Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER LOT 4 - FDP200011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 1 of 13 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 August 20, 2022 Katy Thompson Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Salud Family Health Center Lot 4, FDP200011, Round Number 3 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Salud Family Health Center Lot 4. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970 -221-6695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Ripley Responses in Green Northern Engineering Responses in Blue TW Beck Responses in Red Salud Responses in Purple Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 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! Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 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. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not Page 2 of 13 been addressed, when applicable. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 When you are preparing to resubmit, please reach out to give me as much advanced notice as possible. Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut off for routing the same week. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 08/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL: In the time since the development project was last reviewed, the City's capital project to improve Laporte Avenue adjacent to the site has progressed such that it is approaching a 90% design this month and construction anticipated later this year. The current design along the frontage does not take into account Salud Drive and addresses only existing accesses in the current condition before the proposed development. There may be options that would have the capital project accommodate as part of the design and build the opening for the future Salud Drive, but that window is diminishing as the capital project design is furthered along towards approval. Additionally, with the Laporte project, there could be the option to extend the water service off of Laporte into the site to avoid future street cuts into Laporte Avenue that could be subject to triple impact penalty fees. Also, in looking at the phasing plan that was included that didn't take into account the capital project now moving forward, it is suggested that a check in occur with the applicant on vision towards the timing of their development to understand how to approach finalizing the capital project design. Note that to the extent that the City is building the local portion frontage of Laporte Avenue abutting the property, there would be a repay from the development to the City for the local street improvements specified in the development agreement. Additionally, as part of the development agreement we would document that the landscaping and irrigation along Laporte Avenue as part of the capital project would be required to be maintained by the developer. RESPONSE: ROW and Laporte improvements have been coordinated with the City. The construction plans have been updated to show the existing Laporte improvements and waterline that has been extended to the Salud property. The phasing has been removed from the plans as well. A portion of the cross-pan will be rebuilt to match the required width of Maple Street and fix the flowline slope. 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL The plans have been forwarded to Dan for his input and verification. The preliminary design plans for Laporte don't appear to coincide with what is shown on the plans as an elevated bike lane along Laporte behind the curb and gutter is shown. After Dan's review, we may want to have a meeting to discuss design and timing considerations. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL The City has an improvement project for Laporte Avenue that involves this development's Laporte Avenue frontage. Discussion with Dan Woodward in Page 3 of 13 Engineering Capital Projects should occur to explore how the plans should reflect the frontage along Laporte and also whether the construction of this frontage might be better served to be done by the City (with a payment provided in-lieu of construction). The timing of the development's anticipated construction start in comparison to the City is part of the consideration for this. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 08/11/2022: INFORMATION ONLY The City Engineer has approved the variance request to not provide the offsite utility easement on 8/5/2002. Please allow this comment to serve as notification of this approval. RESPONSE: Thank you 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL Carried over as unresolved, understanding that an agreement with an offsite utility easement along the Stodgy property is being looked at. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL The design for Salud Parkway does not maintain a continuous utility easement corridor along the east side of the roadway. There is a general concern with how the utility providers are able to extend utility services within the easement along the east side. Will the applicant be obtaining an offsite utility easement from Stodgy Brewing, keeping mind that Stodgy Brewing does not appear to have any property abutting right-of-way for Salud Parkway? Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 08/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL The plat appears to be updated to address my plat concern. Note that I had also commented on whether the civil plans needed to be updated to not reflect Larimer and Weld Irrigation Ditch Company. RESPONSE: Construction plans have been updated to clarify the ditch easement and who it is being conveyed too. 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL The update reflecting a ditch easement on the plat addresses much of the concern. Note that in the Certificate of Dedication on the plat, it's the standard indication that the "Easements" are dedicated to the City of Fort Collins. I believe in this dedication statement an exception should be called out indicating after "and the 'Easements'" something akin to "(with the exception of the 'Ditch Easement' which is conveyed to Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company)" in order to remove any ambiguity that the Ditch Easement is being conveyed to the City. Also, please note that the approval block on the civil plans reflect Larimer and Weld Irrigation Ditch Company, which I think needs to be changed. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL The centerline of Larimer County Canal #2 is depicted on the plat, and would require that Larimer County Canal #2 sign the plat and civil plans. Typically it would seem to be beneficial to establish some sort of limit/easement for the ditch in order for it to be evident that the proposed development (and associated easements and rights-of-way) can be established without an argument made by the ditch company that their prescriptive rights allow them to impact the site in a manner that prevents the right to develop the property as approved on the plans. What has been the discussion with the ditch company? Page 4 of 13 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 08/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL The response indicated that new box culvert designs have been included. These have been route to Jin for his review. RESPONSE: New bridge design submitted on 8/11/22. City’s Structural Engineer (Jim) provided comments. We have made the changes to the railing design per Jim’s comments, included with this submittal. 