Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT - BDR200010 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College AvenuePO Box 580Fort Collins, CO 80522970.221.6689970.224.6134 faxfcgov.com/developmentreviewJuly06, 2020Kristin Turner TB Group444 Mountain AvenueBerthoud, CO 80513RE: Gateway at Prospect, BDR200010, Round Number 1Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Gateway at Prospect. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras via phone at 9704162744 or via email at bbethuremharras@fcgov.com. Comment Summary:Department: Development Review CoordinatorContact: Todd Sullivan, 9702216695, tsullivan@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/01/202007/01/2020: Brandy Bethurem Harras will be the Development Review Coordinatorformally assigned to work with you on this project. While she is on leave, please reachout to me with any questions or needs you may have. Brandy will reach out whenshe returns to the office.Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 9702216225, cmapes@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/01/202007/01/2020: Question for the meeting: What is the overall intent with this plan set? i.e., to enable subsequent marketing of the development tracts with knowing that the drainage and access can work? Or to build the streets as shown, as an infrastructure project in advance of development of actual land uses?The answer isn't critical, but may be helpful as we consider how far to go with landscape and irrigation plans for example.RESPONSE: Backbone infrastructure plan to create future development parcels. Department: Engineering Development ReviewContact: Spencer Smith, 9702216603, smsmith@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVALThere are some differences between the street sections identified on the approved ODP and the street sections shown on these utility plans. The ODP identifies Street B as a Minor Collector (76foot ROW) and Street D as a Connector Local (57foot ROW). These plans show a 66foot ROW (Major Collector) for Street B and a 76foot ROW (Minor Collector) for Street D. Street E was listed as "TBD" in the ODP and is shown as a Major Collector (66foot ROW) on the BDR.RESPONSE:Street cross-sections proposed have been vetted by project team. All streets function as minor collectors per traffic patterns. The only difference would be whether they have parking or not.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVALThe approved ODP calls for existing Boxelder Dr. ROW to be vacated. The BDR does not show any change to the ROW. It looks like a portion of the future trail is shown in that ROW. Is the intent to leave the ROW asis and utilize it for pedestrian/bike access?RESPONSE:A separate process has been executed for the ROW vacation. When the ROW was vacated, it was reverted to the development to be developable space. As of now, the trail is proposed through this area.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVALCoordination with the City regarding the design of the Prospect Rd. improvements project will be very important. Dan Woodward is the CIP engineer managing the project. He has reviewed this initial submittal and provided a drawing for reference (included with the city comments and redlines). We will need to have the linework for the City Prospect Road project shown on these plans to ensure that all proposed improvements are tying into the design. Also, the frontage road design by Ayers will need to coordinate with the City project.RESPONSE: The City improvement linework is shown in the current plans. Interim construction is shown for both Street B and the Frontage road for the case where the Prospect Road improvements have not be constructed by the time this project is under construction. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVALTract C is being dedicated as a utility easement with this project. Is there a specific reason that the future road ROW is not being dedicated now? It seems like it would be easier to just dedicate the ROW now.RESPONSE: This future access has been dedicated as a separate tract in order to allow for flexibility with the future developments.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: Any additional ROW needed to achieve the full half width ROW for Prospect Road and/or the Frontage Road will need to be dedicated with this BDR.RESPONSE: A separate process has been executed for the ROW dedication. Current Title indicates that the required ROW has already been dedicated.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLYThe local street portion of the Prospect Road and Frontage Road frontage is the responsibility of this development. The current (2020) cost per linear foot is $233/LF. This paymentinlieu (PIL) will be due prior to building permit.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVALThe utility plans for this BDR will need to be final utility plans and include all the appropriate level of detail. Even if the improvements will be built in the future, these plans for the roadway and utility infrastructure will need to be complete.RESPONSE: Noted. Final Utility Plans have been submitted for review.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLYThis project will require a Development Agreement (DA). A draft will be prepared by City staff and provided to the applicant as soon as possible. Please complete and return a copy of the DA information form with the next submittal. The form is included with the comments and redlines and can also be found on the Engineering web site: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrevRESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVALPlease put the typical street sections on the cover page of the utility plans.RESPONSE: Due to lack of space on the cover sheet the typical sections are shown with the general and construction notes on sheets 3 and 4. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLYA Development Construction Permit (DCP) will be required prior to construction. Please see the Engineering website for more information: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrevRESPONSE: Acknowledged.Department: Traffic OperationContact: Martina Wilkinson, 9702216887, mwilkinson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVALThe TIS has been received and reviewed. Is the proposed infrastructure being built to the long-term geometrics? Since the short-term geometrics did not include the entire area.RESPONSE: The improvements of the Frontage Road and the two internal Collector Roads will be built to the ultimate configuration. Prospect Road is currently being designed by the City of Fort Collins and will be meeting the ultimate configuration.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVALIt would be helpful to have a site plan, or overall roadway layout that shows signing, striping, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps etc. (I am not seeing the pedestrian ramps at intersections.)RESPONSE: At the time of submittal, we thought we were submitting a PDP. The City changed the submittal to a BDR after the submittal. As such, we will be providing final design with this next submittal.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVALThe plans note that Prospect improvements are by others. If the Prospect capital project is delayed for some reason, and this development moves forward, some improvements along Prospect may need to be completed by phases of this development.RESPONSE: The development would be responsible to build their impact. It was our understanding that the plans would be complete for the Prospect Road Widening by the City’s consultant. It was talked about in prior meetings that if this project is not funded by the City that Gateway would be able to provide a phasing plan to build portions of the ultimate project. That is with the understanding that the City finishes the plans.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVALWhat exactly is the BDR approval for? Will each area be required to complete a PDP/FDP with a potential TIS?RESPONSE: The BDR is a Basic Development Review process. Our understanding is that it jumps straight to final design level. This project will provide infrastructure for individual development tracts. Each tract will do a PDP/FDP process. Each development tract would also be responsible to provide a TIS for their individual proposal.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVALSee CDOT comments on roundabout design provided in the redline folder.RESPONSE: Thank you.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL Will there be landscaping? Trees need to be at least 50ft from a stop sign approach.RESPONSE: No landscaping is proposed with this project. This was accepted by the City.Department: Park PlanningContact: Suzanne Bassinger, 9704164340, sbassinger@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The Park Planning & Development Department is available to discuss these comments in more detail. Please contact Suzanne Bassinger at 9704164340, sbassinger@fcgov.com.RESPONSE: Thank you.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.8 “Parks and Trails” addresses compliance with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan indicates the general location of all parks and regional recreational trails. Parcels adjacent to or including facilities indicated in the Master Plan may be required to provide area for development of these facilities.RESPONSE: An easement for regional trail will be provided with this BDR. Future development of each tract would be responsible for providing parks and facilities in compliance with the ODP.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan (“Trail Master Plan”) was adopted by City Council and provides conceptual locations and general trail design guidelines for future regional recreational trails. The Trail Master Plan is available at https://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/plansandpolicies.RESPONSE: An easement for regional trail will be provided with this BDR. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (“LCUASS”), Chapter 16 Pedestrian Facilities and Chapter 17 Bicycle Facilities provide additional design guidelines for multiuse regional recreational trails.RESPONSE: Thank you. We will review this chapter for trail design. An easement for regional trail will be provided with this BDR. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The site is indicated for a future neighborhood park of approximately 4 acres and labeled “Interstate Park“ in the Master Plan, and a regional trail labeled the “Boxelder Trail”in the Trail Master Plan. Development of the project will require dedication of a tract for a future neighborhood park site and for a Public Access and Trail Easement for the future regional trail. Park Planning & Development must approve the location and size of the future park site and trail easement.RESPONSE: An easement for regional trail will be provided with this BDR. At the time of future development of the individual tracts, the parks would be delineated.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: Until the neighborhood park site is purchased by the City the landowner is responsible for all maintenance of the tract.RESPONSE: No park is proposed at this time.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The Public Access and Trail easement width is 50’. The minimum easement width of 30’ may be acceptable for short distances upon approval by Park Planning & Development. The location of the easement must be approved by Park Planning & Development.RESPONSE: An easement for regional trail will be provided with this BDR. As we will provide the grading for the trail, a 30’ easement is proposed with this BDR.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: Recreational trails do not function as widened sidewalks adjacent or within street rightsofway.RESPONSE: Acknowledged. For small sections the trail will parallel the street sidewalk but will be separate. This will allow the trail to cross at an intersection internal to the site.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The trail easement may coexist within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone if approval is obtained from Environmental Planning.RESPONSE: Thank you. We plan to utilize the NHBZ for the trail.