HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNTRY CLUB RESERVE - FDP180030 - - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College AvenuePO Box 580Fort Collins, CO 80522970.221.6689970.224.6134 faxfcgov.com/developmentreviewOctober 30, 2020Jim Birdsall
TB Group444 Mountain AveBerthoud, CO 80513RE: Country Club Reserve, FDP180030, Round Number 5Please 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, Tenae Beane via phone at 9702246119 or via email at tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary:Department: Planning ServicesContact: Clark Mapes, 9702216225, cmapes@fcgov.comTopic:
Landscape PlansComment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/22/202007/22/2020: 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:Addressed on R5 submittal.Department: Engineering
Development ReviewContact: Marc Virata, 9702216567, mvirata@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/21/202010/27/2020: for approval:Thanks for
working through the subdrain/groundwater questions, appreciate the responses so far. Given the multiquestioned comment previously, I'm providing sort of a catch all response to the responses,
apologies in advance for the detail, certainly feel free to coordinate/discuss offline:With respect to the groundwater report and subdrain design, the response indicated an updated report
will be provided. Please have this provided with the intent to bring this updated from draft to final form and should corroborate the design on the plans. Typically, this would be an
analysis and recommendation on pipe sizing, minimum slope of pipe, etc. While the response indicated that a 6" pipe is sufficient throughout given the flow, there should be an analysis
of this that would typically be demonstrated in the report. Also, with the groundwater now being discharged into the detention pond and not directly to the No. 8, the report should be
providing an analysis of this.Updated report has been included. This report verifies that the 6” subdrains are sufficient. Please refer to the report for additional information. The
subdrains are now tying into a new manhole within Storm Line A and will nolonger be detained in Pond 1. The subdrains are now discharging directly to the No. 8 Ditch so the original
analysis is applicable.I had indicated concern on the lack of information on the grade, slope, and pipe size on the sanitary sheets for the subdrain. The response indicated that these
are typical but could be added, perhaps there's a compromise where there's information in the notes that the subdrain is per the detail "x" below the sanitary, at the same grade as the
sanitary specified, all subdrain is 6" PVC in ROW unless otherwise specified, etc. I would still want the Boxelder detail to specifically have a note added to this indicating that HDPE
is not allowed in City rightofway and all underdrain pipe in City of Fort Collins rightofway is required to be PVC.Notes have been added to the Sanitary and Subdrain sheets addressing
your concerns. Please see the updated sheets. These notes explicitly say no HDPE in ROW. The areas where the subdrain is not standard has been profiled and is shown on the 3 subdrain
sheets. Additionally, the Boxelder detail has been updated to reflect that no HDPE pipe is allowed. Additional details have also been provided and have been coordinated with Boxelder.
The original groundwater report for this project was completed and stamped in 2017. This analysis still holds true as the site has not changed since the original analysis. However, a
new document proving that 6” Subdrains are sufficient has now been provided. Both documents have been supplied with this submittal.I am a little unsure I understand whether there's a
detail specific to the underdrain cleanouts that would be provided. The underdrain detail from Boxelder shows the pipe location in relation to the sanitary, but I'm not seeing an actual
cleanout detail of the underdrain.Additional underdrain details have been added to sheet D1.07/21/2020: 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?The subdrain profile on the sheets with the sanitary does not specify the pipe size, percent grade, material, etc.The City doesn't
allow the use of HDPE in rightofway for the subdrain system. The pipe would need to be changed to slotted PVC.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?Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/21/202010/27/2020: for approval:Carried
over as unknown and unresolved.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: 17 Comment Originated: 07/21/202010/27/2020:
for approval:The interim grading along Douglas Road on Sheet 61 has some potential concern with the interim taper from the perspective that with the construction of Phase 2, additional
widening to add on wouldn't be allowed without some pavement removal of the taper in order to not have the ultimate bikelane have an angular seam across it. There may be a benefit in
analyzing whether additional pavement to avoid the angular seam should be installed now vs. needing to mill out for the future widening in Phase 2. The full section has been included
to end of tapper. Therefore, only new striping will be required for Phase 2. See updated SP2 sheet for additional detail.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.Department: Traffic OperationContact: Martina Wilkinson, 9702216887, mwilkinson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/21/202007/21/2020:
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?Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 9702246175, sgilchrist@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number:
7 Comment Originated: 10/26/202010/26/2020: Please add Speed Limit 25 signs on Bethpage, Winged Foot, and Kiawah for traffic entering the neighborhood. Please add a Right
Lane Bikes Only sign on Turnberry for southbound traffic adjacent to the first bike stencil south of Douglas. Please add a Speed Limit 45 sign on Turnberry for southbound traffic 150
feet south of Kiawah.Signs have been added. See updated street sheets.Department: Stormwater EngineeringContact: Dan Mogen, 9703055989, dmogen@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number:
1 Comment Originated: 12/31/201810/26/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UNRESOLVED:Reminder. Please provide agreement as well as access/maintenance details regarding ditch area.
