Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - FDP220014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 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/development review March 25, 2022 Sam Coutts Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Enclave at Redwood, PDP210004, Round Number 6 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 y our Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970-221-6695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Comment Responses FDP 10/19/2022: Response in red please contact: Sam Coutts with Ripley Design, Inc. Response in blue please contact: Rachel Patton with HKS Response in purple please contact: Jesse Dillon with Cedar Creek Response in orange please contact: Doug Heaton/Tina Ridgway with KTGY Response in green please contact: Aaron Posma with DHI 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! Ripley Response: Thank you. Page 2 of 22 Department: Planning Services Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/14/2022 FOR HEARING. - Modification of Standard for Connecting Walkway Please revise the request for Modification of Standards for the building orientation and connecting walkway standard to identify buildings 7 and 8 exceeding 350', not building 9. Building 31 meets the walkway spine standard if a more direct sidewalk is added from south door entrance to the wider path that parallels park. Buildings 37 and 39 that face Suniga need a connecting walkway to that street sidewalk to meet the walkway spine standard. See sheets L13, L29 that show a paved drive for it appears to be a manhole maintenance access drive towards Suniga, but a sidewalk connection from end of this drive to public sidewalk needs to be added. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022 FOR FINAL - Building AC Unit Screening For any building foundation ground mounted AC units and other visible utility services, please add a 3' screen wall to enclose these facilities. Ripley Response: Screening is addressed with landscape plantings. A detailed landscape plan has been developed and submitted with the first round final plan. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 03/21/2022 Ready for Hearing Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 02/11/2022: FOR FINAL: On sheet 27 of the utility plan, the north arrow is facing the wrong direction. This is not an instance where I am asking you to rotate the plan view -- I am indicating that the north arrow is not oriented correctly with the direction of north on the plan view. This needs to be fixed on the FDP utility plan. HKS Response: North arrows have been corrected throughout the plan set. 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING: Please see my redlines for changes that need to be made to the utility plans. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 02/11/2022 Page 3 of 22 02/11/2022: FOR FINAL: On the final plan roadway profiles, please refer to LCUASS Table 7-3 for vertical curve criteria. Note that one of the vertical curves in Steeley Drive does not meet the minimum K-value as it is currently designed. HKS Response: Vertical curves have been revised to meet minimum Kvalues for public streets. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 02/14/2022 02/14/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Engineering is ready for hearing. Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2022 03/21/2022: Waiting for FDP talks about Stockpiling lead me to believe that the erosion control was going to be submitted. Erosion Control materials will need to be accepted before stockpiling permits can be pulled. Will anticipate seeing that next round. HKS Response: Stockpiling permit was submitted & processed through. 02/14/2022: Waiting for FDP for Erosion Control Materials. 01/05/2022: 09/09/2021: 02/24/2021: Information Only: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets the criteria for a ne ed 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/erosion For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. HKS Response: Erosion Control Plans are included with this final submittal packet. For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. HKS Response: Erosion Control Escrow is included with this final submittal packet. Information only: Based upon the area of disturbance, State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before Construction Activities begin. For Final: Starting January 1st, 2020 fees will be changing, and the City will be collecting fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. The fees are based off; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based upon the materials submitted we are assuming 230 number of lots, 28 acres of disturbance, Page 4 of 22 4.5 number of years from demo to complete the installation/construction and an additional 3 years till full vegetative stabilization. We could not make any assumptions at this time for the LID and WQ, each porous pavers will be $365.00, each bioretention $315.00, each extended detention basins $250.00, and each underground treatment will be $415.00. Which roughly estimates an Erosion Control Fee of $10,932.84 and Stormwater LID/WQ Inspections to be $TBD . Please respond to this comment with any changes to these estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. DHI Response: Acknowledged. HKS Response: Acknowledged. Information Only: Please take added precautions near the Waters of the US (Ditch adjacent) and please plan accordingly to high ground water where Concrete washouts may need liners and dewatering permits should be looked into for any major subgrade work. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 03/24/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Landscape Plan Comments See updated redlines. -Redlines should be addressed for FDP round 1. Ripley Response: Redlines have been addressed and responses are submitted with this proposal. 