Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK (FORMERLY POUDRE RIVER DOWNTOWN PARK) - PDP - PDP160039 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1 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 December 30, 2016 Roger Sherman BHA DESIGN 1603 OAKRIDGE DRIVE Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Poudre River Whitewater Park (formerly Poudre River Downtown Park), PDP160039, 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, Rebecca Everette, at 970-416-2625 or reverette@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2016 12/27/2016: The Utility Plan submittal was incomplete. Please refer to Appendix E-4 for requirements for Utility Plans. Items highlighted in yellow are items that are required prior to hearing. Since majority of the crucial items were missing/inadequate, a full review of the plans was not done. Please resubmit with required items as well as a Plat. Response: Please see the revised Utility Plans which have been updated to include the required elements identified in Appendix E-4 and current design information. A Plat has also been provided as part of the revised submittal Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please add the following statement to the notes on all relevant sheets of the site, landscape, photometric and utility plans: "All undisturbed areas are intended to be maintained in a native and/or drought-tolerant 2 landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses and requirements for protecting natural features." Response: Plans have been updated to include this note. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Thank you for providing such a thorough Ecological Characterization Study. This will serve as a good model for future projects along the Poudre River corridor. Staff concurs with the findings and recommendations in the ECS. Response: Thank you. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Based on discussions at the staff review meeting, it sounds like the tree mitigation plan may need to be updated due to recent tree pruning/removal by PRPA. Please coordinate with Forestry and update the plans accordingly. Response: The team met with Forestry on site on January 18th , since then, plans have been updated to reflect current conditions. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Staff is comfortable with the approach to tree mitigation outlined on sheet 1 of the mitigation plan. Please provide the total quantity of mitigation shrubs that will be used to offset the mitigation trees (~220?). Response: The total number of mitigation trees is 79, 69 of which are upsized trees and 100 are upsized shrubs. Exact mitigation quantities will be provided on-site by forester. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: There are some missing mitigation quantities in the tree mitigation table (sheet 3). Please continue to coordinate with Forestry and update the table accordingly. Response: During the meeting with Forestry on January 18th , the team discussed the missing quantities and the plans have been updated accordingly. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: It would be helpful to add a table to the landscape plan that estimates the size (in square feet) of each type of planting area/community (i.e., shrub beds, zone 1, zone 2, zone 3, plugs, willow stakes). Response: Coverage in SF has been added to the landscape plan schedule for each area appropriately. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please provide a detailed species list for Seed Mix A1 (High Plains Meadow Mix). If any seed mixes will be used in Zones 2 and 3, please provide details for those as well. Response: Seed Mix A1 was renamed to ‘Comm A1’, Upland Seed (Zone 1). Biohabitats and BHA have been 3 working closely with Rick Bachand (with Natural Areas) to develop an appropriate seed mix for this site. As of this time, the seed mix is as follows: High Plains Meadow Mix by Western Native Seed, Coaldale, CO % Scientific name Common name 3.6 Linum perenne v. lewisii Blue Flax 3.6 Oxytropis sericea Silky Locoweed 3.6 Penstemon angustifolius Pagoda Penstemon 3.6 Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 3.6 Helianthus annuus Annual Sunflower 3.0 Penstemon strictus Rocky Mt Penstemon 3.0 Ratibida columnifera Prairie Coneflower 3.0 Ratibida columnifera pulchra Mexican Hat 1.8 Liatris punctata Dotted Gayfeather 0.6 Mirabilis multiflora Wild Four O'Clock 0.3 Penstemon virgatus Wand Beardtongue 0.3 Macheranthera bigelovii Purple Aster 24.5 Bouteloua curtipendula Side Oats Grama 14.0 Pascopyrum smithii Western Wheatgrass 7.0 Elymus trachycaulus Slender Wheatgrass 3.5 Elymus elymoides Bottlebrush Squirreltail 3.5 Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama 3.5 Oryzopsis hymenoides Indian Ricegrass 3.5 Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem 3.5 Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 3.5 Sorghastrum nutans Yellow Indiangrass 3.5 Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand Dropseed Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please clarify - will the Pollinator Meadow Mix A2 be planted as seeds or plugs? Response: The Pollinator Meadow Mix A2 is intended to be installed as plugs. To reduce confusion, the plan sheet have been modified to label this community as ‘Comm A2’, Upland Seed (Zone 1) & Pollinator Meadow (Plugs). Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please clarify what species will be used for the plugs along the river and wetland area. Are those the herbaceous species listed under Zone 3, or something else? Response: The species used for plugs in the lower riparian zone (Zone 3) are the herbaceous species listed in that section of the plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Planting Note #8 references Zone 4. Which zone is that referring to, if any? Response: The mention of Zone 4 is a typographical error. The text should refer to Zone 1. The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: When it comes to sourcing plant material, you might consider contacting the Colorado State Forest Service and High Plains Environmental 4 Center to help with propagation of native species. CSFS has offered to assist with plant propagation for other City projects. Response: Acknowledged Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: For all proposed light fixtures, please use versions with 3000K color temperatures or less to minimize impacts to sensitive natural features. Some fixtures are shown in 4000K and 5000K version on sheet E3.0 of the lighting plan, which will not meet the environmental protection requirements. Response: Fixture part numbers called out changed to 3000K. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Will any motion sensing, dimming, or timing controls be used for any of the light fixtures. These are all highly recommended to reduce impacts to the river corridor, wetlands, nesting birds and other wildlife. Response: The lighting to be installed throughout is dimmable, especially right over and next to the river corridor. The entire site will photocell on between timer controlled higher traffic times (4am – 11pm). Occupancy/Motion sensors will be employed in the parking lots and pole lights to provide dimming to 50% when not occupied to minimize impacts. Side shields will also be employed where needed to further minimize impact to sensitive areas. Fixture selection and location is also being carefully considered to minimize impact. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: What will be the mounting height(s) of the light fixtures (particularly the AA fixture)? Response: Pole lights (AA) will be 16’. The wall mounted step fixtures are typically mounted at 18”. The PH1 fixtures will be mounted in the overhead of the pergola structures and at the bottom of the bridge on the south end and will be governed by the structures. The HR1 along the wall on the south side will be mounted in the handrail along the wall. The HR1 along the bridge will be mounted close to the walking surface at 6” in a lower rail. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: The labels on the photometric plan do not match the names and symbols shown in the Luminaire Schedule on sheet E3.0. Please update/correct. Response: Labels have been updated. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Sheets E3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 all show spillover lighting into the wetland areas. Please adjust the placement, shielding, or mounting heights of the light fixtures to eliminate any light trespass into the wetland areas. Please also label the wetland lines on the photometric plans. Response: Shielding will be provided on fixtures causing spillage. Fixtures also adjusted to minimize impact and necessity of shields. Wetland labeling added to photometric plans. Topic: Site Plan 5 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: The future picnic shelter location shown immediately to the east of the west pond should be moved further from the wetland to avoid any impacts. Either attach to the trail or move to the opposite side of the trail (or another less sensitive area). Response: The future picnic area has been shifted to the other side of the walk. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please add a detail to the site plan that compares the existing (previously approved) Coy Ditch Natural Habitat Buffer to the reconfigured buffer proposed with this project. Response: A diagram has been added to the Site Plan. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please provide a transformer location that is within 10' of a paved surface. Please show the location on the utility plan. Response: The transformer location is now shown on the Utility Plan and is located within the 15’ utility easement that will be dedicated by the project, approximately 20’ west of the emergency access road. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Don Kapperman, Comcast, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2016 COMCAST 12/27/2016: Please call in locates to see if Comcast is clear of all work area. Response: Locates were conducted by a private locating service, under the direction of King Surveyors, as part of the site survey. Comcast lines were found along the north side of Vine Drive, outside of the project area. Other communication lines were found in the project area (south side of Vine), but ownership is currently unknown. Ownership of these lines will be confirmed during final design. Due to the street widening proposed as part of this project, utilities located on the south side of Vine Drive will likely need to be relocated prior to widening of the road. Further coordination will be conducted with Comcast as necessary prior to design completion. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: RIVER ACCESS Several off-line discussions have occurred regarding this project. What follows is a summation of those outstanding items currently under consideration: > 16' fire lanes have been approved by the fire marshal assuming functional fire 6 access remains available. > The fire lane will require an Emergency Access Alignment. Details should be labeled on future plans. > Fire lane signage is needed at the entry point on E Vine to signal emergency responders this route has been designed for their use. > End of fire lane, past Xcel site should be posted with, "No large vehicle access past this point." > The fire lane connection at E. Vine shall be a rollover curb. > Removable bollards are approved in this application assuming they are clearly signed and labeled as to their function and the removal process can be expediently managed without a loss of time (assuming spring or summer conditions). Otherwise, a gate is preferred. In either case, PFA will need to review the bollard or gate design prior to installation. > Can a small vehicle turn around be provided at the 10' wide walk connection leading to the parking lot? This may simply require a flared trail intersection at this location. > Other details, such as setting of rescue boat anchor points, can be deferred until a later discussion. Response: Acknowledged. Please see Site Plan sheets, specifically S3 for additional emergency vehicle access information. Based on recent discussions, the removable bollards may be replaced with a gate, as this may be preferred by both PFA and Parks Planning. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: GENERAL FIRE ACCESS > Ideally, an open pull-off should be provided on E Vine to accommodate ambulance, PD and fire apparatus on typical day-to-day calls so as not to obstruct E Vine or create an unsafe environment. This area may overlap with a drop-off area that was previously proposed. An area near the historic Quonset was originally discussed. Response: An open pull-off is provided at the location of the emergency/fire access lane along the west side of the welding business (Upham Property). Removable bollards (or possible gate) are set back from Vine Drive to allow for emergency vehicle parking without obstructing the sidewalk along Vine. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: AUTOTURN EXHIBIT As fire lanes are less than 20' in width, an AutoTurn exhibit will be needed to verify turning movements. Response: A turning analysis exhibit was emailed to Jim Lynxwiler on January 30, 2017. The email was sent from Roger Sherman with BHA Design. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: FIRE LANE - SOFT TRAIL > Portions of the proposed fire lane are labeled as "soft trail." The design intent is unclear. The full width of the fire lane needs to support 40 tons. Further details are needed to determine if this design will meet minimum fire access specifications and will hold up over time. Response: The soft portion of the trail has been updated to a Class 6 Roadbase. 7 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: SOUTH SIDE RIVER ACCESS The overall plan should take into account that emergency access is needed on both sides of the river. The fire marshal would like to see the recreation area plan to account for and plan for this need. Response: See site plan sheet 3 for North bank emergency vehicle access. Jim Lynxwiler, Matt Day and Roger Sherman reviewed the south bank during a site walk on January 26, 2017. Emergency access exists on the south and east sides of the Power House Institutes property. Department: Planning Services Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: A standard City signature block needs to be added to the utility plans. Response: A standard City signature block has been added to the Utility Plans. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Thank you for providing an estimate for the number of parking spaces needed to support this use. Please provide more information on which previously designed parks were considered and/or other whitewater park examples for comparison. How much parking is provided at other whitewater parks, and how much use is generally observed on normal and peak days? Is there an average turnover rate for parking spaces, and how does that vary between weekday, weekend, and event days? Response: From PDP submittal on December 6, 2017: “Refer to the Site Plan for proposed parking locations. S2O is the member of the design team that specializes in whitewater parks. Based on previously designed parks, they estimate some 30 spaces as a requirement during the busy season and Parks Department estimate an additional 18 spaces would be needed for this sites for other recreational uses. This equals 48 spaces for the site. The parking lot design currently provides 35 on-site spaces, and 18 on-street parking for overflow. This gives visitors a total of 53 potential parking spaces. The design team understands that these numbers are only an estimate and have provided a location for future parking.” The Poudre River Whitewater Park is different from other regional kayak parks because it only has 2 wave features and it is not being designed to accommodate large events/competitions. Typically parks of this nature have multiple wave features and host events throughout the kayaking season, which in Colorado is an average of 45 days due to water levels and typically lasts from May to June/August. The weekday use of the parking lot will be random/sporadic and modest. It is likely that weekends will be busier. Due to the equipment required for Kayaking, the majority of parking will be used by Kayakers. An individual kayak activity would last an average of one hour. Assuming that the parking lot would turn-over hourly, the highest possible peak hour trip generation would be 35 ingress and 35 egress vehicles related to the parking lot. This is not likely to occur every day or every daylight hour of the day. However, these numbers are an estimate. As a precaution, a future parking lot has been designed as a phase 2 expansion, providing an additional 27 parking spaces. The additional parking expansion may, or may not, be constructed at some point in the future. 8 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Will there be a shared parking agreement with the Rocky Mountain Innosphere? Staff expects spillover from the Innosphere into this parking lot during the week, and vice versa on weekends and event days. A shared parking agreement that clarifies permission/restrictions for spillover parking or a letter outlining the adaptive approach to parking management should be provided prior to hearing. Response: The City has decided that it will use a “wait and see” approach to determine how the parking lot will be regulated and if shared parking with Innosphere needs to be investigated further. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: The amount of bike parking provided does not seem adequate to support the high level of recreational use that is expected. Please arrange a meeting with FC Bikes staff to discuss the amount of bike parking provided and rack locations. Perhaps space can be dedicated for potential future/expanded bike racks to respond to demand once the park is in use. Response: Bike parking has been expanded from (12) spaces to a total of (20) spaces. A ‘future’ bike parking location that can hold an additional 8 spaces was also added on the south bank. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Recycling receptacles should be paired with each trash receptacle. Response: The plans have been updated to include recycling receptacles with each trash receptacle. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: On sheet 1 of the Site Plan, please outline the pad sites for the future picnic shelter and bathroom locations. Response: Sheet 1 of the site plan has been updated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: It would be helpful to add a legend to the site plan, given the number of symbols and line types used on the plans. Response: The site plan sheets have been updated to include a legend. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please add all relevant standard site plan notes, available here: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/CFC-Standard-Notes.pdf Response: All relevant standard site plan notes have been added to the site plan sheets. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Is the changing room shown on sheet 2 of the Site Plan proposed with this PDP or for the future? If proposed with the current PDP, please show as a solid box (rather than dashed lines) on the site plan. Please also provide an elevation detail for the changing room. Response: The proposed changing room is part of this current proposed plans. The plans have been updated to reflect this correctly. Please see the image below, and the additional notes on the site plan. 9 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please provide color examples for the fence details on sheet 3 of the Site Plan. Response: Please see the below images, Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 respectfully. See site plan for fence type location. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please add color details and/or provide material samples for the boulders, terraced boulder seating, boulder stairs, concrete seat wall, stone steps, stone trail, retaining walls, and any other structural or architectural features. Response: Additional images that show site character have been added to the site plan as black and white 10 images, below are these same images in color. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/28/2016 12/28/2016: Please add the following note to the site plan: "Items identified as future improvements will require additional review and approval by the City of Fort Collins via minor amendment or other appropriate processes." Response: The note has been added to the site plan. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain 11 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 All of the proposed improvements in the Poudre River floodway and flood fringe must go through a CLOMR/LOMR process. Before the PDP can be approved, the CLOMR and Floodplain Use Permit must be submitted and City staff must be confident that the proposed design can meet City and FEMA regulations. The CLOMR must be fully approved by both the City and FEMA before construction can begin. Response: A CLOMR application is being prepared and will be submitted soon for City review, followed by submittal to FEMA. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 Please utilize the review checklists for floodplain requirements (50% development review submittal) available at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents . The section under “Drainage and/or Grading Plan” has items required with this submittal, a separate floodplain sheet can be included if adding all of these items to the grading plan is too cluttered. Response: A separate floodplain sheet has been added to the utility plan to display the required items. Per our discussion and your request, both effective and proposed 100-year and half-foot floodway delineations, proposed cross section locations, and proposed BFEs will be shown on the floodplain sheet. 500-year delineations will not be provided on the floodplain sheet since the project does not involve a critical facility and to reduce the clutter of linework on the sheet. A completed copy of the floodplain review checklist has also been included with this revised submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 Per the submittal checklist, please add to the Drainage Report: a statement that a FEMA LOMR is required after construction; a discussion of the bathroom structure relative to the floodplain/floodway; a discussion of the pedestrian bridge relative to the floodplain/floodway. Response: The drainage report has been revised and now includes the statement a FEMA LOMR is required after construction. The report also indicates that the restroom pad will be located above the proposed BFE to accommodate construction of the restroom out of the regulatory floodplain during the next project phase. Finally, the report states that the pedestrian bridge is located above the proposed BFE. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 No outdoor storage of floatable materials is allowed. Items such as trash cans, benches, park equipment, dumpsters, etc. must be anchored per an approved engineered design to prevent them floating downstream as debris. Please call out these items as being anchored on the site plan. Response: The notes for site furnishings within the flood plain are labeled as being surface mounted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 As vehicles are considered to be floatable, new parking areas must only allow daytime parking when owners are on site to remove vehicles if the area begins to flood. No overnight parking of vehicles is allowed. A plan for how to monitor the no overnight parking requirement should be included in the Floodplain Use Permit application. Response: The Floodplain Use Permit application will specify that signage will be provided stating the 12 overnight parking is not allowed. Parking services will provide enforcement by managing the parking lot as a City downtown lot. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. 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; an Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. 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: An Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report and Escrow/Security calculation will be prepared and submitted for FDP. Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 12/30/2016: Per City Stormwater Criteria, the Drainage Report needs to address the 4-step process for erosion control. Please revise the report accordingly. Response: The 4-step erosion control process is now addressed in the report. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 12/30/2016: LID is required for this project. The Conceptual Review comment response letter is correct in that the 25% pervious paver requirement is no longer in effect. However, the LID requirement is as follows: A. 50% of the newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. B. 75% of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques. Therefore, if the project is proposing to forego pervious pavers, the site is required to implement 75% LID treatment for all proposed and future impervious area. LID is not required for pervious area, but the calculations for any proposed LID BMPs will need to include all area draining to the BMP. Also, please note, an LID table will be needed on the Drainage Plan unless a separate LID exhibit is included as part of the Drainage Report. Please call if clarification is needed. Response: Pursuant to our conversations, LID treatment is now addressed by passing runoff (from a minimum of 75% new impervious area) through enhanced wetland areas of the Coy Ponds and Ditch. This discussion has been added to the drainage report. 13 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: Please change the project title to match the other plan sets. Response: The project title has been changed in the revised submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: The text/line conflicts have been resolved. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: Please add a Benchmark Statement to the plans. The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015, all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88 - X.XX’. Response: The benchmark statement has been added to the cover and survey control sheet. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: Please tie the coordinate values shown for utilities to the project boundary. We would prefer that this be done by adding property corner values to each sheet, or showing the property corner values on the horizontal control plans and adding a note to each sheet with coordinate values. Response: The property corner values are now shown on the survey control sheet, and a note has been added to each sheet with coordinate values. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: Please consider changing the sheet numbering on the cover sheet. We are thinking S1-S3 for the site, L1-L4 for the landscape, M1-M3 for the mitigation, A1-A2 for the architecture plans. Response: The sheet numbering system has been updated. 14 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: ARCHITECTURE: No comments. Response: Acknowledged Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: MITIGATION: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: The text/line conflicts have been resolved. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: Please change the project title to match the other plan sets. Response: Title Block updated. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2016 12/29/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: The text/line conflicts have been resolved. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/27/2016 12/27/2016: 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. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221-6339, sboyle@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 12/30/2016: Please add a utility sheet to the construction plans for clarity. Response: A utility sheet has been added to the construction plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 12/30/2016: It does not appear that all existing utility services are shown on the plans. These services will need to be clearly shown and called out and either reused or abandoned at the main. Conceptual Review comment responses indicate there will be irrigation service(s) proposed but I could not locate these on the plans. Response: The existing water utility services are shown on the utility plan sheets. The project now intends to repurpose the existing water and sewer service at 101 Vine Drive 15 for the future restroom. Existing water services at 103, 105, 203, and 213 Vine Drive will be reused for the irrigation system that is currently under design. The irrigation system will be provided for review as part of FDP process. Sewer and gas services at 103, 105, and 213 Vine Drive will be abandoned during the demolition of the existing buildings on these properties that will occur prior to the construction of this project. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/30/2016 12/30/2016: More detail will be needed for the proposed utility services and fire hydrant. This can wait to be addressed until final. Response: Noted. Details for the proposed utility services and fire hydrant will be provided at final. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: The Planning signature block needs to be updated. It should reflect the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director. Response: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2016 12/20/2016: At the top of the ramp in the sidewalk west of the handicap parking spaces there is no landing. This ramp is only visible in the Landscape plan, please revise all plan sets to match. Response: The landing at the top of the sidewalk ramp west of the handicap parking spaces is now shown on the plan sets.