Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - PDP210004 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2) Page 1 of 22 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 January 11, 2022 Sam Coutts Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Enclave at Redwood, PDP210004, Round Number 4 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Enclave at Redwood. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970-221-6695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 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! Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 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, using 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. Page 2 of 22 Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic 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_PDP_RD1.pdf Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: All "FOR HEARING" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the hearing for this project. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 09/14/2021: 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 application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. Department: Planning Services Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 REVISED FOR HEARING: Private Park Please update plan set cover page to show 1.5-acre park size and clarify this is a private park not public. The site and landscape plans with details need ot be revised to show how the detention pond in park tract is usable space for park operations including slope access, park amenities and lighting. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park. This Park should be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. Such parks shall consist of multiple-use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches, BBQ, or other features for various age groups to enjoy. I do not see a response to providing appropriate park amenities other than added turf, sidewalk, and referenced play and seating area. Please show details and locations for potential amenities mentioned above. How will the detention underground facilities work with paved area above? The stormwater facilities should be in the utility plans, not overlapped with park facilities. Tables, seating, shelters, BBQ, play equipment needs to be included and detailed in plans. Page 3 of 22 Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022 FOR HEARING: Redwood Detention Pond The proposed design needs to meet the stormwater criteria for more undulating slope design with planting. The south 300 foot retaining wall should be broken up in a few segments to offset overall length. The ends of this wall could incorporate natural boulders to undulate corners more. The north slope should be bowed out in the middle adjacent to connecting walk to add additional planting on top of slope. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 01/10/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Thank you for clarifying. The taper should be constructed on the Northfield side of the property line. 11/08/2021: FOR HEARING Sheet 25 of the utility plan appears to indicate that Public Street B will have a ROW width of 58 feet all the way up to the property line with Northfield. Just beyond the property line, the ROW width tapers down to 57 feet. Will Enclave at Redwood be constructing this offsite section of the street to connect smoothly with Northfield? Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/06/2022 01/06/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: The variance request has been approved by the City Engineer on January 6, 2022. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022 01/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Please label the northwest stretch of Public Street A as Lupine Drive and the southeast section as Collamer Drive. You will need to indicate the point where the name of the road changes. Similarly, please label the southeast stretch of Public Street B as Steeley Drive and indicate where the name of the road may change as it heads north. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022 01/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for adding a note as requested to Sheet 13 of the utility plans. Please edit the note to indicate a minor collector with parking, instead of a major collector. I apologize, I had accidentally requested that it say major collector in my previous redlines. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/10/2022 01/10/2022: FOR HEARING: The plat indicates that additional Suniga ROW will be dedicated, for a total of about 160 feet instead of the typical 115 feet for 4-lane arterial. What is the reason for the additional ROW dedication? Page 4 of 22 Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL: Thank you for adding the right-turn lane on Redwood to the plans. For FDP, please provide more design detail for the turn lane. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: Please see my redlines for changes that need to be made to the utility plans. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING (NOT ADDRESSED) I think there needs to be a focused meeting on this crossing as well as the trail alignment/design in general, as several departments have issues with the proposed trail. This needs to get ironed out prior to hearing. 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING I think there still needs to be some more design detail looked at during PDP for the proposed regional trail crossings of the ditch and the public roadways. I think it would make a lot of sense to incorporate the trail section into the Steely roadway section where it crosses the ditch. If it is separate, it will require a separate bridge structure which may not be desirable for several reasons for the City and the developer. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN I think the intent of traffic calming for this area was to slow vehicles along the through street. Not sure if the enhanced crossing is as effective if it's on the minor leg, which will have a stop sign anyway. We can work out those details at final. 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN What is the reason for the one enhanced pedestrian crossing shown on the site at Street A/B intersection? Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 01/11/2022: I have not finished review of the Landscape Plan. This comment will be update in the final comment letter. 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: Please see updated redlines for separation issues between trees and storm inlets. 10-ft clear (min.) needs to be provided from all storm drains and inlets to trees. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: Please see update redlines for separation issues. Page 5 of 22 03/02/2021: FOR HEARING: Show all wet and dry utilities on the Landscape Plan and provide the minimum required separations to trees and shrubs. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Pond 1 does not meet the City’s requirements for pond landscaping and aesthetics. To meet this requirement, we suggest the following: - Break up the retaining wall at ~100-ft increments. - The retaining wall should not be located in the Utility Easement. - Round off the pond corners - Use boulders as architectural features. - The long uniform slope on the north side will need some variation. - *Also, the Pond 1 grading table (drainage report) and SWMM model do not appear match with the contours on the grading plan. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: Ponds 1-3 do not meet the requirements for pond landscaping and aesthetics. These ponds will need to provide undulated sideslopes and varied planform. Pond slopes may not exceed 4:1 and will need to include a stabilized maintenance access path to the outlet. 03/02/2021: FOR HEARING: The detention pond landscaping and grading does not meet our aesthetic requirements. The side slope needs to vary and articulate more than presented. Please see requirements in the Grading Chapter (Chapter 8, Section 3.1) of the FCSCM and also the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities in Appendix B. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: The drainage report states that “The maximum groundwater elevation around the system is 4948.42, which is 2.0 ft above the invert of the system.” A) Please clarify if this is correct or a typo. B) Please revise the design (if necessary) to provide 2-ft of vertical separation from the bottom of the stormtech unit to the groundwater elevation, and C) please confirm that all storm tech units and all detention ponds will provide 2-ft of vertical separation from measured groundwater levels. 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: *Revised comment* The drainage report is stating that the UD2 detention system will be 1.66-ft from groundwater, however, the FCSCM standard is 2-ft minimum separation from measured groundwater levels. Please revise your design to provide at least the minimum separation. The Stormwater development review manager is not willing to consider a variance on this. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: I see the geotechnical reports provided in the appendix. For simplicity, please add to the drainage report body a comparison of the measured groundwater elevations with the proposed detention pond invert elevations. Confirm there is 2-feet minimum vertical separation provided. Please note the date(s) the groundwater measurements were taken. Page 6 of 22 03/02/2021: FOR HEARING: Groundwater issues: -Please confirm there will be a minimum of 24-inches of vertical separation between the bottom of all stormwater facilities and the seasonally high groundwater level (July-Sept). Groundwater elevation data must be determined from piezometer data taken during high groundwater months. -The previous development planned at this location included an extensive underdrain system to hold groundwater levels down. Can you confirm if you will be needing a groundwater system? Currently the plans do not show one. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL - UPDATED: Please consider if there is a need for a cut off wall between the Lake Canal Ditch and the underground detention systems. Provide a response regarding your decision and the basis for it. 09/14/2021: Detention ponds must be 20-feet or greater from irrigation ditches. This is measured from top-of-slope to top-of-slope. Please review the grading for detention pond 2. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: - Thank you for providing the easements on the southern parcel. - For Final Plan - please review the drainage patterns and confirm there are easements for offsite flow paths. - In addition, since this parcel is being dedicated as NHBZ, this parcel will never develop further, as a result we need to consider if any further drainage master plan improvements on the southern parcel will be required of this project. - I am planning to wait until Final Plan to look into this further. *Please let me know if you need clarification sooner.* 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: A3 Lateral comments: The platted lot south of Suniga Road includes a master plan improvement for the “NECCO A3 Lateral.” Since you are not proposing improvements or entitlement on this lot, the A3 lateral construction will not be required at this time. However, the following are required on this lot for the development project: - Provide existing ground topo. - Show existing storm and other utilities. - Provide 30-ft drainage easement along the Lake Canal for the future A3 line. - Provide drainage easement along the flow path for all offsite flows that cross this parcel. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: The underground detention will require: - 2-3 inspection ports on each water quality chamber - Maintenance access ports must be provided so that all chambers may be accessible by a vacuum truck. - Access paths need to be provided so that all maintenance manholes are accessible by a truck. - Underdrain for each system - Surface overflow identified for each underground system. Page 7 of 22 Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: I am concerned about the overall functionality of the large underground water quality chambers. Maintenance access and ports will need to be provided to facilitate cleaning – please discuss with ADS what is needed for an installation this large. I am also concerned about the potential for large amount of trash and debris loading and am wondering if there should be some sort of pre-treatment component such as a large forebay or sump for regular maintenance. Please consider this and respond with FDP round 1. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: An access path is needed for maintenance access to the above ground detention outlet structure. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: SWMM model comments- A) I am getting slightly different storage results than you are presenting in the report. Which version of SWMM are you running the model in? Can you recheck that I have the same input file you have? Can you send me the full set of model files (4) including the output file (.out)? B) There is a problem with the A3 storm line in the model (element “A!lateral”). This element is incorrectly draining away from the NECCO main and is creating some interesting model results. To correct this, please set the Node 1001 to and elevation of 4948.58. This mistake was not your fault; however, the solution is easy to address with the next model submittal. C) Please change the name of the onsite subcatchments to avoid confusion with other similarly named catchments (eg. Catchment “Basin_113_3” and “113_3”). Maybe a prefix: “Enclave” or similar. D) The infiltration parameters need to be updated to match the stormwater criteria manual requirements. Specifically: the max infiltration rate should be 0.51 in/hr and the decay constant should be 6.48 1/hr. E) Please make the following adjustment to the model time steps: - Runoff Step Wet Weather: 1 min. (Smooths inflow hydrographs and results in small adjustments to the storage amounts. - Dynamic Wave – Number of Threads: Increase to maximum (speeds run time) Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: It appears that the stormwater quality treatment for basin IR-4/ Basin 113_4 has been removed from the plans. Please clarify if I am mistaken. As a reminder, all new impervious areas require stormwater quality treatment. As discussed at the beginning of this project, the public Redwood Pond may not be used to provide treatment for development water quality requirements. Onsite stormwater must receive water quality treatment before entering the Redwood Pond. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: Stormwater quality calculations – I am having some confusion with how the water quality treatment is being calculated for IR-3. Please look for an update to this comment in the final comment letter. Page 8 of 22 Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: All Stormtech installations that are water quality only (isolator row) will need to have a high flow bypass for flows above the WQ volume. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: The footprint of the redwood pond has expanded beyond the existing City parcel. This portion will need to be deeded to City, for O&M, with the development approvals. For Hearing, please show this on the plan and plans. Also note that this may affect items such as dedication of NHBZ. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 01/11/2022: I have not completed my review of the Landscape plan. This comment will be updated in the final comment letter. 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING : There are multiple locations that trees need to be adjusted or removed from the plans to provide 10-ft minimum separation to fire hydrants and pipe as well as 6-feet to water services and fire services. Please check this before you resubmit. 03/02/2021: FOR HEARING: Show all wet utilities on the Landscape Plan and provide the minimum required separations from trees and shrubs. This includes 10-ft min. from trees to all W/WW/SW mains, 6-ft min. from trees to W/WW services, and 4-ft min. from shrubs to all W/WW/SW lines. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: The solution presented in your round 3 response will not be acceptable. Any sewer mains deeper than 7-feet will require a 30-foot utility easement. This will need to be agreed to before Hearing and implemented on the plans for FDP round1. 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL – UPDATED: Thank you for making the adjustment to the site plan to provide 15-ft minimum separation to buildings from the sewer mains. However, upon further review of the profiles, I was surprised to see the sewer 12-13 feet deep at locations. We are not comfortable granting the reduced easement width (24-ft) for any locations deeper than 7-ft. For locations deeper than 7-ft the standard 30-ft sewer easement will need to be provided. 09/14/2021: The site plan shows 14-ft separation between sewer mains and buildings. This does not meet the minimum requirement of 15-ft separation from sewer mains to buildings. There are 2 options to proceed with this: 1. Revise the site plan to provide 15-ft minimum separation from sewer mains to buildings, or 2. We could approve a variance for 14-ft minimum separation if an exclusive Page 9 of 22 sewer easement is dedicated along these alleys. This means no other public or private utilities (telcom, electric, gas etc.) may run parallel in these easements. Crossings of the exclusive sewer easement would need to be located in a specific utility easement paralleling the crossing utility. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: The round 3 response does not address the issues of the comment and concern. There are too many water services being banked together in a common trench. This is occurring in at least 4 locations on the plans. This situation is not maintainable for future property owners. At this point in time I am not comfortable continuing to offer a relaxed water service separation requirement on the customer side of the water meter. You will need to revise the plans to provide the following: a) 3-feet minimum separation between all water services all the way to the building. All situations b) Water services should be straightened out as much as possible. c) Locations where the services cross sewer should be done close to 90-degrees. 