Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNTRY CLUB RESERVE - FDP180030 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 5 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSF6rt Collins 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/deve/opmentr,eview July 24, 2020 — RESPONSES 1015/20 Jim Birdsall TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Country Club Reserve, FDP180030, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Country Club Reserve. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras via phone at 970-416-2744 or via email at bbethuremharras@fcgov,com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970.221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/22/2020 07/22/2020, The thinnest spot in the perimeter plantings is right at the southernmost point in the development. You have a comment to move 2 pines out of a rain garden, and so please take a look at moving them to augment that area. TBG RESPONSE: Trees adjusted. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR APPROVAL: I have several question/concerns pertaining to the underdrain system proposed on the site: What is the groundwater report being used as the reference point for the recommendation, installation, and design of the subdrain system? I'm finding a report from the third round of PDP but it is only indicated as draft and dated November 25, 2017 from Miller Groundwater Engineering. Has this report been updated as a final report that is PE signed/stamped? The report itself does not appear to give a recommendation for the sizing of the underdrain system, minimum grade, etc. How was the underdrain in the development designed with respect to pipe sizing to ensure proper carry capacity anticipated? IV^ An updated report will be provided. The groundwater is flow is very minimal at roughly 0.2 cfs so the standard subdrain details per Boxelder are adequate. The subdrain profile on the sheets with the sanitary does not specify the pipe size, percent grade, material, etc. 11C The subdrain is shown on the sanitary sheets for reference only. The subdrain should be installed per the Boxelder detail on sheet D1. The reason we profiled a few legs of the subdrain is because they are no longer typical in those locations. Once the subdrains become typical again it is called out to refer to the detail on sheet D1 on the subdrain profiles. Adding all this information into the sanitary sheets might cause confusion and clutter the sheets with unnecessary information. Boxelder has already approved this plan set but we can add this if you really want it. The City doesn't allow the use of HDPE in right-of-way for the subdrain system. The pipe would need to be changed to slotted PVC. W All HDPE callouts have been changed to PVC. In some parts of the subdrain system it is no longer slotted PVC because the subdrain starts to go above the sanitary lines in order to daylight to Pond 1. The solid pipes are shown on the subdrain profiles The groundwater report references the need to obtain permission from the ditch company to have the underdrain flows outlet to the No. 8. Has this approval been obtained? IN E Underdrain flows are daylighting to Pond 1 and being detained. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: The development agreement was drafted previously and relayed to the project coordinator Brandy. I'm not sure if a response to the D.A. draft was received? At this point it would also be beneficial to verify that the D.A. is still acceptable to City staff. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: information only: Having inherited the project, it would be beneficial to understand what changes to the project have been made since the previous submittal. Would appreciate a status update on the project, the various loose ends that might exist (offsite easements/agreements?) intended construction start, etc. FU A project summary was provided to you prior to the FDP Round 5. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: for approval: The civil set shows a phasing plan. The phasing appears to create a concern with sufficient emergency access. Additionally, the Douglas Road frontage improvements should be part of Phase 1, deferring this to Phase 2 is problematic. NF The phasing plan has been revised. Temporary emergency access off of Douglas Road has been provided for phase 1. 2 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR FINAL - Note that phasing of arterial improvements need to be finalized. - The DA will still require a $28k contribution towards the signalization of SH 1 / Douglas - Can you point me to the pages where the speed limit 25 mph signs at the entrances of the neighborhood are shown? Nr Acknowledged Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen(aDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2018 07/20/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL -UNRESOLVED: I received the Letter of Understanding. Thank you. Agreement is needed prior to final plan approval. 06/17/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL -UNRESOLVED: 04/02/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL -UNRESOLVED: 12/31/2018: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The proposed outfall to the No. 8 Ditch is noted. Please provide an agreement with the ditch permitting this outfall prior to final plan approval. The outfall also appears to be crossing other private property between the development and outfall to the ditch. Please provide easement across this property. K Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2018 07/20/2020: FOR APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please see updated redlined drainage report and utility plans. Please set up a meeting time with me to review. Items of note to discuss include: - overflow/blocked outlet scenario - private/public ownership shown in utility plans - phasing of rain gardens 06/18/2019:1 understand there have been challenges finalizing the Stormwater design/outfall and that has caused delays in updating the plans and report. That said, many Stormwater redlines still remain. Some of these questions have been outstanding since PDP and others since first round FDP. Please see redlines and address as needed. I encourage you to reach out with any questions or to review potential revisions, and I'd be happy to set up a meeting or conference call to do so. 12/31/2018: Please see redlined drainage report. Note many of these redlines are carried forward from PDP Round 3 as there were unaddressed. The drainage narrative has been updated to address the confusion between overflow/blocked outlet scenario. Private and Public ownership is now shown on all the storm drain profiles. The phasing of the rain gardens has not changed but an interim solution has been proposed with 3 interim sediment basins and interim swells to maintain the rain gardens integrity. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/02/2019 07/20/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: Please see redlines. There is still an area of steep slope to be addressed. 06/17/2019: Slopes still appear to be greater than 4:1 - it would be helpful to label the proposed slopes. Please review and revise as needed. 04/02/2019: The grading around the southern part of the detention pond near the oil well and the northern part of the pond around the existing tree does not meet City Stormwater Criteria. The slopes are 2:1 in some places. Please revise the grading to 4:1 or provide retaining walls. 11G Area you highlighted has been revised. ECB are in place to help stabilization. There is no longer anywhere on the site with greater than 25% slopes. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020 07/20/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please review proposed landscaping in the rain gardens to remove trees. NG Tree has been relocated Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 07/21/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The proposed phasing requires discussion and coordination. A note on the Erosion Control plan indicates that rain gardens are to be constructed in the last phase. Stormwater requirements, including LID, must be met in each phase. K There is an updated phasing plan that addresses the interim conditions and allows for LID to still be provided through the entire life of the project. Interim sediment basins and swales have been proposed to help maintain the integrity of the rain gardens from phase 1. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 akreagerPfcgov.com Comment Originated: 01/03/2019 01/03/2019: INFORMATION: Light & Power's nearest electric primary is located south of this proposed development at the intersection of Brightwater Dr. and Turnberry Rd. Those facilities will need to be extended to the north along the west side of Tumberry Rd. It may also be feasible to tie-in single phase power from the south west (Hearthfire Subdivision.) NE Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2019 01/03/2019: INFORMATION: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power's Electric Service Standards at http://www.fcgov.com/utilitiesAmg/site_specific/uploads/ElectdcServiceStandar ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. 4 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/02/2019 04/02/2019: INFORMATION: Light and Power is good to go to the DCP stage of this project. Please keep us informed as to your construction timeline. Thank you. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith(a).fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/14/2019 06/14/2019: BY DCP: Language for the Natural Resources section of the Development Agreement has been provided to Engineering. The following items must be submitted prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit: 1. A cost estimate for landscaping in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (including plant material, labor and irrigation) 2. A cost estimate for three years of monitoring and annual reporting of landscape establishment in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone 3. A bond, letter of credit, or escrow warranting the landscape installation, establishment, monitoring, and reporting for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (125% of cost estimates) 4. A weed management plan 5. An annual monitoring and reporting plan We can provide examples and additional detail for any of these items if needed. Please contact us if you have any questions. TBG RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Will provide the above prior to construction permit. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/14/2019 06/14/2019: BY DCP: Natural Habitat Buffer Zone security bond letter and/or letter of credit (LOC) template can be provided by staff if needed. Once installation and monitoring estimates are created and accepted by City staff, then 125% of estimated costs will serve as securities. Annual inspections begin the first full growing season after installation. Comment Number: 4 07/17/2020: READY FOR MYLARS Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mrochea(D.fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020 7/21/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL There are several locations where there is more than 40 feet between street lights and street trees. Where room allows between utilities and other street trees, please incorporate additional street trees in the areas identified on I Forestry's redlines. Contact: Nils Saha, nsaha(a)fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/27/2019 7/21/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL— UNRESOLVED Please refer to Forestry redlines as there are a few street trees that are still closer than 50 feet from stop signs. Please provide this minimum separation for final Forestry approval. 6/17/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Please see comment 33. Some tree locations are spaced less than 50 feet from stop signs. Please adjust tree placement by next round. 03/27/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please refer to City Traffic Engineering for preferred site distances at all intersections. Provide site distance triangles where necessary. Shift trees outside of these areas when required. TBG RESPONSE: Per phone conversation between Molly Roche and Aaron Olson on 9/120, street tree spacing from stop signs have been updated to 40' min., with 50' where feasible. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 03/27/2019 7/24/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Forestry would like to further discuss the details of tree inspection/removal with the applicant. It is Forestry's opinion that it is in the development's best interest to have all poor or hazardous trees inspected by a TRAQ qualified arborist prior to construction. Trees #16-19 are very close to future private residences and hang over pedestrian trails/sidewalks. Trees in poor to hazardous condition that are removed will not require on -site mitigation. 