Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE QUARRY BY WATERMARK - FDP210016 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 1 of 21 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview August 13, 2021 Jessica Tuttle Watermark Apartments 111 Monument Circle, Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 RE: The Quarry by Watermark, FDP210016, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of The Quarry by Watermark. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions thro ugh your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970 -221-6695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. NE Response: Ripley Response: Watermark Response: Studio M Response: Delich Response: Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/13/2021 I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting processes. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. To best serve you, please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Ripley Response: Thank you Todd for your assistance through this submittal pro cess. Page 2 of 21 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 Temporary Service Changes - City of Fort Collins Development Review To best provide thorough reviews and give every project the attention it deserves, the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has begun to impact the timeliness of our reviews. We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service level adjustments. Currently, one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks). Lengths of subsequent rounds of review will be considered after each round of review. Also, Completeness Checks will be performed on all initial and Round 2 submittals during this time. Please reach out with any questions or concerns. Ripley Response: Understood and we will take it into account for our schedule. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/13/2021 As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, us ing a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged. Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your plans, please notify me advanced notice as possible. Ripley Response: Comments will be responded to clearly and we will notify Todd S. as we approach the submittal expected on 9/01/2021. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All "FOR FINAL APPROVAL / FOR APPROVAL" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with the final documents and recording of this project. I will provide a recording checklist and process information when we are closer to this step. Ripley Response: Thank you for the notice and we look forward to approaching Final Approval. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic Page 3 of 21 submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. Files are to be named PLAN NAME_PROJECT NAME_REVIEW TYPE_ROUND NO. Example: UTILITY PLANS_MY PROJECT NAME_PDP_RD1.pdf Ripley Response: Submitted material will follow the file nomenclature above. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review: Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development appl ication shall automatically lapse and become null and void. Ripley Response: We will be resubmitting within the 180 day grace period stated above. Department: Planning Services Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, kkleer@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Add low screen fence for ground mounted a/c units. Staff will provide details of an appropriate design. Ripley Response: We have included an AC fence screening detail to our Landscape and Details sheet # L18. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: How will the turf be maintained in-between the duplex units? Regarding privacy, can any kind of trellising or other screening methods be used to prevent views from the second story into the back yards? Watermark Response: Trellises and other screening mechanisms are historically problematic for maintenance, cause more footings and objects in swales or utility access points, tend to eat into square footage of useable space, and ultimately hinder the residents’ functionality more than they benefit (i.e. grills on back porches should NOT be under a covered element). For these reasons, Watermark would like to maintain the current design and not add any impediments to the back yards. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: The elevation sheet shows a 16bay garage which is not represented on the - plan, please remove the elevation found on A2.10. Page 4 of 21 Studio M Response: 16-bay garage elevations removed from sheet, replaced with typical 6 -bay garage elevations. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: The site plan shows a 1,288 square foot maintenance building. Please include elevation views of this building. A 6bay garage is represented on the site plan, please demonstrate in elevation - view as well. Studio M Response: 6-bay garage elevations added on sheet A2.10. Elevations on this sheet are meant to represent both the 6-bay garage and maintenance garage, both are similar lengths with the same number of overhead doors. Maintenance garage will lose interior walls at one end of the building that combine interior space into larger maintenance/storage area. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Concerns with trash collection system, location, and layout. The elevation view is only of a trash door but it does not indicate the same for recycling. How will recycling be handled? How will large items that do not fit through the proposed door be handled? If the commercial space is leased out, how will this space access the trash location without having to walk across the entire site? It is anticipated that the site will generate 48 cubic yards of waste a week which will require at least 4-6 trash enclosures around the site. Please come up with a scheme that distributes trash and recycling containers/enclosures in convenient areas around the site that are no greater than 150 feet from the primary entrance of a multifamily building. A central - location at the north side of the site is a non -starter. Watermark Response: Per discussions with the Planning Department, and Fire Department, all trash collection concerns have been addressed with additional corral locations, added clarity on valet trash responsibilities, trash chutes, and enclosure design modifications. The current submittal should reflect all of these updates. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Cut sheets needed for bike racks, stairs, fences, screen fence for ground mounted a/c units, planters, enclosed bike parking typical specs, tree grates, retaining wall, central feature and gathering place elements, walkways that break grade for vehicles and not peds, and all other crosswalks within the site. Page 5 of 21 Ripley Response: Cut sheets and details have been included for the outdoor bike racks, fences, screen fence, planters, tree grates, retaining wall, central features, and walkways. The Mixed Use #1 building will have a first floor bike storage room with wall mounted racks capable of parking 60 bikes. This room will be accessible from internal and external doors. There 2 covered bike storage sheds shown on the plans. they will accommodate 12 bikes each with wall mounted racks. Each of the two-family units and ground floor multifamily units (including the mixed-use building) will have a fixed wall mounted bike rack for an additional 105 bike parking spaces. See sheet one for the bike parking table . Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Please add note to site plan and a call-out that points to garages that states, "The proposed 33 detached residential garages county toward the calculation- of parking minimums because such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price." Ripley Response: Note has been added to cover sheet under parking requirements. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: The first-round submittal did not include a comment response letter from last round of PDP review, Colorado State University's comments, and Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing. Please include responses to how these issues were addressed within the plan. Ripley Response: The response to comments from the previous PDP have been provided. The comments from CSU transportation that correlate with City Land Use Code have been complied with. The other comments have been taken as suggestions. The architecture has been redesigned per the conditions of approval. Those changes have been coordinated with Meaghan Overton p rior to the first round FDP submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Please add the following notes to the site plan set: At its June 17, 2021 Regular Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5:0 to approve a modification of standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) to allow buildings 4 and 5 to be located along a Connecting Walkway that exceeds 200-feet in length and 3.5.2(D)(1)(b) which allows buildings 8, 9, and 10 to be located along a Major Walkway Spine that exceeds 350-feet in length. At its June 17, 2021 Regular Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5:0 to require a third design be added to the seven multi -family buildings. Page 6 of 21 This third design must incorporate a building style, roof form, materials, entrances, and other unique features in any combination that are clearly distinct and differentiated from both the Mountain Ranch Traditional and the Mountai n Ranch Modern. Ripley Response: The architecture has been redesigned per the conditions of approval. Those changes have been coordinated with Meaghan Overton prior to the first round FDP submittal. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 FOR APPROVAL: Staff has made numerous redlines within the plan set to be addressed. Revisions include: Correctly labeling the maintenance building/garages.: Ripley Response: Garage notations have been added/ clarif ied on the plans Including line work for rear patios on two family buildings. Ripley Response: Line work has been added Removing and adding language to the Site Plan Notes. Fully screening all ground-mounted a/c units with low fence - details are included in the plan of what is expected. Ripley Response: Highly visible ground mounted ac units have been screened with fences. Cleaning up line work around the base of the mixeduse building and adding - dense landscaping to west side and planters on the south side of the building. Ripley Response: Landscaping has been added between added to the west side between the right of way and the plaza. Modifying the drain gutter location along Hobbit Street and Building 7. Adding landscaping to all landscape islands around the site. In narrow portions, adding ornamental grasses. Ripley Response: The drain gutter along Hobbit has been replaced with a swale and landscaping has been added to islands around the site. Ornament al grasses and shrubs have been included in narrower portions of the site including between buildings an along walkways. Adding fixture mounting heights to the lighting plan and luminaire cut sheets. Ripley Response: Fixture mounting heights have been included in the Site lighting plan and luminaire cut sheets. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Page 7 of 21 There appears to be a notable change to the area along the north side of Multi-family #7, Building C with respect to the drainage pan location between the building and the sidewalk along Hobbit that was depicted during PDP. The pan was previously further south closer to the building, now it appears to be abutting the back of sidewalk along Hobbit Street. A concrete pan abutting the back of walk is not typical and would not likely be supported. NE Response: Pan along back of walk north of Building 7 has been removed and replaced with 6” deep swale running @ ~1.5%. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The status of the naming of the priva te drives within the project was originally sought to be addressed with the PDP was requested to be deferred until Final Plan The plat and plans should be updated to address the private street naming and be coordinated also with GIS and PFA. The plat typically involves establishing tracts to define the limits of the particular street name with "(Private)" listed after the street name(s). NE Response: Private street names are now provided on the plat. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please ensure that for any named private drives that the private street sign detail provided in the redlines is reflected in the details in the civil set. NE Response: Names now provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are existing City sanitary sewer lines that are being indicated as being encapsulated in either a 48' utility easement (site plan), 48' sanitary sewer easement (civil plan), or 48' maintenance, construction access & utility easement (plat). The labelling of this area needs to be consistent across all the documents and more importantly, the official determination of the legal right to this area has to be understood by all the utility providers, with particular attention to City Utilities with the existing facility in place. It may be that there are concerns with legal ability for other utility providers to be within the same easement. NE Response: Easement labels have been updated per redlines. Ripley Response: Easement labels are updated to match PLAT. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There appears to be phasing being depicted on the utilities internal to the site. It's unclear what the intent of the phasing for utilities provides, and would presumably require phasing of the interior roads and buildings (as well as grading) to demonstrate the intent on this further. The acceptability on the phasing of utilities would require concurrence from City Utilities. NE Response: Phasing has been removed pending further discussion with City staff. Comment Number: INFORMATION ONLY: The drafting of the ordinance for the vacation of rights -of-way internal to the site has been provided to the City Attorney's Office for initial review. Coordination on timing to go to City Council can be better affirmed upon completion of that initial review. Page 8 of 21 NE Response: Thank you! Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Update signal plan with the following elements : • Show Street name sign • Show Video detection • Show Ped push buttons (within 10’ from the flowline max) on all 4 corners • Underground infrastructure to ped poles. Conduits need to come f rom pull boxes, not signal poles. We use 2" conduit for ped poles. • Show landings (and lable) on the corners on the Eastside and ADA measurements (10” reach to ped push button) – West side (to be completed by others) o Landing 4x4 pad, less than 2% cross slope, ped push button accessible from this pad. Delich: A revised signal Plan has been submitted NE Response: Intersection details regarding ramps has been added. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2021 08/06/2021: Building D does not meet aerial access on provided site plan. Offline conversation agreed on moving Building D within 30 feet of fire lane on 1 entire side. Please update site plan with changes provided in offline meetings. NE Response: Building has been shifted to 30’ to fire lane. Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion and Sediment Control Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2021 08/05/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2 was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 25 lots, 22.57 acres of disturbance, 2 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 4 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $3,383.11. Page 9 of 21 Based on 1 bioretention/rain garden, 2 extended detention basins, and 2 underground treatments facilities the estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $1,645. Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to review. These fees will need to be paid prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit for this site FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There needs to be protection and construction control measures along the banks of Spring Creek and the Canal Importation Channel for construction activities that are occurring in close proximity to these natural features. Since the site is going to construct a storm outlet pipe into the Canal Importation Channel and a storm sewer adjacent to Spring Creek, the report and the plans need to address this issue and provide the appropriate measures and protection. Revegetation of the areas disturbed by such construction activities should also be addressed. The plans and the report fail to show any measures and ignore the issue of revegetation. The revegetation should be done in close coordination with the City’s Natural Resources planner. Please indicate whether the development is intended to be built in one phase. If the project is to be phased, then please provide phasing plans, and calculate escrow based on these plans. Please address all redlines and comments provided on the Erosion Control Plan and the SWMP report. NE Response: Redlines have been addressed. Department: Stormwater Engineering - Floodplain Contact: Claudia Quezada, (970)416-2494, cquezada@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please address redlines. NE Response: Redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Since BFEs and cross-sections are shown and labeled on Historic Drainage Exhibit (C700), they can be removed from the grading plan(s). Otherwise, please label them on the grading plan(s). NE Response: Labels have been updated. Department: Stormwater Engineering Page 10 of 21 Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Rain Garden - Please add the City’s LID details for the bioretention and the BSM sand media mix. Please make sure a rain garden seed mix (of your choice) is shown on the landscape plans. NE Response: Detail has been added. Ripley Response: ”Detention and Rain Garden Seed Mix” has been added to Landscape Notes and Details sheet L17. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Groundwater – Please confirm the ground water elevations, based on the depths, shown in the provided geotechnical report. Please compare to the detention pond invert elevations and confirm the groundwater levels are at least 2-ft below the detention invert elevations. What date (month/yr) were the borings taken? The 2-ft of vertical separation needs to be confirmed during the high groundwater months of the year (July – September). NE Response: Paragraph added to drainage report discussing the separation between proposed bottom of pond elevations and groundwater elevations (taken in August 2015). Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Private storm – We strongly recommend making all private storm 10 -inch minimum. Maintenance will be much easier. Also, please add clean outs to the roof drain leads and other 8-inch/ 10-inch systems at appropriate locations NE Response: Clean-outs have been added as needed. Please let us know if additional locations are recommended. Per discussion with staff, 8in is currently preferred by Northern. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Grading - Please add HP and LP to each High Point or Low Point spot elevation on the detailed grading plans. NE Response: Info has been added. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide the truck turning diagram for the access path at the southeast corner of the site. Please use a 23 -ft wheelbase truck. Please see the redline files for full truck specs. NE Response: Exhibit provided with submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The private Storm Drain 1 will need to be relocated so that it is not running parallel inside of the sewer main easement. See redlines for more information. NE Response: Storm has been updated. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Detention Pond 2 - In the drainage report, please document the total inflow rate Page 11 of 21 to the detention pond 2. The overflow channel should be sized for the full (non-attenuated inflow rate). Please confirm which calculation corresponds to this location. NE Response: Total inflow rate for detention pond documented in the drainage report Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The Hobbit Street swale is being encroached, please provide calculations for the 100-yr flow rate and conveyance in this swale and document any impacts. Also, between the sidewalk chase and the swale bottom, there needs to be a defined flow path that is not against the sidewalk. Please review and revise the grading plan. Please confirm there is 2-year capacity between the sidewalk chase and the swale bottom . See redlines for more info. NE Response: Per discussion with City staff, swale grading is not changing. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The Detention Pond 1 overflow weir needs calculations showing the width and depth of flow. This needs to be sized for the full inflow rate to the pond. Please also provide normal depth calculation along the flow path following the access road to Spring Creek. NE Response: Both calculations are now provided in the drainage report. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Outlet scour protection needs to be provided at the main outlet to Canal Importation Channel. Please design adequate protection and show on plans. If there is already protection, then you will need to provide documentation of what currently exists and confirm this is sufficient protection for the project. NE Response: Scour protection has been added. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The area inlet calculations do not appear to take clogging factors into account. Please review and revise the design and drainage report. I strongly recommend the use of the MHFD-Inlet design tool and select the closest inlet to the Fort Collins area inlet. The FHWA Hydraulic Toolbox is another design tool. NE Response: Inlet calculations have been updated to include proper inlet open areas and clogging factors. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Surface flows - I am struggling to understand how surface flows and pipe flows interact across the site. Especially for the 2yr capacity storm systems. Please provide an exhibit(s) showing the pipe system flows, surface overflows, and surface flow paths. For the pipe hydraulic profiles, please create an d exhibit showing where each system is located. NE Response: Exhibit is now provided with drainage report. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: I did the best I could to review and provide comment on the stormwater design. I have questions about how the surface flows will proceed across the site. Please be aware that new comments may arise in future rounds of review. NE Response: Thank you! Requested exhibit should help. Page 12 of 21 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: See Utility Plans redlines for more comments including: - More detail on the stormtech isolation chamber design - Small adjustments to alignments and other items. - Comments on large bank of inlets. - Comments on drainage map. - Forebay comments NE Response: Redlines have been addressed and meeting with City staff was held clarifying these comments. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: See Drainage report redlines for more comments including: - Check % impervious and WQCV calc for rain garden A - Reduce number of WQ orifice holes on extended detention control plate. - Create exhibit showing which storm line each hydraulic profile relates to. - Add more information on the inlet capacity summary table. Maybe a 2nd table is needed to summarize how flows are being summed for each DP. - Inlet clogging factors. - Please present a diagram showing the location that each hydraulic calculation relates to. - Manning roughness values in the overflow calculations should be more conservative. - Additional information on the allowable release rate tabulation. I want to see Tc’s and intensities. NE Response: All of the above comments have been addressed. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Is the developer still interested in conveying Tracts A and B to the City? We are continuing discussions on our end and will likely end up needed focused meetings with the development team to discuss how this may play out. Please let me know and stay tune for more updates from us. NE Response: Acknowledged, we will wait to hear further updates Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The plans are showing phasing for the water and sewer main construction. The Water Utility does not support phasing of these utilities on this site. Please remove the phasing from the plans. NE Response: Phase has been removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: There is a tree near the northeast corner of the site that needs to be removed from the sewer transmission main easement. Please see landscape plans redlines. Ripley Response: Trees have been moved from easement. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 Page 13 of 21 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Water service and meter sizing calculations need to be provided for all services (except for the duplex units). This must be provided for FDP round 2. NE Response: Water meter sizing called out in civil plans, calculations to be provided by mechanical Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The water service size and sewer service size need to be labeled on the plans for all services. NE Response: Labels have been added. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Water main lowerings need to be designed and clearly shown on the utility plans. Please show a detail for each lowering location. This should show size and elevation of both utilities, fittings, valves, distance between fittings and other pertinent information. If a casing is needed, the casing diameter and thickness should be shown. NE Response: Detail has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please remove all references to thrust blocks from the plans and add pipe restraint instead. You will need to provide a reference table for pipe restrain lengths. For calculations please use: PVC, Soil Type ML, Safety factor 1.5, trench type 5, depth of bury 5-ft, and 200 psi. Or more conservative if deemed necessary. NE Response: Thrust block references removed from plans. Added restraint length table to detail sheets. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: On the Plat, please label the 48-ft sewer easement as “sanitary sewer easement”. Remove the word “utility” from this easement. NE Response: Plat updated. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: On the Site Plan please label the sewer easement as a “sanitary sewer easement” and not utility easement. NE Response: Label has been updated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: - The proposed Shields Street irrigation service needs to be relocated so that it is not in the water transmission main easement. Please see redlines for more information. - Parks would like to keep the existing Shields and Stuart Street irrigation tap (owned by parks). Coordination with Parks should be done to confirm where they would like it relocated to. Water Utilities would like this tap relocated on the 8-inch main and removed from the 30 -inch main. NE Response: This is currently being coordinated with Parks and Water. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Page 14 of 21 More detail will be needed on the design of the private fire service at the northeast corner of the site. See redlines for more information. NE Response: Redlines have been addressed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please remove the existing manhole at the north end of the Hobbit St cul -de-sac and connect to the new manhole with an outside drop. See redlines for more information. NE Response: Manhole now shown as to be rem oved. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please see the Utility Plan redlines for more comments including: - Storm and sewer joints need to be wrapped 10-feet each side of water crossings (where water is under crossing UT). - Pothole the Hobbit Street underdrain. - Sewer mains should match invert to crown of trunk mains (see redlines) NE Response: These items were discussed with City staff and are addressed. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: For all crossings over the 30-inch water main, we will require flowfill along the water main from springline to springline, 10-feet each side of the crossing. This will also require wrapping of the water main. We have an example detail of this I have included in the redlines. NE Response: Thank you! Info has been added to plans. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR APPROVAL: All sewer mains crossing below 24-inch (and larger) storm pipe will need a casing pipe along the sewer main. 10 -feet each side of the crossing. NE Response: Casing pipes have been added to sanitary crossings Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/13/2021 08/13/2021: FOR APPROVAL: For the irrigation service(s) please determine the tap and meter sizing and confirm the estimated peak flow and estimate of annual water usage. NE Response: Current design from Irrigation Consulta Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/13/2021 08/13/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Show locations for all irrigation services and meters on the plans. NE Response: Currently there is only one irrigation service. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/13/2021 08/13/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: FYI the water supply fee structure and irrigation fee structure will be changing in 2022. Please follow up with us later this fall to request a fee estimate and to discuss other changes to the requirements. NE Response: Understood. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/13/2021 08/13/2021: FOR INFORMATION: For the Development Agreement (supplied at FDP round 2) we had discussed several additional items during PDP related to the 30-inch water main Page 15 of 21 easement. Here is a draft of this item, please review and let us know if you have any concerns with. “Within the Water Transmission Main Easement, if the City needs to remove any trees, landscaping, concrete curbing, or concrete paving for the purpos es of maintenance, repair, or replacement of the watermain, these items would be replaced at the developer/owner's cost and not at the City’s.” NE Response: Thank you for the information. We will continue to work with City staff on this. Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: INFORMATION: Light and Power has existing electric facilities along the north side of Hobbit St and the east side of Shields St that will need to be extended into the property to provide power to the site. There is an existing high voltage duct bank running north and south along the east side of Shields St adjacent to the project. NE Response: Understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: SITE SPECIFIC (For Approval): It appears that the water line tie in on Shields will require the new water line to cross our existing high voltage duct bank running north and south along the east side of Shields. Please pot hole the top and bottom of the duct bank to ensure the water line can be construction as proposed. It also appears that the new irrigation service tap adjacent to Shields in-between building #1 and building #2 will cross the duct bank. It is advised to confirm the duct bank elevation in this area as well. ‘ NE Response: The new water line will replace an existing stub and follow existing profile which should result in no conflict with existing duct bank. We will continue to work with Light and Power to ensure our thinking is correct. The irrigation is s hown as conceptual to indicated that parkway water system will be hooked up to new irrigation service. Service has been shortened to avoid confusion. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: INFORMATION (For Approval): A customer service information form (C 1 form) and a one-line diagram for each building will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to the C 1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders and developers/development forms guidelines regulations NE Response: Provided by developer Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: INFORMATION: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me to discuss a preliminary estimate of fees or visit the following website for information on our charges and fees related to development projects: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders and developers/plant investment Page 16 of 21 development fees NE Response: Thank you for the information. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: INFORMATION: For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com). https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go renewable NE Response: Thank you for the information. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone service. Contact Brad Ward with Fort Collins Connexion at 970 -224-6003 or bward@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements. NE Response: Thank you for the information. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: INFORMATION: Please contact Tyler Siegmund with Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric service standards, and use our fee estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders and developers NE Response: Thank you. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: LIGHTING PLAN The Lighting Plan does not conform to footcandle maximums of 10 fc or under. It also does not demonstrate no light spill into NHBZs. Please revise accordingly. Also, I am not seeing light fixture spec sheets. Hopefully I didn't miss them if they were provided. If they weren't, please provide next submittal. Ripley Response: A revised Lighting Plan has been provided Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL It will be important to work with the Parks Department, Environmental Planning and Stormwater to determine which party would be responsible for the restoration of disturbed areas within NHBZs. Ripley Response: The applicant/ developer will be responsible for the restoration within the NHBZ Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL Language for the Natural Resources section of the Development Agreement will been provided to Engineering. The following items must be submitted prior to FDP approval: Page 17 of 21 1. A cost estimate for landscaping in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (including plant material, labor and irrigation) 2. A cost estimate for three years of monitoring and annual reporting of landscape establishment in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone 3. A weed management plan Ripley Response: Estimate swill be provided for the DA once the landscape plan is approved by staff Department: Forestry Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 08/11/2021: FOR FINAL Thank you for working with us to get this development connected to the trail system. The Parks Department has concerns about the alignment of the proposed trail connection to the Wallenburg Spur; it does not work. The connection installed by Landmark was not approved by the Parks Dept. and could lead to conflicts or collisions at the current location. Parks would prefer that the connection for both developments to be aligned to the new bridge and meet the paved trail requirements, outlined by PP&D for high traffic areas, to meet the anticipated increase in traffic through this point. Please coordinate with us to find a solution that will be consistent with these requirements. Please see the redlines. Ripley Response: The connections have been designed to accommodate the ultimate bridge condition. The existing grades are difficult to work with and we believe the design presented is the best scenario based on the existing conditions. UPDATE 8.11.2021: Thank you for the exhibits, Parks will continue to investigate this connection and the future bridge location out of the flood plain. We don’t see an issue with short overlap of the trail and walkway spine. However, the stepped connections to building number #4 are not allowed. Please remove those connections in favor of directing foot traffic down the sidewalk adjacent to bldg. #4, to intersect with the 5 ft. connecting walk; that then connects to the major walkway spine and Wallenberg Spur. Ripley Response: The steps have been removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 08/11/2021: FOR FINAL Please color the concrete for the trail portions and connections ‘Yosemite Brown’ per Paved Trail Standards Ripley Response: Concrete for trail portions and connections has been included in the site and landscape plan and called out as ‘Yosemite Brown’ on the legend. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 08/11/2021: FOR FINAL Page 18 of 21 Thank you for proposing to replace the bridge to Wallenberg Dr., this improvement will be greatly appreciated. Parks and PP&D will need to review and approve the bridge design. Please coordinate with us as you move into the design of this connection. UPDATE 8.11.2021: Parks appreciates the easement that will be given to the city. We will continue to discuss this arrangement as this project progresses and look forward to the partnership. We approve of the development retaining the Wallenberg Spur as a separate component. a. Please clarify what your thoughts on the bridge replacement timing? Parks would prefer to construct a new bridge in tandem with construction of the project, to ease access into the CIP area. b. Who will be responsible for designing and constructing the project? Please coordinate with Parks so there is a firm understanding of how this piece might move forward. Watermark Response: It is Watermark’s understanding based on meeting with Parks that Parks will construct the bridge and that Watermark will provide cash in lieu to be negotiated within the Development Agreement. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 08/11/2021: FOR FINAL Please make the 48’ Utility Esmt. Located between bldg. #4 and Bldg #5 a Maintenance and Construction Access in addition to the Utility Esmt. for the Wallenberg Spur/CIP. Parks and Stormwater will need to be able to have direct access to this portion of the trail, bridge, and canal for concrete repairs, maintenance, and other heavy-duty issues to this area. See redlines. NE Response: These updates were made prior to the previous submittal Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 08/11/2021: FOR FINAL Parks requires a flat landing at the intersections with trail systems; the major walkway spine, building #4 sidewalk, and the Wallenberg Spur. The plan shows four walks intersecting and it would be cleaner and easier for pedestrians and vehicles to navigate if there was more of a plaza space from which to move through. Ripley Response: In order to match the existing bridge elevation the flat spot will not work. The trail is designed to accommodate a new bridge in the future. Once the new bridge is installed at a higher elevation the junction will be flat. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 08/11/2021: FOR FINAL Please add: ‘Privately Maintained / Publicly Accessible’ language to all the call-outs for the Stuart St. connection walk for clarity. Ripley Response: Call outs have been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/11/2021 08/11/2021: FOR FINAL Please coordinate the hand off of the tree lawn irrigation with the Parks Dept. Our initial comment about the development installing a new tap and connecting to the existing irrigation still stands. It would be a good idea to begin a Page 19 of 21 conceptual irrigation plan in order to understand the water budget and development wide irrigation needs if they are to be irrigated off of this tap or not. Parks may request that our existing tap be stubbed for future use, location TBD. NE Response: This is being coordinated with Parks. Department: Internal Services Contact: Katy Hand, , khand@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/09/2021 08/09/2021: Commercial, mixed use, garages, maintenance buildings, and multi-family should be spaced 20ft apart from each other to the furthest projection, or exterior walls must be fire rated walls with limited or no openings (i.e. doors and windows) per IBC. Watermark: Noted, where garages and multi-family buildings are closer than 20’, fire rated walls wil lbe provided Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/09/2021 08/09/2021: INFORMATIONAL: For Multi-family: 1. 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place) 2. Multi-family located within 1000ft of rail tracks, 500 of highway, or 250ft of a 4 lane road must provide exterior wall composite sound transmission of 39 STC min. 3. NFPA 13 Fire suppression system is required in the multi-family and mixed-use buildings. 4. Provide site-wide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9 -5, IBC and 2017 ICC-A117.1. This requires accessible units per that state standard. 5. A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi-family structure 6. New commercial and multi-family buildings require a building permit pre-submittal feasibility meeting is required to be scheduled when drawings are at least 50% complete. Watermark Response: Noted. Watermark has met with building services to discuss architecture. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/09/2021 08/09/2021: Attached single-family townhomes and duplexes are required to be fire sprinkled per local amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and provide fire rated wall per R302. Determine what water line size will be provided to dwellings so the fire-sprinkler system can be designed. NE Response: Fire line service size coordinated with MEP Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: Since garages are shown, Accessible parking must be available in garages also per the current IBC chapter 11 Ripley Response: See site plan for accessible spaces Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 Page 20 of 21 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. NE Response: Redlines addressed Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. NE Response: Redlines addressed Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are matchline issues. See redlines. NE Response: Redlines addressed Topic: Easements Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: These will be reviewed next round. NE Response: Acknowledged Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Ripley Response: Redlines addressed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com NE Survey: Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The titles need to match on all plan sets. Please change all plan titles so they all read The Quarry By Watermark. Ripley Response: Changes to plan titles have been addressed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/10/2021 08/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Ripley Response: Redlines addressed. Page 21 of 21 Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21/2021 07/21/2021: 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 Ripley Response: Draft irrigation plans are provided with this resubmittal, final irrigation plans will be provided at building permit.