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATED – Following up on the previous comments – these items have been addressed - but additional concerns have been created at location where there are more than 3 water service lines in a joint trench. This is more than I anticipated with allowing the separation requirements to be relaxed on the customer side of the meter and raises the following questions: - How do you anticipate these being built? - I am concerned that this is not maintainable long-term. How would an individual water line be excavated to repair a future leak? This item is my main concern - Has the MEP sized these yet? These long service runs will have large pressure losses. - Does any other criteria apply here - such as Building Code? - Can any of the mechanical rooms be relocated to shorten services? These concerns need to be addressed to demonstrate the site plan is workable before Hearing – and demonstrated that the design is constructible/ maintainable before final approval. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Please address the following items regarding water and sewer services: - Separation to storm must be 10-ft min. - Domestic water taps must have 3-ft minimum separation. Fire line taps should have 5-ft separation. (See Water Wastewater Stormwater Construction Standards, section 02646, 3.02) - Will the buildings need fire service lines? If so, please show on the plans. - Private water services should not run parallel to ROW in the utility easement. Along Public Street A there are 2 services that need to be relocated. (see redlines.) - Water services need to be perpendicular to the water main until the water meter. - Sewer services should be perpendicular to the sewer main within the ROW. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: The sewer main connection design is progressing well. After review and discussion, we will need to see the following items before Hearing: A) Show all storm crossings on the sewer profile B) Confirm the actual location of the large electric vault walls. Currently the plans are showing 4-ft of horizontal separation to the proposed sewer. You will need to provide more separation for this to be an acceptable option. Page 10 of 22 C) Show access route and path to the manhole in the stormwater pond parcel. D) Letter of Intent: Thank you for the LOIs from the Ballet Co. and the City. However, upon further review it appears that the proposed sewer alignment will likely be inside of the Lake Canal ditch easement. As such you will need to do 2 items: - Provide an updated Letter of Intent from the Lake Canal Ditch Company for the new sewer alignment. And - Research and show the ditch easements on the plans (I believe this is a repeat comment from previous redlines) 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING: More detail is needed for the offsite sewer main (RE: alignment and profile) to evaluate if this is a constructible option. Specifically: a. Access needs to be provided to all manholes for maintenance. This is a 15 -ft wide path that can support 40-tons. It may make sense to discuss stabilized turf options for manholes in the open space areas. b. LOIs will be needed for all offsite easements – including the City of Fort Collins parcels. c. All utilities in the area need to be located and shown on the plan and profiles. Specifically, the following items need to be added to the drawings: - Storm system on the south and east side of the North Lemay Avenue Plaza PUD parking lot. - City of Fort Collins electric duct bank (roughly along north side of Lake Canal) - Lake Canal Bridge crossing. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL – UPDATED – I have received the memo, but have not had time to review it yet. 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: For FDP, all water services will need to be sized following the AWWA M22 method. Please submit a service sizing summary memo with calculations attached. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: **Irrigation Water Service and Irrigation Plan Requirements The initial FDP submittal will need to include separate irrigation service(s) for the site. Separate irrigation service is required as a result of recent changes to Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirements (WSR) and Plant Investment Fees (PIF). Please ensure the project submittal includes: - Preliminary Irrigation Plan (PIP) – plan requirements can be found at: www.fcgov.com/WCS. Please contact Eric Olson (eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704) with questions regarding the required PIP. - Water budget (annual usage) and peak flow (gallons per minute) for each irrigation service. Note: this information should be included on the PIP. - Landscape Plan including hydrozone table updated with 2022 values – 3, 8, 14, and 18 gallons/square foot/year for very low, low, medium, and high zones, respectively. - Water Need Form – form is available soon. Please contact Utility Fee and Rate Specialists (UtilityFees@fcgov.com or 970-416-4252) with questions regarding the Water Need Form. - Irrigation service(s), including curb stop and meter location, shown on the Utility and Site Plans. Irrigation service location(s) must match information on the PIP. On Oct. 5, 2021 Council adopted changes to Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirements and Plant Investment Fees. In general developments that use more water may pay more and developments that use less water may pay less. These changes are to be implemented 1/1/2022; more information can be found at: www.fcgov.com/wsr-update Page 11 of 22 Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL Fire service lines should have a shut off valve at the connection point to the water main and not a curb stop (General comment). Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: Please see the included redlines for more comments related to final plan. The redlines also include more information about written comments needing to be resolved before Hearing. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: Please update the wastewater utility report to show flow calculations broken down by each trunk main (Redwood and Lemay) that the site is going to connect to. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: The dead-end water main along the very northern end of the site, serving only 1-fire hydrant will not be acceptable. Please revise the location of this fire hydrant, think of a way to provide a shorter lead for a fire hydrant, or provide a looped water main for this hydrant with domestic services attached. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: You will need to relocate the water services for Buildings 30 and 31 to the Coalmer Road dead-end water main. This is part of our willingness to allow the dead-end water main to serve buildings 11 and 12. We want to ensure there will be enough movement of water in this dead end main to provide good water quality. This is a follow-up comment from unaddressed redline comments. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL: Sanitary Sewer Line D will need to meet the City’s minimum slope requirements, 0.40% for 8-inch or 0.28% for 10-inch. The profile will also need to include drops at manhole junctions. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 01/07/2022: Updated FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: Between last round and Round 4, the applicant has changed from single-phase to 3-phase load for the entire site. The majority of proposed transformer locations are considered out of access, especially considering the much larger transformers. Also, some proposed transformer locations are not meeting separation requirements from wet utilities. Transformer locations will need to be adjusted to meet the 10 foot max access requirement. 11/09/2021: Updated: Many of the proposed transformers are still considered out of access. The requirement is 10' from an all weather drivable surface. Some of the transformers are 15' - 20' behind the curb line. On the private Page 12 of 22 drives, the pad mount transformers could be placed in the parkway. On the public ROW this is not allowed. Additional transformers and/or vaults may be necessary once the load information is available. 09/09/2021: Updated: Some of the transformer locations are considered out of access and are not in the most suitable locations. The number and location of transformers will be determined by the load and the number of service runs into the transformer. The transformers are limited to a maximum of 8 runs with a maximum cable size of 350kcmil. 03/01/2021: For Hearing: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 feet of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 feet and side/rear clearance of 3 feet minimum. When located close to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as defined in Figures ESS4 - ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 01/07/2022: Updated FOR HEARING-UNRESOLVED: Many of the transformer locations will be moving. Once these locations get finalized we can determine the vault and streetlight locations to be shown on the plan set. All of these things can effect the landscape plan. 09/09/2021: Updated: Once transformer / vault locations are firmed up, Light & Power will work on a streetlight layout to be shown on the plan set. 03/01/2021: For Hearing: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 01/07/2022: Updated FOR FINAL: Applicant did submit a C-1 Form, thank you. That being said, most of the needed information on the form was blank. Also, a C-1 Form is required for each transformer being set. This, along with the One-line diagram tells us the size of cables, number of runs, number of conduits, loading information for each service. This information is required for final but depending on the above information can affect the site plan if more transformers or vaults are needed to feed the site. 11/09/2021: Updated: Leaving this one active as this information will determine the amount of transformers and vaults needed for the design which could affect the site plan. 09/09/2021: Updated: This would be helpful earlier on in determining the number and locations of transformers on the site. 03/01/2021: For Final: A customer owned service information form (C-1 form) and a one-line diagram for all electric meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 form is: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 01/11/2022: Updated for HEARING - UNRESOLVED: With the majority of the transformers needing to be relocated, it may be necessary to provide easements for the primary lines and equipment once the transformer locations are finally determined. Page 13 of 22 09/09/2021: Updated: Some of the proposed UE lines and transformers do not appear to be in a utility easement or in ROW. 03/01/2021: Information Only: Any existing and/or proposed Light & Power electric facilities that will remain within the limits of the project must be located within public right-of-way or in a utility easement. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022 01/07/2022: For Hearing: Existing electric duct bank, at the Northeast corner of the site, and the existing electric along Lemay Ave. have been shown on the plan set. It appears the proposed sanitary sewer is not meeting the required clearances from a couple of existing electric vaults, existing streetlights, and existing primary lines. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022 01/07/2022: For Hearing: Please label the proposed transformers on the plan set. For example, Trans#1 or #1, just some way to differentiate which transformer is which. This will make it a lot cleaner and easier when filling out the C-1 Forms for each transformer and when we are discussing the proposed transformer locations. Thank you. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 03/02/2021: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A development agreement and security for the installation, materials, and monitoring of the NHBZ will be required prior to DCP issuance. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL (REPEAT): Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), and prior to prairie dog removal, please submit the results of a burrowing owl survey completed by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist, and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards if removal is between March 15 and October 31. Note the timing requirements of these surveys are between March 15 and October 31, as no burrowing owls are expected to be present between November 1 and March 14. Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), please submit a letter explaining how and when prairie dog removal occurred at the site and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. If trapping and donating is not pursued, then a payment in lieu fee will be required. Payment in lieu fees are set by the Natural Areas Department and currently is set at $1,637/acre if CO/PERC methods are not used, or $1,337 if CO/PERC methods are used. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – EVERGREEN POND: According to aerial imagery there is a ditch road and a two track south of Evergreen Pond, both within the 100’ wetland buffer. Access should be consolidated on the plan sets as much as possible. Page 14 of 22 Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – EVERGREEN POND: Reclamation and restoration of former access roads south of Evergreen Pond is required to be included in the site’s Restoration Plan. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – EXISTING WETLANDS: Are you intending to seed the existing wetlands in Redwood and Evergreen Ponds? If not, please use a different hatching instead of the ‘Wetland Seed Mix’ hatching or change the legend. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – REDWOOD POND: Significant coordination is necessary on the current iteration of the Redwood Pond plan. -Having a property line (that is also a NHBZ line) across a part of Redwood Pond is complicated. Coordination is needed to clarify if a two owners of a single regional detention pond is the appropriate course of action long-term. -Regardless of number of owners, coordination with Stormwater is needed to clarify maintenance access requirements (infrastructure, easements, etc.), type and frequency of maintenance, etc. -If the applicant builds Redwood Pond, they will be responsible for its success and a security deposit will be required for the establishment phase. Upon successful establishment, Stormwater would then assume responsibility of the pond. This relationship needs to be clarified with the City Attorney’s Office and monumented in the Development Agreement. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – RESTORATION PLAN: A condition of approval will be necessary to ensure that a robust and feasible restoration plan is provided at the FDP phase given the complexity and amount of restoration and revegetation required by this proposal. The restoration plan needs to encompass all areas within the NHBZ as well as off-site improvements, including the Redwood Pond and Evergreen Pond. Standard matters need to be addressed: appropriate soil handling and stockpiling, weed management before, during, and after construction, soil amendments (if needed), seeding practices, seed mixes, etc. Additionally, with Redwood Pond, a substantial establishment plan needs to be provided that addresses expected water/moisture levels at the various elevations, expected length of inundation and/or soil saturation, any flow control mechanisms, specific weed management in wet areas, etc. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Is there any reason why shrubs can’t be included in the NHBZ where underground storage is present? If not, either include shrub species in the seed mix or add planted shrubs. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS: A condition of approval may be necessary to ensure appropriate detail is provided and a feasible plan to prevent altering hydrology is provided at the FDP for the chambers depicted in the NHBZ. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING – REGIONAL TRAIL: There are still issues with the regional trail in the NHBZ - manholes in the trail, required maintenance access for stormwater/water departments, etc. Please keep Environmental Planning in the discussions as changes could impact the NHBZ and success criteria. Page 15 of 22 Department: Forestry Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 11/09/2021 FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED There are multiple tree separation issues with stormwater utilities, sewer lines, water lines, structures, and other trees. In some situations, the separation requirements between trees are not absolutely necessary, such as in detention areas where trees have plenty of room and will not compete as much with each other. However, conflicts with utilities must be ameliorated. I have submitted some redlines for these issues, but there may be more that I missed. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines 10’ between trees and electric vaults 40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights 15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights 03/02/2021: FOR HEARING Continued: When looking at the site plan, which includes utilities, compared to the landscape plan, there are multiple separation issues that would eliminate very high numbers of proposed trees. Please work with stormwater to find new locations for utilities, so that trees can be planted along the parkways. I have included submitted some redlines, but they are not exhaustive since the utilities are not shown on the landscape plan. Please include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, streetlights, and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines 10’ between trees and electric vaults 40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights 15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights 11/13/20: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP Please include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, streetlights, and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines 10’ between trees and electric vaults 40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights 15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights Page 16 of 22 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 11/09/21: FOR HEARING - UPDATED Thank you for providing street trees along Suniga just east of Redwood. After having discussions with Stormwater Utilities, I was made aware that the stormwater drain on the north side of Suniga is extremely significant for is flood water drainage and is the backbone drainage pipe for NECCO. Due to the importance of the integrity of this pipe, please change the species along this area to ornamental trees so there is a minimal chance of root interference. 