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: 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.RESPONSE: Separate ditch access roads are being either proposed or maintained with the development along the Lake Canal and Cache Le Poudre Inlet Canal. One area for crossing the Cache Le Poudre Inlet Canal will be shared by the ditch company and the trail easementComment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: Local street at grade intersections with a recreational trail are to be avoided. When necessary, the location of a future recreational trail atgrade crossing must be coordinated with Traffic Operations.RESPONSE: The trail crossing has been relocated to the collector/collector intersection internal to the site. This will remove the previously proposed mid-block crossing.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: Grade separated crossings of arterial roadways and major collectors are required (LUCASS Chapter 17.3) and additional easement area for underpass/overpass approaches may be required in locations of potential grade separated crossings for the trail. Funding for grade separated trail crossings of arterials and major collectors on the project has not been identified at this time. The intersection of the trail with Prospect Road, and continuing to the south, will need to be determined for future submittals, especially to accommodate a grade separated crossing.RESPONSE: These roadways will function at Minor Collector levels. Grade separation is not possible due to the existing topography, required bridge crossing elevation and floodplain BFE.Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020:The future trail alignment cannot be used to provide internal pedestrian circulation and cannot provide direct access to buildings. Internal access to the recreational trail from the internal bike/pedestrian system should be provided at limited and defined access points.RESPONSE: The trail easement alignment has been coordinated with the City. Any connections to the future trail will need to be discussed with the future PDP/FDP submittals of the individual development tracts.Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: Grading within the designated recreational trail easement should be completed along with 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 12% 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.RESPONSE: Grading of the trail will be in accordance with ADA standards. Trail profiles and cross-sections have been provided for review.Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The typical paved recreational regional trail crosssection is constructed as a 10’ wide concrete trail, widened to 12’ in areas of high traffic area or other areas of potential user conflicts. A 46’ wide soft (gravel) path is located parallel to the paved surface, separated by 35’ of vegetated area; there shall be 3’ wide level shoulders on both sides of the trail, providing 3’ of horizontal clearance from vertical obstructions such as trees, transformers, fences and/or walls. Modifications of the typical crosssection must be approved by Park Planning & Development.RESPONSE: No modifications are proposed. We propose an easement of 30’ to allow for a 10’ concrete trail with 4’ gravel trail and 4’ separation.Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The construction schedule for the recreational trail on this site has not been determined and typically will not occur until funding becomes available. Partnerships between Park Planning and Development and the site developer may be an option to fund the construction of the trail concurrent with site development.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: The Parks Department will maintain future recreational trails. Maintenance consists of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 23’ adjacent to the trail surface and repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail. The underlying property owner shall be responsible for all other landscaping and maintenance within the easement.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: Landscaping within the recreational trail easement shall be provided in accordance with all applicable City codes and will remain the responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide acceptable clearances from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master Plan. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid spray on the trail.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Department: PFAContact: Jim Lynxwiler, 9704162869, jlynxwiler@poudrefire.orgTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: REQUIRED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESSRequired fire lanes not dedicated with the plat shall be dedicated as Emergency Access Easement(s) via separate document at a later date.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION/PLANNING FIRE HYDRANTSThe project will be responsible for hydrant infill along Prospect Road and the Frontage Road. Water lines and hydrants to be labeled on the utility plans so as to include adequate coverage on all affected areas of the plan. > Add one hydrant to the area described as NE corner of Prospect and Street B. RESPONSE: Fire Hydrant added to the intersection of Prospect Road and Street B. > Hydrants along the Frontage Road (if not added with this BDR) will be required at time of development.RESPONSE: Additional Fire Hydrants to be added with Future Development per requirements.Department: Stormwater Engineering – FloodplainContact: Claudia Quezada, (970)4162494, cquezada@fcgov.comTopic: FloodplainComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Portions of this property are located in the Boxelder Creek 100year floodplain/floodway. Boxelder Creek has an erosion buffer zone along the adjacent banks. Please include the following notes on the site plan and utility plans: 1.The applicant is aware that portions of the proposed development do not comply with the current regulatory floodplain. Issuance of construction and building permits will be held up until FEMA approves the CLOMR (construction permits) or LOMR (building permits) and the City is unable to guarantee a timeline for FEMA review nor FEMA’s ultimate approval. Proceeding through the planning process prior to FEMA approval is at the applicant’s own risk. 2.The Developer shall obtain a Floodplain Use Permit from the City of Fort Collins and pay all applicable floodplain use permit fees