Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVILLAGE ON HORSETOOTH - FDP - FDP160044 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity 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 18, 2016 Kristin Fritz Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 W Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Village on Horsetooth, FDP160044, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com. Responses: Developer - Housing Catalyst Architecture – OZ Architecture Civil Engineer – JVA, Incorporated Lighting – MV Consulting Planning – Ripley Design Inc. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 11/15/2016: Offsite Birmingham improvement design sheets should be included in the Village on Horsetooth FDP utility plan set because the improvements will be constructed with this project. If the Birmingham improvements need to be approved as a Minor Amendment first, the Minor Amendment will need to be fully completed and approved before the Village on Horsetooth FDP will be approved by Engineering. The MA/FDP approval will require letters of intent from affected property owners. Response: The connection to Birmingham Drive has been simplified to provide only an emergency vehicle access drive with gate and extension of the existing sidewalk for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity without affecting the adjacent property owners. During the design process we had initially discussed doing major changes to the Birmingham connection but due to the nature of the disturbance it would cause the neighbors, we finalized our plans to a very simplied and streamlined design that will result in minimal changes to sidewalk while simultaneously providing a cohesive safe way of movement for bike and pedestrian traffic. It is important to note that no improvement will be made on adjacent property owners properties.See final plans as well as Exhibit A (attached) for further clarification for updated design and details. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 11/15/2016: LCUASS Checklist E-4 items outstanding: 1.H, 1.L Please finalize general comments 19, 37, 38, D-2 Response: General notes 19, 47, 48, & D-2 have been updated. Checklist item 1.H has been added as general note 21 on sheet C0.1. Checklist item 1.L is provided in the titleblock. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 11/15/2016: The emergency access easement does not connect to the ROW. Response: The EAE has been revised to connect to the ROW. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 11/15/2016: Please change the owner to the Housing Authority on the plat per our previous discussions. Response: Revised as directed. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: An additional $15 is still due for the PDP TDRFee. this is based on 96 du, and 2,960 sq ft club house as shown on the site plan, and 8.30 acres as identified on the plat. Response: Payment is being provided with resubmittal Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: More details needed on the landscape plans. Especially regarding the natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) design. Current design does not seem to match planned programming in that area and the area adjacent. Specifically, what is the anticipated maintenance regime expected in the area directly west of the NHBZ? Will the PBSI pasture mix be mowed regularly? And to what height? What use is anticipated in the area - active recreation or passive recreation? Environmental Planning Staff have less to contribute to installation and maintenance suggestions in the pasture mix area, as long as it is known that installation and appropriate maintenance practices in this seeded area need to be quite different from those in the NHBZ seeded areas. Comments brought up during Staff Review 11/16 related to the need for clear delineation on the ground through design or signage in the real difference in these two areas. So that when on the ground maintenance personnel are doing work, it is clear where to mow and not to mow and the intent of each separate seeded space and to eliminate the amount of chemicals that might be applied on the site overall. Response: Due to unforeseen implications of a widening path and the future extension of a major trail connector through our site we can no longer have a passive recreation space. We will continue to use the pasture mix throughout the perimeter of the site and along the west side of the trail, which can be mowed and easily maintained until it is well established. After establishment, the option remains for Housing Catalyst to turn off irrigation in that area. Mowing will decrease in frequency after the establishment period at which point species can evolve and mature as is driven by natural forces. This pasture mix will be seeded according to PBSI recommendations. Water quality seed mixes are proposed in the LID basins. Shrubs have been proposed to be planted in groupings along the east side. As a way to prevent the shrub groupings from being mowed – we will use wood sakes (see image) to call out the young shrubs. These will be specified at the construction documentation level. In an effort to reducecomplexity and simplify the seed mix application process, we will not be adding forbs to the Pasture Mix in the NHBZ. Due to the future widening of the trail (as it is now poised to become a major connector trail) the NHBZ landscape width along the west side of the trail will decrease (see attached Exhibit B). We acknowledge that forbs have many ecological benefits, therefore we are proposing to use the Upland mix that contains forbs in the area adjacent to the canal that contains a much larger area of NHBZ as a very suitable mix that would greatly enhance the NHBZ adjacent to the canal. Language pertaining to maintenance and weed management will appear in the DA. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: More details needed on the landscape plans. Especially regarding the natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) design. Current design seems more complicated than is necessary, especially with application of native seed mixes. While several mixes increase species diversity, Environmental Planning is not convinced all the seed mixes listed will be ordered correctly and applied as called for on-site, especially directly adjacent to the pasture mix area. In all likelihood, the same seed mix would be thrown down in the active non-NHBZ space and the NHBZ space. The NHBZ area would also most likely get mowed, unless there is a clear delineation that separates the two spaces. Simplifying the design, including limiting design to only two seed mixes (PBSI turf mix and Upland mix created by City Staff for the NHBZ) may make it easier for personnel on the ground to both install and apply appropriate maintenance techniques for each separate seeded area. Let's discuss further during Staff Review meeting 11/16. Response: The design has now been simplified to reduce the number of seed mixes and the need for mowing delineations. This will ensure better results and less complications pertaining to mowing zones etc. See response to comment 1 for further clarification. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Again reiterating comments and discussions from PDP rounds of review regarding seed mixes and maintenance and addition of forbs (wildflowers) to the natural habitat buffer zone mix. If native grass seeded areas are to be included in the design of the natural habitat buffer zone, then forbs must be added with the grasses for the project to gain approval. Otherwise, the weed species, which are also herbaceous (like the wildflowers) have a better chance of taking over long-term. Regardless, mowing should not occur in the natural habitat buffer zone as this maintenance activity negates the intent of the buffer zone. Vegetation heights in approved NHBZ areas are not subject to the same height requirements for traditional landscape areas. Vegetation is meant to serve wildlife as cover and nutritional resources including those needed by songbirds and native pollinators. Staff understands and has heard the resistance to addition of forbs, however, comments stand. Also a few notes: 1) Several City Staff with experience in installing, establishing and maintaining native landscapes such as these are ready and able to support the City of Fort Collins Housing Catalyst ground maintenance personnel with this area in the form of information sharing and on-site visits with S. Blochowiak, Environmental Planner. 2) The mix that should be used will be provided and has been created by a Natural Areas Technician, who has much experience with projects such as these including ways to avoid certain challenges. Additionally, this City Staff person has also already notified seed companies to begin preparing these mixes for the 2017 season, so availability should not be an issue. 3) City Staff are discussing the creation of contractor training workshops to support on-site personnel with these types of landscapes. Please stay tuned. Response: We receieved a recommended seed mix: Upland Mix from the City and are proposing to use in within the Natural Habitat Buffer zone as specified. See response to comment 1 for further clarification of concerns. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Language needs to be added to Landscape Notes regarding detailed and proper installation of native seeded areas. City Staff can provide these specifications and standard notes to be added. Response: Notes received and added, thank you. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Language will need to be added to the Development Agreement for Natural Resources including success criteria for the natural habitat buffer zone area. In addition, a weed management plan will need to be included as an exhibit in the Development Agreement. Let's discuss further at Staff Review meeting 11/16. Response: Acknowledged. The language that will be added to the DA is in the process of being compiled and researched. The language will pertain to above comments and concerns, as well as articulate a weed management strategy for the different areas of the project. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: 3000K or less is shown for one luminaire type on lighting plans, however, still unclear what corrected color temperature is being selected for SL3 and SL4 fixtures. Also, BUG ratings should be 1-0-1 (Backlight; Uplight; Glare ratings). While the lighting request is not currently a Land Use Code standard, a heads up that this may change in 2017 or 2018. There is continued interest (and complaints) among City residents to reduce glare from LED and other lights containing high amounts of blue light. Reducing amount of blue light in the night sky is aligned with American Medical Association and International Dark Skies Association recommendations. Staff acknowledges there is tension in the outdoor lighting world between the old school and new school, however, comments still stand. Overall the site appears well-lit and no significant change would be incurred in using higher than 3000K corrected color temperature lights. City Staff does not see a safety issue with using 3000K or less fixtures in the SL3 and SL4 luminaires. I'll follow up directly with the lighting engineer for the project. At times in the development review room it appears there is curiosity about why Environmental Planning is commenting on lighting. For at least a decade, there has been a growing movement to integrate health planning into urban planning and design. There are several industry publications on the topic. Health planning includes environmental health planning. Environmental planning includes environmental health planning. Thus, our group comments on a range of topics, including lighting. If there is further interest in anything mentioned above, please do not hesitate to contact me directly to discuss. Thank you. Response: Response: A note was added below the luminaire schedule to provide 3000K lamping for all exterior fixtures. As far as the B.U.G. rated fixtures we were able to find some fixtures that are basically 45-70 watt LED which is an equivalent to a 50-70 watt metal halide output. We typically see these fixtures used in pedestrian scale applications not parking lots. Our current layout accomplishes the desired lighting levels using 30 fixtures. Using the B.U.G. rating 1-0-1 mentioned above we will be required to use approximately 47 fixtures increasing the total fixtures and pole bases required by 17, creating a significant cost impact for the owner. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Continued: There seems to be a discrepancy between the required tree mitigation numbers and the provided tree mitigation numbers. Under Required Tree Mitigation, the plans state 13 trees, but under the Provided Tree Mitigation, the plans state 15 trees. Please correct the Provided Tree Mitigation to 13 trees. 11/15/2016: Please identify these trees on final plan Response: Noted and corrected. 09/02/2016: Provide for the 13 upsized mitigation trees and a finalized plant schedule with trees sizes, method of transplant and on the final landscape plan. Response: A finalized plant schedule including sizes has been provided on the landscape notes sheet. No trees are to be transplanted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Plant Schedule Please list Fastigiate Spruce as 4’ in height under the Plant Schedule. All street trees should be listed as 1.25” caliper container or equivalent. Please see Land Use Code D.5 Response: Fastigiate Spruce now listed as 4’ in height in Plant Schedule. There key on the landscape plans that calls out street tree size and symbol. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: There seems to be one extra GS (Shademaster Honeylocust) noted on Sheet 6 of the plans. Please omit this note as there is already identification of the two Honeylocusts. There are only 6 GK (Kentucky Coffeetree) shown on the map, while the Plant Schedule accounts for 7. Please label the final GK on the map. Response: Noted and corrected. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016 11/03/2016: Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: Pre-Submittal meetings are required to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Village on Horsetooth – project specific concerns: 1. Most multi-family buildings require full NFPA 13 fire-sprinkler systems. 13-R systems only allowed in 2 story 6 unit buildings. 2. For single exit buildings, bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor for 1 exit buildings. 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24” 4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. 5. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. 6. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. 7. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. 8. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. 9. Low VOC interior finishes. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Response: Comment Noted. Pre-submittal meeting is scheduled for December 14, 2016 Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 Transformers must be within 10’ of an asphalt/concrete surface. Some of the transformers seem to be further than 10'. Response: Transformers are now within 10’ of an asphalt drive. Locations of the transformers were carefully considered and located as to maintain the needed parking lot landscaping requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Reminder: Please provide a one line diagram and a C-1 form for each building to Light and Power Engineering. L&P limits the number of conductors to no more than 7 parallel runs of no larger than 350kcmil. The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response: Comment Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: The utility easement shown on the utility plan is not shown on the plat. How to label easements Response: All easements should now match between plat and utility plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Reminder: Two streetlights will be placed along Horsetooth. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15’ separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Response: Streetlight locations now show on plan, and street trees adjusted accordingly. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Contact Luke Unruh with questions at 970-416-2727 Response: Thank you Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016 11/17/2016: Comment from Real Estate Services: Ownership is still showing City of Fort Collins - this must be signed by Housing Catalyst (under contract to buy). City cannot sign the plat nor grant easements. Response: Noted and corrected Department: Park Planning Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: The trail alignment shown on the FDP sheet C1.0 is acceptable along the west side, and paralleling, the ditch. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: The trail horizontal alignment in the northeast corner of the site (the turn from paralleling the ditch to paralleling the north property line) should accommodate a 40’ centerline radius to accommodate construction and maintenance vehicles. The regional trail system is maintained by the Parks Department, requiring access. Response: Trail alignment revised to have a minimum 40’ centerline radius, see sheet C3.0. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Allow for a future connection across the Pleasant Valley Canal to the east side of the ditch in the northeast corner of the site. Response: Easement now proposed that will allow for a future connection. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Trail easements are generally 30-50’ in width. The regional trail should be located within a trail and access easement. Response: 30’ public access easement provided for the potential future regional trail. 12’ public access easement provided for the spur connection to the regional trail. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: According to the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan the paved trail surface should be a minimum of 10’ wide. Level shoulders on each side are suggested to be 3’ wide, with side slopes from the shoulder edge to the edge of easement at a maximum of 3:1 but preferably flatter. Specific construction specifications (material, etc) can be found in the Trail Master Plan (fcgov.com/parkplanning/pdf/2013-paved-recreational-trail-master-plan-3-3-14. pdf) . A soft (gravel) path parallel to the paved path is preferred for the regional trail system, but due to site constraints the soft path can be deleted for this project. Response: Thank you for the information provided. Response: The FDP plan shows a 5’ concrete trail and a 3’ wide crusher fines shoulder. However, accommodations have been made for future improvements including the consideration of tree locations, and the fence has been adjusted to move off of the path for future widening. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Please contact Suzanne Bassinger with any further questions about the trail connection. She can be reached via e-mail a sbassinger@fcgov.com or by phone at 970.416.4340. Response: Thank you. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT Previous comments regarding EAE have not been resolved. > The fire lane shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. > EAE must connect to the Public Way. Currently it does not extend continuously from the project to Horsetooth Rd. There is a utility easement that runs parallel to Horsetooth which the plat does not show the EAE extending across. > The limits of the EAE must also include turning radii required for emergency apparatus. The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans. Response: EAE has been revised, see plat and utility plans. Sheet C3.0 includes labels of turning radii Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: FIRE ACCESS ONLY CONNECTION TO THE NORTH The EAE connection to Birmingham St. does not appear to be fully developed and more information is needed. > It must be dedicated and labeled as an EAE (not utility easement). > A detail of this connection will also be required depicting curves and radii. > Rollover curbing in this area is acceptable (vertical curbing is not allowed). > A gate connection to Birmingham St. as removable bollards are not allowed. Refer to next comment for gating requirements. Response: A gate spanning 20’ is now shown on the site plan. Response: EAE has been revised – see plat and utility plans. Rollover curb is shown at the south end of the connection, and a gate on the north end. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016 11/14/2016: SECURITY GATES > 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. > IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply 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 not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or chain and padlock, unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the key(s) to the lock is installed at the gate location. 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: The minimum gate width is 20’, and will be constructed for manual operation. The proposed gate type is a swing gate and will be operable by one person. See site plan for gate detail. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016 11/14/2016: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION & WAYFINDING Rollover comment from PDP: Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in wayfinding. Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise needed to aid in wayfinding. 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 with a minimum of six-inch numerals 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 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016 11/14/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNS Rollover comment from PDP: The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets however the applicant should also be advised that additional on-site signage may be required at time of field inspection and final CO. Code language provided below. > IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. Response: Fire lane signage has been added and is labeled on sheet C3.1. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016 11/14/2016: FDC Rollover comment from PDP: > IFC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. Response: FDC locations shown on sheet C2.0. Department: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Thank you for providing more detail on the bike and pedestrian connection at Birmingham Dr. How will the existing sidewalks on Birmingham Dr. transition to the connection shown on the site plan? Response: Refer to Site Plan for updated sidewalk connections. Response: New ramps are proposed to connect the existing sidewalks on Birmingham to the new walk/fire access. See enlargement of the connection on sheet C1.1. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan (Based upon redlines), an Erosion Control Report (based upon comments), and an Escrow / Security Calculation (Updated based on changes to the plan and reevaluate the cost of every IP, as sub drain IP may not cost as much as Area Inlet Drains or Open Throat). 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: Redlines addressed and escrow updated, see plans and report. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Please add a LID table to the Drainage Plan and in the text of the report. Response: LID table has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Please provide a Drainage Plan/Exhibit in the Utility Plan set. Response: Developed drainage map included in plan set as sheet C1.5. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: On the Detailed Grading Plan, please show/hatch the area of the LID basins that will contain amended soil. Response: Hatch added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: All under-drains are required to be 6-inches. Response: Underdrains upsized to 6”. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Please locate the under-drain for the LID basins 2 inches above the bottom of the aggregate layer. Response: Underdrain trench revised as indicated. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Please use the City's standard detail for the pond outlet structure. It is understood that no extended detention will be required or provided, so no WQ orifices should be included. Please call me if you have any questions. Response: Outlet structure detail revised, see sheet CD1.0. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: The extended detention water quality calculations in the drainage report should be removed since this is not part of the design. Response: Water quality calcs removed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: The City does not normally allow outfall to be in a sump condition. More discussion is required for the LID outfall and see if the sump can be eliminated or reduced. Response: Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Please use the City's standard details for all water utilities. Response: City utility details are included on sheet CD2.0. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Erosion protection is needed for the downside of the weir out of LID basin 3. Response: Added. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Temporary erosion control is needed for the buried rip-rap Sections Response: Added. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: Drainage easements are required for all drainage facilities. This includes the detention pond, LID basins and all WQ and 100-year conveyance improvements. Response: Drainage easements have been added, see plat and utility plans. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: There are spacing issues with proposed storm sewers and trees. Please revise. Response: Storm and trees have been adjusted for spacing requirements. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Text over text issues revised. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Please change the bearing in the Basis Of Bearings statement to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Basis of Bearings revised to match plat. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines Response: Line over text issues corrected, see plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Line of text issues corrected, see plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Response: Easements have been updated on both the plat and utility plans. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Noted and corrected Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Noted and corrected Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: No comments. Response: No Response required Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: It appears that none of the comments from the 9/28/16 PDP review have been addressed. Please make those corrections and resubmit. Response: Plat has been updated to address previous redlines and match utility plans. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: No comments. Response: Noted. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 11/15/2016: Traffic signing and striping plans will need to be included in the final plan set. Redlines have been provided on the site plan. Response: See sheet C3.1 for signage & striping plan. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Please show curb stop locations on the Utility/Water Plan and label. Response: Curbs stops are labeled on the overall utility plan, sheet C2.0. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: The labeling of water features is a bit difficult to determine on the water plan and profiles. The City suggests labeling all water features on the Utility Plan and increasing the scale. Response: Labels added to the C2.0 overall utility plan as suggested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Repeat comment. The sewer running in an east-west direction has to be a public main with manholes at any bend. Response: The east-west sewer has been revised with manholes and is now included in the utility easement. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Additional discussion and coordination is required for the sanitary sewer connection on the south side of Horsetooth Road. Response: Sewer connection on the south side of Horsetooth has been shifted east to avoid conflicts with existing utilities, and includes construction of a new manhole on the existing sewer instead of tying into the exiting manhole. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Coordination is required for the meter placements on all water services. Generally, the City would prefer the meter close to the building and the curb stops near the mains in a landscaped area. Response: Meters have been relocated near each of the buildings. Curb stops are at the main, see sheet C2.0. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Please show all utility crossings on the water and sewer profiles. Response: All crossings in profiles now shown. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Not all water services are labeled and it looks like some should be larger than a 1-inch service. Please provide water service sizing calculations to verify service sizes. Response: Per MEP consultant, domestic water services to be 1-1/2”. See attached calculations. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016 11/16/2016: Please relocate any water meters inside of the utility easement to outside of the utility easement. Response: Meters have been relocated outside the easement and near the buildings, see sheet C2.0. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/21/2016 11/21/2016: There are some spacing issues with water/sewer mains, services and landscaping/trees. Please revise. Response: Utilities and trees have been adjusted for spacing requirements. Department: Zoning Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016 11/15/2016: No comments Response: No comments ‘ Exhibit A Exhibit B The shaded green area depicts the NHBZ area that lies to the west of the trail. The shaded are shown here is decreased in area due to the widening of the trail from 8’ to 16’.