The ditch will be maintained by the Ditch Company as well as ownership of Country Club Reserve. Please refer to the Stormwater Agreement which is attached with this submittal.07/20/2020:
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.Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated:
07/20/202010/26/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATED:It appears there are still trees located in rain gardens 1 and 2. Please update to remove, relocate, or update with alternate plantings.Also,
please clarify how the proposed trail will impact rain garden 2. It seems this trail may have detrimental effects on the rain garden; if that is the case, the trail and rain garden
should be located such that they do not conflict.TBG RESPONSE: Tree conflicts have been relocated and out of rain garden areas. Mown trailalignment has been adjusted and relocated out
of rain garden area. There is no trail in RG 2. Trees have been relocated.07/20/2020: Please review proposed landscaping in the rain gardens to remove trees.Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 07/21/202010/26/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATED:Please clarify phasing. Redline responses indicated an "interim sediment basin and interim swale to remove
impacts caused by Phase 2 development." However, this interim plan does not appear to be shown in the current utility plans. Please clarify intended phasing. The interim sediment basin
detail was on the phasing plan. They have also now been included on the erosion plans now.07/21/2020: 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.Comment Number: 20 Comment
Originated: 10/26/202010/26/2020: FOR ALL FUTURE SUBMITTALS:Please remove AutoCAD SHX comments from PDF plans. FYI, there were over 5000 SHX comments in this utility plan set.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" in the command line and enter "0". Read this article at Autodesk.com for more tips on this topic:https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/DrawingtextappearsasCommentsinaPDFcreatedbyAutoCAD.html
UpdatedComment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/26/202010/26/2020: 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 spill elevation and location must be identified maintenance access (configuration of Pond
2 outlet and other stormwater pipe access) phasing of rain gardens(note: this comment is carried forward from previous comment #2)Dan, thank you for sitting down with me and going through
the comments and redlines. You have been extremely helpful getting this across the finish line. If you have any questions while reviewing again please feel free to give me a call to
discuss them.Department: Erosion ControlContact: Basil Hamdan, 9702221801, bhamdan@fcgov.comTopic: Erosion ControlComment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/21/201910/22/2020:
The plans now show 2 Phases of construction. Now that there is phasing please provide a phased ESC plan for each one. Please provide ESC escrow calculations for each phase of construction
and update the note on the Erosion Control Plan regarding installation of the permanent water quality features to state that within each phase these features are to be installed in the
last sequence of construction to minimize the potential of clogging these due to sedimentation. Additional sheet has now been included with updated notes. Separate escrows have been
provided with this submittal. See updated note 7 on erosion control plans.07/16/2020: All previous comments have been addressed. Ok for mylars.Department: Light And PowerContact:
Austin Kreager, 9702246152, akreager@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/201901/03/2019: 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 TurnberryRd.
