Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Applicant Communication - 09/05/5202 September 5, 2024 Kimberly Nelson WRCC, Inc. Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company 106 Elm Avenue Eaton, CO 80615 RE: Sonders Village, PDP230012, Round 2 Comments Dear Kimberly: As requested by WRCC, Inc (WRCC) and Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company (LWIC), W.W. Wheeler & Associates, Inc (Wheeler) has reviewed the 2nd round of documents provided by Waters Edge Investments, LLLP, Developer (Applicant) for the Sonders Village (City of Fort Collins No: PDP230012) and are providing our comments. The Applicant is proposing to develop proposed mixed use 689-unit residential neighborhood development located immediately west WRCC’s Number 8 Outlet Ditch (No. 8 Canal) northeast of the intersection of Richards Lake Road and Turnberry Road in Fort Collins, CO. Figure 1 presents a vicinity map from the Applicant’s site drawings. Figure 1 – Vicinity Map depicting project location. Kimberly Nelson, WRCC & LWIC September 5, 2024 Page 2 Water from the No. 8 Canal flows into the Larimer and Weld Canal (LWC) which is owned and operated by LWIC. WRCC and LWIC are herein referred to as the Companies. Mr. Hayden Strickland of Wheeler previously provided comments on the Round 1 documents in a letter from Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc (ERC) dated October 18,2023. Mr. Strickland also met with the Applicant’s Engineer, Mr. John Gooch of Aspen Engineering on January 30, 2024 and provided Mr. Gooch a summary of that meeting on February 13, 2024. A copy of that meeting summary is provided in Appendix A. The applicants have not addressed all the issues raised by WRCC and do not have an agreement with WRCC to relocate the No. 8 Canal or to discharge stormwater into the ditch. This letter focuses on the documents the Applicant submitted to the City of Fort Collins; however, the Companies remain open to meeting with Sonders to discuss alternatives in more detail. The documents Wheeler reviewed and our comments on each are shown below: Response to Surveyor Comments Filename: 1_CMNTS_RESPONSE_SURVEYOR COMMENTS - (8-7-24).pdf 1. No comments. Responses to Staff Comments for Sonders Village, PDP230012, Round Number 1, dated September 22, 2023 Filename: 1_CMNTS_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 2. Engineering Development Review Comment No. 1 – Need for an agreement with Ditch Company - Wheeler understands that the Companies have not yet signed an agreement with the Applicants. 3. Stormwater Engineering, Comment No. 4 - In-advertent detention location – Wheeler has not seen any proposed separation distance from the relocated ditch and any inadvertent storage areas. Please provide a figure of the proposed in-advertent storage areas and a proposed separation distance from the relocated ditch. 4. Stormwater Engineering Comment No. 5 – Master Plan Ditch Side Spill - Please provide the specific exhibit referenced. Wheeler understands that there is an agreement limiting the rate of stormwater discharge for this property to 10 cfs. The Applicant should revise the plans to limit stormwater discharge to 10 cfs per this agreement. Parcel Description Sonders Subdivision Filename: 1_LEGAL_PLAT_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 5. Wheeler did not review this document. Project Narrative Filename: 1_NARRATIVE_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf Kimberly Nelson, WRCC & LWIC September 5, 2024 Page 3 6. No comments. Building Details Filename: 2_ARCH_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 7. Wheeler did not review this document. Landscaping Plans Filename: 2_LANDSCAPE_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2 8. No comments. Lighting Plan Filename: 2_LIGHTING_Sonders Vilage_PDP_RD2.pdf 9. Wheeler did not review this document. Site Plan Filename: 2_SITE_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 10. Please add locations and types of fences separating the No.8 Canal easement from other lands. 11. WRCC is still reviewing the easement widths, which Wheeler understands will be conveyed as a fee simple easement. Plat Closure Filename: 3_CLOSURE-PLAT_Sonders Village_PDP_RD1.pdf 12. Wheeler did not review this document. Monument Descriptions Filename: 3_MONUMENT_Sonders Village_PDP_RD1.pdf 13. Wheeler did not review this document. Final Plat for Montava Subdivision Phase D Filename: 3_PLAT_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 14. Wheeler did not review this document. Utility Plans Filename: 4_UTILITY PLANS PT1_Sonders Village_PDP_Rd2.pdf & 4_UTILITY PLANS PT2_Sonders Village_PDP_Rd2.pdf 15. WRCC has not reached agreement with the Applicant to allow the No. 8 Canal to be relocated. 16. Please explain what the future Baker lateral by others on Sheet C-020 is. Does this lateral go over or under the No. 8 Canal? Kimberly Nelson, WRCC & LWIC September 5, 2024 Page 4 17. Please provide a longitudinal profile of the relocated ditch section. 18. Please provide cross sections of the relocated ditch section and access roads extending from the existing grade to existing grade. It appears that some sections will have significant slopes from the access road to the existing grade. 19. Please update the utility plans to show all the relocated ditch sections. Currently, there is no sheet showing the northeast corner of the relocated ditch. Please include sheets for grading and drainage for these areas. 