Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - FDP220014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (2) Page 1 of 29 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview November 21, 2022 Klara Rossouw Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Enclave at Redwood, FDP220014, Round Number 1 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: Ripley Design HKS Cedar Creek DHI Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Ripley Design Response: Thanks, Todd! Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. Page 2 of 29 When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Comments requiring action should NOT have a response such as noted or acknowledged. You will need to provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of why comments have not been addressed [when applicable]. Ripley Design Response: Comment letter populated and submitted with this round of review. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names. Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization Study. Reach out to me if you would like a list of suggested names. *Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs. All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers. Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from the PDF’s. AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set, and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and newer) in the command line and enter "0". Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti Cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-AutoCAD.html Ripley Design Response: Noted, thank you. HKS Response: Noted, plans will be named following standards, and pdf’s will be optimized. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 Once your project has been formally reviewed by the City and you have received comments, please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the expiration of your project. Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday a t noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are preparing to resubmit your plans, please notify me with an expected submittal date with as much advanced notice as possible. Ripley Design Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee of $3,000.00. Page 3 of 29 Ripley Design Response: Acknowledged. Thanks. Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 11/16/2022: FOR HEARING: Staff understands the opposition to the Lupine street connection by existing residents. A recommendation to the P&Z Commission would have to be based on standards, with consideration of any policy basis that underlies the standards. The Comprehensive Plan and code standards have a pervasive theme of building up an interconnected pattern of streets and blocks that "knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them". At the meeting I showed how trips generated by the 70 homes along Patton alley can only go south, to Downtown and points beyond, by deviating Out -of -direction north to the Lupine connection. It looks like a couple of buildings could readily trade places, and allow for Patton to connect to Bergen for a more direct route. This assumes that Bergen is not RIRO at Redwood. Understood that it's not a large number of trips. But, this looks like a more pertinent conversation than gates on Lupine. Does anyone disagree? Ripley Design Response: Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2022 11/18/2022: Re gates on Lupine, the plan sheets say to "See Sheet EX-1". Where is that sheet? Thanks Ripley Design Response Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The utility plan appears to be missing the LCUASS Standard Notes. Please add the Standard Notes, available in Appendix E of LCUASS at https://www.larimer.gov/engineering/standards-and-guides/urban-area-street-standards HKS Response: LCUASS Standard Notes have been added to notes sheet. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: You must provide left and right flowline profiles for all public streets. Currently, the utility plan only shows centerline profiles. Please include the flowline design in the next submittal. HKS Response: Left and right flowline profiles added for all public streets. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: You must provide box culvert designs for the crossings of Lupine Drive and Steeley Drive across the Lake Canal Ditch. Please include the box culvert designs with the next submittal, and keep in mind that the structural review may require additional review time. Page 4 of 29 HKS Response: Lake Canal box culverts are sized using Hydraflow Express and plan and profile sheets of these cuvlert are included in the plan set. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Throughout the grading plan sheets, please label all existing and proposed contour lines in at least one location on each sheet. Right now, there are no labels to indicate the existing and proposed grading elevations. HKS Response: Ex and proposed contours labeled on grading sheets. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Thank you for showing the public street typical section on the cover sheet of the utility plan. Please add a note to clarify that this is the local connector street section. HKS Response: Public street has been called out as a local connector. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please be mindful of the minimum separation between fire hydrants and underground electric lines. Many of the proposed fire hydrants do not appear to meet the minimum separation from electric lines. City Light and Power requires a minimum separation of 3 feet, although Water Utilities might require additional separation. HKS Response: 3’ separation has been provided between electric and hydrants. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On Sheet 110 of the utility plan, there is a grade break from 1.50 to 3.79 percent. Why isn't this a vertical curve? Is this a raised crosswalk? HKS Response: Grading has been updated. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Bergen Parkway plan sheet should be labeled Sheet 113 of the utility plan, not Sheet 105. On this sheet, there appears to be a grade break at Station 8+56.91. Why is there a grade break here? HKS Response: Grading has been updated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 11/16/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Sheet 109 of the utility plan refers to Private Alleys G, H, and J. Do these alleys have official names? HKS Response: No, these small alleys do not have names. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 11/16/2022: INFORMATION: The utility plan submitted with FDP Round 1 does not contain final level- design information, so I was not able to complete a thorough review. Please submit Final -level design with Round 2, and I will complete a thorough review at that time. HKS Response: Final level design has been provided with round 2. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 11/16/2022: INFORMATION: In order to construct the box culverts for the public street crossings of Lake Canal, the developer and the City will need to enter into a Crossing Agreement Page 5 of 29 with the Lake Canal Company. This will be separate from and in addition to the Development Agreement for this project. Please coordinate with Lake Canal in anticipation of the Crossing Agreement. DHI Response: Acknowledged, DHI to submit crossing agreement applications and drawings with second FDP submittal. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 11/16/2022: INFORMATION: Thank you for submitting a Development Agreement Information form. We will be able to start drafting your Development Agreement (DA) after we have completed at least one round of review of your final-level- design. Since Round 1 did not contain final level- design, the earliest we can start drafting your DA will be during Round 3 of this FDP. However, there is no guarantee that we will be able to draft the DA during Round 3 if we determine during Round 2 that the design is not yet ready to be finalized. DHI Response: Acknowledged, repayment and development agreement coordination has begun with Matt Simpson and Ken Sampley, a round 3 draft would be ideal to proactively work on this in conjunction while in review. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Street name signs will need to be shown on the Signing and Striping sheets. Any Privately Maintained Streets will need to be signed with the Privately Maintained Street Name signs. Details are provided in the redlines folder. HKS Response: Street names have been added to signage and striping plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: At Bergen and Redwood, a stop sign, street name signs, and right turn only sign will need to be shown on the plans. A Keep Right sign and object marker may also need to be place in the median HKS Response: a stop sign and a street name sign has been added to signage and striping plan. The intersection of Bergen and Redwood is not a right turn only intersection. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: If the Alternative Compliance is accepted for the closure of Lupine to vehicular traffic additional signage may be needed. Will review following the outcome of the Major Amendment. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Please show stop signs on the landscape plans to ensure no trees are placed within 50 feet on the advance to stop signs. Ripley Response: Tree placement meets the minimum requirement. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Be sure to include the finalized and stamped copy of the Traffic Impact Study for this project with any final submittals. Any subsequent Traffic Memos should also be included with regard to the Major Amendment for the Page 6 of 29 Alternative Compliance. Ripley Design Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control Contact: Andrew Crecca, , acrecca@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: "Information Only: This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the erosion control requirements located in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion. This project was evaluated based upon the submittal requirements of FCSCM. Based upon the provided materials we were able to determine a total disturbed area. The project is within 50 ft of a sensitive area. Based upon the area of disturbance or this project is part of a larger common development, State permits for stormwater will be required should be pulled before Construction Activities begin. For Approval or Final Plan: Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets one of the other triggering criteria (sensitive area, steep slopes, or larger common development) that would require Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted. Please provide an erosion control plan for 'Final Plan or Approval Submittal'. This project disturbs 5 or more acres so erosion control phasing materials will need to be provided in the erosion control plans, reports and escrow. Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and Reports include phasing requirements (FCSCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5) Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 1 acre or is part of a larger common development that requires Erosion and Sediment Control Report to be submitted. Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal. Based upon the supplied materials, an Erosion Control Escro w Calculation will need to be provided. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal. HKS Response: Erosion control Plans, report, escrow, and phasing will be provided in this submittal. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Calculation sheet needs all BPM's from ESC Plan and quantities. Also Page 7 of 29 Disturbed Area needs to be the same as the ESC Plan per FCSCM Ch. 2 Sec. 6.7.5 HKS Response: All proposed BMPs have been added to calculation sheet and disturbed areas updated to match. Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Erosion Control Reports must be stamped by licensed PE for final acceptance per FCSCM Chap. 2 Sec. 6.1.4 HKS Response: Noted. Final Erosion Control Report will be stamped by a licensed PE . Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Title page missing required items (Owner, Developer, Contractor and EC Administrator contact info) per FCSCM Chap.2 Sec. 6.1.4.1 HKS Response: Required items have been added. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Please add items 5,9,and 14 in the Potential Pollution Sources and indicate if any potential sources of pollution are present on site per FCSCM Ch.2 Sec. 6.1.4.4 HKS Response: Potential pollution sources added. Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: please provide a pathway to the nearest receiving waters (From the outfall point(s) of the project and the flow path to Fossil Creek Reservoir or the Poudre River with directions and distances) per FCSCM Ch. 2 Sec. 6.1.4.3 HKS Response: Receiving waters are provided in the erosion control report. Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Indicate Soil perpetration and amendments in accordance with Municipal Code 12-123 as per FCSCM Ch.2 Sec. 6.1.4.9 HKS Response: Soil perpetration and amendments in accordance with Municipal Code have been added. Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval Please provide a discussion of sediment removal from all pipes, drainage ways and other stormwater structures. Describe how the sediment will be disposed of correctly before the last remaining temporary Control Measures are removed from the project and the project has achieved final stabilization per FCSCM Ch.2 Sec.6.1.4.9 HKS Response: Discussion on sediment removal and disposal per FCSCM has been added. Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Provide sequencing per FCSCM Ch 2 Sec. 6.1.3.2 HKS Response: Sequencing chart added to TESC Cover Sheet. TESC Plans divided into 4 phases. Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Plans and reports need to be stamped by a licensed PS per FCSCM Ch.2 Sec. 6.1.3 HKS Response: Plans and reports will be stamped by a licensed PS. Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Page 8 of 29 Please provide flow arrows for proposed construction including all curb and gutters marked with flow arrows per FCSCM Cg.2 Sec. 6.1.3.3 HKS Response: Flow arrows have been added on flowlines. Comment Number: 61 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: No EC measurer indicated along LOC containing SS Sewer service heading offsite east to Lemay ave. Please verify if excavation or disturbance will occur in this area. HKS Response: EC measure has been indicated offsite. Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Final Approval: Please provide details for LID (Underground Detention Systems) as well as erosion control notes for protecting LID's during instillation and construction HKS Response: Details for the LID systems are included in the revised plans. Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: For Information Only: Fees: The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5 -2 was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 0 lots, 29.66 acres of disturbance, 4.5 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 3.00 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $4,784.41 . Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. The Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the plans we identified 0 number of porous pavers, 0 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 0 number of extended detention basins, and 3 number of underground treatments, results in an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $ $1,245.00 . Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow HKS Response: Underground treatments are still proposed, we will notify the City if any modifications are necessary. DHI Response: Acknowledged, fee to be paid at time of erosion control review and permit release. Department: Stormwater Engineering Page 9 of 29 Contact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Begin General Comments. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: This submittal reflects lack of QA review and completeness. E xpect more comments on future submittals. You will be required to provide documentation of a thorough QAQC of site grading plans, utility plans, drainage design, and drainage calculations with the next submittal. The City’s review checklist is provided with the redlines, this must be filled out, signed by review engineer, and included with the next submittal. HKS Response: Noted. Review checklist will be signed and submitted with next review. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The drainage report redlines from PDP were not addressed. You will need to re-review and address the PDP redline comments (I have included them with FDP1 redline package). Please see the included “Drainage Report_Enclave at Redwood_PDP_Rd4_SW.pdf” . HKS Response: Drainage Report redlines from the PDP have been reviewed and addressed with this submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please review and ADDRESS the FDP round 1 drainage report redlines. I encourage you to contact me for a meeting to go over. HKS Response: Drainage Report redlines from the FDP Round 1 review have been re viewed and addressed with this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Major concerns on the FDP Round 1 submittal include: a. I am not clear if the project is proposing enough LID and wat er quality facilities are to meet City requirements. See LID comments for more information. b. The SWMM modeling was not refined to an FDP level analysis. - I am concerned there are errors in the model impervious values and in the detention release rates. As a result, I am not clear if the detention ponds are adequately sized. It was clearly documented in the PDP drainage that more detail would be needed in the stormwater model for FDP – specifically for the detention ponds. c. The drainage report still reads like a PDP drainage report and needs to be updated for FDP. d. Hydraulic pipe analysis and inlet design was not submitted. e. There are several profile conflicts that must be resolved. Vertical clearances less than 12-inchs will not be accepted. f. There are two locations where horizontal separation from the storm main is too small and is not acceptable. HKS Response: A. Project team has worked with the city to update and clarify LID / WQ design with intermediate reviews. City comments from these intermediate design meetings and reviews are reflected in the updated submittal. B. Both the existing and proposed SWMM have been revised to an FDP level analysis; and further refined based on intermediate design meetings and reviews, and these updates are reflected in the submittal. C. The report has been thoroughly reviewed to read as the Final Drainage Report. D. A stormCAD hydraulic analysis has been completed to design to storm sewers. Page 10 of 29 E. Vertical profile conflicts have been resolved and are shown in the updated plans. F. Vertical profile conflicts have been resolved and are shown in the updated plans. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: We will need to meet to discuss the developer repay process. HKS Response: Developer has meet with the city related to developer repay process. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Begin Plans Comments Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add a signature block for Lake Canal to the Utility Plans. The ditch company will be required to sign the Utility Plans before the City will approve. Please be working with them throughout the FDP process. HKS Response: Lake Canal block added to cover sheet of utility plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On the Detailed Grading Plans there is not enough detail provided to perform a thorough review. At minimum you will need to add the following to these plans: a. More slope and flow arrows. b. More spot elevations, especially at alley intersections and near stormwater inlets. c. Label high points (HP) and low points (LP) on the grading plans, especially along the flow lines. d. Show the storm drain pipes on the grading plans. e. In addition, I would like you to provide documentation of a thorough QAQC of site grading plans with the next submittal. (I have provided the City’s internal review checklist as a reference). HKS Response: a. More slope and flow arrows added. B. More spot elevations have been added. C. Hp/lp have been added. D. Storm pipes shown on grading plan E. Review checklist has been filled out. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On the detailed grading plans, label and show spillway locations for all ponds HKS Response: Spillway locations shown on all ponds. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Along the western edge of the site, west of Krick Drive, I do not see a drainage swale in the proposed grading. This project must provide for onsite conveyance of offsite flows that enter the development site. HKS Response: Grading updated to show drainage swale. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A private storm main may not be located within the exclusive sewer easement along Smiley Drive. There are other issues with the storm drain location here (including separation from the building and the adjacent sewer main), however we will simply not allow it in the exclusive sewer easement. See redlines for more information. HKS Response: Storm has been re-routed to not be located within exclusive sewer easement. Page 11 of 29 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In Steely Drive provide 10-feet (min.) clear separation between storm and sewer mains. There is only 5-feet provided with this submittal. HKS Response: Grading has been updated and storm has been removed from this area. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are many locations where detention pond outlet structures do not match the pond grading. Please review and revise. HKS Response: Pond grading and detention structures have been updated. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please review and label “Public” and “Private” storm drain ownership and maintenance as shown on the storm profile redlines. HKS Response: Stom sewer profiles have been updated to label Public and Private as noted in the redlines. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide storm profiles for all storm pipes including laterals. HKS Response: Storm profiles for all pipes are shown. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add “8-inch concrete” label to the eastern access path/ multiuse trail. HKS Response: access path called out as 8” concrete. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please clarify the detention pond maintenance path material for each pond. The details in the utility plan set show this as concrete, however other sheets and the landscape plan show different materials. HKS Response: Pond maintenance path will be 8” concrete. Ripley Response: Pond maintenance path is shown on the landscape sheets and landscape is adjusted to accommodate it. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Applicant’s response to PDP comments indicates a cutoff wall will be included between the Lake Canal and the underground stormwater detention system (Stormwater comment 22). However, I am not finding this on the plans. Please label this on the plans and provide a detail or clarify. HKS Response: Cutoff wall shown on storm main. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All ponds with less than 2% bottom slope require a concrete trickle pan or a n underdrain. These need to be designed and shown on the plans. HKS Response: Trickle channel has been added to all ponds with less than 2% bottom slope. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Stormtech isolator row comments: a. Stormtech isolator row facilities used to meet City LID requirements must have 2--3 inspection ports per row and maintenance ports (manholes) on each end. Page 12 of 29 b. Stormtech isolator rows may not include a “flow through” design. High flow diversion weirs must be included on the upstream end to route larger flows around the water quality chambers. c. Stormtech isolator rows may not be located in a public utility easement. Stormtech IR-3 must be relocated out of the public utility easement. d. All details to construct the isolator rows must be included with the Utility Plans e. All stormtech chambers must include an underdrain. f. Please see redlines of isolator row details for more comments. (Located both in drainage report and Utility Plans). HKS Response: A. Isolator Rows have inspection ports and Maintenace ports added in coordination with the city. B, Diversion structures have been added as appropriate to route major event flows around the WQ chambers. C. Isolator rows have been located outside of public easements. D. Details of Isolator Row Construction are included with the revised plans. E. Stormtech chambers will include underdrains as show on the revised plans. F. Relines on plans have been reviewed and addressed separately. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The design of the Redwood Pond will need to be revised. **We want to have a design meeting with you in December talk through design concepts that the City wants to see implemented in this regional stormwater pond.