It may also be feasible to tiein single phase power from the south west (Hearthfire Subdivision.)Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/201901/03/2019: INFORMATION:You
may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 2216700. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards athttp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdfYou
may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use ourfee estimator athttp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/buildersanddevelopers.Comment Number: 6 Comment
Originated: 04/02/201904/02/2019: 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 PlanningContact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/202010/22/2020: FOR FINALLanguage 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 Zone3. 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: The above items are attached with this submittal. Please let us know if you need anyadditional information
or have questions.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/202010/22/2020: 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.TBG RESPONSE:NHBZ cost estimate (including 125% figure) is attached with thissubmittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
10/22/202010/22/2020: READY FOR MYLARSDepartment: ForestryContact: Molly Roche, 2246161992, mroche@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 07/21/202010/26/2020:
FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVEDContinued:Please review Forestry’s redlines from last round (8.21.2020) as well as the below comment and provide revisions and a response if additional
trees cannot fit on the plans.TBG RESPONSE:Plans revised per 8/21 redlines and responses provided per each comment. There area few areas where constraints prevented standard tree spacing.
All other redline areas have been adjustedto comply with spacing and/or ornamental tree treatments as required.7/21/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED 8/21/2020There are several locations
where there is more than 40 feet between street lights and street trees. Canopy shade trees can be 40 ft from street lights and ornamentals can be 15 ft from street lights. Please review
Forestry’s redlines and adjust street tree placement for final approval.There are also a handful of locations where there is greater than 40 feet between street trees. Street trees should
be placed every 30 to 40 feet. Ornamentals can be placed 2030 ft apart if there is a large gap between street trees. Please incorporate additional street trees in the areas identified
on Forestry’s redlines. If additional street trees cannot fit in the areas identified, please provide a response detailing the reasoning why. This must be done for final approval.Contact:
Nils Saha, nsaha@fcgov.comTopic: Landscape PlansComment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 03/27/201910/26/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVEDContinued:Please fix the following
spelling errors: Please correct the spelling of Shumard Oak in the plant list. In addition, please specify ‘ESPRESSO’ Kentucky Coffeetree as it is a seedless variety. All other comments
under #43 have been resolved.TBG RESPONSE:Spelling corrected7/21/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATEDPlease 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 APPROVALWe are anticipating
additional changes in species numbers between this round and the next, therefore final plant counts will occur at next round of FDP.Department: PFAContact: Jim Lynxwiler, 9704162869,
jlynxwiler@poudrefire.orgTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/21/202010/21/2020: So long as the fire lane connects to E Douglas Rd on the west side of
the site occurs in Phase 1, as shown, the secondary access requirement is satisfied and the plan approved. The DA agreement should reflect this requirement. No further comment.Department:
Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 9702216588, jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 06/18/201910/26/2020: FOR APPROVALUNRESOLVED:FENCE
PLAN: The sheet provided is labeled as sheet 1 of 7. If this is the only sheet, please correct the sheet numbering. If it's not the only sheet please provide the other 6 sheets for
review.TBG RESPONSE:Fence plan is one sheet and independent from site and landscape. Titleblock correctedshowing sheet 1 of 1.07/21/2020: FOR APPROVALUNRESOLVED:FENCE PLAN: There was
only sheet 1 of 7 submitted for review. Please submit the other 6 sheets for review next round. If the sheet numbering is incorrect, please correct for the next round.06/18/2019: FOR
APPROVAL:FENCE PLAN: There was only sheet 1 of 9 submitted for review. Please submit the other 8 sheets for review next round.Topic: PlatComment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
12/31/201810/26/2020: FOR APPROVALUPDATED: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.07/21/2020: FOR APPROVALUPDATED: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.06/18/2019: 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: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 AgenciesContact: Don Kapperman, Topic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/22/201907/08/2020: 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.Contact: Heidi Jensen, Boxelder Sanitation, 9704980604, Topic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/29/202010/29/2020:
See attached commentsSee responses in redline PDFContact: Randy Siddens, ELCO, randys@elcowater.org, Topic: GeneralComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/28/202010/28/2020:
ELCO has reviewed and sent redlines (minor comments I believe) on the utility and landscape plans to Northern Engineering and TB Group, respectively. We have no other comments on the
information distributed.TBG RESPONSE:Plans have been updated and responses to comments attached with this submittal.See responses in redline PDFDepartment: Water ConservationContact:
Eric Olson, 9702216704, eolson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/17/201812/17/2018: 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 2216704 or eolson@fcgov.com