20. Please add a sheet to the grading plans showing the No. 8 Canal starting from just north of Douglas Road to Sheet C-023. It appears that the canal is relocated to the east, but it is unclear how this relocated canal connects to the existing No. 8 Canal north of Douglas Road. 21. Assuming the stormwater outfalls are approved, the Companies require that the riprap outfalls be grouted to the full depth of riprap so that no riprap is exposed. This prevents debris from accumulating on the exposed riprap. 22. Please provide details on all the stormwater outfalls including elevations of the outfall in relation to the canal bottom and expected high water line when delivering 250 cfs of irrigation water. 23. The utility plans show several sanitary sewer crossings and irrigation water line crossings. The Companies require that all utilities carrying fluids over or under the ditch be encased in steel casing throughout the ditch right of way (ROW), with cutoff walls at each end. For 12-inch-diameter or smaller, the Companies require a 3/16-inch-thick steel casing pipe a minimum of six inches larger in diameter than the carrier pipe to allow a minimum of three inches of clearance around the carrier pipe. The casing pipe should be suitably protected from failure due to corrosion for a minimum design life of 50 years. The carrier pipe should be separated from the casing pipe using insulated casing spacers properly dimensioned and spaced to safely accommodate the utility and prevent shorting of the pipe’s cathodic protection system. Finally, the casing pipe should have Calpico end seals, or approved equivalent, with stainless steel straps. 24. All utility lines should be installed a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the canal. Please provide drawings showing each utility crossing profile including the elevation of the casing pipe, the bottom of the ditch, and the Companies right-of-way. 25. The Companies require seepage cutoff walls be installed at the end of each utility crossing to prevent piping from the ditch along the utility pipe. Depending on the soil conditions where the utility crossing is located, a filter collar may be needed to ensure material cannot erode. Typically reinforced concrete cutoff walls should be installed a minimum of 4 feet inside the WRCC ROW. The concrete cutoff wall should extend a minimum of 24 inches above the casing pipe, should be a minimum of 12 inches thick, and all reinforcement should have a minimum of 4 inches clearance from the pipe or edges of the cutoff wall. Kimberly Nelson, WRCC & LWIC September 5, 2024 Page 5 Finally, the wall should be keyed a minimum of 6 inches into the natural ground. All backfill above the cutoff wall should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard proctor density. Please provide a detailed drawing and description of the proposed cutoff wall and confirmation that a filter collar is not necessary. 26. Please provide details of the proposed drop structures. Please provide access ramps into the ditch bottom above and below all drop structures to allow equipment to access the ditch bottom above and below each drop structure. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Sonders East, August 7, 2024. Filename: 5_DRAINAGE_Sonders Village_PDP_Rd2.pdf 27. Wheeler understands that there is already a drainage agreement for this property. Please see the letter from WRCC’s legal counsel for details. 28. Please describe the impact to stormwater inflows to the No. 8 Canal caused by relocating the ditch. Please provide tabulations of the current rates and volumes for a 2-year and 100-year storm compared to the proposed conditions for the same storms. Requirements for Utility Plans Filename: 6_E-4 checklist_Sonders Village_PDP_Rd2.pdf 29. Wheeler did not review this document. Sonders Village East – Ecological Characterization Study. Filename: 6_ECS_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 30. Wheeler did not review this document. Fire Truck Turning Radius Exhibit Filename: 6_FIRE_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 31. Wheeler did not review this document. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Waters Edge East, October 19, 2018 Filename: 6_GEOTECH_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 32. Does the Applicant plan on constructing foundation drains as recommended in the geotechnical report? Where will these foundation drains discharge? Sonders’s Village Traffic Impact Analysis, Revised August 7, 2024. Filename: 6_TRAFFIC-Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf 33. Wheeler did not review this document. Sonders Village Existing Tree Removal Justification Filename: 6_TREE REMOVAL_Sonders Village_PDP_RD2.pdf Kimberly Nelson, WRCC & LWIC September 5, 2024 Page 6 34. Wheeler did not review this document. Wheeler recommends that the issues above be addressed before the Companies provide any notice to the City of Fort Collins approving these plans. The issues identified above are based on the data and documents we have currently available and may change as additional information becomes available. Sincerely, W. W. Wheeler & Associates, Inc. Hayden Strickland, P.E. Cc via Email: Autumn Penfold, WRCC, LWIC Andy Pineda, WRCC, LWIC Linda Bower, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP Ryan Donovan, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP File Location: R:\1900\1953-LWIC\09_SondersEast\09-05-24 Wheeler Sonders Comments.docx APPENDIX A – Meeting Summary – January 30, 2024. Ecological Resource Consultants, LLC 225 Union Blvd, Suite 325 ~ Lakewood, CO ~ 80228 ~ (303) 679-4820 Technical Memorandum Date: February 13, 2024 To: John Gouch, Aspen Engineering From: Hayden Strickland, ERC, LLC Re: Meeting Summary – January 30, 2024 Introduction The purpose of this memo is to summarize the discussion points of the meeting between ERC, LLC (Hayden Strickland) and Aspen Engineering (John Gouch) that took place on January 30, 2024, at Aspen Engineering’s office in Fort Collins, CO. The topic of the meeting was the Sonders Village and Sonders Meadow developments that are currently being contemplated. The developments impact the No. 8 Ditch owned and operated by the WRCC, Inc. (WRCC). I offered my viewpoint from the perspective of trying to move forward on solving issues for WRCC, but I do not have final authority to approve any of these discussion items. Only WRCC can make those final decisions. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the proposed Sonders Village Development. Summary of Items Discussed The following is a summary of items discussed. Fencing – Aspen Engineering agreed to fence off the ditch through the development including gates at the beginning and end of each access road. They would prefer not to use chain-link fence. WRCC requires fencing at least 6 feet tall, and it cannot be split rail fencing. However, it doesn’t have to be a chain link fence. Trail Along the Ditch – Aspen Engineering agreed there would be no trail along the ditch. This is acceptable. Access Roads – Aspen Engineering agreed to provide access roads on each side of the ditch. WRCC requires all access roads to have a 20-foot width with a maximum cross slope of 3%, a maximum longitudinal slope of 12:1, a minimum turning radius of 45 feet, and be designed to withstand HS-20 loading. They should be covered with 6 inches of Class 6 material. Aspen Engineering indicated this was acceptable. 2 Figure 1 – Sonders Village Development. Drop Structures – Current plans include removing the existing drop structure just South of Douglas Road and instead moving the ditch east of where it currently exists to allow Turnberry road to be expanded. From Douglas Road to Richards Lake road there is significant elevation loss and Aspen Engineering is planning on utilizing drop structures ranging from 3-4 feet to 8-10 feet of drop. WRCC would prefer the ditch to be designed without drop structures, if possible, but realize this is likely not possible in this 3 location. WRCC will require access ramps into the ditch to allow access above and below each drop structure. Self-Cleaning – WRCC requires the new ditch section to be self-cleaning at flows of 125 cfs. Aspen Engineering will prepare a document showing the ditch will be self-cleaning at this discharge rate. Ditch Lining – Aspen Engineering was originally planning to line the new ditch with bentonite. WRCC prefers ACI-350 concrete to be used for a multitude of reasons, including durability, protection from groundwater seepage inflows, and maintainability. Aspen Engineering will evaluate lining options and provide something back to WRCC. Groundwater Inflows – Aspen Engineering is working to collect groundwater level data throughout the site to better understand where water levels are in relation to the new ditch section. WRCC requires a drain under the liner to be installed that conveys the groundwater somewhere besides the ditch. Aspen Engineering agreed but no details are currently available as liner types are still being evaluated. ERC and Aspen Engineering discussed how a clay lining may be unstable if groundwater conditions were high, and thus why ACI-350 concrete may be required. WRCC also requires Aspen Engineering to provide any data collected on groundwater levels. Stormwater Discharge – Current law prevents a change to the quantity, quality, rate, or location of historic stormwater discharge. ERC has not seen a design that meets this requirement when significant portions of land are developed or an analysis of the amount of historic stormwater quantity, quality, rate or location. The current design plans rely on detention basins which will detain the 100-year event and then discharge this volume at historic 2-year storm rates (modeled as approximately 35 cfs to the No. 8). However, the volume increases due to the development, and the location also changes. There has been no analysis of water quality associated with the stormwater. The Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) may require ditch companies to release any stormwater discharged to the ditch back to the nearest natural drainage without any use or storage of the water. Additionally, the City of Fort Collins requires the ability to shut off discharge from any stormwater detention ponds should a water quality issue be identified. WRCC does not accept stormwater discharge to the ditch, unless it remains unchanged from historic quantity, quality, rate, and location and the amounts are verified by measuring devices. The plans as proposed do not meet this standard and are not acceptable. If stormwater is to be discharged to the ditch, it must meet the standard above, and WRCC will require an agreement which may include a requirement to pay for the cost of discharge structures as required by DWR, should it require the release of stormwater from the ditch system. Rather than discharge stormwater to the No. 8 ditch, ERC understands that Aspen Engineering is reviewing potential changes to the current design including but not limited to: Retention basin – Stormwater from the site would be retained in ponds and not released. ERC understands that the City guidelines do not currently allow retention ponds but does not know about 4 County guidelines. WRCC will require evaluation of ditch