** Items include: a. The existing outlet needs to be removed. b. We will provide an outlet structure detail as an example for this project. c. The maintenance access paths need to be increased to 15-feet stabilized turf or crushed granite paths (supporting 40 tons) with 15 -ft (min.) radii at the entrances from the alley. 10% max slope. d. A concrete trickle channel may be required, or the pond bottom slope may be required to increase to 2%. We will discuss design concepts with you at the December meeting. e. An inflow spill weir and bank protection need to be added at the northwest corner of the pond at the location where storm flows overtop conifer. The top of bank elevation may need to be cut down. Please see the included 2009 plan set for more information. f. Add forebays to all inlet pipes, these will be custom designs and should be discussed further with us g. The wetland area may need to be relocated and incorporated in to the detention pond grading. h. Please meet with me to discuss further. HKS Response: Design team has coordinated with the city to discuss and resolve the various elements of the Redwood Pond design. A. Existing outfalls are to be removed, and this is noted in the plans. B. The Redwood Pond outlet structure has been designed as indicated in follow up correspondence with the city. C. Maintenance paths have been updated per comments. D. The main pond invert is revised to a 6:1 side-slope channel, per conversations with the City. E. Inflow spillway weir has been added to mimic the 2009 NECCO design intent. F. Forebays have been added to inlet pipes per comment. G. Per further city direction, the existing wetlands are to remain in place. H. Design team has coordinated with the city to discuss and resolve the various elements of the Redwood Pond design. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Page 13 of 29 A3 Storm Line and Tract A Comments: a. Provide a detailed Utility Plan sheet for Tract A. b. Provide a grading sheet for Tract A showing the existing topography more clearly. Confirm that this parcel has been ground surveyed, if not, this should be obtained as soon as possible. c. The A3 line may need to be extended further south to adequately intercept pipe and surface flows. Please combine the 2 storm profiles for this line so that the existing and proposed pipes can be seen on one profile. Updated hydraulics for the A3 storm main need to be confirmed. Please see redlines comments. d. Add area inlets to intercept surface flows from this parcel (this was communicated previously on correspondence with HKS over the past few months.) e. Grading may be necessary to direct surface flows into these inlets. (this was communicated previously on correspondence with HKS over the past few months.) f. The existing culvert pipe on the south end of Tract A should be removed and surface grading proposed to direct surface flows into a storm inlet on the A3 storm line. (this was communicated previously on correspondence with HKS over the past few months.) g. See redlines for more information HKS Response: A. A detailed plan and profile sheet has been added to describe improvements in Tract A. B. This parcel has been surveyed and existing contours shown on the plan. C. A3 line has been extended per comments and furter conversations with the City regarding this area. D. Area inlets have been added to intercept concentrated and low area flows from the parcel. E. Overlot graing is not proosed in this area. F. The existing culvert is label to be removed, and the grading revised to direct flows to the A3 line. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A 30-ft Drainage Easement must be provided along the A3 storm main, located in Tract A. HKS Response: Drainage easement added in Tract A. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add cutoff walls along the A2 storm line. We will provide a detail from a previous project to be added to the plans. HKS Response: cutoff walls have been added to A2 storm line. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Minimum allowable pipe cover in a public roadway is 2-feet. Storm Line C has a location where the cover is close to 1-foot. The design will need to be revised to provide the minimum cover. HKS Response: Grading and storm has been updated to provide 2’ of cover. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Label and delineate the 100-yr WSELs for all detention ponds on the grading plans and on the pond details. HKS Response: 100 yr WSELs have been added to pond plans. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Use the City of Fort Collins outlet structure standard detail. Page 14 of 29 HKS Response: The City standard outlet structure detail has been used. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of the Utility Plans for more comments. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Begin Drainage Report Comments Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The drainage report text needs to be updated for “Final Drainage Report” review. The text still reads like the preliminary drainage report. HKS Response: Drainage text updated. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The percent impervious values of 40-50% presented in the report seem low for this development. These values also do not match with the impervious values used for the water quality calculations, which were 70 -75%. These later values are closer to what I would expect for this development. Please review, clarify, and make calculations consistent. HKS Response: Rational method impervious calculations have been reviewed for consistency. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: LID and WQ – I cannot tell if the site is meeting the 75% LID treatment requirement. Please update the LID and Water Quality treatment map and discuss with me before submitting for FDP round 2 review. HKS Response: The LID and water quality maps have been updated to show the compliance with the &%% criteria and discussed with the city. All updates are included in the resubmittal documents. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Your PDP comment response- indicates the intention to make the northwestern water quality system a “forebay.” I am not sure if this meets “standard” or LID water quality requirements. For ‘standard’ water quality, this would need to be a 40-hr extended detention pond and not a forebay. However, beyond this, the drainage report appears to be counting this area to meet LID treatment requirements (75%). Please review and contact me to discuss your approach forwards BEFORE submitting for FDP round 2 review. HKS Response: The terminology has been clarified betwee n documents to correctly label this facility as an LID Rain Garden. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: I could not find water quality sizing calculations for “IR-2” pond? Please clarify what is happening here and provide calculations and design for this water quality facility. HKS Response: Sizing calculations have been included for all facilities with the revised report. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide water quality outlet sizing calculations. HKS Response: Per discussions with the City regarding the WQ design, this element will be finalized subsequent to the DFP rou nd 2 submittal. Page 15 of 29 Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide detention outlet sizing calculations and rating curves. Or use physical SWMM elements and describe in report. HKS Response: Physical SWMM elements have been used to size the outlets in the revised drainage report. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Pipe hydraulic analysis and calculations were not included. These must be included in the next submittal. Per criteria, pipe systems must carry at minimum the 2-yr storm. However, the street capacity and cross flow criteria must be met for 100-yr conveyance. Refer to the Streets, Inlets & Conveyance chapter of the FCSCM for more information. Please discuss the assumptions and results of this analysis in the drainage report body. HKS Response: StormCAD pipe hydraulic analysis is included with this submittal meeting FCSCM street and inlet criteria. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Inlet sizing calculations and street capacity calculations are not included and must be provided with the next submittal. For all sumped inlet locations, the overtopping flow path must be identified on the plans and freeboard calculated to adjacent structures. HKS Response: Inlet sizing calculation that include determination of street capacity are included with the submittal. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The peak allowable detention release rates appear to be calculated incorrectly. The maximum release rate is 0.2 cfs/acre in this watershed. Please review your design and update the SWMM modeling and pond sizing HKS Response: All calculations have been updated to show and adhere to the 0.2cfs/acre release rate criteria. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide spillway sizing calculations for all spillways. Refer to requirements in the FCSCM, Ch 8, Section 3.5. Also please note the following: a. The overflow spill location shown for Pond 3 does not match the grading on the plans. b. Please show in more detail how the overflow spills from the Redwood Pond will be conveyed into the existing Redwood Channel. HKS Response: Spillway sizing calculations and plan details are included with the revised plans. A. Grading at Pond 3 is updated to correctly show spill location. B. Additional detail has been shown at the Redwood Pond outlet to the channel Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See drainage report redlines for more comments. You will need to provide a response to these redlines. HKS Response: Drainage report redlines have been reviewed and addresses Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Begin SWMM Modeling Comments. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Modeling A2 Line - Please confirm if the SWMM model was updated to reflect Page 16 of 29 the as designed elevations and lengths of the proposed A2 line. -If not, please make these updates. HKS Response: The A2 line is updated in the SWMM to correlate to the design elevations and lengths. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Modeling A3 line Comments: a. Add the A3 line to the SWMM model and add detail to the model for each A3 line manhole and each pipe (from Redwood East to Necco main). b. Adjust the SWMM model to reflect proposed hydrologic conditions for the A3. See attached images for more information. c. Update the hydraulics and confirm sizing of the A3 HKS Response: A. The A3 line detail has been added to the SWMM. B. The SWMM has been updated to reflect the proposed hydrologic conditions. C. The SWMM has been updated to confirm the hydraulics and sizing of line A3. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The subbasin naming convention needs to be cleaned up for clarity. Do not change the original numbering of the subbasins (such as 113_2), however adding suffix or prefixes is fine. See included image for more information. I think this is a repeat comment from PDP. HKS Response: The SWMM basin naming convention has been updated per comment. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The proposed condition SWMM model appears to be missing approx. 1.3 acres from the existing condition model. The total area should not be changing in the hydrology model. Please review and revise or explain. HKS Response: Several discrepancies between the areas in the SWMM model and actual field surveyed areas were discovered in the analysis. HKS has worked with the City update the existing conditions model to account for the discrepancies. A map detailing the areas shifted along the project perimeter is included with the submittal. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The SWMM imperviousness values appear low. For the FDP model you will need to perform provide direct imperviousness calculations from plans for each SWMM subbasin. Include documentation in the drainage report showing the imperviousness calculations. HKS Response: Detailed Imperviousness calculations are verified and included in the report. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Pond Modeling Comments: 1. **The peak allowable detention release rates appear to be calculated incorrectly. The maximum release rate is 0.2 cfs/acre in this watershed. This should be calculated on a pond-by-pond basis. Please review your design and update the SWMM modeling and pond sizing. b. The detention pond outlets are modeled incorrectly. For PDP it was allowed to simply model pond outlets as conduits with a max flow value set. However, Page 17 of 29 for final models the detention outlets need to be modeled using an accurate rating curve or physical SWMM orifice or weir set in the model. The pond outlets need to be revised to match the design. c. Pond 3 has a max depth set that is lower than the rating curve depth HKS Response: 1. Peak release rates from each pond have been calculated to be 0.2cfs/acre. B. Peak release rates from each pond have been modeled in SWMM with orifice outlet links. C. Pond 3 max depth has been updated to the top of the pond. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 11/17/2022 11/17/2022: Other comments: Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 11/17/2022 11/17/2022: FOR INFORMATION: - NECCO Fees will apply to this development. This site is located in subbasins 113, 313, and 413. Fees for 113 and 313 (“yellow sub-basins”) are $10,170 per acre (2019 NECCO fee update). Fees for 413 (blue subbasin) are $44,859 per acre. (2019 NECCO fee update). The fees go toward the City’s construction of the NECCO regional stormwater management and outfall system. These fees are in addition to the base stormwater developments fees. - The 2022 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $10,109/acre ($0.23207/ sq. ft.) of new impervious area over 350 square feet. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. This fee is to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970) 416 -4252 or UtilityFees@fcgov.com for questions on fees. Monthly fees - http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/rates DHI Response: Acknowledged, fee to be paid at time of Building Department permit. Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 11/17/2022 11/17/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The sidewalk ramps and flares for the access path/ trail on the east side of the site will need to be increased to 20-feet to accommodate vactor trucks turning onto the maintenance path from the narrow street sections. HKS Response: Ramps and flares have been updated to 20’. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 11/17/2022 11/17/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Drainage Report - Use the FCSCM rainfall for drainage calcs. Do NOT use NOAA or CCD values! HKS Response: FCSCM rainfall values are used for the analysis. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: This submittal reflects lack of QA review and completeness. Expect more Page 18 of 29 comments on future submittals. You will be required to provide documentation of a thorough QAQC of the utility plans with the next submittal. The City’s review checklist is provided with the redlines, this must be filled out, signed by review engineer, and included with the next submittal. HKS Response: The city’s QA/QC checklist has been reviewed and provided with the resubmittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Begin Water Comments: Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Due to the amount of utility complexity on this site, profiling of all water mains will be required. Please provide this with the next submittal. Please show all sewer service crossings of the water mains. HKS Response: Profile of all water mains has been provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Along Steely Drive, there are parallel water and sewer mains, due to the shallow sewer, the water and sewer mains are at approximately the same elevation. This may set up sewer service conflict problems. Please confirm that all services, especially the sewer services, will not have vertical conflicts. HKS Response: Sewer and water crossings have been checked for conflicts. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The 6-inch dead-end water main in Coutts Drive is located under a concrete curb or valley pan. The City requires 5-ft minimum separation from a curb to a water main. The design in this alley will need to be revised to provide separation. HKS Response: This portion of the alley has been redesigned to provide 5’ from curb to water main. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please try to reduce the amount of water lowerings, the City strongly prefers not have lowerings. Use the following guidelines to reduce proposed water lowerings. a. The water main should be above sewer and storm at crossings as much as possible b. Decrease the required minimum vertical separation to 12-inchs (in cases where 18 inches cannot be met) c. Order of preference: 1) deflect water over the storm or sewer. 2) use fittings to raise water over storm or sewer. 3) last choice is to lower water. d. Use 3.5feet as minimum cover over water main if necessary. -(please indicate these locations with a hatch on the plans) e. Add a shaded hatch on the plans to show lowered sections f. See redlines for more comments on lowerings. HKS Response: Water main designed to have minimal lowerings and in the order of preference given with 3.5’ of minimum cover. Shaded hatch added to sections of lowered main on plan views. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: For all water lowerings, we do not want a casing pipe installed around the water main. Instead, we have a trail “flow fill crossing” detail that we have been trying out on several projects. Please CAD and include on the plans the “flow fill crossing detail” provided with the redlines. This detail needs to be followed for all crossings where a water main is under an RCP storm or less than 18 -inches below sewer. Please add to the plans a reference to this detail for each location where a water main is under storm or sewer. Page 19 of 29 HKS Response: Flow fill crossing detail added to cad and included with the water details. Note to encase water removed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Water crossing comments: a. Please note and label on the plans: “In all cases where water is BELOW sewer or storm, the joints of the sewer or storm shall be wrapped with butyl adhesive tape or encased within 10-feet of the water main. In all cases where water is less than 18-inches ABOVE the sewer or storm, the joints of the sewer or storm shall be wrapped with butyl adhesive tape within 10-feet of the water main.” b.Service connections, valves, and tees are not allowed within a lowered section. Please revise the plans. HKS Response: Note added to water plans and connections to lowered sections of pipe removed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The City requires use of pipe restraint instead of thrust blocks for most situations. Please provide a table of pipe restraint lengths on the utility plans. These should be backed up with calculations. Thrust blocks should be used on fire hydrants and at connections to the existing water system. Revise and update the plans accordingly. HKS Response: Table of pipe restraints has been added to the utility plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In all cases the electric line must jog behind the fire hydrant. The electric needs to provide 3-ft min (6-ft preferable) from the fire hydrant. HKS Response: Electric updated to be 3’ min from hydrants. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: 30-inchs of clear separation must be provided around all fire hydrants, including separation from curb and sidewalk. Basically, there should be 3 -feet from center of fire hydrant to adjacent curbs, sidewalk ramps, and trees. HKS Response: Hydrant locations updated. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Label water service sizes on the Water Plan sheets. HKS Response: Water service tap sizes added to water plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: I have not been able to review the Water and Wastewater Report or the Water Sizing Calculations (submitted during PDP). I will try to get to this after Thanksgiving Holiday and will respond directly to with any comments on these to you. * Can you confirm if the water service sizing calculations changed from PDP? If so, please submit updated calculations with the 2nd FDP submittal. HKS Response: Water service sizing has not changed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Irrigation Plan Comments: Page 20 of 29 a.We need to discuss how the Redwood Pond parcel will be irrigated, both for temporary stabilization and also for permanent irrigation. Look for an updated comment here in the future. b.There is a private irrigation line crossing onto the City’s Redwood Pond parcel, this needs to be relocated to the developer’s property. c.The irrigation plan shows an irrigation line extending across Suniga Road, south to Tract A. It should be discussed if this is necessary, and if so, how it should be done. A 2nd irrigation tap may be required. Aqua Engineering Response: a. Noted. Per meeting on 1/19, Matt with Fort Collins will begin to determine water source and temporary/permanent irrigation solution for native establishment. b. Mainline has been adjusted onto developer’s property. c. Per meeting on 1/19, the irrigation line will continue to be designed as shown. Confirmed by email coordination from Sophie Buckingham, “based on the small size of the 4” irrigation line and adjacent 2” wire sleeve, this is small enough that it will not trigger our major encroachment permit. The contractor will just need to get an excavation permit before starting work, and no long-term permitting will be needed. After the line is installed, it will need to be registered with 811 so that it will show up on a locate ticket.” Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: Begin Sewer Comments: Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Repeat comment from PDP: Sanitary Sewer Main D needs to match crowns with the existing sewer main in Redwood Street. You may reduce slope in the upstream pipes (2-3 sections) and increase diameter to 10-inchs. (min slope 0.28%). HKS Response: Crown adjusted to match that of existing and 2 upstream segments upsized to 10” and lowered to a slope of 0.28%. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please strongly consider increasing sewer Line D and E to 10-inch and reducing slope from 0.40% to 0.28%. This will cause Lines D and E to be deeper. Please investigate if this will reduce the number of lowerings and conflicts with other utilities. HKS Response: Sewer Line D upsized to 10” and slope decreased to 0.28% from point of connection to the existing system to where Sewer Line E connects to Sewer Line D at Manhole D8. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In Steely Drive provide 10-feet (min.) clear separation between storm and sewer. HKS Response: Storm sewer has been removed in this area. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Sanitary Line C and Comrie Drive storm main crossing has 0.26-ft vertical clearance which is not acceptable. This must be increased to 12 -inches and a steel casing pipe used on the sewer. HKS Response: Clearance increased to 1’, steel casing added to the sanitary sewer. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Sanitary Line D and Steely Drive storm main crossing has 0.56-ft vertical clearance which is not acceptable. This must be increased to 12 -inches. Page 21 of 29 HKS Response: Clearance updated to be 1’ min. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The minimum allowable sewer main cover is 4-feet. The upstream end of Sewer Line E is 3.3 feet deep. You will need to revise the design to obtain minimum cover. HKS Response: Downstream pipes upsized to 10” and slope reduced to lower the upstream end of Line E to get a minimum cover of 4’. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Regarding the offsite sewer main: a. Match crowns at the Lemay Street junction manhole. See redlines for more information. b. Please confirm the driveway material along the offsite sewer main. If this is paved, it will need to support 40-tons. c. Please confirm there will be no fences blocking access to any of the proposed sanitary sewer manholes. d.Provide a plan showing removals and restoration necessary for the offsite sewer main. This should also include landscaping restoration. e.Obtain pothole locates for all water crossings. Show this information on the plans. f.The sewer services for the 3 existing single family residences near the sewer main will need to be located and reconnected to the new sewer main. g.Increase the site of the offsite 8-inch sewer to 10-inch – except for the section crossing the ditch. See redlines for more information. HKS Response: a. Crowns matched b. Offsite drives are concrete or asphalt and will support 40 tons. c. there are no fences blocking access to any proposed manholes. d. Off site sanitary removal and replacement plan included. e. Locates for water crossings are currently being surveyed. We will reach out to the City of Fort Collins with the informati on when received, and it will be incorporated and finalized with the third submittal. f. Locates for sanitary services are currently being surveyed. We will reach out to the City of Fort Collins with the informa tion when received, and it will be incorporated and finalized with the third submittal. g. Pipes increased to 10” diameter. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Regarding sewer the crossing of Lake Canal: a. The sewer needs to be in steel casing pipe extending at least 10-feet beyond top-of-bank. b. The steel casing needs to be encased in concrete. Provide a detail showing this. See redlines for our requirements. 1. There shall be clay or concrete cut off walls at both sides of the casing pipe. cut off wall shall extend to 1-ft (min) above the ditch water surface elev. HKS Response: Steel casing encased in concrete with cut off walls on both sides of the casing pipe added to the plan. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Concrete paving needs to extend to the sewer manhole A11, on the northeast corner of the site. HKS Response: Concrete paving extended to the sanitary manhole. Page 22 of 29 Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Avoid having sewer cleanouts in drivable areas HKS Response: Noted, sewer cleanouts in drivable areas are avoided whenever possible. Cit y detail for traffic rated cleanouts is included in the sanitary details. Reference to the detail added to the plans as well. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/2022 11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Thank you for submitting C -1 Forms for this round. That being said, the C-1 Forms need to be filled out differently and in full. Have reached out to David Rigsby for clarification and sent an example C -1 Form also. Please contact me directly with any questions or to go over completing the forms correctly. DHI Response: Per previous interim coordination meeting, C1 forms have been revised. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/10/2022 11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Please label each transformer on the plan set by XR1, XR2, etc. This will make it easier when filling out and discussing C-1 forms and transformer locations. HKS Response: Transformers numbered on detailed utility plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/10/2022 11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Thank you for showing transformer locations on the plan set. A few of the locations will need adjustments to meet separation requirements for crossings. Please work with me directly to firm up the locations and electrical routing. HKS Response: Noted. We have updated so me locations and have also updated some electrical routing. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/10/2022 11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Light & Power is working on an electric layout for the proposed transformer locations along with streetlighting. Once this is complete, Light & Power will share this with the project team to have it placed on the plan set. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/10/2022 11/10/2022: For Final Approval: The Developer will be responsible for payment and acquisition of any ditch crossing agreements necessary for the Lake Canal to bring electric infrastructure into the site and provide any sleeves necessary to do so. Light & Power will need to cross the canal with 2-4" & 2-2" conduits each along Steely Dr. and along Lupine Dr. I didn't see any box culvert details or bridge design but maybe I missed it. Please coordinate these crossings with Light & Power. HKS Response: Noted, box culvert details are provided within this submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: For Final Approval: Water would prefer electric go behind proposed fire hydrants. Fire hydrants are shown at the back of the tree lawn. Could the fire hydrants be moved closer to back of curb to allow more separation for electric to go behind the proposed fire hydrants? HKS Response: Hydrants moved to the minimum of 30” off the back of curb. Electric rerouted accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 Page 23 of 29 11/15/2022: For Information Only: Electric capacity fee, 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/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: REDWOOD POND: -The relationship between the existing wetland and new regional detention pond (Redwood Pond) needs some more thorough thought. For example, the bottom of the proposed Redwood Pond is below the bottom of the existing wetland. Although there is no planned connection between the two it makes sense that there would be seepage, or even draining to an extent, from the existing pond to the Redwood Pond. The desirability of a cut-off wall or similar should be discussed. -All efforts should be made to avoid Redwood Pond for turning into a cattail monoculture. Cattails thrive in uniform soil moisture regimes, and so a significant design measure could be to explore terracing or other methods to ensure a soil moisture regime that varies spatially and temporally; -Concrete drip pans in the bottom of Redwood Pond are not supported by Environmental Planning. Maintenance recommendations, especially of mowing (height, frequency, and timing) should be addressed; Ocular vegetative monitoring is useful in the early years but please note that for success criteria testing a line point intercept methodology will be used as per the Development Agreement language; The success criteria outlined in the plan should reflect the criteria detailed in the Development Agreement, to include a required 80% survival of planted woody species; An abbreviated version of the restoration plan must be on the Landscape Plan. Cedar Creek Response: The planned topography for the detention pond is expected to support a variety of hydric conditions, which will result in planned water dependent vegetative communities ranging from emergent / mesic meadow with obligate and faculta tive wetland species, which will transition to riparian / mesoriparian / xeroriparian habitats where facultative willows and shrubs can be planted. Ripley Design Response: The design intent of the Redwood pond is to re -grade and excavate soils to provide more volume to detain water. The current design does not touch the existing wetlands, and they are remaining as -is. Currently no cut-off wall is being proposed, and the bottom of the detention pond is designed for variability. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: RESTORATION PLAN: -Now needs to include the restoration of Tract A (south of Suniga Dr); -Full restoration of Tract A is required due to pipe installation and as such the Restoration Plan should be modified to include this area as well. Weed management, especially of leafy spurge, is critical prior to construction and restoration efforts; -Standard City seed mixes are currently proposed but there’s reason to create some more tailored seed mixes. The rain garden will have a sand -dominant media profile. Areas with underground stormtech chambers will likely be drier than surrounding areas due to a thinner soil profile and the fact that the Page 24 of 29 chambers lay on top of a gravel/squeegee bed designed to drain water away from the chambers; -Maintenance recommendations, especially of mowing (height, frequency, and timing) should be addressed; -Ocular vegetative monitoring is useful in the early years but please note th at for success criteria testing a line point intercept methodology will be used as per the Development Agreement language; -The success criteria outlined in the plan should reflect the criteria detailed in the Development Agreement, to include a required 80% survival of planted woody species; -An abbreviated version of the restoration plan must be on the Landscape Plan. Cedar Creek Response: An updated Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Restoration Plan has been provided which includes the elements detailed in this comment. An abbreviated version of the Restoration Plan has been included on the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN: An abbreviated version of the weed management plan must be on the Landscape Plan. Cedar Creek Response: An abbreviated version of the Weed Management Plan has been included on the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND DCP ISSUANCE: Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this project. A security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to the FDP approval please provide an estimate of the landscaping costs for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, including materials, labor, monitoring for a minimum of three years, weed mitigation and irrigation. We will then use the approved estimate to collect a security (bond or escrow) at 125% of the total amount prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit. If the applicant builds Redwood Pond, they will be responsible for its success and a security deposit will be required for the establishment phase. Upon successful establishment, the City would then assume responsibility of the pond. This relationship needs to be clarified with all pertinent City departments and monumented in the Development Agreement. DHI Response: Acknowledged to be part of the Development Agreement. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Lake Canal ditch company must sign off on the new plans of pipe installation adjacent to Lake Canal on Tract A. Restoration of Tract A could be impacted by the window of time that work can DHI Response: Acknowledged, DHI to submit crossing agreement applications and drawings with second FDP submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Since active relocation or trap and donating of prairie dogs was not utilized and prairie dogs were already removed, a payment in lieu fee is 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/acre if CO/PERC methods are used. The acreage should be equal to the orange ‘Potentially active prairie dog burrows’ Page 25 of 29 polygon displayed in the ‘Prairie Dog Memo’. Proof of the removal methods and the details of the removal effort (date, etc.) will need to be provided to the Environmental Planner by the contractor who performed the euthanization. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please indicate on the photometric plan that all light fixtures will utilize a color temperature of 3000K or less. DHI Response: Please see attached. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND DCP: Any seed mixes applied to fulfill the Stockpile Permit requirements must be approved by the Environmental Planner and seed tags provided prior to actual seeding. Ripley Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Is the intention to run an irrigation line under Suniga Rd to irrigate Tract A? This should be explored further. Aqua Engineering Response: Refer to response in Engineering section. Department: Forestry Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL There are numerous tree utility- separation issues on the landscape plan that need to be addressed. See forestry redlines, though there may be some that I missed. Keep in mind the following separation requirements: 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main l ines 6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines 10’ between trees and electric vaults Ripley Response: Landscape plans are revised to reflect these separation requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Land Use Code 3.2.1 section D requires that canopy shade trees constitute 50% of all plantings. Currently the percentage of canopy shade trees being planted quals 46.7%. Please increase the number of shade trees being planted for this development so it is 50% or more of all tree plantings. Please reach out to forestry (choltz@fcgov.com) for species recommendations. Ripley Response: The number of canopy tree has been increased. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 11/16/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Thank you for creating a diverse tree species list. Although the diversity percentage of ginkgo trees is only 4.1% please reduce the number planted on this site. Ginkgos are struggling in Fort Collins, especially with the rising temperatures, and they do not thrive as street trees. Please keep the number at or under 2%. Ripley Response: Noted, Ginkos have been reduced in overall percentage. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 Page 26 of 29 11/16/2022: INFORMATION ONLY Please keep in mind the following additional species that do well in Fort Collins: Common hackberry Turkish filbert Sensation boxelder American yellowwood Choice city elm Ripley Design Response: Thank you for the recommendations! Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official. Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane. Site plan indicates building numbers will have a minimum of six-inch numerals. This shall be changed to minimum of eight-inch numerals. HKS Response: Noted, 8” numerals will be used. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2022 11/16/2022: FIRE LANE LOADING The private drives shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. Please add a note to the civil plans indicating this compliance. HKS Response: Note added to overall utility plan. Department: Internal Services Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2022 11/18/2022: FOR FINAL The spelling of Steeley Drive has been corrected/changed to Steely Drive and is recorded with Larimer County. Please update all documents to reflect this change. Thank you. Page 27 of 29 HKS Response: Road names have been updated to show Steely Drive. Ripley Response: Road name has been updated on the site and landscape plans. Department: Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please note that the legal description will need to be revised, as the Subdivision Plat legal description will need to be corrected. HKS Response: Legal description has been revised. Ripley Response: The legal description has been revised on the cover sheet Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: 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’. HKS Response: Benchmark formatting u pdated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are matchline issues. See redlines. HKS Response: Matchline issues fixed Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. HKS Response: Line over text issues fixed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are sheet title & sheet numbering issues. See redlines. HKS Response: Sheet title & numbering issues fixed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 Page 28 of 29 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. HKS Response: Text over text issues fixed. Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: ROW VACATION: The legal description & sketch will be reviewed next round. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: ROW VACATION: Please provide a closure report. HKS Response: Closure report provided with this submittal. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: IRRIGATION PLAN: There are some text display issues. See redlines. Aqua Engineering Response: Noted and revised. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com HKS Response: Noted, responses have been added, or clarified in both redlined sheets and response letter. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please note that the legal description will need to be revised, as the Subdivision Plat legal description will need to be corrected. Ripley Response: Legal description has been revised on the cover sheet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/2022 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are matchline issues. See redlines. Ripley Response: Noted. Redlines have been corrected. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Melissa Buick, melissahbuick@gmail.com, , Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/22/2022 Lake Canal Company of Colorado Melissa provided the Information Request Form to Aaron directly: Page 29 of 29 Hello Aaron, good to hear from you. Please send the plans, a list of ditch crossings for the project and the completed Information Request Form (attached) for each of the ditch crossings. Once we have this information, we can determine if an engineering review is required, the number of agreements needed and the crossing fees. Upon receipt of the fees, and approval of the plans, the agreements can be drafted. DHI Response: Acknowledged, DHI to submit crossing agreement applications and drawings w ith second FDP submittal.