11/09/2021: 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: Please see update redlines for separation issues. 03/02/2021: 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 01/26/2022: FOR FINAL: Thank you for making the recent grading updates to Pond 1. For Final Plan, please continue to increase the landscaping aesthetic of this pond. Ripley Response: Landscape design has been updated around the ponds. The intent for the planting plan is help break up the planting into informal groupings and help accentuate the naturalized slopes. 01/11/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: (addressed) 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. Page 5 of 22 - *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: (addressed) 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: (addressed) 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 01/14/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Based on the 1/13/21 email. I understand this to be a typo. Thank you for the clarification. Please update the report for FDP Round 1. HKS Response: Report updated. 01/11/2022: 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: *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: 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. 03/02/2021: 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 Page 6 of 22 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. HKS Response: A cutoff wall has been added between Lake Canal Ditch and the site. 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 03/22/2022: FOR FINAL - UPDATED: Based on recent discussions, the construction of the A3 line will most likely be needed with this project. See included information about the A3 line. HKS Response: After having a few conversations about the NECCO A3 line, we have profiled the existing line and proposed a new line to link the drainage of the Old Town North development to the NECCO sys tem. 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: 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 Page 7 of 22 accessible by a truck. - Underdrain for each system - Surface overflow identified for each underground system. HKS Response: Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS) and the city had email co nversations on 9/2/2022 that showed the ADS system can be maintained in the current state. A maintenance path has been added near the inspection ports, and a section about maintenance of the system has been added to the drainage report narrative. 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. HKS Response: ADS has cleared up the question of functionality and maintenance in emails that took place on 9/2/2022. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 11/09/2021: FOR FINAL: Maintenance access paths are needed for all detention ponds to provided access to the outlet structures. This should be min 10 -ft wide and 10% max slope. HKS Response: Maintenance paths have been provided for all storm storage facilities where necessary. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Comments on stormwater quality calculations: - You will need to provide the extended detention calculations and delineations. - See redlines for comments on water quality and LID calculations. HKS Response: Extended detention calculations have been provided in the drainage report. 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. HKS Response: Water quality systems have been provided a bypass weir for flows that exceed the WQCV. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 01/14/2022 01/14/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: The final design of the Redwood Pond should be coordinated with Stormwater Development Review and Stormwater Master Planning (Dan Evans, daevans@fcgov.com). Specifically, the following items will need to be designed: - WQ outlet structure - Forebays at all inlets - Bank protection on northern slope where Conifer overtops. - Maintenance access to outlet structure, inlet structures, and pond bottom. This should be a 15-ft wide path no steeper than 10%. - Landscape irrigation system may be needed. Page 8 of 22 *We should meet before FDP round 1 to start discussing developer repay item s and agreements. HKS Response: A forebay has been provided at the pipe run that connects to the pond. Bank protection will be provided for the emergency spillway on the north side. Maintenance access paths have been provided for all ponds. Conversations with Dan Evans are pending. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 01/26/2022 01/26/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: SWMM Modeling: - The “Enclave_Pond4” appears to represent the rain garden at the NW corner of the site. If this rain garden is for water quality and LID only, then it should be excluded from the SWMM model. We do not want the LID facilities accounted for in the 100-yr storm attenuation. This can be addressed for the FDP round 1 submittal. - The Pond 1 invert in the model should be adjusted to match the design plans. HKS Response: The water quality system has been removed from the SWMM model. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 01/26/2022 01/26/2022: Stormwater is ready for Hearing! Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 03/22/2022 03/22/2022: BEFORE FINAL PLAN: Before submitting for FDP please schedule a meeting with Stormwater to discuss the master planning items related to the NECCO drainage system. **In addition to the A2 Line (required) and the Redwood Pond (developer option), there has been recent discussion of the need to get the A3 Line constructed now instead of later. This storm line crosses through the development parcel south of Suniga and would be subject to a developer repay after construction. HKS Response: The NECCO A3 Line design has been discussed and incorporated into the plan set. The applicant will continue working with the City on design. Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 03/22/2022 03/22/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: The proposed pedestrian path along the southeast side of the site will need to be widened to 15-feet, between Coalmer Road and the northeast corner of the site, to accommodate maintenance access to public storm and sanitary sewer manholes. HKS Response: Proposed pedestrian path is 15’ wide to accommodate maintenance access. Ripley Response: Pedestrian path has been widened to 15’. A detached gravel shoulde r is still shown with small pedestrian seating nodes spaced at intermittent intervals. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 03/24/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Page 9 of 22 Landscape Plan Comments - See updated redlines. Comments should be addressed for FDP round 1. Ripley Response: Redlines have been addressed, see updated landscape plans with the formal submittal. 11/09/2021: 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: 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: 17 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL – UPDATED – I have received the water service sizing memo, but have not had time to review it yet. HKS Response: Comment Noted. Thanks. 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 10 of 22 Ripley Response: Preliminary irrigation plans are submitted with this first round FDP. 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). HKS Response: Shut off valves are at the connection points of all fire lines. 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. HKS Response: Updated wastewater utility report will be provided. 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. HKS Response: Sanitary Sewer Line D has been revised to provide minimum slopes and drops. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022 02/15/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Follow up on Comment 15 – RE: Water Services The water service routing has improved over the past several submittals. At this point I think the water service configurations are at a point where this can go to Hearing – with the clear understanding that we would like to see furthe r refinement made during FDP. See redlines for more information. HKS Response: Please refer to response to comments on the redlines. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022 03/22/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please see the included redlines for more comments related to final plan. Please address these redlines with the FDP Round 1 submittal. HKS Response: Please refer to response to comments on the redlines. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 03/22/2022 03/22/2022: BEFORE FINAL PLAN: Before the FDP submittal, please contact Utilities to hold a Utility coordination meeting. There are items related to electric, stormwater, and water/ wastewater that could use more detailed discussion related to final plan level of detail. HKS Response: Meetings have been had prior to the FDP submittal, and the applicant will continue working with the City. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 11 of 22 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 03/21/2022: Updated for Final - Unresolved: No responses from applicant in the response letter and no coordination on these issues from applicant. HKS Response: The applicant has continued to work with Light and Power to address concerns. 02/15/2022: Updated For Final - Unresolved: It is unusual to have a mix of Single phase and -three phase- feeding the units. Also, the addition of transformers to feed the site, for instance, two vault transformers right next to each other, is probably not necessary and not a very efficient design. As for your ask, coordination of this can take place during FDP but keep in mind that due to separation and clearance requirements, Site Plan, Landscape and other Utility adjustments may be necessary to accommodate the electric facilities. 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 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 03/21/2022: Updated for Final - Unresolved: No responses from applicant in the response letter and no coordination on these issues from applicant. 02/15/2022: Updated For Final - Unresolved: The Utility Plan is showing a mix of single-phase vault transformers, pad mount transformers, and three -phase transformers which is unusual for this kind of development. Major coordination is needed on the electrical layout, transformer types, number of transformers, Page 12 of 22 additional vault locations for three-phase, and streetlighting. At your ask, I will change this to "For Final" with the condition that changes may be necessary to the Site plan, Utilities, and Landscape plan once the electric is figured out. 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. HKS Response: Transformer size, type and location have been coordinated, and updated on plans. Street light locations will st ill need to be determined. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021 03/21/2022: Updated for Final Unresolved-: No responses from applicant in the response letter and no coordination on these issues from applicant. DHI Response: Transformer size, type and locations have been coordinated and updated one line diagram along with C1 Forms for each transformer submitted as part of FDP first submittal. 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 effect 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 below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022 03/21/2022: Updated for Final -Unresolved: No responses from applicant in the response letter and no coordination on these issues from applicant. DHI Response: Transformer size, type and locations have been coordinated and updated one line diagram along with C1 Forms for each transformer submitted as part of FDP first submittal. 