prior to commencing any construction activity (building of structures, grading, fill, detention ponds, bike paths, parking lots, utilities, landscaped areas, flood control channels, etc.) within the Boxelder Creek floodplain limits as delineated on the Final Subdivision Plat. All activities within the floodplain are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.3.Any construction activities, nonstructural development (roads, curbcuts, driveways, sidewalks, trails, vegetation, etc.) in the regulatory floodway must be preceded by a NoRise Certification, which must be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.4.Any work within the mapped Boxelder Creek erosion buffer zone must be preceded by a channel stability analysis prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.RESPONSE: Notes have been added to the utility plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Any construction activities in the floodplain (e.g. grading, structure, sidewalk or curb & gutter installation/replacement, utility work, landscaping, etc.) must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit, the appropriate permit application fees, and approved plans.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Per section 1045 of City Code, any construction activities, nonstructural development (roads, curbcuts, driveways, sidewalks, trails, vegetation, etc.) in the regulatory floodway must be preceded by a NoRise Certification, which must be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: New residential and mixeduse development is prohibited in the floodway. New nonresidential development is allowed if norise conditions and freeboard requirements are met.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: New residential, nonresidential, and mixeduse structures are prohibited within the erosion buffer. Any work within the buffer zone must be preceded by a channel stability analysis prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.RESPONSE: A consultant for stream stabilization has been hired to provide a report for a stream stabilization. This report will be provided with this submittal.This consultant has also provided a stream rehabilitation report and preliminary plans previously to the City. This rehabilitation will not be built as a part of this project, but rather the framework will be in place for a future rehabilitation done by the City. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Critical facilities are prohibited in the floodway and 100year floodplain.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Please note that in the City of Fort Collins Construction of a residential, nonresidential, and mixeduse development is allowed in the Boxelder Creek 100year floodplain, as long as the lowest finished floor of the building, and all duct work, heating, ventilation, electrical systems, etc. are elevated 18inches above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This elevation is known as the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). RFPE = BFE + 18inches. Nonresidential structures may be floodproofed (to RFPE) in lieu of elevation. No basements are allowed in the 100year floodplain. An approved FEMA Elevation Certificate, completed by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer and showing that the structure is constructed to the required elevation, is required prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) being issued.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please Review the Floodplain Review Checklist for required notes to include on the plans and items to include in the Drainage Report. The checklist can be found at: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fpchecklist1002018update.pdf?1522697905RESPONSE:Checklist has been included with the submittal.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please update the boundaries of the floodplain and floodway on drawings, per checklist. In instances where floodway overlaps floodplain boundaries, please label as floodway. Contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at banderson@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work.RESPONSE: Floodplain and floodway boundaries have been updated. Department: Stormwater EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970)4162754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Boxelder Creek water quality and stream stability (Stormwater Master Planning):The reach of Boxelder Creek through this development has been identified by Stormwater Master Planning as a stream rehabilitation reach. The stream rehabilitation work will need to be planned, designed, and constructed with this project. The 2012 Boxelder Creek/Cooper Slough Basin Water Quality Master Plan outlined both stream susceptibility and habitat recommendations for Boxelder Creek. Reaches 31 and 32 are adjacent to the Gateway at Prospect planned project area. With respect to stream stability, this report states reach 31 is at medium risk both laterally and vertically, which is significant since land use in the area at the time of this study could change, causing future degradation within the reach. No stream susceptibility recommendations were identified for reach 32. The Boxelder Creek/Cooper Slough Basin Water Quality Master Plan Selected Plan (Anderson, 2012) will be included with the comments as an attachment.Please contact Theodore Bender, in Stormwater Master Planning, at tbender@fcgov.com to discuss further.RESPONSE: Jacobs Engineering has been brought in to review this stream section and provide a report and design for the rehabilitation and Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Master Planning – Lower Cooper Slough outlet channel comment.The 2017 City of Fort Collins Selected Plan of Improvements for Upper Copper Slough has identified future drainage improvements along Lake Canal at the northern edge of this development. Please refer to the included 2017 Selected Plan document. In Section 2.7.2 and Section 4 Group 1, the Lake Canal Improvements are discussed. These improvements have not been developed in full detail. Both open channel and piped flow have been considered. If future development in the area adjacent to the Lake Canal is planned as a part of this project, further discussion regarding possible easements and rightofway should occur.Please contact Theodore Bender, in Stormwater Master Planning, at tbender@fcgov.com to discuss further.RESPONSE: Possible Cooper Slough outlet channel improvements have been designed to ensure functionality with proposed improvements. These improvements are shown of the plans as future and for reference only. Design of the final cooper slough improvements will need to be done by the City of Fort Collins including upstream of Tract A and crossing of the Lake Canal. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:LID is required for all internal roadways. This may be implemented later with adjacent development. Any drainage systems installed in the final or ultimate condition, with this project, should include the required LID with this project.RESPONSE: An LID for the internal roadways will be provided with the development of each tract. An LID responsibility exhibit will be included with the drainage report laying out the responsibility of each tract to treat the adjoining internal roadways for LID. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Please submit a LID Plan that shows how the overall final development will meet the LID requirement. This plan should identify which parcels are responsible for stormwater, water quality, and LID for the internal roadways. Please tabulate the LID areas. I encourage you to contact Water Utilities to discuss if you have any questions.RESPONSE: An LID plan has been included with the drainage report. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:Utilities wants future stormwater outfalls into Boxelder Creek to be combined as much as possible.RESPONSE:The BDR has sized outfall pipes to convey ultimate flows from all developable areas of the site. Future developments will be encouraged to utilize these outfalls. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:The Boxelder Creek overflow channel may not be used to discharge ‘low flows’ (up to the 10yr flow rate) from development. Flows up to and including the 10year flow rate needs to be conveyed into the Boxelder Creek main channel. Specifically, Basin ‘E’ is proposing to discharge into the overflow channel, this needs to be revised so that the low flows are conveyed to the main Boxelder Creek channel.RESPONSE: Per discussions with the City, it was agreed that capturing all flows and diverting to the Boxelder Creek Channel would not be feasible. Therefore, we have split the flows in ‘Basin E’ to divert as much flow as possible to the Boxelder Creek Channel with a secondary pond releasing to the Boxelder Creek overflow channel.Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Drainage easements need to be provided for all stormwater pipes and channels that convey water from adjacent lots or the ROW. Interim drainage channels meeting these criteria will also need easements provided.RESPONSE: Drainage easement have been provided. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Full Spectrum Detention comments:The City will accept the use of MHFD ‘Full Spectrum Detention’ for this project, as previously discussed. The calculation for the Full Spectrum Detention sizing and outlet structures need to be revised as follows:The WQCV may not be included as part of the 100year detention volume. Please revise the pond calculations to make this adjustment. This may require manual input to the FSD spreadsheet. (The EURV may be included in the 100yr volume.)Please update the 1hour point rainfall depths in the FSD sheet. Please see the included Fort Collins Rainfall table. We will need to discuss the 500yr rainfall depth.Review the spillway sizing and confirm the design flow rate for sizing. Please confirm that the 100year pond inflow rate can pass the spillway with 0.5feet of flow depth (max). See redlined drainage report for more comments.Please feel free to discuss any questions with us.RESPONSE: As discussed in previous meetings with stormwater. The MHFD spreadsheets do not allow for 100% WQCV + 100-year detention, instead they allow for 50% WQCV + 100-year detention. It was discussed that the future LID requirements would require between 50% to 75% of impervious area to be treated. As such, the 100% development would be treated at the time of development.Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:The use of MHFD (UDFCD) rational ‘C’ factors and ‘time of concentration’ calculation methods are not consistent with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM). Please revise rational calculations to follow the FCSCM method. Feel free to discuss this with us.RESPONSE: Rational Calculations have been revised. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Future submittals will need to include all Final Plan drawings and details, this includes: all details (standard or site specific), outlet structure details, storm pipe profiles, and spillway locations.RESPONSE: At the time of this submittal, we were under the impression that we were submitting a PDP. The City changed the submittal to a BDR after we submitted. As such we will be providing final level details with this submittal.Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Future submittals will need to include all hydraulic calculations required, including stormwater inlets, pipes, street flow calculations, and riprap sizing.RESPONSE: At the time of this submittal, we were under the impression that we were submitting a PDP. The City changed the submittal to a BDR after we submitted. As such we will be providing final level details with this submittal.Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Please see the redlined Drainage Report PDF. I encourage you to contact me with any questions.RESPONSE: NotedComment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Please see the redlined Utility Plans PDF. I encourage you to contact me with any questions.RESPONSE: NotedComment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Please explain who will maintain the detention ponds and LID in the interim and final conditions.RESPONSE:The detention ponds and LID will be maintained by the owner or metro district. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVAL:All permanent detention ponds need to meet the City’s grading and landscaping guidelines. Future permanent ponds will also need to meet the landscaping guidelines please consider how the interim pond grading will impact the ability to meet the final grading and landscaping requirements.RESPONSE: This is a master plan and future ponds will need to be reevaluated by the city and future engineers at the time of their design. Interim ponds will meet the City’s requirements. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 07/02/202007/02/2020: FOR APPROVAL:**New Comment**Please double check the State stormwater detention pond compliance requirements for each pond.RESPONSE:The Full Spectrum calculations provide a drainage time calculation for each pond. These calcs can be used in-lieu of the compliance spreadsheet. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 07/02/202007/02/2020: FOR INFORMATION:**New Comment**The plans show there is an existing drainage easement to be vacated. We will need to review to confirm there is no longer a purpose or City interest in that drainage easement.RESPONSE: NotedDepartment: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion and Sediment ControlContact: Basil Hamdan, 9702221801, bhamdan@fcgov.comTopic: Erosion ControlComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/25/202006/25/2020: Thank you for submitting a preliminary Erosion Control Plan, since the disturbed area is more than an acre an Erosion Control Report and escrow calculations will be required at FDP.INFORMATION ONLY:The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets the criteria for Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted.The erosion control requirements are located in the Stormwater Design Criteria in Chapter 2 Section 6.0 a copy of the requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosionFOR FINAL:Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria.Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria.Based upon the area of disturbance, State discharge permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before construction activities can begin.RESPONSE: An erosion control report will be included with the submittal. Department: WaterWastewater EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970)4162754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: This project site is located within the East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District and the Boxelder Sanitation District for water and sewer service. Please contact them at (970) 4932044 (ELCO) and (970) 4980604 (Boxelder) for development requirements.RESPONSE: NotedComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: Future developments within this overall plan will be required to follow the City’s water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standardsRESPONSE: NotedDepartment: Environmental PlanningContact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: The ECS recommends additional fieldwork to confirm the top of bank for Boxelder Creek. Additionally, vegetation studies must also be performed to understand weed infestation, vegetation composition and potential mitigation requirements within NHBZs. Has this been performed?RESPONSE: The Top of Bank has been delineated with the guidance of FC. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please indicate the Top of Bank and edge of wetlands on both sides of Boxelder Creek on all drawings, along with the 100 buffer zone. This will help determine impact from grading, rechanneling, utility install and the bridge. This will also help staff determine the most appropriate location for the regional trail and other infrastructure improvements.RESPONSE: The Top of Bank is the controlling line. The NHBZ has been drawn based on 100’ from TOB along Boxelder.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Delineation of wetlands on and off site are still needed and will be required for project approval to understand any wetland impacts and future NHBZs. For example, wetlands exist immediately west of Street B that are the historic channel of the Cooper Slough. Wetlands also exist along the Boxelder channel, and potentially at the intersection of Frontage road and Prospect. Wetland boundaries and the associated NHBZs will have to be shown on the plans.RESPONSE: The wetlands are shown in the plans along Boxelder Creek. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Current site layout with road crossing of Boxelder may impact wetlands under federal regulation. If this is the case, a jurisdictional letter and permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) needs to be submitted.RESPONSE: Yes. We anticipate a permit being required from the Army Corp. We will apply for the permit once the project boundary and disturbances are set per FC approvals.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: It appears stormwater detention ponds are located within the Boxelder Creek NHBZ. Please vary the grading of the detention areas to create a more naturalistic, undulating landform. Side slopes should vary and range from 4:1 to 20:1, per the Stormwater Standards and Guidelines. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/Detention_Pond_Landscaping_Standards.pdfRESPONSE: Detention pond grading is still within a small portion of the NHBZ. These gradings are shown to be undulating with natural slopes.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Contact the assigned Development Review Coordinator (DRC) if trees will be impacted. A review of trees shall be conducted by City Environmental staff to determine the status of existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. The site visit can be conducted in tandem with Forestry’s site visit.RESPONSE:Very few trees exist on the subject site. We will make an appointment with the City Forester to review the site and any trees that may need mitigation.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: If tree removal is necessary, please include the following note on the tree mitigation plan and landscape plan, as appropriate: "NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY."RESPONSE: AcknowledgedComment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR APPROVAL: In Fort Collins, prairie dog colonies one (1) acre or greater in size are considered special habitat features (see LUC 5.1 Definitions). In addition, the Land Use Code requires that any prairie dogs inhabiting a site must be relocated or humanely eradicated prior to development activities [LUC 3.4.1(N)(6)]. Mitigation options are based from onsite assessment and include but are not limited to: trap and donate; active relocation; passive relocation; paymentinlieu. For approval, please provide a prairie dog removal plan.