03/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR HEARING Thank you for providing street trees along Redwood and the north side of Suniga. The Northfield development is responsible for constructing Suniga Dr. and is therefore providing trees in the median just east of Redwood. The parcel south of Suniga, however, is on the plat for your development. Please provide street trees on the south side of Suniga Dr. as well at the north side. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 03/03/2021 11/09/2021 FOR FINAL Spring snow crabapple trees have a canopy spread of 20 to 25 ft—they are one of the largest ornamental species. There are quite a few locations that there are spring snows proposed closer to shade and ornamental trees than 15’. Although exceptions can be made with some ornamental species, this will cause overcrowding with spring snows. Please do not eliminate trees, rather change locations with other species that have a larger growing area. See Forestry redlines for locations. I may not have marked them all. Department: Parks Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021 FOR HEARING There are no public parks shown at this location in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/. Please label the Park as 'Private Park/Privately Maintained, Publicly Accessible'. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING Related to the above, if this area is going to be a combined park and a detention facility, please specify how you plan to keep play or passive recreational facilities from flooding and posing safety issues for park users. Page 17 of 22 Department: Park Planning Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021 01/11/22: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED Please adjust the trail alignment at both the northeast and southwest connections to the regional trail planned for the Northfield development. Per LCUASS Section 17, the minimum radius is 95 feet for 20 miles per hour. If a substandard radius must be used, please take into account that curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings will be needed. Please also consider widening the trail at these locations to partially offset the substandard curves or attaching sidewalks to make additional room to accommodate better trail radii. 11/01/2021: INFORMATION Please adjust the trail alignment at both the northeast and southwest connections to the regional trail planned for the Northfield development. Per LCUASS Section 17, the minimum radius is 95 feet for 20 miles per hour. If a substandard radius must be used, please take into account that curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings will be needed. Please also consider widening the trail at these locations to partially offset the substandard curves or attaching sidewalks to make additional room to accommodate better trail radii. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021 01/11/22: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED Please remove the manholes from the Regional Trail. If necessary a separate utility access or alternate stormsewer alignment might be required to access the line and manholes. Further coordination is required. Please set up a meeting with PP&D and Utilities to discuss constraints and options. 11/01/2021: INFORMATION Please remove the manholes from the Regional Trail. If necessary a separate utility access or alternate stormsewer alignment might be required to access the line and manholes. Further coordination is required. Please set up a meeting with PP&D and Utilities to discuss constraints and options. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021 01/11/22: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED Park Planning and Development must approve the trail alignment and design. 01/11/22: FOR FINAL PLAN The applicant will develop a centerline profile and cross-sections for the trail as part of final plans. 11/01/2021: INFORMATION Park Planning and Development must approve the trail alignment and design. The developer will be required to develop a centerline profile and cross-sections for the trail as part of the site design. Page 18 of 22 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021 01/11/22: FOR FINAL PLAN A trail easement may not be located within a ditch easement unless the applicant provides written approval for the trail easement within the ditch easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface cannot function as a ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the trail to maintain the ditch. 11/01/2021: INFORMATION A trail easement may not be located within a ditch easement unless the applicant provides written approval for the trail easement within the ditch easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface cannot function as a ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the trail to maintain the ditch. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021 01/11/22: FOR FINAL PLAN The applicant will develop a centerline profile and cross-sections for the trail as part of final plans. 11/01/2021: INOFRMATION Grading within the designated recreational trail easement is required to occur during overall site grading. Plans must indicate that the final grade within the easement can provide a trail alignment that meets the American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for cross slopes between 1 and 2% and a maximum centerline profile grade of 5%. Construction documents should include trail profiles and cross sections to demonstrate the ability to meet ADA standards. Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2021 UPDATED 11/09/2021 FOR HEARING Thank you for showing the enhanced pedestrian crossings for the regional trail street crossings immediately west of the Lake Canal street crossing (Public Streets ‘A’ & ‘B’). Please label them as well on all applicable sheets for clarity. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING Please show and label an enhanced pedestrian crossings for the regional trail street crossings immediately west of the Lake Canal street crossing (Public Streets ‘A’ & ‘B’). Page 19 of 22 Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 03/01/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Fire lane identification Fire lane to be identified by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. Fire lane sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 03/01/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Address Posting New buildings shall have approved address numbers placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of eight-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Address shall be clearly visible on approach from any street, drive or fire lane that accesses the site. Buildings that have fire lanes on sides other than the addressed street side, shall have address numbers on the side of the building fronting the roadway from which it is addressed. Buildings that are addressed on one street, but are accessible from other drives or roads, shall have the address numbers AND STREET NAME on each side that is accessible from another drive or road. 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 and best route. I would advise an earlier meeting with GIS to address concerns with buildings facing greenspace that are only accessible by an alley. 11/01/2021: The note added to the plan indicates 1/8-inch numerals. Please correct to 8-inch numerals. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 03/01/2021: FOR FINAL: UPDATED Access to Buildings Front doors onto a greenbelt or other landscape feature shall be provided with an approved sidewalk to the front door that connects to with fire access roads or lanes so as to provide direct and efficient access to any individual unit. Some of the units are out of compliance and will need to provide this access. 11/01/2021: Please provide sidewalk connection on sides of the buildings or between all alley access only buildings. Buildings 8,9,10,11,24,27,31,33,34, 38,40 and 41. 1/3/2022: Access walkway will need to be provided between buildings 41, 36, 32, 30, 14 and 7 as well. I would also like to see a connection at the end of the hammerhead between buildings 29 and 27. Page 20 of 22 Department: Internal Services Contact: Katy Hand, , khand@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: NOTICE: Locate buildings 10ft from property lines and 20 feet from other buildings or provide fire rated walls with parapets with limited openings (i.e. reduced doors and windows). The following buildings are closer than 20ft apart: - 20 & 21 - 19 & 20 - 25 & 28 - 23 & 26 - 27 & 24 - 11 & 10 - 12 & 13 - 39 & 37 - 38 & 40 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: NOTICE: City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system in multifamily units. Exception: NFPA 13R systems in buildings with no more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12 dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2 hour fire barrier with no more than 6 dwelling units on each side). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: NOTICE: Accessible parking and access aisles must be provided in covered and open parking areas per current including van spaces where required by code. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: NOTICE: 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place) including accessible parking. Accessible parking should be provided in the garages as where required by code. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: NOTICE: Accessibility is required per IBC, ICC-A117.1 and state law CRS 9-5 (title 9) Plan grading accordingly and disperse accessible unit types across the site (not all in one building) - submit a site-wide accessibility plan showing how points will be met at time of building permit pre-submittal meeting. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: INFORMATIONAL: Each detached structure requires a separate permit, this includes carports, bike shelters, trellises, pergolas and garage buildings, maintenance buildings shade structures and pools. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: Multi-family Residential 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. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021 11/08/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi-family structure Page 21 of 22 Contact: Lauren Wade, 970-302-5962, lwade@fcgov.com Topic: GIS Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2021 09/13/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In addition to street names, please name alleys which will be used for addressing buildings that are not adjacent to streets. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2021 11/12/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please name alleys D, E, F, and H for addressing purposes. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 01/11/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 11/08/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 09/15/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 03/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: 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 11/08/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: No changes have been made to the Plat. All of the previous rounds of redlines have been provided. 09/15/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: 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 03/02/2021: 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. Page 22 of 22 Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/2021 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING: LAKE CANAL - MELISSA BUICK melissahbuick@gmail.com Lake Canal's Easement is 50 feet from the centerline of the ditch; any crossing or encroachment of the ditch or ditch easement will require an agreement with the company prior to any work taking place, access to the ditch and or ditch easement needs to remain unobstructed, existing trees impacting ditch operations or the flow of water may need to be removed. Lake Canal requests the developer provide this office with a list of ditch crossings involved with this project so they may be addressed. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021 08/24/2021: 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