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL The revised design with the more standard box culvert is appreciated. The review of the box culvert design is with Jin Wang and updated comments will be coordinated and provided. One concern I do see is that there doesn't appear to be a railing over the bridge. A bicycle railing is required with the roadway having an adjacent bike lane and would need to be a minimum of 54 inches (11.3.4 of LCUASS). 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL The design of the ditch crossing under the new roadway was provided for initial review to Jin Wang, City Engineering's staff structural engineer and the overall design is problematic and would need to be redesigned. AAASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design should be the design specifications and the use of an aluminum box culvert would not be allowed as only reinforced concrete and steel are acceptable per 11.2.3 of LCUASS. A complete design with presumed structural rebar with a concrete box and wingwalls is needed. Attached sidewalks are required to be 8 feet. The design engineer should perhaps reach out to Jin Wang for further details and discussion. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/14/2020 08/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL The plans appear to reroute the path outside the turnaround area, but it's difficult to confirm without providing labels to indicate this. Please look to provide labels to confirm this. RESPONSE: Construction plans have been updated to clarify trail around turnaround area. 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL The response indicated a preference to keep this as approved in the PDP design, there is still a concern I see in how the temporary turnaround condition is in conflict with the concrete trail. Perhaps we can explore the portion of the turnaround with the trail being built with a drive-over curb to have the trail elevated but still allow for turnaround movements? More discussion is needed. 07/14/2020: FOR APPROVAL The temporary turnaround at the end of Salud/Maple appears awkward with a concrete sidewalk/trail within the temporary turnaround. The ability to turnaround for vehicles would result in the vehicles running over the sidewalk/trail. Why isn't the trail designed to not conflict into the vehicular use area? A general overall concern I see is that it appears highly unlikely for the extension of Salud/Maple across Lot 5 in the foreseeable future. It would seem to be more appropriate to have the road terminate as a formal cul-de-sac with asphalt and sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. Page 5 of 13 Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 08/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL Carrying this comment over as unresolved, the response indicates that the reason this isn't provided is the inability to obtain an offsite easement from the adjacent property owner, but this doesn't appear to be off-site and is within the platted boundary. Most of the area is already in an easement from the 9' behind Salud, it would be carrying the line of the 15' utility easement west of Salud Drive easterly to the boundary of Stodgy's property. RESPONSE: The utility easement alignment has been updated to align with future 15’ utility easement with the Stodgy Property along Laporte Ave. 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL There doesn't appear to be a continuation of the utility easement along Laporte east of Salud as is shown on the west side of Salud. Please extend this easement corridor to the western boundary of Stodgy. There is also a 15' utility easement behind the 12' right-of-way dedication on the Stodgy plat which would provide some continuity to the easement corridor as a result. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 08/11/2022: FOR APPROVAL Carried over as unresolved. The response indicates E2 has been added to the sheet index, but I'm not seeing this, or understand if it intended to address the comment. RESPONSE: E2 Has been provided with this submittal and is included in the Photometric Plan. 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL The environmental status and previous contamination of the property was not something I was aware of having inherited the project, and I'm looking for more information on from the perspective that the City would become the owner of land (right-of-way) for public street purposes. Additional information is needed for review with the information provided in the November 2020 report that City staff was recently made are of and still processing and should be identified in the most recent Site Characterization Report : 1) Identify with the proposed development what are the areas of City owned right-of-way and also City maintained infrastructure (utilities, trees, public street) that coincide with areas of contamination identified in the environmental compliance completion reports (such as an overlay of the proposed site development with areas identified in Page 28 of the November 2020 completion report). We don't believe we have all the known information at this time to make this determination. 2) How will the proposed development potentially impact any ongoing compliance efforts (such as Page 28 of the 11/2020 report delineates a "photoremediation" zone, which appears to potentially be in proximity to the new City right-of-way/street. Is this a "phytoremediation zone", and if so, what is it still ongoing and what is the implication on the loss of vegetation with the development?) 3) A soils report wasn't found in the electronic documents, it should be provided for review to understand the recommendations for the construction of the public street system and whether the report considered the environmental condition. Page 6 of 13 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 12/14/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL (UPDATED) Thank you for removing the bike symbols. The crosswalk and stop bar at the Laporte intersection still show up in the drawings. Please fully address comment for final approval. RESPONSE: Stop bar and crosswalk have been removed on construction plans. 04/26/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Bike stencils are only needed on Salud as you head north off of LaPorte and at the very north end for southbound. The two next to the driveway should be removed from the plans. The crosswalk and stop bar on Salud at LaPorte are also not needed and should be removed. Department: Stormwater Engineering - Erosion Control Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/10/2021 11/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please address updated redlines on the Erosion Control Plan. RESPONSE: Responses have been added to redlines 04/21/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Erosion Control Plan, Report and Escrow Calc have comments that need to be addressed. Please revise materials based upon those comments. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 08/04/2022 FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please address all redlines provided on Utility Plans. Department: Stormwater Engineering - Floodplain Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 07/13/2020: Development review checklists and permit application forms for floodplain requirements can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents. Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal. RESPONSE: Icon has submitted the permit application and has responded to the city comments in August 2023 . Contact: Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, 970-224-6036, mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/08/2021 12/08/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please see floodplain CLOMR comment letter from ICON Engineering that was sent to Aaron Cvar. Please address the listed comments and resubmit for review. Page 7 of 13 RESPONSE: Icon has submitted the permit application and has responded to the city comments in August 2023 . Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/08/2021 12/08/2021: FOR APPROVAL: There is concern regarding removal of the existing bridge and placement of the new bridge across the irrigation canal and the impact of those changes may have on the spills from the canal (location and discharge). This will need to be analyzed to show that the spills are not changing. If there is a change, the modeling must be revised to reflect the proposed condition. RESPONSE: Icon has submitted the permit application and has responded to the city comments in August 2023 . Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Please include a small slit in the rundown notches to remove any ponding, which may cause the rundown to algae and become dangerous. Also, the forebay detail does not seem to be included in the plan set. Also, please update the grading plan with the new design. Riprap is still shown at the rundowns. RESPONSE: Run down and forebay details and design have been revised. Rip rap has been swapped with concrete forebay. 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please add forebays to the rain gardens. Riprap pads will de difficult to maintain. 07/10/2020: There are multiple outfalls into the proposed rain gardens, including concrete chases, that will need detailed erosion and scour protection design. Please include this design with the next submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-REPEAT COMMENT: 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide details in the Utility Plan set for the pumped outfall including pump configuration and attachment in manhole and all associated piping. RESPONSE: See sheet D6 in the utility plans. We can discuss pump configuration if needed. 07/13/2020: As discussed previously with this project, the variance to pumped detention is acceptable, pending a full design of the pumping system. The variance form provided is acceptable and will be signed by the City at time of final plan approval. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/16/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please cross out the "Walled Cross-Section" portion of the Bioretention detail. RESPONSE: Detail has been revised. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/16/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Page 8 of 13 Please remove the "Modified Water Quality Outlet Structure" detail in the utility plan set. The City has had issues with owners maintaining an outlet structure with a trash rack over and in front of the well screen and concrete pad. RESPONSE: Detail has been removed and we are using typical city outlet detail. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please submit utility easement documents once completed and these will be required before signing of mylars. RESPONSE: Easement documents have been included with submittal. We are still working with offsite owners on obtaining agreement. 07/10/2020: Have locates and survey been completed for the water main to the east? The connection point shown does not appear to line up with the existing water main and it does not appear the existing water main has been stubbed to the property line. An easement may be needed to connect across the adjacent parcel in order to make the connection to the existing water main. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - REVISED: The tree in question is located on sheet 7 and within the parking lot island. This tree looks like it will need to be removed. Also, the sewer service stub to Lot 1 is in conflict with a tree. RESPONSE: This tree has been relocated north to avoid the utility conflict. 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: There is a tree located 7.5 feet from the proposed sanitary sewer main. 10 feet of separation is required. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: The comment response indicated a maintenance road is being provided. Please provide documentation within the Utility Plan Set. RESPONSE: Maintenance Road has been detailed for on -site sanitary alignment to the north property line. 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: City Utilities will get back with the Applicant regarding if any maintenance access will be required for the new offsite public sanitary main. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: It now appears that the stub is being abandoned and a new wet tap is be proposed into the existing main in Laporte Ave. Please revise Sheet PH2. RESPONSE: The water connection to Laporte Ave has been constructed by the City of Fort Collins and the existing conditions have been updated. 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the existing water main stub on the Utility Plan at Laporte Ave. and Salud Drive where the proposed water main is connecting into. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/28/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Page 9 of 13 There is a tree to close to the water service right before the service enters the building. RESPONSE: Conflicts have been resolved. 04/28/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the water and sewer services all the way to the building on the Utility Plan and the Landscape Plan to ensure separation requirements from other utilities and trees/landscaping. Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970-416-2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: Please show the meter location and secondary service line on the Utility Plan RESPONSE: The electric meter has been added to the utility plans and a secondary service line from the transformer. We can discuss any additional design changes as needed. 07/13/2020: FOR APPROVAL: This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 07/13/2020: FOR APPROVAL: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one-line diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf RESPONSE: The C-1 form was filled out and submitted with Round 3 Submittal, and has been included with this Submittal. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 04/27/2021: FOR APPROVAL: On the Landscape Plan, please add one additional streetlight next to the proposed vault located at the start of the temporary Cul-de-Sac. Please add all streetlights shown on the Landscape Plan onto the Utility Plan. RESPONSE: An additional streetlight has been added next to the proposed vault location. Added throughout all plan sets. See Sheet 8. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/26/2021 FOR INFORMATION 04/26/2021: DCP Thank you for providing a raptor survey of the Red Tailed Hawk nest. As per the recommendations in the survey, another survey will be required prior to the issuance of a DCP. RESPONSE: Understood Page 10 of 13 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 Unresolved Comment 04/27/2021: FOR FDP APPROVAL This project will require an escrow at 125% of the total cost for landscape materials, installation, monitoring and weed mitigation. Please provide cost estimates for these items prior to FDP approval. RESPONSE: The NHBZ escrow estimate has been included in the Round 4 submittal documents for final review/approval. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 FOR INFORMATION 04/27/2021: DA A development agreement will be required prior to issuance of a DCP. The DA will likely include language regarding the environmental contamination issues, which will be determined when all the requested information is available RESPONSE: Noted Department: Forestry Contact: Carrie Tomlinson, , ctomlinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 08/09/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED Redlines from last round have not been resolved. See comment below RESPONSE: Conflicts have been resolved and responses provided in this submittal. 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED Continued: Thank you for adjusting tree and utilities. Forestry identified a few more conflicts which are highlighted on an updated redlined set. 4/27/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please review Forestry’s redlines. There are a handful of tree -utility conflicts that need to be resolved either by shifting utilities or slightly shifting tree locations. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/27/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED Continued: Since the trees will be removed, please do not show them on the proposed landscape plans. Please remove all trees to be removed from the proposed set for clarity. RESPONSE: Trees which are to be removed are not shown on the landscape plans. 4/28/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL On Sheet 10 of the landscape plan, there is a water line that is shown underneath two existing trees just west of Salud Road and north of Laporte Ave. Is this line existing or proposed? If it is proposed, please shift the utility away from directly under the trees. If that is not feasible, the line will need to be installed via boring methods. Please advise Forestry if this is the preferred route for further coordination. We can provide a boring/tree protection note if needed. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/16/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL There are a few tree groves that are missing or not labeled on the tree inventory and mitigation plan. Please show/label Tree Groups A, B, K, and Larimer #2 Page 11 of 13 Irrigation Ditch to sheet 3. RESPONSE: Tree Groups A and B are wholly outside of this FDP boundary and will be handled by a separate PDP (Lot 2). Due to this these tree groupings are not included with his Tree Mitigation Plan , however they are labeled in Sheet # 4 and 5 on the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones and Overall Landscape Plan . Tree Group K has been added as this tree group straddles this FDP and Lot 6 (to be handled by a separate PDP). Larimer #2 Irrigation Ditch has been added. Department: Internal Services Contact: Lauren Wade, 970-302-5962, lwade@fcgov.com Topic: GIS Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2021 11/16/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Maple St will continue to W Laporte Ave per the Master Street Plans. Salud Dr will be Maple St. RESPONSE: Salud Dr has been revised to Maple Street. Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/13/2020 07/13/2020: A change of occupancy for these existing buildings will require a building permit and full review by Building Services. RESPONSE: Acknowledged Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 08/09/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Responses have been added to redlines 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 07/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/05/2022 08/05/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CULVERT PLANS: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/05/2022 08/05/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Line over text has been fixed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/10/2020 08/05/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not Page 12 of 13 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 RESPONSE: Responses have been added to redlines 04/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. 07/10/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/05/2022 08/05/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The sheet index shows Elevation & Lighting plans, but they are not in the plan set. Please include these in the set or remove them from the index. RESPONSE: Sheets have been included with this submittal. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 07/17/2020: LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 - Melissa Buick melissahbuick@gmail.com 970.686.7126 FOR APPROVAL: Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company requests the plans show the ditch easement as being 25 feet from the top of the bank on both sides of the ditch for the continued ongoing cleaning, maintenance, and repair and/or replacement of the ditch. Additional comments are that the developer will need to have crossing agreements in place for the construction/installation of the vehicular bridge, utility or other crossings of the ditch an/or any historical discharge into the ditch. The Company requests additional plans showing the detail for each of the proposed ditch crossings for review and approval. RESPONSE: We will work with Ditch company on crossing agreements and any requested information. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2021 11/19/2021: LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 - Melissa Buick melissahbuick@gmail.com 970.686.7126 FOR APPROVAL: Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company will require agreements to be completed for any crossing of, or discharge into the ditch prior to work beginning and requests the developer provide a list of items impacting the ditch and ditch easement, including plans for each individual crossing. The ditch Page 13 of 13 easement should be shown on the plat and access to the ditch and ditch easement throughout the property may not be obstructed. RESPONSE: We will work with Ditch company on crossing agreements. The required easements are shown on plat and utility plans.