02/15/2022: Updated For Final Unresolved-: Changing this to "For Final" with the condition that all transformers will be labeled and C-1 forms will reflect the appropriate transformer once the electric layout and transformer locations are coordinated. Page 13 of 22 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. DHI Response: Acknowledged. Ripley Response: Acknowledged. We will reach out to begin coordination for this language section. 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. Cedar Creek Response: A Burrowing Owl Memo is submitted a s part of this application. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – RESTORATION PLAN (REPEAT): 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, the existing wetland adjacent to Redwood Pond, and Evergreen Pond. Standard matters need to be addressed: appropriate soil handling and stockpiling, weed mana gement before, during, and after construction, soil amendments (if needed), seeding practices, seed mixes, etc. Additionally, with Redwood Pond, a substantial establishment plan Page 14 of 22 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. Cedar Creek Response: The most recent site plan does not propose any significant change in the function of the existing Redwood pond/NHBZ area habitat. Current water/moisture levels, elevations and length of inundation would be expected to be unchanged after construction. A detailed planting plan for Redwood pond has been developed and includes tree locat ions, seed mixes, and any flow control mechanism for the site. Soil handling, seeding and monitoring schedule for the NHBZ are addressed in the NH BZ restoration plan. Evergreen pond is not expected to be impacted by construction and is located off site. It is not within the scope of the site restoration plan. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL (REPEAT): 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. Ripley Response: Shrubs have been added over the underground storage. Although it is possible, we have limited to quantity of shrubs in the event that it needs to be accessed for maintenance. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS (REPEAT): Additional detail will be necessary to ensure a feasible plan exists to prevent altering hydrology for the underground chambers depicted in the NHBZ. HKS Response: Design on all underground chambers is ongoing. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022 02/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Water Use Table calculations are incorrect - the 'Very Low' category was not included in the calculations. Total annual water use should be 8,419,405 gallons which translates to 11.4003 gallons/sf. Ripley Response: The water use calculation have been updated to included to show the area identified as ‘very low' water use. This area is mainly within the natural habitat buffer zone where it will only be temporarily irrigated to establish. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 03/21/2022 03/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: the proposed NHBZ area on the Landscape Plan reads 263,071 sf while the NHBZ area on the Site Plan reads 264,816 sf. Please rectify. Both areas satisfy the performance standard for P&Z hearing; this can be addressed for Final Approval. Ripley Response: Numbers have been updated on the site plan to reflect the same number on the landscape plans. Department: Forestry Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022 02/14/22: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL -UNRESOLVED Page 15 of 22 01/11/22: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL Now that there are tree removals proposed, please submit an “Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter” for City Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter with specific details of the reasons for removal. For example, tree X removed due t grading; grading proposed to enhance storm water flow in this section of the development. 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 on -site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. Ripley Response: A tree removal feasibly letter has been provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022 02/14/22: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL - UNRESOLVED 01/12/2022: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL Of the 13 City trees that are proposed for removal in the storm detention area, please consider transplanting the 10 trees that are small enough to move (trees 31 – 40). If transplanted onsite, they would not have to be mitigated for. Ripley Response: We appreciate the consideration and as a team we took this into consideration. Unfortunately, with the exten ds of the site improvements it will be very difficult to time the transplant of the tree with the establishment of finish grade wit hout compromising the health of the trees. 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'. Ripley Response: Note updated prior to hearing 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 Page 16 of 22 recreational facilities from flooding and posing safety issues for park users. Ripley Response: Comment addressed prior to hearing. Department: Park Planning Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021 01/13/22: FOR FINAL PLANS 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. : HKS Response: Trail alignment at both northeast and southwest have been revised as discussed in previous meetings between City and Applicant. 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 01/13/22: FOR FINAL PLANS 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, Environmental Services, and Utilities to discuss constraints and options. HKS Response: Manholes removed from Regional Trail as discussed in previous meetings. 