6/17/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: The applicant's response was "Acknowledged" but no further documentation was provided regarding the safety and condition of the trees #16-19. Was a TRAQ qualified arborist hired to perform inspection on these trees? As mentioned below, City Forestry would like to review a written report on the safety and condition of these trees to determine of they should be retained or removed. If they are found to pose a risk to public safety, Forestry will determine their removal and require mitigation for each tree. Given that this is FDP round 3, please address as soon as possible. Coordination with Molly Roche and the assigned Development Review Coordinator is acceptable. 03/27/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued from previous comment #17 Due to the location of the cottonwood trees and pedestrian safety concerns on the trail, Forestry is requiring an evaluation by a TRAQ qualified arborist of trees #16-19 on the east side of the tract. City Forestry would like to review a written report on safety and condition to determine if these trees should be retained. If these trees are found to pose a risk to public safety, Forestry will determine their removal and require mitigation for each tree. 6 TBG RESPONSE: Per phone conversation between Molly Roche and Aaron Olson on 9/1/20, mitigation trees updated with recommendation per Molly Roche field visit and evaluation of current condition. Specifically, #16 grove updated for removal and mitigation schedule revised to reflect. Molly and Aaron agreed Arborist evaluation will be executed prior to construction, in an effort to accurately determine condition of existing trees at their current state. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 03/27/2019 7/21 /2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL — UPDATED Please correct the spelling of Shumard Oak in the plant list. In addition, please specify 'ESPRESSO' Kentucky Coffeetree as it is a seedless variety. 6/17/2019: Continued: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please correct the spelling of Shumard Oak in the plant list. In addition, please specify 'ESPRESSO' Kentucky Coffeetree as it is a seedless variety. The total quantities for each tree category (shade, evergreen, and ornamental tree) are incorrect. Finally, please double check all plant quantities. From my species count, I found a few discrepancies between the number of trees shown in the plant list vs what is provided on the plan. Update the plant list species, total quantities, and species diversity percentages to reflect the exact number shown on landscape plans. Catalpa (37 in plant list) — 38 on plan Hackberry (26 in plant list) — 25 on plan. Mitigation numbers matched. Kentucky Coffeetree (28 in plant list) — 29 on plan Sentry American Linden (28 in plant list) — 29 on plan Legend Linden (25 in plant list) — 23 on plan Southwestern White Pine (60 in plant list) - 61 on plan Austrian Pine (55 in plant list) — 53 on plan Blue Spruce (55 in plant list) — 54 on plan Hot Wings Maple (25 in plant list) — 23 on plans Canyon Maple (79 in plant list) — 76 on plans Saskatoon Serviceberry (16 in plant list) —15 on plans 03/27/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL We are anticipating additional changes in species numbers between this round and the next, therefore final plant counts will occur at next round of FDP. TBG RESPONSE: Per phone conversation between Molly Roche and Aaron Olson on 9/1 /20, quantities have been double-checked and verified per plan. Mitigation trees updated with recommendation per field visit and current conditions. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilynxwilercDpoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2018 06/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: PHASING PLAN - The Phasing plan cannot be approved as currently shown (pg PH1). Phase 1 creates a dead-end condition that is greater than 660' without a second point of access. By code, any residential dwelling constructed beyond M 660' from the intersection of Winged Foot Dr and Kiawah Dr will require the installation of a fire sprinkler system until such time that Winded Foot Dr and Bethpage provide a fire access connection back to Douglas Road. The suggested solution is to construct a fire accessible road connects to Douglas Road as part of Phase 1. Any such road, be it temporary or permanent, is required to meet minimum fire access standards. Please contact me for details. NC An updated phasing plan has been included with this submittal Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020 07/16/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL PHASING PLANS - My comment from 06/18/2019 remains unchanged. The phasing plan creates a non -compliant dead-end road of greater than 660 feet without a second point of access. I do not see mention of any notation in the plans from Northern Engineering to explain or otherwise justify the phasing plan. A suggested option that would be code compliant is to construct a temporary fire lane west of Winged Foot Dr. so that it connects to E. Douglas Rd during Phase 1. It is not approved as shown. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, lcounty(a)fcaov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 15 07/21/2020: FOR APPROVAL -UNRESOLVED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. N[- Redlines have been addressed 06/1812019: FOR APPROVAL -UPDATED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 04/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL -UPDATED: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2018 Comment Originated: 12/31/2018 07/21/2020: FOR 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. 06118/2019: FOR 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. 04/03/2019: FOR 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. 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: E 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. Department: Outside Agencies Contact Topic Contact: Topic Don Kapperman, General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/22/2019 07/08/2020: Please label all tracts to say "Utility" along with "Access and Drainage Easement". 07/08/2020: Does owner want communications in the front with power or are there plans on trenching rear lot for Comcast & Century Link? 03/22/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Comcast does not have any issues at this time. Heidi Jensen, Boxelder Sanitation, 970-498-0604, General Comment Number: 2 07/21/2020: See attached comments Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson(Dfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/21 /2020 Comment Originated: 12/17/2018 12/17/2018: FOR BUILDING PERMIT. 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(a)fcgov.com TBG RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Irrigation plans will be provided prior to building permit. E