Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - FDP220014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 1 of 27 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 July 14, 2023 Klara Rossouw Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Enclave at Redwood, FDP220014, Round Number 3 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 tsullivan@fcgov.com 970-221-6695 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 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 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 27 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 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: 4_UTILITY_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. Comment Number: 4 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 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. Ripley Design Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 5 *UPDATED: Please submit payment for this fee at the time of your next submittal. ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee of $3,000.00. DHI Response: Acknowledged, please provide invoice for payment coordination. Page 3 of 27 Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes cmapes@fcgov.com 970-221-6225 Topic: General Comment Number: 7 07/11/2023: ALTERNATIVE LUPINE CONNECTION: This needs fundamental discussion at the meeting. 1) I was surprised to see a vehicular connection. I thought we might see a hammerhead turnaround there. There certainly are benefits to the connection...but would you explain that? For confirmation and agreement at the meeting. 2) The concept for pedestrians does not look acceptable -- walkways should simply continue and connect to Lupine's sidewalks. The concept shown is for people walking to simply share the little drive connection via the asphalt on Lupine - is that right? 3) Plan drafting: the site and utility plans should show the nearby context of the two closest driveways, sidewalks, and maybe the two clos est houses on Lupine, as part of showing how the whole alternative connection is made. 3) The site and utility plan drawings should match in showing concrete and "drive surface" - presumably asphalt? That's a minor point, just drafting and labeling. Ripley Design Response: Per meetings with various staff members on the Lupine connection, the design intent remains the same, which is to provide pedestrian, vehicle and emergency access connectivity, while creating a space for public gathering. A rollover curb has been added to the eastern edge of the connection with an ADA ramp headed east. The Lupine sidewalks have been tied into the plaza/access concrete area. Comment Number: 8 07/11/2023: There may be interest in labeling Comrie Circle as a private street. To confirm at the meeting. This overlap with platting it as a tract, and getting notes on the plat that the private facilities are to be maintained by the owner(s). Ripley Design Response: Comrie Circle has been labeled as private street on site and landscape plans HKS Response: Comrie Circle is labeled as a private street, and is shown as a private street on the typical section on the co ver of both the Preliminary and Final utility plans. Comment Number: 9 07/12/2023: Address signs at the walkway spines, e.g for units with Coutts addresses? Person doors on those rear drive addresses? Ripley Design Response: The building addresses will be posted on the building on the alley side and front side. Pedestrian connections to the front from the alley were approved in PDP instead of person doors in the rear. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham sbuckingham@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 23 03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide construction details for all proposed retaining walls. The details should be located in the utility plan. HKS Response: Details added to plans. Retaining wall plans will be provided. Comment Number: 24 03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The proposed irrigation lines need to be depicted on the utility plan, not just on Page 4 of 27 the irrigation plan. Lake Canal will need to approve the irrigation line in the ditch easement. For the irrigation line crossing Suniga, it will need to be clearly indicated on the utility plan how the line will be installed. HKS Response: Irrigation lines added to plans. Comment Number: 25 03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please double-check the spelling of Steely on every document in the plan set. This comment needs to be addressed by all members of the applicant team because it applies to every document, not just the utility plan. Steely Drive is named after a member of the Fort Collins community, and it is very important that the name is spelled correctly everywhere it appears on the plans. HKS Response: Reviewed, and all documents have been revised for the spelling of “Steely” Ripley Design Response: All documents have been reviewed and revised for spelling of “Steely” Comment Number: 27 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: With the next round of review, please submit a legal description and sketch for the proposed right-of-way vacation. Ripley Design Response: This was provided with the previous round of review and we have not seen any comments on it. Can you please provide comments and/or and update as to when we can move forward with City Council for the vacation? Comment Number: 28 06/28/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: When you have a draft of the crossing agreement with Lake Canal, please provide it to City staff so that the City Attorney's Office can review it. The City will need to be a party to the agreement as future right -of-way is involved. The crossing agreement will not be part of the Development Agreement, but Lake Canal will need to sign the plat and utility plans for the project. HKS Response: Noted; crossing agreement will be provided to the City when received. DHI Response: Crossing applications sent to Lake Canal on 7/25/23 along with plan sets for their engineering review. Comment Number: 29 06/29/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Additional right-of-way is needed from the Northfield property to support the proposed box culvert design. Please coordinate with the Northfield property owner. With the next round, please submit right-of-way dedication fees, legal descriptions, sketches, and closure reports. HKS Response: The proposed box culvert is located within an existing tract, with the purpose of a blanket Drainage, Utility a nd Access easement. It is our opinion that the proposed box culvert can be located within the existing tract. Additionally, ther e is an existing 50’ ditch easement in which the box culverts is currently located within. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist sgilchrist@fcgov.com 970-224-6175 Topic: General Comment Number: 3 07/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATE: See markups on plans for details on the Privately Maintained Street Name Signs. Please identify each sign on plans. 03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATE: Please call out all Private Street on the Signing and Striping plans. Privately Maintained Street Name Page 5 of 27 signs will be needed for those streets. See pdf in redlines for details. 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: Privately maintained street name signs called out on signage and striping plans. Private streets have also been called out. Comment Number: 5 07/07/2023: An additional No Outlet sign will be needed for eastbound traffic on Lupine at the corner of Redwood for traffic coming straight from the west. The Dead End sign is not the appropriate sign for the end of Lupine. Will need to look at this area closer. Object markers will be needed to delineate the end of roadway/sidewalks. HKS Response: There is currently a no outlet sign at the corner of Lupine and Redwood. The road currently dead ends in the same location as the proposed emergency vehicle access on Lupine. Dead end sign has been removed at the end of Lupine, and signs have been updated per redlines. 