Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER LOT 4 - FDP200011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 1 of 14 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 April 30, 2021 Stephanie Hansen Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Salud Family Health Center Lot 4, FDP200011, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Salud Family Health Center Lot 4. 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: 07/17/2020 07/17/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. 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. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 07/17/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: 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 Page 2 of 14 been addressed, when applicable. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 07/17/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: When you are preparing to resubmit, please provide me with as much advance notice as possible. Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut off for routing the same week. Response: Acknowledged NOTE: Comment Originated: 04/21/2021 04/21/2021: Due to current vacant positions within the Development Review groups combined with a high volume of current projects being reviewed, a temporary service level adjustment has been implemented. Regarding this project, any submittals received the week of May 10, 2021 forward will be subject to 4-week review periods in addition to a completeness check with the Round 2 submittal. Please reach out if there are any questions regarding this temporary adjustment. Thank you! Response: Acknowledged Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The plans have been forwarded to Dan for his input and verification. The preliminary design plans for Laporte don't appear to coincide with what is shown on the plans as an elevated bike lane along Laporte behind the curb and gutter is shown. After Dan's review, we may want to have a meeting to discuss design and timing considerations. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL: The City has an improvement project for Laporte Avenue that involves this development's Laporte Avenue frontage. Discussion with Dan Woodward in Engineering Capital Projects should occur to explore how the plans should reflect the frontage along Laporte and also whether the construction of this frontage might be better served to be done by the City (with a payment provided in-lieu of construction). The timing of the development's anticipated construction start in comparison to the City is part of the consideration for this. Response: Per discussions with Tim Sellers and Dan Beltzer we will show a connection with both the existing Laporte (interim design) and the 30% design (ultimate design) Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Carried over as unresolved, understanding that an agreement with an offsite utility easement along the Stodgy property is being looked at. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL: The design for Salud Parkway does not maintain a continuous utility easement corridor along the east side of the roadway. There is a general concern with how the utility providers are able to extend utility services within the easement Page 3 of 14 along the east side. Will the applicant be obtaining an offsite utility easement from Stodgy Brewing, keeping mind that Stodgy Brewing does not appear to have any property abutting right-of-way for Salud Parkway? Response: XCEL, Comcast, and Centurylink do not need easement (have emails), variance has been submitted Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The update reflecting a ditch easement on the plat addresses much of the concern. Note that in the Certificate of Dedication on the plat, it's the standard indication that the "Easements" are dedicated to the City of Fort Collins. I believe in this dedication statement an exception should be called out indicating after "and the 'Easements'" something akin to "(with the exception of the 'Ditch Easement' which is conveyed to Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company)" in order to remove any ambiguity that the Ditch Easement is being conveyed to the City. Also, please note that the approval block on the civil plans reflect Larimer and Weld Irrigation Ditch Company, which I think needs to be changed. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL: The centerline of Larimer County Canal #2 is depicted on the plat, and would require that Larimer County Canal #2 sign the plat and civil plans. Typically, it would seem to be beneficial to establish some sort of limit/easement for the ditch in order for it to be evident that the proposed development (and associated easements and rights-of-way) can be established without an argument made by the ditch company that their prescriptive rights allow them to impact the site in a manner that prevents the right to develop the property as approved on the plans. What has been the discussion with the ditch company? Response: Updated language on the plat to exclude ditch easement. Added ditch company signature block to plans/plat Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 04/27/2021: Carried over for discussion. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL: The detention pond at the northwest corner of the overall subdivision plat is generally within Lot 3. Is there a reason why the pond itself is not in its own separate tract vs. encumbering Lot 3 which is shown as a future PDP? In addition, the pond appears to extend east of Lot 3 into Lot 4 but does not appear to be in a drainage easement. Isn't additional drainage easement needed on Lot 4? Response: Detention pond is planned a temporary pond until the Forney Pond is built. We would like to keep the location were the pond is as a future developable area opposed to a tract. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The revised design with the more standard box culvert is appreciated. The review of the box culvert design is with Jin Wang and updated comments will be coordinated and provided. One concern I do see is that there doesn't appear to be a railing over the bridge. A bicycle railing is required with the roadway having an adjacent bike lane and would need to be a minimum of 54 inches (11.3.4 of LCUASS). Page 4 of 14 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL: The design of the ditch crossing under the new roadway was provided for initial review to Jin Wang, City Engineering's staff structural engineer and the overall design is problematic and would need to be redesigned. AAASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design should be the design specifications and the use of an aluminum box culvert would not be allowed as only reinforced concrete and steel are acceptable per 11.2.3 of LCUASS. A complete design with presumed structural rebar with a concrete box and wingwalls is needed. Attached sidewalks are required to be 8 feet. The design engineer should perhaps reach out to Jin Wang for further details and discussion. Response: New box culvert designs have been included with this submittal Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The response indicated a preference to keep this as approved in the PDP design, there is still a concern I see in how the temporary turnaround condition is in conflict with the concrete trail. Perhaps we can explore the portion of the turnaround with the trail being built with a drive-over curb to have the trail elevated but still allow for turnaround movements? More discussion is needed. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL: The temporary turnaround at the end of Salud/Maple appears awkward with a concrete sidewalk/trail within the temporary turnaround. The ability to turnaround for vehicles would result in the vehicles running over the sidewalk/trail. Why isn't the trail designed to not conflict into the vehicular use area? A general overall concern I see is that it appears highly unlikely for the extension of Salud/Maple across Lot 5 in the foreseeable future. It would seem to be more appropriate to have the road terminate as a formal cul-de-sac with asphalt and sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. Response: The trail has been adjusted outside of temporary turn -around and signage has been added to separate the trail and turn- around to prevent crossing. With future development the trail would be removed back to ROW and a crossing added. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Coordinate with Traffic Operations on the striping of the bike lane approaching the intersection with Laporte. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL: With Salud being dedicated as a commercial local street, there is typically the installation of bike lanes on commercial local streets. Why isn't this shown on the civil plans? Response: Bike lanes are shown on striping plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: There doesn't appear to be a continuation of the utility easement along Laporte east of Salud as is shown on the west side of Salud. Please extend this easement corridor to the western boundary of Stodgy. There is also a 15' utility easement behind the 12' right-of-way dedication on the Stodgy plat which would provide some continuity to the easement corridor as a result. Response: We are unable to get the easement from the Stodgy Property. We have confirmed with the dry utility companies and believe we only need the easement on the west side of Salud Drive. A variance letter has been included. Page 5 of 14 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The environmental status and previous contamination of the property was not something I was aware of having inherited the project, and I'm looking for more information on from the perspective that the City would become the owner of land (right-of-way) for public street purposes. Additional information is needed for review with the information provided in the November 2020 report that City staff was recently made are of and still processing and should be identified in the most recent Site Characterization Report : 1) Identify with the proposed development what are the areas of City owned right-of-way and also City maintained infrastructure (utilities, trees, public street) that coincide with areas of contamination identified in the environmental compliance completion reports (such as an overlay of the p roposed site development with areas identified in Page 28 of the November 2020 completion report). We don't believe we have all the known information at this time to make this determination. 2) How will the proposed development potentially impact an y ongoing compliance efforts (such as Page 28 of the 11/2020 report delineates a "photoremediation" zone, which appears to potentially be in proximity to the new City right-of-way/street. Is this a "phytoremediation zone", and if so, what is it still ongoing and what is the implication on the loss of vegetation with the development?) 3) A soils report was not found in the electronic documents, it should be provided for review to understand the recommendations for the construction of the public street system and whether the report considered the environmental condition. Ripley Response: E2 has been added to the sheet index Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATED: Continued coordination will need to occur to ensure this project plan incorporates the same design for LaPorte within the Capital Project. Some design elements may have changed since your last submittal. The two way left turn lane will extend through the Stodgy Brewing site and parking will be removed to the east. 07/06/2020: Please work with the Engineering Department on how this project aligns with the capital project along LaPorte that didn't exist when you came through with the PDP. Response: Per discussions with Tim Sellers and Dan Beltzer we will show a connection to the existing Laporte and to the 30% design (ultimate) Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATED: Thanks for locating the stop signs on the Landscape Plans. There still seem to be trees within 50 feet that will need to be addressed. 