HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - FDP220014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)November 21, 2023
Attention: Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
Plan Review Coordinator
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Enclave at Redwood, FDP220014, Round Number 1Comment Summary:Department: Development Review CoordinatorContact: Todd Sullivan, 970 221 6695, tsullivan@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment
Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022I 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!
HKS RESPONSE: Noted. Thanks.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter
is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment
letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. 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].
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, we will respond on word format with responses in a different font color.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022Please 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.pdfFile 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/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Drawing
text appears as Comments in a PDF created by AutoCAD.html
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022Once 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 at 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.
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, thank you.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2022ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee
of $3,000.00.
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, thanks.Department: Planning ServicesContact: Clark Mapes, 970 221 6225, cmapes@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022:
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?
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/202211/18/2022: Re gates on Lupine, the plan sheets say to "See Sheet EX 1". Where is that sheet? Thanks
HKS RESPONSE:Department: Engineering Development ReviewContact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022:
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: Standard notes have been added to notes sheet.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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:Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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:Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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 local connector.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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’ of clearance has been provided between electric and hydrants.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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:Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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:Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022: 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: Alley names updated. Typical of all sheets.Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022: 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 added with round 2.Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022: 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 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022: 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.
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, thanks.Department: Traffic OperationContact: Steve Gilchrist, 970 224 6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 PlansComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: Please show stop signs on the landscape plans to ensure no trees
are placed within 50 feet on the advance to stop signs.
HKS RESPONSE:Topic: Traffic Impact StudyComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 Alternative Compliance.
HKS RESPONSE:Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion ControlContact: Andrew Crecca, , acrecca@fcgov.comTopic: Erosion ControlComment Number: 50 Comment Originated:
11/15/202211/15/2022: "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 Escrow 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final Approval:Calculation
sheet needs all BPM's from ESC Plan and quantities. Also 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final
Approval:Erosion Control Reports must be stamped by licensed PE for final acceptanceper FCSCM Chap. 2 Sec. 6.1.4
HKS RESPONSE: Noted. Final Erosion Control Report will be stamped by licensed PE.Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final Approval: please provide a pathway to the nearest receiving
waters (From the outfall point(s) of the project and theflow path to Fossil Creek Reservoir or the Poudre River with directions and distances) per FCSCM Ch. 2 Sec. 6.1.4.3
HKS RESPONSE: Pathway from outfall point to the Poudre River added.Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 has been added.Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final ApprovalPlease
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
temporaryControl 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final Approval:Provide
sequencing per FCSCM Ch 2 Sec. 6.1.3.2
HKS RESPONSE: Sequencing table added to Cover Sheet of plans.Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final Approval:Plans and reports need to be stamped
by a licensed PS per FCSCM Ch.2 Sec.6.1.3
HKS RESPONSE: Noted. Final Plans and Reports will be stamped by a licensed PS.Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final Approval: 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: Proposed flow arrows added to plans.Comment Number: 61 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: Construction and Silt fencing added along off-site sanitary work. Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: For Final Approval:Please provide
details for LID (Underground Detention Systems) as well as erosion control notes for protecting LID's during instillation and constructionComment Number: 63 Comment Originated:
11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Department: Stormwater EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416 2754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022:
Begin General Comments.
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, thanks.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:This submittal reflects lack of QA review and completeness. Expect
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:Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 water 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:Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:We will need to meet to discuss the developer repay process.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: Begin Plans Comments
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, thanks.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 signature block has been added to the Utility Plans.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:On the detailed grading plans, label and show spillway locations for all ponds
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: Swale added along western edge of site. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 along Smiley drive has been removed and relocated.Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Storm has been removed in this area.Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are many locations where detention pond
outlet structures do not match the pond grading. Please review and revise.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please review and label “Public” and “Private” storm drain ownership and maintenance
as shown on the storm profile redlines.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Provide storm profiles for all storm pipes including laterals.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Add “8 inch concrete” label to the eastern access path/ multiuse trail.
HKS RESPONSE: Label added to paving plan.Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 material is concrete. The hatch has been updated on the plans.Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:All ponds with less than 2% bottom slope require a concrete trickle pan or an
underdrain. These need to be designed and shown on the plans.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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.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 Planse.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:Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 usg.The wetland area may need to be relocated and incorporated into the detention pond grading.h.Please
meet with me to discuss further.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: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:Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:A 30 ft Drainage Easement must be provided along the A3 storm main, located in
Tract A.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Use the City of Fort Collins outlet structure standard detail.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:See redlines of the Utility Plans for more comments.