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: If the Alternative Compliance is accepted for the closure of Lupine to vehicular traffic, additional signage may be needed. We will review this following the outcome of the Major Amendment. This may include No Outlet signs, Road Ends, and possibly changing the direction of stop control at Lupine and Steely. Comment Number: 9 07/09/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: SIGNAGE AND STRIPING: -Street name signs are not needed for driveways that enter onto a street like those on Comrie Circle. If the "driveway" or alley is named then they are needed. - Is there a reason Steely/Comrie and Collamer is a four way stop? This would likely have compliance issues. Would recommend a two way stop with Collamer and the driveway/alley being required to stop. HKS Response: Street name signs have been removed for unnamed drives. Steely/Comrie and Collamer intersection has been updated to show a two way stop with Collamer and the alley being required to stop. Comment Number: 10 07/09/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The design of the Emergency Vehicle Access on Lupine to the Enclave will need further discussion. Will any devices be used to keep regular vehicles from using this? There are no transitions for the sidewalks and they just seem to end, they should connect to sidewalks in the Enclave. Object markers will be needed to identify the end of the roadway this area. Is a turnar ound needed in this area for regular users, i.e. trash trucks, delivery trucks? Ripley Design Response: Per meetings with various staff members on the Lupine connection a rollover curb has been added to th e eastern edge of the connection with an ADA ramp headed east. The Lupine sidewalks have been tied into the plaza/access concrete area. HKS Response: Per discussions with city, walks updated Comment Number: 11 07/09/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide details on the proposed walkway that extends to the end of Lupine. This should be a full ADA compliant sidewalk connecting through this area. It looks like there is a small strip of crusher fines at the end of the asphalt on Lupine? Page 6 of 27 Ripley Design Response: The concrete plaza area has been expanded to connect to the existing attached sidewalks on Lupine. An ADA curb ramp has been provided headed east. Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control Contact: Andrew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 76 07/03/2023: Accepted: Thank you for providing the requested erosion control plans, report and escrow calculation. All submitted erosion materials are accepted. You will be notified via email with instructions to submit fees and escrow along with the required forms. This email will also have instructions for requesting an initial erosion control inspection when you are ready you start your project. If the nature, scope, size or design of this projects deviates from the submitted materials updated Erosion Control Plans, Report and Escrow calculation may be requested as well as a recalculation of Erosion Control and Stormwater inspection fees. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson masimpson@fcgov.com (970) 416-2754 Topic: General Comment Number: 22 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED: Items a-h have been addressed. Items i – k will be revised with the pond updates related to the SWMM model revisions. Item L has been addressed, but I will review in more detail with the Redwood Pond updates. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED: Thank you for working with me on the updates to the Redwood Pond design. We are generally very happy with the direction the pond design is progressing. However with that said, I have encountered a few significant issues that need to be looked into further and resolved with me directly before the next submittal: i. There is a discrepancy in the 100-yr WSEL and volume. The required master plan volume is 9.86 AF. The Detention Pond Plan (ST-29) is labeled that this volume is provided at elev. 4959.48, however the stage storage table in the drainge report shows that this volume will not be achieved untill ~4960.5 (see page 143 of drainage report). This issue needs to be clarified and resolved before I c an have further internal conversations about the acceptability of the updated regional pond design. HKS Response: The discrepancy in the 100 -year pond WSEL has been resolved. Multiple conversations and revisions with the City of Fort Collins lead us to a final volume goal of 12.94 ac-ft for the 100-year volume of the pond based one the Updated Lower Dry Creek EC SWMM (2023-06-01) + Redwood Pond – estimated. The plans are now labeled to show this required volume and the elevation at which it is provided. An MHFD stage-storage table is provided in the drainage report to show this volume and the stage. j. There is an issue with the peak outflow rate. I did some further research into the NECCO master plan and related designs. I am not finding the 15.96-cfs Page 7 of 27 discharge rate, rather 12.05-cfs. I need to do further research to figure out what is going on here and provide direction for you to proceed. HKS Response: The discrepancy in the 100 -year pond release rate has been resolved. A clarification in the analysis of the NECCO Drainage Report SWMM results lead to the documented release rate of 12.05 cfs. k. There is an issue in the SWMM model related to upstream pond inflows. I need to do some research about an upstream area and provide you with direction to proceed. HKS Response: The discrepancy in the 100 -year pond release rate has been resolved. A clarification in the analysis of the NECCO Drainage Report SWMM results lead to the determination of a 12.05 cfs release rate. l. The forebays on the north side of the pond need to be designed and detailed. HKS Response: Forebays on the north side of Redwood Pond have been detailed. 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 into the detention pond grading. h. Please meet with me to discuss further. Comment Number: 36 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: Thank you for providing the water quality outlet structure calculations. The diameter of the WQ orifices on Pond 1 and Pond 3 are too small to function practically. Please take a look at the calculation method and see if there is any way to combine to one larger WQ orifice for each. Maybe the newest MHFD UD-Detention spreadsheet could help? It also may be simple enough to size the 40-hr WQ orifices in SWMM with a trial -and-error method. This may be the most accurate method. See redlines for more details. Feel free to discuss with me if you have any questions. Please note – I am going to have an internal discussion about what to do in this situation. Touch base with me before making any significant effort to resolve this item. Page 8 of 27 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide water quality outlet sizing calculations. HKS Response: The WQ orifices on Ponds 1 and 3 have been removed from the design. Conversations and revisions with the City of Fort Collins lead to the determination that the water quality orifice plates on these ponds can be removed. The areas flow ing directly to ponds will be treated by way of LID achieved by runoff over landscaped areas (“runoff reduction”). Comment Number: 39 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: c. Thank you for adding the street capacity/ flow depth table to the drainage report. In this table, please report the water depth at sumped inlet locations and compare to criteria. See redline of drainage report for more information. d. For all sumped inlets – the location of flow overtopping has not been accurately identified on the plans. Please review and identify the location where surface overflows will be directed in the event of an inlet clog. Essentially the location of the minimum overtopping elevation. This is follow-up from the previous comments. See sheet ST-32 for more information. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: a. In the drainage report body provide a table summarizing street flow depth at each inlet and documenting that street capacity requirements are met. b. For all sumped inlet locations, the overtopping flow path and min. O.T. elevation must be shown on the plans. 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: The water depth at sumped inlets has been calculated. Method for calculation is listed in the drainage report a nd explained briefly in this response. The MHFD inlet workbook gives maximum depths at street inlets besed on the param eters provided in the input. A second analysis for these inlets was completed in Hydraflow Express, which uses the HEC -22 method of calculating inlet capacity. The larger ponding depth value between each analysis was used as the maximum ponding depth at th e inlet. This was compared to the surrounding finished floor elevations to make sure that adequate freeboard is provided from existing/proposed infrastructure. Comment Number: 41 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: The pond overflow location for Pond 3 is not clear on the grading plans. Please review redlines and revise. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: a. Follow up on (a) – the overflow for Pond 3 is pointed at the adjacent apartment building. The overflow must be directed towards a public ROW. Please adjust grading or discuss options with me. b. Follow up on (b) – the overflow for Redwood Pond exceeds the max allowable 0.5-ft flow depth on an overflow spillway. Please see if you can revise to meet this requirement or let me know if a variance will need to be discussed. 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. Page 9 of 27 HKS Response: The overflow location for Pond 3 has been clarified in the plans. A cross section has been taken and shown in t he details for Pond 3. The section is atypical due to the site constraints of the area where the spillway resides. The area has walkways that need to be graded at specific slopes. Comment Number: 51 07/06/2023: FOR INFORMATION: 03/17/2023: FOR INFORMATION: 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-anddevelopers/-plant-investment-developmentfees- 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. Comment Number: 55 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: Please add compete bookmarks to the Utility Plan PDF. This sheet set is 197 pages and is difficult to navigate w/o bookmarks throughout. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: It would help if the Utility Plan PDF and Drainage Report PDF were bookmarked. HKS Response: Bookmarks have been provided on the utility plan and drainage report Comment Number: 58 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - NOT ADDRESSED: The pond overflow location for Pond 3 is not clear on the grading plans. Please review redlines and revise. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The grading on Park Pond, Pond 3, needs to be adjusted so that the overflow spillway is directed into the public ROW and not in the direction of the apartment building southeast of the pond. (This is follow up on previous comment 10). HKS Response: The overflow location for Pond 3 has been clarified in the plans. A cross section has been taken and shown in t he details for Pond 3. The section is atypical due to the site constraints of the area where the spillway resides. The area has walkways that need to be graded at specific slopes. Comment Number: 59 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - NOT ADDRESSED: The “sump inlet location arrows” are not accurately located to reflect the location and elevation of primary surface flow paths (or overflow paths). As such there are several buildings elevations I am concerned about onsite, as well as Page 10 of 27 existing homes on the west side of the site. I would like you to confirm that onsite and adjacent offsite structures are adequately safe from flooding in the event of an inlet clog. I have provided an additional redline PDF showing 5 locations on the site where it appears an internal sump has been created. Please review the grading and identify the minimum overtopping location and elevation for each internal sump area. Confirm that all adjacent structures are adequately safe from flooding. See redlines for more information. Sheet St -32 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On the plans the lowest-overtopping location and elevation for all sumped inlets needs to be identified. HKS Response: New plan sheets have been created for all sump inlets. The plan sheets show the sump inlet ponding depth, the area where the ponding occurs, the lowest overtop ping elevation and location, and the FFEs of surrounding buildings. Comment Number: 60 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: The comment below has been generally addressed, however direct tap connections to public storm mains is not allowed, all pipes must connect at structures on public storm. See redlines for additional comments on private landscape drains. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Private landscape drain pipes should not run parallel within the ROW or streetside public UT easements. They also must provide adequate separation from WT mains, SS mains, and services. Private landscaping drains need to be shown on the Detailed UT Plan sheets. HKS Response: Pipe connections updated. Comment Number: 65 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Thank you for your responses to the above comments. I also apologize for the issue that the SWMM model has created. I appreciate your efforts to work through this item. I will review the SWMM modeling comments when the updated modeling is sent to me for review. Let me know if you have any questions. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Updated SWMM modeling Comments a. Regarding the Redwood Pond, there is a volume discrepancy between the SWMM model, the drainage report, and the plans. This will need to be investigated and resolved before the next submittal. Please follow up directly with me as you work this out. Issue Detail: The enlarged Redwood Pond must provide the master plan volume of 9.86 AF (7.7 AF detention + 2.16 AF for water quality) plus any additional needed for Enclave’s storge. The SWMM model is reporting a max storage of 3.2 AF (at WSEL 4959.06). I recognize that the model did not include WQCV (2.16 AF), so adding those together brings the provided volume to 5.36 AF. Please review and follow up with me. b. There is a discrepancy in Redwood Pond allowable peak discharge from the NECCO documentation – 12.05 cfs vs 15.96 cfs. I need to look into this further and report back to you for direction to proceed. c. Many of the new or revised subcatchments do not have infiltration values Page 11 of 27 matching criteria. This revision will likely produce more runoff and affect the detention pond sizing. This issue was previously addressed during PDP review but appears to have returned. Please see redlines for more information. d. There is an issue in the SWMM model related to upstream pond inflows. I need to do some research about an upstream area and provide you with direction to proceed. e. The submitted SWMM model turned on “select reporting options.” For the next submittal please provide reporting for “All” subcatchments, nodes, and links. (See “Options” “Reporting”) f. In the drainage report discuss how the water quality stage wa s modeled for each pond. Also, place a note in SWMM briefly describing how the WQ stage was modeled for each storage element. Place the note in the SWMM “description” field on each respective element. HKS Response: Updated modeling has been sent for review. Another fully updated SWMM Model, addressing all concerns from these FDP Round 3 Comments, will be sent with the FDP Round 3 plans and report. Comment Number: 68 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: I have seen your response. Please provide updated groundwater levels with the next submittal. July-September are the high groundwater months during the year. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide continued groundwater monitoring through 2023 and present updates in the drainge report. Please also provide the groundwater monitoring in the Redwood Pond and show on the pond profile. HKS Response: Updated groundwater readings have been included. Comment Number: 70 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: The plat needs to accurately show all existing easements, noting which will be vacated and which will remain. It appears that one of the existing electric easements disappeared on the Plat. Any easements to be vacated do not need to be shown on the (proposed) Utility Plan sheets. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Along Redwood Street on the western edge of the site there are proposed drainage easement(s) overlapping with existing electric easement(s). Please coordinate with City Engineering, Survey, and Light & Power regarding the electric easements and confirm these are non-exclusive and/ or can be vacated and that there are no issues with proposed drainge pipes located within them. HKS Response: The plat has been updated to show all existing easements. Comment Number: 71 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: A temporary construction easement (TCE) will be needed for the full Redwood Pond parcel and for any areas to be disturbed in the adjacent Redwood Channel parcel. Please draft these TCEs and send them to use for review. Page 12 of 27 These will need City Council approval. I do not foresee any issues here, mainly a formality. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A temporary construction easement will be needed for work on the Redwood Channel. Please provide a draft easement for our review. HKS Response: A temporary construction easement has been provided for the Redwood Pond parcel and the channel disturbance. Comment Number: 76 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Follow up on previous Krick Drive swale comments and offsite flows from Meadows at Redwood. Please provide me with more information showing that the proposed design can adequately convey the 100-yr offsite flows from the west of the site. Specific items of interest are: a. Provide flow calcs, inlet calcs, and pipe analysis for this drainage system (west of Krick Drive and north of Bergen Parkway). Show that this system can safely convey the 100-yr onsite and offsite flows collected by these inlets and pipe system. b. Provide a swale profile and pipe profile. c. Identify the lowest surface overflow elevation along the flow path and confirm this provides adequate protection from flooding for the existing houses to the west. d. Side note: the offsite flows, from Meadows at Redwood, do not need to be detained or treated by this development and may be directly connected to the A2 storm main. HKS Response: flow, inlet, and pipe calculations have been provided for the “Krick Drive Swale”. It has been determined that this is not a swale, but a sliver area being treated by landscape drains. Several profiles have been provided for the areas along that edge. High points representing lowest overtopping elevation have been provided for these inlets. Comment Number: 77 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Pond 1 overflow comments: a. There are inconsistencies in the elevation on the plans and some questions on the grading. See redlines for more details. b. Freeboard to adjacent structures should be 18 -inchs (min) above spillway crest, or 12-inches above spillway WSEL. c. See redlines for more information HKS Response: The Pond1 emergency spillway has been clarified in the plans. Comment Number: 78 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Pond 3 overflow comments: a. Overflow section needs to be clearly shown on grading plans. b. Freeboard to adjacent structures should be 18 -inchs (min) above spillway crest, or 12-inches above spillway WSEL. c. See redlines for more information HKS Response: The Pond3 emergency spillway has been clarified in t he plans. Comment Number: 79 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Pond trickle channels must be 0.5% or greater. Pond 1 and Pond 3 are at 0.4% and need to be revised. HKS Response: All pond trickle channels have been revised to achieve 0.5% slope. Comment Number: 80 Page 13 of 27 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: At the west end of Lupine Drive, the proposed stormwater inlets are conflicting with the existing driveways, the site design will need to be revised to resolve this. Please also show where surface overflows will proceed to from these inlets in the event of a plugged inlet. HKS Response: The Lupine Drive connection storm inlet configuration has been revised. Inlets are no longer in neighboring driveways. The new configuration consists of a 10’ Type R curb inlet that overtops and spills into a Type D inlet located behind it. Comment Number: 81 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: At the NW corner of Comrie Circle and Collamer Drive, there is a curb inlet located in a curb-return, this is a non-standard location for a stormwater inlet and should be relocated if possible. HKS Response: Curb inlet has been removed from curb return and moved to center of drive. Comment Number: 82 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add a note to the Utility Plans and the Site Plan: City may remove raised garden beds, within Utility and Drainage easements, if necessary, for repair or maintenance of public infrastructure. HKS Response: Note added to notes sheet. Ripley Design Response: Note added to Site Plan notes Comment Number: 83 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A3 Storm Main - Thank you for providing more design information for the connection of existing Redwood Street storm crossing to the A3 main (located at SW corner of site, on Tract A). Regarding storm line NA3-D, will an 18-inch pipe be sufficient to convey these flows? Our data shows the incoming pipes are (1) 18-inch RCP and (1) 23”x14” HERCP. An equivalent capacity single pipe would be 24-inch diameter. Please provide calculati on and evaluation of the capacity of this drainage improvement. A calculation showing matching capacity is acceptable. See comments on Sheets C-10 and ST-7. HKS Response: The NECCO A3 Storm Main has been revised. Capacity has been matched. Comment Number: 84 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Maintenance access to two A2 storm main manholes, just north of Suniga Road, needs to be provided. I know there have been several changes occurring between rounds with the concrete paths/ trails and the storm lines. We still need 40T, 15-feet wide, access provided to these manholes. See redlines for more information. (Sheet R-36) HKS Response: Maintenance access has been provided to these manholes. Comment Number: 85 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Landscape plan – the LS plan shows the northwest rain garden to be seeded with “Emergent Seed Mix,” typically rain gardens are seeded with a dryland grass + flowers mix. Can you please explain if the emergent seed mix will be successful in a sandy soil mixture with an under -drain system? I am not against Page 14 of 27 this idea but want to confirm that this plan will be successful. Ripley Design Response: The seed mix for the raingarden has been changed. See L34 and/or restoration plans for details and seed mix. Comment Number: 86 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Existing wetlands do need to be depicted on the drainage maps (according to criteria). Please check and confirm they are being adequately shown. HKS Response: Wetland boundaries have been adequately shown and labeled on the drainage maps. Comment Number: 87 07/06/2023: FOR INFORMATION: - I need to get you the example cutoff wall detail from the A4 storm main project. - I need to get you the Redwood Pond WQ orifice calc and design from NECCO appendices to include in the drainage report. -We have not come to a conclusion on the Redwood Pond irrigation tap. Stay tuned. HKS Response: The A4 storm main cutoff wall detail has been put into CAD and provided in the General Storm Details. Comment Number: 88 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Plat – please see my redline comments on the plat. All “storm easements” should be called “drainage easement.” HKS Response: All “storm easement” labels have been changed to say “drainage easement”. Comment Number: 89 07/06/2023: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The Development Agreement will need to include provisions for the developer repay for the A2 storm main, A3 storm main, and Redwood Pond (landscaping only). To start on this, we need you to provide an engineer’s cost estimate with line items and quantities for our review. The City’s developer repay process will need to be followed, which will include obtaining 3 competitive and qualified bids for these items. The low bid contractor does not have to be selected, but sets the price for what the City will reimburse. We can discuss this further with you. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. DHI Response: Acknowledged for City developer repay process from 1/6/23 stormwater developer repay meeting. Cost estimate to be provided now that Redwood Pond design has been confirmed as compliant based on new flow rates. Comment Number: 90 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of UT plans, LS plans, and Drainage Report for more comments. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Ripley Design Response: Will do, Thank you! Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson masimpson@fcgov.com (970) 416-2754 Topic: General Comment Number: 27 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: Page 15 of 27 The new location for the fire hydrant, at the west end of Lupine Drive, is in conflict with an existing domestic water service. In addition, the water main in this area is too close to the parallel storm main. Please see redlines on sheet C-6 for more information. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: At the Lupine Drive connection, there is a conflict between proposed stormwater inlet and an existing hydrant. It appears the hydrant will need to be relocated. Please review and revise. HKS Response: Layout updated Comment Number: 32 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT RESOLVED: The public sewer main will need to be 15 -feet (min) from the box culvert. I apologize if I miscommunicated or mislead you with the "10-feet.” We would be okay with the end of a wing-wall 10-feet away from sewer. The easement width also must be 30-feet (15 each side of sewer man). 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The proposed box culvert crossing Lake Canal (northeastern most RCBC) may not overlap with the proposed sewer main. 15 -feet separation (min.) must be provided from sewer main (and encasement) to box culvert. We would accept wing walls at 10-feet from sewer main encasement. HKS Response: Sewer main updated Comment Number: 34 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT RESOLVED: Thank you for your response. These must be submitted for City review before they are executed by offsite owners. This includes legal deed, easement exhibit, and easement closure report. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please submit the offsite sewer easements (deed and exhibit), for the offsite sewer main, for City review of legal boundaries and easement deed text. HKS Response: Acknowledged, off-site easements are included with this submittal. Comment Number: 37 07/06/2023: FOR APPROVAL: See redlines of landscape plan for several comments. Please remove the “AutoCAD SHX” comments from the landscape plan. FOR INFORMATION: (previous comment) I did not have time to review the Landscape Plan or Planning Site Plan. Please review these and confirm that all utilities and sidewalks are shown the same between plans. Please check that trees and shrubs provide 10 -feet and 4-feet respectively clear from water and sewer mains. Trees must provide 6-feet clear (min) from water and sewer services. Ripley Design Response: Utility separations have been double checked Comment Number: 39 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Regarding the offsite sewer main, see redlines for comments. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Comment Number: 40 Page 16 of 27 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Along the offsite sewer main, the “unknown utility 10 -inch conduit” crossing must be pothole located and shown on the profile. See sheet C-13 and SS-2 HKS Response: The crossing for this utility was found and has been added to the profile where it crosses the proposed sanitar y line along Lemay. The crossing just northwest of the meter was potholed and no water servi ce was found. Comment Number: 41 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All fire hydrant leads should be changed from DIP to PVC (and restrained). All fire service lines should be changed from DIP to PVC (and restrained). HKS Response: All hydrant leads and fire service lines have been changed from DIP to PVC. Comment Number: 42 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please try to relocate the water service for the maintenance shop closer to the building. See redlines Sheet C-8 for more information. HKS Response: Water service for the maintenance building has been relocated closer to the building. Comment Number: 43 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of Utility Plans for comments on water profiles. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Comment Number: 44 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On water main profiles, label deflection angles for all joint deflections at fittings. HKS Response: Deflection angles added to fittings where deflections are utilized as part of the vertical alignment. As all fi ttings will have deflections to some degree, it would crowd profiles with excess information making them harder to read to label de flections at every single fitting. We will continue working with Matt Simpson on what would be acceptable for labeling deflections on fitt ings on water profiles. Comment Number: 45 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of Utility and Landscape Plans for more comments. HKS Response: Noted, thanks. Ripley Design Response: Will do, Thank you! Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish rirish@fcgov.com 970-224-6167 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/05/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: The C-1 Forms do not match up with the correct transformers on the plan set. 03/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: Thank you for submitting revised C-1 Forms. From Rnd1 to Rnd2 the new C-1 forms are calling for 200amp services for all the dwelling units and apparently gas is not being installed on the site. This will affect the size and/or number of transformers need to feed the site and some of the locations planned. Also, the new C-1 Forms do not match the original One-line diagram submitted. Please update the One-line to match the new C-1 Forms submitted. Thanks. 11/10/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Thank you for submitting C-1 Forms for this Page 17 of 27 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: Updated C-1 forms have been provided with this submittal Comment Number: 2 07/05/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Some of the transformer numbering has changed on the plan set, some transformers are not numbered, and some transformers are covered up by other labeling or text. Some of the transformer locations/numbering are not matching with the C-1 Forms previously submitted. 03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - Updated: Thank you for labeling the transformers. 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: Transformer numbering has been reverted to what they were previously. Comment Number: 3 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: In a few locations, proposed Light & Power facilities are not 10 feet from Storm Sewer and or drain pipes. Are these considered private? What is an acceptable separation for Stormwater? 