07/06/2020: We'll need more details related to the signing and striping. Also, please show signs (especially stop signs) on the landscape plans and ensure that there are no trees within 50 ft on the approach to the stop sign for visibility. Page 6 of 14 Ripley Response: One tree was relocated. The tree trunks are located more than 50’ away from the stop signs. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 07/06/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Will there be a bike/ped connection to Maple street with this project even if the full roadway is not yet constructed/connected? There was a lot of interest in that during the PDP a few years ago. Any progress on an adjacent property easement? Response: This does not work vertically in the interim. There is a 9-foot drop from existing grade to Maple Street. The easement exhibit has been created, but still negotiating with property owner. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Further details and design will be needed in regard to the potential sidewalk and bike lane connecting in to the trail at the end of Salud Pkwy where the temporary turnaround is proposed. Response: Trail Location will now go around cul-de-sac in the interim. Sidewalk can be straightened if the road is ever extended Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There is no Striping Legend for the lane markings on the S igning and Striping Plans indicating color and width of lines. Traffic Singing and Pavement Marking Notes from page CS2 should also be on the Signing and Striping Pages. Response: A more detailed legend is included. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Bike stencils are only needed on Salud as you head north off of LaPorte and at the very north end for southbound. The two next to the driveway should be removed from the plans. The crosswalk and stop bar on Salud at LaPorte are also not needed and should be removed. Response: Removed bike symbols Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 04/27/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The southbound bike lane as it approaches LaPorte on Salud, should stop 50 feet prior to the intersection and a single skip line should delineate the bike lane. (Skips should be 8 inches wide, 3 feet long, with an 9 foot gap.) Response: Updated Striping labels Department: Stormwater Engineering - Floodplain Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 07/13/2020: Development review checklists and permit application forms for floodplain requirements can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents . Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The submitted floodplain report and modeling do not follow required modeling and mapping guidelines and requirements. Please set up a meeting with Page 7 of 14 floodplain staff to discuss the requirements. The floodplain design with supporting modeling is a critical path for approval of this project. Response: NE submitted floodplain report 5/28. Updated report included with this submittal Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion and Sediment Control Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/21/2021 04/21/2021: For Final: Erosion Control Plan, Report and Escrow Calc have comments that need to be addressed. Please revise materials based upon those comments. Response: Erosion control plan and calcs updated Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/21/2021 04/21/2021: For Final: 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 1 lot, 23.16 acres of disturbance, 2 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 3 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $2,569.07. Based on 0 number of porous pavers, 3 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 1 number of extended detention basins, 0 number of underground treatments in an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $1,195.00. 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. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. Ripley Response: Understood. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 Page 8 of 14 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please add forebays to the rain gardens. Riprap pads will be difficult to maintain. 07/10/2020: There are multiple outfalls into the proposed rain gardens, including concrete chases, that will need detailed erosion and scour protection design. Please include this design with the next submittal. Response: Modified concrete rundowns have been added for rundowns into rain gardens and forebay added to storm drain. Details have been updated Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide details in the Utility Plan set for the pumped outfall including pump configuration and attachment in manhole and all associated piping. 07/13/2020: As discussed previously with this project, the variance to pumped detention is acceptable, pending a full design of the pumping system. The variance form provided is acceptable and will be signed by the City at time of final plan approval. Response: Thanks. Details on pump and installation have been updated Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Development Agreement language will be added to include that Lot 3 will have limited water service capacity per Developer response letter. 07/10/2020: It is unclear how Lot 3 will be adequately serviced with a looping system for the water main. A dead end main for service to this area would place significant limitations on the intensity of future development here. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The Comment Response Letter stated a sewer stub is being provide to Lot 6, the plans did not show this. Also, the utility easement dedicated for the future sewer connection to Lot 5 runs through some trees that are being preserved and this needs to be coordinated with Forestry do to 1 or more trees may be removed in the future. 