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, thanks.Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: Begin Drainage Report Comments
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, thanks.Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Provide water quality outlet sizing calculations.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Provide detention outlet sizing calculations and rating curves. Or use physical
SWMM elements and describe in report.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:See drainage report redlines for more comments. You will need to provide a response
to these redlines.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: Begin SWMM Modeling Comments.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Modeling A2 Line Please confirm if the SWMM model was updated to reflect the
as designed elevations and lengths of the proposed A2 line. If not, please make these updates.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 A3Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Pond Modeling Comments:a.**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,
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:Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 11/17/202211/17/2022: Other comments:Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 11/17/202211/17/2022: 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
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 11/17/202211/17/2022: 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:Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 11/17/202211/17/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Drainage Report Use the FCSCM rainfall for drainage calcs. Do NOT use NOAA or
CCD values!
HKS RESPONSE:Department: Water Wastewater EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416 2754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022:
FOR FINAL APPROVAL:This submittal reflects lack of QA review and completeness. Expect more 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:Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: Begin Water Comments:
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: Profiling of all water mains are included with this submittal.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: Noted, all service crossings will be verified and shown on the profiles.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: Alley widened to provide 5’ from water to the face of curb. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 possibleb.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 3.5 feet 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 sectionsf.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/raised mains on
plan views. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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.
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: 11/15/202211/15/2022:
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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Thrust blocks removed on all fittings except fire hydrant tees and at connections to existing mains. A restraint lengths table has been added to the water details. Comment
Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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 lines adjusted to jog around the fire hydrants and provide a minimum of 3’ of separation. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022:
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 separation provided in all locations.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Irrigation Plan Comments: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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: Begin Sewer Comments:
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022:
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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:In Steely Drive provide 10 feet (min.) clear separation between storm and sewer.
HKS RESPONSE: Storm sewer has been removed here.Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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.
HKS RESPONSE: Storm sewer in Steely Drive has been removed. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Pipes for lines D & E 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:
11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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.c.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: 11/15/202211/15/2022:
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. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Avoid having sewer cleanouts
in drivable areas
HKS RESPONSE: Noted, sewer cleanouts in drivable areas are avoided whenever possible. City detail for traffic rated cleanouts is included in the sanitary details. Reference to the detail
added to the plans as well.Department: Light And PowerContact: Rob Irish, 970 224 6167, rirish@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/202211/10/2022:
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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/10/202211/10/2022: 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: 11/10/202211/10/2022: 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:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/10/202211/10/2022: 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: 11/10/202211/10/2022: 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:Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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
HKS RESPONSE:Department: Environmental PlanningContact: Scott Benton, (970)416 4290, sbenton@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022:
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 EnvironmentalPlanning.
HKS RESPONSE:
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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 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 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN: An abbreviated version of the weed management plan must
be on the Landscape Plan.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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 be conducted along Lake Canal to not impact the Canal’s water delivery.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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’ 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please indicate on the photometric plan that all light fixtures will utilize a
color temperature of 3000K or less.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Is the intention to run an irrigation line under Suniga Rd to irrigate Tract A?
This should be explored further.
HKS RESPONSE:Department: ForestryContact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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 lines6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines4’ between trees and gas lines10’ between
trees and electric vaults
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVALLand 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVALThank 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%.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022: INFORMATION ONLYPlease keep in mind the following additional species that do well in Fort Collins:
Common hackberryTurkish filbertSensation boxelderAmerican yellowwoodChoice city elmDepartment: PFAContact: Marcus Glasgow, 970 416 2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre fire.orgTopic: GeneralComment
Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: 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:Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/202211/16/2022: 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:Department: Internal ServicesContact: Todd Sullivan, 970 221 6695, tsullivan@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/202211/18/2022:
FOR FINALThe 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.
HKS RESPONSE:Department: Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 970 221 6588, jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: Construction DrawingsComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022:
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:Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT
format shown below.PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTIONELEVATION:BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTIONELEVATION:PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING
DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED
FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM X.XX’.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are matchline issues. See redlines.
HKS RESPONSE: Noted. Matchlines have been updated.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are line over text issues. See redlines.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are sheet title & sheet numbering issues. See redlines.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are text over text issues. See redlines.
HKS RESPONSE:Topic: GeneralComment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:ROW VACATION: The legal description & sketch will be reviewed next
round.
HKS RESPONSE:Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/15/202211/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:ROW VACATION: Please provide a closure report.
HKS RESPONSE:Topic: Landscape PlansComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:IRRIGATION PLAN: There are some text display issues. See
redlines.
HKS RESPONSE:Topic: PlatComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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:Topic: Site PlanComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: 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:Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/14/202211/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:There are matchline issues. See redlines.
HKS RESPONSE:Department: Outside AgenciesContact: Melissa Buick, melissahbuick@gmail.com, , Topic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/22/2022Lake Canal
Company of ColoradoMelissa provided the Information Request Form to Aaron directly: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.
HKS RESPONSE:
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information at rpatton@hkseng.com or 303-623-6300.
Sincerely,
HARRIS KOCHER SMITH
Rachel Patton, PE
Project Manager