03/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: There are still a few transformer locations and electric routing that is not meet separation requirements from other utilities. Please see Electric Redlines for reference and work with me directly to figure out alternatives. 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: Power updated to be 10ft from public storm. 10-ft separation not needed to private landscape drains. Comment Number: 4 07/05/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Proposed electric vaults, and 1 or 2 streetlights, shown on the Electric Redlines are not shown on the plan set. Please show all items on the plan set so other departments can determine if separation requirements are being met. Thank you. 03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please reference Electric Redlines for preliminary additional electrical routing, electric crossings, streetlights, and additional vaults needed. This is preliminary as some of this may need to change with the new loading information on the C-1 Forms and the elimination of gas in the site. Please place this information on the plan set so other departments can see this in their reviews. Thank you. 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: Electric vaults and streetlights from redlined set are shown on plans. Comment Number: 8 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Some transformers are showing as submersible in the parkway, but are being called out as pad mount behind the Page 18 of 27 walk in the redline responses. A couple of transformers moved behind the walk do not appear to be meeting clearance requirements from windows and/or doors. Please make sure transformer clearance requirements are being met. 03/06/2023: For Final Approval: With the new electric load information submitted this round, it will be necessary to set larger transformers for most of the site. That being said, a few of the submersible transformers will not fit in the vaults, therefore, they will need to be pad mounts and different locations will need to be determined. Please see Electric Redlines for reference and work directly with me to coordinate solutions. HKS Response: Transformers have been updated per markups from Rob Irish. Transformers have also been shifted to meet clearance requirements. Comment Number: 9 07/05/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Redline responses indicate many transformers "moved outside of parkway" yet the Utility Plan still shows the transformers in the same location as before. At least one transformer does no t appear to be showing up at all and transformer numbering is incorrect. 03/06/2023: For Final Approval: Most of the transformers along Comrie (private drive) will need to be upsized to larger transformers for the increased load. These are all proposed as pad mounts in the parkway but will need to be relocated out of the parkway. A couple of them could be changed to submersible type but the majority will need to move. Please see the Electric Redlines for reference and work directly with me to coordinate new locations or solutions. HKS Response: Most transformers inside of Comrie Circle have been moved outside of the parkway. Missing transformer is now shown. Transformer numbering has been reverted to the correct numbers. Comment Number: 10 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please work to determine now if there will be any additional electric loads needed for the site beyond the One -lines that have been submitted. For example, EV chargers, lighting of private drives, etc.. Any additional loads may require more equipment and possible changes to the site layout. HKS Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton sbenton@fcgov.com (970)416-4290 Topic: General Comment Number: 4 07/11/2023: (UPDATED) 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. Page 19 of 27 The applicant will be responsible for the success of Redwood Pond revegetation 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. UPDATE: A cost estimate is needed for the restoration work of all NHBZ areas (including Tract A) and the Redwood Pond, including a minimum of thr ee years of weed management and monitoring is needed FOR FINAL APPROVAL. DHI Response: Acknowledged. Cost estimate to be provided now that Redwood Pond design has been confirmed as compliant Comment Number: 6 07/11/2023: (REPEAT) 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 rem oval 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. DHI Response: Acknowledged, area of “potentially active prairie dog burrows” is approximately .25 acre. Comment Number: 17 07/11/2023: -(UPDATED) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Full restoration of Tract A is required due to pipe installation and grading activities. Weed management (especially of leafy spurge) and soil management is critical prior to construction and restoration efforts. The prevalence of leafy spurge in Tract A makes the spreading of the topsoil from one place to the other problematic without planning and/or prior weed management. UPDATE: The restoration of Tract A will be different from res toration efforts in other areas of the development. The approach should be detailed in the restoration plan, both the full version and abbreviated version. Please reach out if you have any questions regarding this. Cedar Creek Response: Both the full and abbreviated versions of the restoration plan have been updated to include protocols for Tract A. Comment Number: 18 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Rain Garden Seed Mix detailed in the Restoration Plan, for use in the sandy soil of the rain garden, is not detailed or shown to be used on the Landscape Plan. Please rectify. Ripley Design Response: Rain garden seed mix is now shown on sheet L34 and a new hatch designates its extents on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 19 07/11/2023: INFORMATION ONLY: If alterations are made to the proposed design of the Redwood Pond, Environmental Planning must be involved in the review and discussions. Ripley Design Response: Noted. Thank you. Department: Forestry Contact: Christine Holtz choltz@fcgov.com Page 20 of 27 Topic: General Comment Number: 10 07/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL The project went from having 768 trees proposed in PD round 1, to 750 in FDP round 2, to 652 trees in FDP round 3. Please see forestry redlines for areas that can accommodate street trees—I did not redline every page of the landscape plan so I am sure there are more areas that can becoming planting locations. Ripley Design Response: Street trees have been added to those areas. Comment Number: 11 07/10/2023: 07/06/23: FOR FINAL APPROVAL In talks with Park Planning, they have approved plant locations in the planting bed along the west side of the trail. Trees should be slightly more spread out here and planted no less than 40 ft apart. Tree species should be fruitless. Please plant from the following list: Shumard oak, Texas red oak, Kentucky coffeetree ‘espresso’, American elm, linden, hackberry. Ripley Design Response: 31 Trees have been added to the planting bed along the west side of the trail, 9 Kentucky Coffee trees, 12 Shumard oak, 10 Hackberry Comment Number: 12 07/10/2023: FOR INFORMATION In tract A (L30) please use hydroexcavation with the installation of the stormwater utility and add a note to the landscape plan stating as much. The existing trees in this area are mostly large diameter cottonwoods (the largest being 56 inches - #17), and this means that the utility installation will interfere with the critical root zone. Please use caution and call Forestry if any roots larger than 3 inches are encountered. Ripley Design Response: A note has been added about hydroexcavation. Department: Park Planning Contact: Missy Nelson mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 03/07/2023: INFORMATION: Both Park Planning & Development and Parks department comments will be provided by Missy Nelson | mnelson@fcgov.com Ripley Design Response: Fantastic, Thank you Missy! Comment Number: 2 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL REPEAT- & UPDATED COMMENT: -- to cover the portion of the 10’ regional trail located in the tract. Please also stay consistent with easement names. This one should be Utility & Pedestrian Access and Trail Easement. 