stability and impacts of any potential retention ponds on canal operations if this option is used in the design. Recharge to the alluvial aquifer – Aspen Engineering cited a project completed by Lytle Water Solutions, LLC that infiltrated stormwater into the alluvial aquifer. That project was in a designated basin and was used to recharge stormwater so that the metro district wouldn’t need an augmentation plan. WRCC is not opposed to this option but will need documentation showing that the infiltration will not increase the groundwater seepage into the canal or cause any unstable conditions. This may also affect the type of lining required. Flyover and discharge to the east – Finally, we discussed routing the stormwater from this development into a flyover (or two flyovers) and discharging that water onto the sod farm to the east. It could be detained there, or it could be detained on the west side of the canal and then released to the east side via the flyover(s). We both agreed that this seemed like the best method. If this is the method chosen, Aspen Engineering should also verify there is no increased impact on the Larimer and Weld Canal. CCR Stormwater Discharge – This is an existing stormwater discharge to the No. 8 entering the canal just down ditch of Douglas Road. WRCC would prefer this be relocated to not discharge into the No. 8 Ditch; however, Aspen Engineering indicated that the developer had previously signed agreements and that they would not change the ultimate discharge location. This is acceptable to WRCC, so long as the discharge does not exceed 10 cfs as described in the stormwater drainage discharge agreement (Reception No. 20210064975, Larimer County). ERC understands that this discharge point will be moved to the east to tie into the relocated ditch at Sonders expense. The relocated discharge must not modify the requirement that the discharge include a headgate or baffle where pond discharges into the pipe to limit the volume of water to be discharged into the ditch to 10 cfs as described in section 2 of the stormwater drainage discharge agreement. Lind Pond Discharge – As with the CCR discharge, this is a currently existing stormwater discharge to the No. 8 Ditch from Lind Pond 1. WRCC would also prefer this be relocated to not discharge into the ditch, but understands the Developer is not willing to eliminate this discharge point to the canal. This is acceptable so long as discharge is verifiably limited to 3 cfs associated with Pond 1. The current plans do not include discharge from Ponds 2, 3, 4, or 5. Utilities – WRCC does not allow parallel utilities within the ditch ROW and requires crossing agreements for any utilities crossing the ditch. The current plans do not include any utility crossings over or under the ditch. They also do not include any parallel utilities within the ditch ROW. This is acceptable to WRCC. Construction details – Aspen Engineering indicated they would start the project by relocating/rebuilding ditch sections that impact the current ditch alignment, and tie those into the existing ditch section. Then they would work on the new ditch to the east, and only once that was complete would they turn water into it. Filling the old ditch section at the end of the project with stockpiled dirt from the excavation of the new ditch. Specific requirements associated with title of the ROW and seepage agreements were 5 also raised in the comment letter submitted to the City of Fort Collins by Lawernce Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP on behalf of WRCC. Construction Dewatering – WRCC does not allow groundwater associated with construction dewatering to be discharged to the ditch. Aspen Engineering agreed that wouldn’t pump any groundwater dewatering during construction into the ditch. Ditch ROW - The current ROW Aspen Engineering is proposing is 25 feet from the top of the bank. WRCC may require a wider ditch ROW depending on the final configuration of the modified ditch. This could be as wide as 75 feet from the top of each bank. Design Ditch Capacity – ERC and Aspen Engineering talked about the Fort Collins SWMM model and ICON report that indicated the ditch would be carrying 250 cfs of irrigation plus another 750 cfs of stormwater under future conditions. We both agreed that the number was confusing. ERC discussed the capacity required in this section of ditch with WRCC and will require that the ditch can carry all the following flows with a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard:  250 cfs irrigation releases.  10 cfs discharge from the CCR  3 cfs discharge from Lind Pond 1.  4.5 cfs discharge from Waters Edge West  39 cfs from Wintergreen (Richards Lake)  Current stormwater discharged to the No. 8 Ditch associated with the 100-year storm event for all locations between Elder Reservoir and the end of the modified canal section (Richards Lake Road). This includes any water spilled from Elder Reservoir. Aspen Engineering should provide an analysis of this, supporting the value it uses in its design. The analysis does not need to include an evaluation of potential stormwater inflows from future development. Need for Agreement with Ditch Company- Please note that if the above details can be agreed upon, WRCC will require an executed Agreement to address many issues surrounding the relocation of the ditch, including how title issues will be handled, increased liability for seepage, how stormwater will connect and possibly be discharged, trails, fences, gates etc. The approved Plans depicting the above details could be attached as an exhibit.