07/10/2020: It is unclear how Lot 6 will be serviced with sanitary sewer. If the intent is to service this lot from the east, it should be noted that there is a strip of land at the property boundary that is not right-of way. In order to get sewer service for Lot 6 from the east, this development would be required to attain right-of-way or easement across this parcel. Response: Sanitary Sewer Easement has been modified to avoid trees and provide access for Lot 6. Lot 5 will be provided at th e north end of the site. An easement can’t be dedicated because the connection wi ll have to be made offsite to get the 90-deg connection to the main. The proposed pond is temporary and a sewer service will be able to be installed in the future when Fo rney Pond is constructed Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Page 9 of 14 Please submit utility easement documents once completed and these will be required before signing of mylars. 07/10/2020: Have locates and survey been completed for the water main to the east? The connection point shown does not appear to line up with the existing water main and it does not appear the existing water main has been stubbed to the property line. An easement may be needed to connect across the adjacent parcel in order to make the connection to the existing water main. Response: Locates have been collected for the watermain to the east and connection updated. The existing water main is not stubbed to the property line, and we will need to install a tee. An offsite water easement has been included and i s currently being negotiated with property owner. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The water service sizing calculations show a 2-inch water meter and service is required. Please revise. Response: Updated water sizing Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide the City Standard details for a 2-inch water meter and service and remove the detail for the 1-inch service. Response: Updated water meter detail Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The sanitary sewer main is proposed to run under Rain Garden 2. Sewer mains cannot run under private LID ponds. Please relocate the rain garden outside of the 30-foot utility easement. Response: Rain garden has been relocated out of easement Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: There is a tree located 7.5 feet from the proposed sanitary sewer main. 10 feet of separation is required. Ripley Response: Trees and utilities have been updated Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: City Utilities will get back with the Applicant regarding if any maintenance access will be required for the new offsite public sanitary main. Response: Maintenance access road has been included for public sanitary main Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the existing water main stub on the Utility Plan at Laporte Ave. and Salud Drive where the proposed water main is connecting into. Response: Water stub added back in Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: The existing water service to 1816 Laporte Ave. needs to be abandoned and labeled on Sheet PH2. Response: Updated labels for bother services and abandoned the service mentioned Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 Page 10 of 14 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the water and sewer services all the way to the building on the Utility Plan and the Landscape Plan to ensure separation requirements from other utilities and trees/landscaping. Response: Extended services to building and added additional labels Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970-416-2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the meter location and secondary service line on the Utility Plan. 07/13/2020: FOR APPROVAL: This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf Response: Electric meter shown 25’ north of southwest building corner Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 07/13/2020: FOR APPROVAL: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one-line diagram for all commercial 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 below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response: Provided with submittal Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: On the Landscape Plan, please add one additional streetlight next to the proposed vault located at the start of the temporary Cul-de-Sac. Please add all streetlights shown on the Landscape Plan onto the Utility Plan. Response: Street lights added to utility plans Ripley Response: Street lights and tree separations have been updated. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: DCP Thank you for providing a raptor survey of the Red Tailed Hawk nest. As per the recommendations in the survey, another survey will be required prior to the issuance of a DCP. Ripley Response: Understood Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 Page 11 of 14 04/26/2021: FOR FDP APPROVAL Given the recent events of discovering chlorinated solvent plumes within the project area (particularly in utility easements and public right of way), staff requests additional documents for further evaluation. Staff would like the latest geotech report and latest No Further Action Determination Approval Letter. The idea is to determine how to best protect workers during construction, and in the future if any maintenance occurs to the street and utilities. Ripley Response: See No further action letter in this submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 04/26/2021: FOR FDP APPROVAL Deferred mitigation approach will not be supported by staff. Please ensure all mitigation trees are accounted for and planted during this project. Ripley Response: All trees removed with this phase are mitigated within this phase Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 04/27/2021: FOR FDP APPROVAL This project will require an escrow at 125% of the total cost for landscape materials, installation, monitoring and weed mitigation. Please provide cost estimates for these items prior to FDP approval. Ripley Response: Understood. Cost estimates will be forthcoming. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 04/27/2021: DA A development agreement will be required prior to issuance of a DCP. The DA will likely include language regarding the environmental contamination issues, which will be determined when all the requested information is available. Response: Acknowledged Department: LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 Contact: Melissa Buick, 970-686.7126, melissahbuick@gmail.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 04/30/2021: Updated comments will be forwarded when received. - Todd S. 07/17/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company requests the plans show the ditch easement as being 25 feet from the top of the bank on both sides of the ditch for the continued ongoing cleaning, maintenance, and repair and/or replacement of the ditch. Additional comments are that the developer will need to have crossing agreements in place for the construction/installation of the vehicular bridge, utility or other crossings of the ditch an/or any historical discharge into the ditch. The Company requests additional plans showing the detail for each of the proposed ditch crossings for review and approval. Response: Easement is shown along ditch. More detail has been included for box culvert and ditch crossing. We will continue to discuss crossing agreements with the irrigation company Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 Page 12 of 14 4/27/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED Continued: Thank you for adding a tree removal column to the single stem tree inventory table. The NHBZ tree group table needs to include a column that clearly defines the plan for removal or retention. In addition, please show all tree removals, including tree removals in tree groups, with a label or a X over the tree symbols/group cloud. Currently, this is not clear on the plans. 7/13/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL In both the Tree Group (NHBZ) inventory table and the single stem tree inventory and mitigation table, please add columns that clearly define the plan to either remove or retain certain trees. On the landscape plans, trees and tree groups that are proposed to be removed should be shown with a X over the symbol. Ripley Response: In most cases, only parts of the tree group are being removed. Therefore, there is the column that shows “Tree canopy to be removed.” If it says “0” the entire tree group will be preserved with this phase. This table has been relocated to the tree mitigation page. Additional “x”’s have been added. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 4/27/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please review Forestry’s redlines. There are a handful of tree -utility conflicts that need to be resolved either by shifting utilities or slightly shifting tree locations. Ripley Response: Plans have been revised. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 4/28/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Forestry identified a few areas where trees are lacking. Please review these spaces and incorporate additional plantings if feasible. Ripley Response: Noted. This is a non-profit user and they will evaluate the additional cost. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 4/28/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL On Sheet 10 of the landscape plan, there is a water line that is shown underneath two existing trees just west of Salud Road and north of Laporte Ave. Is this line existing or proposed? If it is proposed, please shift the utility away from directly under the trees. If that is not feasible, the line will need to be installed via boring methods. Please advise Forestry if this is the preferred route for further coordination. We can provide a boring/tree protection note if needed. Response: Waterline and trees are both existing. They will be removed with demolition of existing Salud Building Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Some of the sheet titles & sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the noted sheets. See redlines. 07/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Some of the sheet titles & sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Fixed issues with sheets Page 13 of 14 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines. 07/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines. Response: added responses on redlines Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 07/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: added responses on redlines Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/29/2021 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: added responses on redlines Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL_UNRESOLVED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 07/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Ripley Response: plans have been revised Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 04/29/2021: 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. 07/10/2020: 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. Response: added responses on redlines Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/29/2021 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Sheet E2 is missing for the sheet index. Ripley Response: E2 has been added to the sheet index Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/01/2020 Page 14 of 14 07/01/2020: BUILDING PERMIT: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged Department: Building Code Review Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 07/13/2020: A change of occupancy for these existing buildings will require a building permit and full review by Building Services. Response: Existing buildings will be removed Department: GIS / Addressing Contact: Todd Reidenbach, 970-416-2483, treidenbach@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/24/2020 07/24/2020: This street is Maple St, per the Master Street Plan's future Maple St extension.