03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Continue regional trail as shown on redlines and add the necessary trail and public access easements to plat. HKS Response: Revised. Comment Number: 6 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED COMMENT: Correct, the landscaping watering and maintenance within the easement is the Page 21 of 27 responsibility of the underlying property owner. Parks will mow the grass on the side of the trail at least 4 times per year, the width of a mower deck (which is approximately 3-4'). Please add note to landscape plans: "Landscaping within the recreational trail easement shall be provided in accordance with all applicable City codes, and will remain the responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide acceptable clearances from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master Plan. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid spray on the trail surface." 03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL/INFORMATION: Landscaping within the recreational trail easement shall be provided in accordance with all applicable City codes, and will remain the responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide acceptable clearances from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master Plan. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid spray on the trail surface. Ripley Design Response: Information noted and note added to Landscape notes. Comment Number: 7 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED COMMENT: Thank you and yes, Parks will maintain the trail after construction. Please add a note to the site plan with that information. I will send an updated trail section that does not include the maintenance requirements since the City will be maintaining and not the HOA. Ripley Design Response: This note is provided in Site Plan Notes on the Cover sheet. It will also be outlined in the DA . 03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add notes to the site plan that developer is building the regional trail. The City Parks department will maintain. Please also add a page showing the trail details, including: trail thickness, fiber mesh, yosemite brown color, heavy broom finish. Please note, Park Planning and development is working on a standard detail, but your trail is wider and therefore thicker than what our standard detail will look like. We are happy to share the CAD file once complete if you would like. Comment Number: 9 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - REPEAT COMMENT: Thank you for addressing most. Please see Plat and Landscape plan mark-ups. - Landscape Plans - Easement is called “pedestrian easement” on this plan set. Please keep consistent with plat and relabel “50’ Public access and Trail Easement” - Plat - Tract A , please name Utility & Pedestrian Access and Trail Easement" 03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Be consistent with labels, ex: “public access and trail easement” through the plan sets. Ripley Design Response: Labels have been updated Comment Number: 10 07/14/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - REPEAT/UPDATED COMMENT: The question was asked during the meeting if final design of pedestrian bridge can be reviewed at or before building permit instead of prior to this project approval. As long as the location and easements are established now that should not be Page 22 of 27 an issue. It looks like the bridge location may have to shift per Stormwater's comment so prior to approval, Park Planning will want to review how the bridge will tie into the existing Northfield trail. Thanks and we're happy to review the bridge details prior to building permit submittal! Ripley Design Response: Thanks for working through that with us. Bridge details will be provided at building permit submittal. 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - REPEAT COMMENT: Plans say "Re: Civil" and "see structural plans" but it looks like the bridge was left out of the submittal. Please include for next round of review, and in addition, we can review in between rounds if you have ready to send over. 03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide detail for the pedestrian bridge on northern portion of property? Need details & specifications, no kickplate (plowing issue for Parks) and preferred concrete, not wood). Please note, the bridge needs to be rated for a 10,000 lb vehicle, minimum 10' wide, and railing height of 52". Comment Number: 15 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED COMMENT: Does this easement align with Northfield's easement? HKS Response: Confirmed; see included Northfield Plat with this submittal; page 4 of the plat shows the 50’ access and trail easement which the pedestrian bridge and easement align. 03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please add the public access and trail easement across to align with the Northfield project (northern pedestrian bridge). Comment Number: 17 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL: Could you please add a key on each sheet of the plat? HKS Response: Legend added. Comment Number: 18 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Thank you for working with staff, including Stormwater Eng. to help make this regional trail section an enjoyable outdoor recreational space. It looks great! The following comments are just a few details to work out (see Park Planning's magenta mark-ups) - During our design charrette we talked about stair access to the trail. After reviewing the addition of these access points we have a few concerns to work through. It can be dangerous for the stairs to end directly at the regional trail. There should be ~3’ landing. If there’s not room for that with the stairs heading straight to trail, could the stairs turn to the SW in order to provide a landing? Stair walls is also a concern with Parks for their snow plow trucks. They will get damaged by the plows. Walls need to be at least 1’ from edge of paved trail. Ripley Design Response: There is now a 3’ landing at the bottom of each stair and the wall has been moved back 3’ from edge o f paved trail - Is the most northern access point to the trail ADA compliant? Please see utility plan redlines to confirm access trail slope. Please also make sure you’re looking at making sure there are adequate number of ADA access points to the trail. HKS Response: Trail has been revised per on-going conversations with Parks. Northern connection has been changed to be ADA compliant. - Along Suniga, we talked about the existing 5’ sidewalk being demolished and replaced with the 10’ regional trail. Please add to plans. Please reduce triangular southern parcel trail to 10’, not 15’. Page 23 of 27 HKS Response: Trails have been revised as discussed. - If the ditch company permits, please add and show attached crusher fines side trail. UPDATE 7/12/2023 - The ditch company did not approve a crusher fines trail in their easement so we will forego it. They requested the developer/HOA add No Trespassing signs so that runners, etc. don't use the ditch road. Ripley Design Response: no crusher trail has been provided along this stretch of the trail. We will await final direction fro m the Ditch Co after they complete their review and will comply with their signage recommendations at that time. - Please add note on site and landscape plan that the trail color is Yosemite Brown. If it doesn’t get too busy, perhaps hatched to differentiate? Ripley Design Response: This is handled by calling out the Yosemite Brown color on the detail. Industry standard is to either call it out on plans or details, but not both in order to avoid conflicting information. - Again, thank you for implementing the planting bed adjacent to the trail to provide the separate