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR INFORMATION: Should this project proceed to construction, a burrowing owl survey, in accordance with Colorado Parks and Wildlife standards, shall be provided prior to any prairie dog removal and prior to issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP). The survey must be completed by a qualified wildlife biologist. Documentation shallk be in the form of a signed letter or memo from the wildlife biologist for the survey, and from the contractor(s) for the relocation/eradication (date, time, methods).RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/29/202006/29/2020: FOR INFORMATION: While the seed mix is a temporary cover crop, realize the NHBZ corridor of Boxelder Creek will have to be reseeded using a native mix and weed mitigation will likely have to be performed to ensure the success of seed establishment.RESPONSE: Any seeding within the NHBZ will match the approved FC seed mix.Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR INFORMATION: Environmental Planning does not support the channelization of Boxelder Creek. Please coordinate with Stormwater and Environmental Planning staff to discuss a strategy that works for everyone.RESPONSE: Boxelder Creek is not intended to be greatly altered with this plan. The top bank is proposed to be lowered in places to allow for decreased flow velocities and shear during flood events.Department: Water ConservationContact: Eric Olson, 9702216704, eolson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/01/202007/01/2020: 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 2216704 or eolson@fcgov.comRESPONSE: Acknowledged. Irrigation plans will be provided prior to building permit.Department: ParksContact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:If the project site includes roads that are designated to be arterial streets, please reference the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards and coordinate with the Parks Department for the design and management of streetscapes and other areas (including urban pedestrian areas) that will be turned over to Parks for management. Parks Department Planning staff can help with any questions you may have regarding these standards. Please contact Jill Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com), 9704162062, or Parks Planning Technician, Aaron Wagner (aawagner@fcgov.com) 9704168083, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest.RESPONSE: No roads are designed arterialComment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:This site has areas (Future Neighborhood Park, trails, and parkway) that will be turned over to the Parks Department for management. Please coordinate with the Parks Department for irrigation tap locations and the potential hand off of the irrigation in the future park, trails, and parkway. The Parks Department will need to review any taps/new irrigation that will be handed over to Parks for management.RESPONSE: No parks are proposed with this BDRComment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:Water allotments and water budgets will need to be provided for taps that are to be turned over to Parks. The Parks Department needs to approve any taps to be handed over to Parks.RESPONSE: No parks are proposed with this BDRComment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:If there are arterial streetscapes included in this project, please provide a streetscape project narrative per section 3.1.1. of the Fort Collins Streetscape Standards. Please include the narrative on the plan set for future reference.RESPONSE: No streets are designed Arterial with this BDRDepartment: ForestryContact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/29/20206/30/2020: FOR APPROVALIs tree impact anticipated with the proposed road construction? If so, please contact City Forestry (nsaha@fcgov.com) to schedule a site visit to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information. This should occur prior to the next round of submittals. Mature trees should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible.RESPONSE: The project team will reach out to Forestry to review any trees that need mitigation. Generally this site has very limited trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/30/20206/30/2020: FOR APPROVALAre parkways being proposed as part of this submittal? If so, please refer to LUCASS standards to determine minimum parkway width for various street classifications. However, we did want to note that the current minimum standards for local streets (6 feet: 5.5 not including the curb width) is often not adequate to sustain long term tree growth without potential root/infrastructure conflicts. Forestry would request that wider parkways are explored whenever possible to ensure that trees along streetscapes are set for up longterm success.RESPONSE: Parkways meet the approved street standard for this project.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/30/20206/30/2020: FOR APPROVALIs landscaping proposed for the streetscapes, roundabouts etc.? Will irrigation be available?If so, please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code 3.2.1 requirements. This should include the existing tree inventory, any proposed tree removals with their locations clearly noted and any proposed tree plantings (including species, size, quantity and method of transplant). The plans should also include the following City of Fort Collins notes: General Landscape NotesTree Protection Notes Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable. These notes are available from the City Planner or by following the link below and clicking on Standard Plan Set Notes: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.phpRequired tree sizes and method of transplant: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlapped Required mitigation tree sizes:Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlappedRESPONSE: Landscaping plans have been waived with this BDRComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/30/20206/30/2020: FOR APPROVALStreet tree requirement: Canopy shade trees should be planted at 3040’ spacing (LUC 3.2.1 (D)©) in the parkway.RESPONSE:Landscaping plans have been waived with this BDRComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/30/20206/30/2020: FOR APPROVALPlease adjust tree locations to provide adequate proper separation.Street Light/Tree Separation:Canopy shade tree: 40 feetOrnamental tree: 15 feetStop Sign/Tree Separation: Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs. Trees/vault separation: 10’ between electric vaults and street treesRESPONSE:Landscaping plans have been waived with this BDRComment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/30/20206/30/2020: INFORMATION ONLYIf applicable, please provide an “Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter” for City Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another onsite location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements.RESPONSE: No significant trees are proposed to be removed with this project. Department: Light And PowerContact: Cody Snowdon, 9704162306, csnowdon@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR INFORMATION:Light and Power currently has electric running down the existing frontage road. These facilities feed Northern Colorado Powersports to the north and will need to be maintained. If relocations are required, it will need to be done outside of normal business hours to avoid outages to this commercial customer.RESPONSE: AcknowledgedComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVAL:It does not appear that the plans included underground utility locates. Please show all underground facilities/lines on the plans.RESPONSE: Utility locates are shown on the plans.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Streetlights will be placed along all 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. Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found below:https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/ch15_2007.pdfRESPONSE: No landscaping is proposed with this project. Landscaping plans have been waived with this BDRComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVAL:If any existing electric infrastructure needs to be relocated or underground as part of this project, it will be at the expense of the developer and will need to be relocated within a dedicated easement or public rightofway. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. Please see redlines for some areas that may need to be relocated.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR INFORMATION:Rectangular vaults and system modifications will be required at the intersection of Prospect Road & Street B and at the roundabout. These system modifications will be at the expense of the developer. Please reach out to Light and Power to better understand these modifications.RESPONSE: Thank you. We will reach out to L&PComment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVAL:Electric infrastructure along Streets B, D and E will need to be designed and installed with this project.RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will provide CAD to L&P to aid in Light and Power’s design.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR APPROVAL:All crossing agreements/permits required for Light and Power to install infrastructure shall be provided by the Applicant.RESPONSE: No crossing agreements are anticipated to be required. L&P would need to inform us if crossings of the irrigation ditches are required.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR DCP:Light & Power will require AutoCAD files of the Site Plan, Utility Plans, and Landscape Plans prior to the Entitlement Process approval.RESPONSE: We will provide CADs to L&PComment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR INFORMATION:Development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project:http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/buildersanddevelopers/plantinvestmentdevelopmentfeesRESPONSE: Acknowledged.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/01/202006/30/2020: FOR INFORMATION:Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric services standards, and fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/buildersanddevelopers.RESPONSE: Acknowledged.Department: Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 9702216588, jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: Construction DrawingsComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTIONELEVATION:BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTIONELEVATION:PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM X.XX’.RESPONSE:This information has been providedComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:The Basis Of Bearings statement should match the Subdivision Plat.RESPONSE:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.RESPONSE: UpdatedComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Some of the easement descriptions shown look to be incorrect. They should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat.RESPONSE: Updated.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are line over text issues. See redlines.RESPONSE: Updated. Though we have a significant more amount of sheets than previously. Hopefully we found all issues.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are sheet numbering issues in some keymaps. See redlines.RESPONSE: Updated. Though we have a significant more amount of sheets than previously. Hopefully we found all issues.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are text over text issues. See redlines.RESPONSE: Updated. Though we have a significant more amount of sheets than previously. Hopefully we found all issues.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.RESPONSE:Updated. Though we have a significant more amount of sheets than previously. Hopefully we found all issues.Topic: PlatComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/30/202006/30/2020: 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: Updated. Responses are provided.