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 01/13/22: FOR FINAL PLANS Park Planning and Development must approve the trail alignment and design. Final alignment, trail width, and trail section shall be coordinated with utilities and environmental setbacks. Page 17 of 22 Ripley Response: A final trail alignment has been provided for approval. See updated plan set. 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. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021 01/11/22: FOR FINAL PLANS The applicant will develop a centerline profile and cross sections - for the trail as part of final plans. HKS Response: Noted. 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. Ripley Response: Comment Addressed prior to hearing. 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’). 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 Page 18 of 22 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. HKS Response: Signage & Striping Plan has been added to set, showing fire lane sign locations. 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 bui ldings facing greenspace that are only accessible by an alley. KTGY Response: We will put 2 addresses on each unit (1 on front elevation and 1 on rear elevation next to garage door). There will be a monument sign near the amenity center. 11/01/2021: The note added tot he plan indicates 1/8 inch numerals. Please correct to 8 inch numerals. 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 KTGY Response: Fire rated details will be added to the architectural plans for the case of when the properties are closer than 20’. From Site base dated 9/30, Buildings 12&11, 9&10, 23&26, 22&25, 24&27, 36&38 will need to have fire rated exterior walls Page 19 of 22 between those buildings. HKS Response: Some buildings have been spaced further apart to reach the 20’ minimum. Buildings that could not be spaced more than 20’ will be fire rated. 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). KTGY Response: NFPA 13R sprinkler system in all multifamily units (8 plex separated (4 units each side) by a 2 hour fire barrier wall) 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. KTGY Response: There are 2 Van accessible garages and 7 accessible garages in the residences. HKS Response: Noted. Accessible spaces are placed 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. HKS Response: Accessible parking provided in garages where required. KTGY Response: Per Russell Hovland; EV ready is 10% EVSE, 20%EV Ready, 40% Capable has been provided 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 presubmitt al- meeting. KTGY Response: See architectural site plan for dispersal of accessibility units for residences. 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. KTGY Response: DHIC to acquire separate permits for Maintenace garage and amenity building and pool area. 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. KTGY Response: There are no units located within the criteria mentioned above. Page 20 of 22 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 KTGY Response: DHIC to provide a licensed commercial general contractor. 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. Ripley Response: Proposed street and alley names have been updated on the site and landscape pl ans. DHI Response: Proposed Street and Alley names submitted as part of FDP first submittal. 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. Ripley Response: Proposed street and alley names have been updated on the site and landscape plans. DHI Response: Proposed Street and Alley names submitted as part of FDP first submittal. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021 03/21/2022: 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 03/21/2022: 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 Ripley Response: Redlines have been addressed and submitted as responses with this submittal. HKS Response: Please refer to redlined document for response to comments. 02/10/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: A review was started, but we found that many redlines were not addressed, so we will do a full review next round. Please see the 1/11/2022 redlines & make all changes prior to your next submittal. 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 Page 21 of 22 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. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/2021 LAKE CANAL - MELISSA BUICK melissahbuick@gmail.com 02/11/2022: UPDATED FOR HEARING: The Board of Directors of the Lake Canal Company find the current proposal by DHI Communities to run a sanitary sewer line within the ditch easement as shown on the plans unacceptable. Lake Canal Company is certainly willing to continue to work toward a perpendicular crossing of the ditch for this sewer line. DHI Response: Sanitary sewer line has been coordinated and routing revised per Lake Canal Company perpendicular crossing. 01/25/2022: UPDATED FOR HEARING: Good afternoon, Gentlemen, the Board of Directors of the Lake Canal Company reviewed the attached plans and have the following comments: The Board would entertain a request for a perpendicular crossing of the ditch for the sanitary sewer line, but not having it run within the ditch easement. It appears this crossing could be included in or near the crossing for the bike path. The ditch easement for the Lake Canal is 50 from the centerline of the ditch, or 50 feet on each side of the ditch, which is not what is shown on the plans. There is also a ditch access road along the ditch that will need to remain open and unobstructed. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information at this time. 11/09/2021: FOR HEARING: Lake Canal's Easement is 50 feet from the centerline of the ditch; any crossing or encroachment of the ditch or ditch easement will requ ire 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 Page 22 of 22 crossings involved with this project so they may be addressed.