of uses! Where there are no utility lines, please add a few trees. Also, the planting bed can be simplified with less shrubs and more of a clustered “native” area look; but the planting beds need to be irrigated including separate drip to the trees. Also, can we add a note (*that the landscapers will see when they plant*) to make sure all plantings are planted at least 3’ from trail edge? Ripley Design Response: Trees locations and species have been coordinated with Forestry and included in the planting beds west of the trail. Please note, some of these trees do not meet utility separations with a proposed storm sewer. Per offline conve rsations with City Staff, it is our understanding this is okay in this specific scenario. - Please add radius to utility and site plans of trail curve coming off the pedestrian bridge at the northern end of the project. Ripley Design Response: Radius to curve coming off trail has been dimensioned on Site Plans HKS Response: Radius added to Paving Plans. Comment Number: 19 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Parks staff have expressed safety and maintenance concerns regarding existing utility access covers (manholes) that have been improperly installed during the time of construction and/or may have shifted over time. Utility covers that are incorrectly installed and that are not flush with the concrete cause safety issues for trail users and maintenance issues in terms of damaged equipment. It’s Parks preference to install utility access off the paved portion of the trail so to avoid these potential problems. HKS Response: Manhole lids adjusted and paving delineated. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869 Topic: General Comment Number: 3 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The fire lane connection between Lupine and Steely does not meet turning radius requirements. A turning exhibit can be submitted for approval or the access drive can be redesigned to meet requirements. Ripley Design Response: Turning exhibit has been provided with this round of review Department: Internal Services Contact: Lauren Wade lwade@fcgov.com 970-302-5962 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Page 24 of 27 02/24/2023: GIS: Street names need to be reviewed. Many of the private street names are not necessary with the exception of Bratcher Lane, Coutts Drive/Patton Court (chose one, this is a continuous road), and Graham Drive. These are necessary for addressing the structures that face an open space, rather than a road. HKS Response: Unnecessary private street names that are not necessary for addressing have been removed. Comment Number: 2 02/24/2023: GIS: Lupine Dr continues until the 45+ degree turn to Collamer Drive. Correct this on the plan. Steely Drive continues north past Lupine until the 90 degree turn to Comrie Dr. Please assign a name to Comrie Drive where it intersects Collamer Dr on the plans. Due to the 90+ degree change in street direction, a new street is designated. HKS Response: Street names have been updated, and now reflect the removal of public drivable access from the site to Lupine drive. Comrie Dr. Is now Comrie Circle, and Steely does not go north past Collamer because it transitions from a public street to a private street. See Site Plan for details. Contact: Russell Hovland rhovland@fcgov.com 970-416-2341 Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2021 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments 2021 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments 2021 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments 2021 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments 2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments Colorado Plumbing Code (currently on the 2018 IPC) 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017. Snow Live Load: Ground Snow Load 35 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): · 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: • Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2021 IECC residentia l chapter. • Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2021 IECC commercial chapter. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, see local amendment. · This building is located within 250ft of a 4 lane road or 1000 ft of an active railway, must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min. · R-2 occupancies must provide 10ft to 30ft of fire separation distance (setback) from property line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fi re rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC. Page 25 of 27 · All multi-famliy buildings must be fire sprinkled. City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2021 International Fire Code limit what areas can avoid fire sprinklers with a NFPA 13R, see local IFC 903 amendment. · Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler. All egress windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24”. · If using electric systems to heat or cool the building, ground source heat pump or cold climate heat pump technology is required. · A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi-family structure. · Energy code requires short hot water supply lines by showing plumbing compactness. · For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain the requirements for each district. Stock Plans: When the exact same residential building will be built more then once with limited variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php. Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: For new buildings, please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed above. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new projects shoul d email rhovland@fcgov.com to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. DHI Response: Acknowledged, pre-submittal meeting requested 9/13/23 and held on 9/15/23, please see attached meeting minutes for reference. Pending DRC approval for Building Department submittal release, Russ would you like to review the project again for continuity. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588 Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 10 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are text over text issues. See markups. 03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are text over text issues. See redlines. 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. HKS Response: Addressed Comment Number: 14 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See markups. Page 26 of 27 HKS Response: Revisions corrected. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 07/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com 03/07/2023: 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 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, thanks. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: Please revise the legal description as marked. See markups. 03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: This has not been addressed. 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: Addressed Ripley Design Response: Legal description shown on site plan matches legal description on plat Comment Number: 3 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: There are still matchline issues. See markups. 03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED: This has not been addressed. 11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are matchline issues. See redlines. Ripley Design Response: No redlines on site plan were received from Tech Services Page 27 of 27 Department: Water Conservation Contact: Emma Pett epett@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 07/10/2023: INFORMATION: Preliminary irrigation plans look good. Final irrigation plans are due at building permit application and should include a pressure loss and smart controller chart. Aqua Engineering Response: Noted. Contact: Eric Olson eolson@fcgov.com 970-221-6704 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 02/21/2023: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Aqua Engineering Response: Noted.