 considered for incorporating into these rows. This could reduce the risk of the impact of uniform decline when only a single species is used. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: Response: This has been revised. Upon further discussions with Ralph, these trees will be reviewed on site for exact placement. Try to provide some better separation in these areas. 12/15/2015 Some of the shade trees are around 20 feet from orchard trees. Forestry recommends keeping shade trees at least 30 feet from orchard trees to help reduce the competition for light and over topping by the bigger trees. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: Forestry is very concerned with this detail. These raised planters will not provide adequate soil volume for these trees to grow and thrive long term. Why are they being recommended in the dog park? Is it feasible to just plan the trees at grade? This item needs more discussion and review. Response: These are removed from the project. 12/15/2015 Trees are shown in the proposed Dog Park area. The groups of trees shown in this area are noted to be in a RCP raised planting ring, but there does not appear to be a detail or description of what that is. Please provide an answer to these Forestry questions and provide a detail of what the RCP raised planting ring is so Forestry can review this item. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: Utility plans were not provided to Forestry for this round of review. It was noted at the last review that a sewer main crosses the site and that there are proposed trees near it that do not meet the separation standard. Show the location of utility lines on the landscape plan that require a tree separation distance and make adjustments as needed to tree positions to meet the LUC separation standard. Response: The sewer main and easement have been labeled on all sheets, included dimensions. All trees on either side of this easement are in compliance with the below minimum distances. We have included a table on SP-XX sheets and LL-XX sheets with minimum distances required. 12/15/2015 Provide tree separations from utilities to the Land Use Code 3.2.1 K. It appears some trees may be too close to the existing sewer main running across the park and possibly to other utilities. Review tree spacing from utilizes and make adjustments where needed. Show utility locations on the landscape sheets so trees can be correctly located in relation to these lines. Forty feet between shade trees and streetlights Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 10 of 16 Twenty feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. Ten feet between trees and water or sewer mains Six feet between trees and water or sewer service lines Four feet between trees and gas lines Contact the City Storm Water Department to get their separation standard from storm drains. Response: We have confirmed we are in compliance with Storm Water as well. We have included a table on SP-XX sheets and LL-XX sheets with minimum distances required. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Continued: This item still needs to be reviewed with Ralph Zentz to get Forestry input. Response: This detail has been reviewed by Ralph and revised. 12/15/2015 Review the detail for the Inline drip pipe assembly for trees in native grass on sheet LI-10 with Ralph Zentz to obtain Forestry input. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: There are number errors in the summary tables for trees on sheet LL-00. Totals for Italian Plum, Stanley Plum and Montmorency Cherry are not recorded. Just one random check of coffeetrees was performed by Forestry and this check indicated there is a large error in the total coffeetrees recorded. Eleven coffeetrees are recorded on sheet LL-00 but there are many more than 11 shown on the plans. The Project needs to carefully verify all tree totals and correct errors in the tree list schedules. Response: This has been revised on LL-00. This same scheduled is duplicated on all LL-XX sheets – so the quantities showing are total for the project, not per sheet. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 03/07/2016 03/07/2016: Contact the City Forester to discuss cultivars of apples and plum for use in the orchard. Response: The Italian plums will be revised to Mount Royal per forestry’s suggestion. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: The streetlight shown to be relocated along Lady Moon may need to be placed across the street to the East. This would involve trenching approximately 200' down from an existing streetlight for a feed. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 11 of 16 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: System modification charges will apply for all streetlight and vault Response: Acknowledged. relocations. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please send electronic (CAD) versions of the Approved Site and Utility plan to CJHousley@fcgov.com to be placed on our basemaps. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Electric Capacity Fee and Building Site charges will apply to this development. Please click on the following link for Estimated Light & Power charges and the Light & Power Fee calculator. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet UT-2 and UT-5 – Please verify that the 2-30-inch culvert design information shown on the utility plans is consistent with what is analyzed in the drainage report. Response: The plans and the report are consistent. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet UT-2 – fill in some missing french drain design info. Response: Complete Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet UT-3 – please include a hydraflow analysis in the drainage report for the 18” RCP located south of the ball fields Response: Hydraflow analysis is now included for this outfall. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet UT-8 – Please clarify what sort of surface material is planned for the two circle areas with the area drains in them. If this area is also wood fiber mulch it seems like the drains are going to quickly clog up. Also, fill in some missing design information for the underdrains shown on this page. Response: A surface material legend has been added. There are area drains in the silos, the surface material in the bottom of the silos will be rubber play tiles. Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 12 of 16 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Landscape Grading Plans – the floodway lines need to be included on these plans. - please provide a legend on these plans that clarifies what the abbreviations stand for. (i.e. FS, TLF, TC, BC, etc) as some are difficult to determine. – add contour labels along stream area. Response: The grading plan has been revised. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet LG-03 – There are several notes throughout the “Landscape Grading Plans” that say “RE:CIVIL”. Please be specific with this note and callout the specific details so that the contractor doesn’t mis-understand or completely miss something. Also, its unclear what happened to the Civil Grading Plans. Were these replaced with the Landscape Grading Plans? Response: The grading plan has been revised. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet LG-03 – Please include spot elevations for all the underdrain pipe cleanout rims. Response: The underdrain clean out rims have been added to the grading plan. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet LG-06 - the attached sidewalk located along the north side of the parking lot is supposed to slope down toward the parking area. There are some spot elevations that indicate otherwise. Please revise. Response: The grading plan has been revised. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet LG-06 - The low point in the driveway where the double 30-inch culverts are located needs to be more clearly labeled. There is a 2’ curb cut on the north side of the drive aisle that needs to be labeled. The ponding depth for the overtopping flow in this area needs to studied to ensure that the overtopping doesn’t spill onto Ziegler or into the parking lot. The grading plan may need to be revised through here to contain the overtopping. Response: Per the drainage report, the overtopping of the roadway ponds to an elevation of 0.57’ above the spillway. Per the revised grading plan, there is a minimum of 0.7’ available before the water overtops the roadway high point. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet DT-1 – please indicate slopes into the french drain on the detail. Response: The minimum slope has been labeled. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Sheet DT-4 – replace the Type R inlet details with the City of Fort Collins detail D-43 or 44. Response: The Type R inlet has been replaced with two sidewalk chases and a Type C inlet behind the sidewalk. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 13 of 16 03/08/2016: See redlined Utility Plans for other minor comments. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: For the sump manhole and SNOUT at the BMX park: The Utility department is fine with the sump manhole and SNOUT proposed for the BMX park as long as the Parks department understands the maintenance requirements for this system. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Pg 4 – Offsite Drainage section discusses the 2 30-inch culverts passing 57 cfs, but the analysis indicates that 87 cfs is passing through. Please update the analysis or write-up. Response: 87 cfs is accurate; the report text has been updated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Appendix C – Hydraulic Calculations – The inlet located at the vehicle turn-around has been designed as a Type R inlet. Please revise this to a combination inlet as we have seen Type R inlets become somewhat of a safety concern in areas of high pedestrian traffic. Response: The Type R inlet has been replaced with two sidewalk chases and a Type C inlet behind the sidewalk. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Appendix D – LID Calculations and Alternative Compliance Application – I don’t think this appendix is needed any longer as I don’t think you’re seeking a variance and the LID exhibit is provided in the back pocket. Response: We are not seeking a variance, this has been removed from appendix D. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: LID Exhibit – please add the impervious run-on area to the pavers requirement section of the LID table. Response: The LID exhibit has been revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: See redlined drainage report for other minor comments. Response: Acknowledged Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/22/2016 02/22/2016: Per our phone conversation just a short while ago some significant concerns I wanted to bring up and get address. The Plan will need the following: 1)Showing specific areas of slope protection along the channel on the plan set. 2)Showing more bank erosion control details to make sure the banks will have less erosion control impact while seeding is occurring. 3) Adding erosion control rolled product details to the plans from the Jute to any Straw blankets, Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 14 of 16 etc... Response: Slope protection is now shown. We will advance the details after a contractor has been selected. The Report will need the following. 4)With this being such a sensitive area. I will need a little more specific and detailed process and means of construction in this channel which will minimize the impact and pollutant discharge while working in the water way (i.e. the rock check dams and pump bypass labeled on the plans) I understand this is generally out of an engineer’s scope and so the contractor may need to be the ones who supply this information after the project bid has been awarded. Response: Additional details will be added to the report once a contractor has been selected and a dewatering plan has been established. Two minor things not mentioned per the phone conversation 5)The report will need to have the current vegetative cover or percent density, currently not found in the Erosion Control Report. 6)The escrow may need to be recalculated with Plan Revisions. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged. Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Please include the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain boundaries on Sheets UT-1 through UT-8. Response: Floodplain boundaries are shown. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: On FP-1, please show the bridges, and identify them including notes about being break-away type bridges. Reference a Detail Drawing and Sheet No. Response: Structural sheets have been included in this resubmittal Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Please include a detail drawing of the existing relocated bridge and the two new bridges and show how they will be made to break away and how that will work. Response: Structural sheets have been included in this resubmittal Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: On FP-1, when the modeling report has been updated, we will need BFE elevations for each cross section shown. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: On FP-1, it appears we will need additional cross sections at the low flow boulder crossing, the raised viewing platform (Sta. 66 - 67), and the play area. Response: Acknowledged Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 15 of 16 Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: On FP-1, include information about the raised viewing area (e.g. detail drawing) so we can see how it fits into the surrounding ground and how it relates to the floodplain and the BFE. Response: Details for the raised viewing area have been added (S-4) Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Please show the 100-year floodplain boundaries on Sheets 2-6, 10, 12, 13-16, and 19-22 of the Stream Rehabilitation Plans. Response: Floodplain boundaries are shown Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: In the Modeling Report; the report will have to be updated with the topography reflecting the most up to date Stream Rehabilitation plans. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: In the Modeling Report; we are not going to review the report until the model has been updated. as per the previous comment (No. 21). Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: We would like to have a meeting prior to updating the model to go over the location and number of cross-sections, etc. Response: Acknowledged, Interwest has contacted Shane Boyle to set up this meeting. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: On SP-1, please include the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries, and make it easier to differentiate them from each other, and from the natural resources buffer and the boundary lines. Response: This has been revised, and a revised legend has been included. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2016 03/11/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: The redlines have been addressed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 Southeast Community Park FDP – PDP Round 3 Responses February 9, 2016 Page 16 of 16 03/08/2016: Is there an overall site plan and a signing and striping plan? I got the Utility plans, but didn't get anything else. Response: Overall site plan is sheet SP-01 Response: A striping plan has been added to the plans. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2016 02/19/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged.