Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD FOURTH FILING - FDP190009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPage 1 of 14 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview July 12, 2019 Katy Thompson Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Waterfield Fourth Filing, FDP190009, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, please contact your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan, at 970.221.6695 or tsullivan@fcgov.com . Comment Summary: Ripley Design, Northern Engineering, Thrive Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: FOR APPROVAL -- Plat: All tracts where sidewalks or pocket parks are provided – add a Public Access in the easement dedication description table for all of these tracts. The plat indicates that lots shall be maintained by the property owner, however, portions of these lots are to be maintained by the Metro-District. Please resolve this so that the intent is consistent between the site plan and plat. Response: A public pedestrian access easement has been placed along the main spine north of Suniga all other Metro District tracts are dedicated via cover sheet note as Metro District Access Easement for the benefit of Metro Districts members and residents. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: FOR APPROVAL -- Site Plan: There are a few lots where the site distance triangle doesn’t match the building setback line. Please pull the BSL back to match the SDT’s. Please review the SDT's with engineering staff to confirm whether all of them are required. Page 2 of 14 Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: FOR APPROVAL -- Site Plan: see redlines for minor comments. Fencing notes and general note for Suniga medians. Response: Please see response to redlines attached. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: FOR APPROVAL -- Landscape Plan: Overall the plans look good – see redlines for minor comments. Comments include recommending adding plant coverage in some bed areas along Suniga; clarifying irrigated turf water use; clarify installation of sod for the irrigated turf areas; minor comments – please see redlines. Response: Please see response to redlines attached. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: Building elevations – ready for mylar. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: INFORMATION ONLY A portion of the Suniga Road right-of-way (ROW) which will be dedicated to the City as part of this project is eligible for reimbursement through the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Program. The City is interested in finalizing this value to expedite the ROW reimbursement. Please contact Kyle Lambrecht, the City’s Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Manager, at 970-221-6566 to discuss. Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Per Section III - Turnberry Road of the MOU dated 10/30/19: The Developer agrees to dedicate portions of future Turnberry Road to the City of Fort Collins as shown in Exhibit D. A copy of this memo and accompanying exhibits will be provided with the redlines and final comment letter. Response: Thrive Homebuilders is currently working with the adjacent property owner on this issue. Tract O, Waterfield 3rd Filing is not a part of the 4th Filing Waterfield Plat. 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL The full half ROW for future Turnberry will need to be dedicated along Tract O, along with the standard utility easement (15-foot). Where the ROW ties into the existing Conifer Street ROW, it should be dedicated to match what is on the south side of existing Conifer (see redlines). Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Variance requests were received. All were approved except for one minor change. The custom street sections with the widened center medians need to have the 10-foot travel lanes measured from edge of concrete pan section and Page 3 of 14 not curb face as shown. This means that the medians in those instances will need to be narrowed by 1 foot on each side. Response: Curb and gutter has been revised to be barrier curb and the lanes were adjusted by 1’ each and the median was adjusted by 2’ total. 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL Please submit a variance request as soon as possible for the street sections that vary from City standards. These have not yet been provided. These sections need to be vetted and approved before moving forward with final design. Please see redlines for typical section comments. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Some references to asphalt were corrected, many were not. Response: Asphalt references were changed. 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL The Suniga elevated bike lane needs to be concrete, rather than asphalt. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Pedestrian crossings at Suniga and Merganser may be allowed if warranted and if they are protected and designed to City standards. Typical striped crosswalks will not be approved. Response: Number, location, and timing of crosswalk and pedestrian signal installation to be based on engineering warrant and finalized by the City of Fort Collins. 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL Pedestrian crosswalks should not be shown across Suniga. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/08/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL The interim Vine Drive design needs to be revised to meet current City Major Collector standards. Also, as discussed, the ultimate design and improvements will be required with Waterfield 4th with a transition to existing west of Emmerson Lane. The remaining frontage improvements will be completed with the City's bridge widening project with the development providing payment-in-lieu for the local street frontage. You will need to verify that your design of the Waterfield 4th site will work with the bridge widening design. We will continue to coordinate with the City CIP engineers and Waterfield 4th engineering consultants on this aspect. Response: Vine has now been designed per all our conversations and meetings. Thank you for working with us to resolve this issue. There is now an interim and future profile that is labeled on the Vine Plan and Profile sheet. 05/08/2019: FOR APPROVAL Ultimate Vine Dr. improvements for the north half of the roadway, adjacent to the site will need to be designed and constructed with this project. Please include plans in Utility Plan set with next submittal. We will want sidewalk, curb and gutter, etc. with this project. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL The variance for storm cover was not submitted properly. As this is an Page 4 of 14 Engineering issue, the variance needs to be submitted to Engineering per our standards. Also, the variance request was inadequate. You simply stated that you couldn't meet the criteria and that you were designing your pipes with half of the required cover in certain locations. As discussed in the meeting with City Engineering staff previously, we are okay with allowing less than required cover in certain instances, as long as you mitigate for the deficiency. You need to show how you will maintain the integrity of the roadway section and protect the pipe in the areas of shallow cover. We need to see a proposal to be able to approve the variance. Response: Variance request has been submitted with this submittal 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are several storm pipes that have less than minimum cover (see redlines). Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please make sure that you are showing and calling out all proposed and existing easements on all plans. Also, use the correct description when labeling/calling out an easement (refer to the plat as the standard). Response: Easements are called out on all plans unless there is a space conflict and the labels are unable to fit. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please use the correct name for Suniga Road (Suniga Drive is used on some plans). Also, Old Vine Drive should not be used in place of E. Vine Drive. Response: Suniga Drive has been updated to reflect Suniga Road in all instances Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please submit the required ROW vacation request and supporting documentation for the on-site ROW vacations as soon as possible. I would like to get all of the documents ready and take it to City Council soon enough to avoid having it delay the project. Please visit the City's Engineering website for further details: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php. A copy of the ROW Vacation Information form will be included with your redlines and comments for reference as well. Response: ROW vacation request has been submitted along with supporting documentation. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 07/09/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Please be aware that the Metro District for Waterfield 4th will be responsible for maintenance of the Tract 'J' on the south side of Suniga and not the adjacent Bull Run owner/manager. Response: Acknowledged. Thrive Homebuilders understands & agrees to this. 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL What uses are allowed in Tract 'J' of Waterfield 3rd Filing? It sits right where the standard 15' utility easement would for the south side of Suniga. We need to make sure that the 15' utility corridor is able to function as intended. We may Page 5 of 14 need to include this tract in this replat to make sure it is designated for utilities. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Remove the erroneous grade labels on all profile sheets. Response: Grade labels are pointing at the bands that call out the surface elevations. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 07/09/2019: INFORMATION ONLY The variance for the angle of intersection was approved by Engineering staff. 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL The angle of intersection between the ultimate Timberline Road and Suniga Road exceeds the allowable tolerance. This needs to be adjusted to be within 10 degrees of perpendicular. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Some of the dimensions for Timberline Road don't match standards or your typical sections (see street redlines). Response: Timberline has been revised to match the ultimate design near the Arista Blvd. entrance. As you head south the interim striping kicks in. The Timberline plan and profile sheet should help clear up any confusion. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are some areas that look like drainage may be an issue on some of the alleys and in street intersections (see redlines). Response: Several of your redlines were circling top/bottom of vertical curves so through two points it would appear to be 0% but if you look at the plan and profiles nothing is designed to be at 0%. Some elevations were indeed inadequate, and those areas have been revised. Additionally, you circled several slope arrows saying they were pointed in the wrong direction, but those slope areas are conveying the information necessary for a proper crown transition. Using the intersection details in conjunction with the street plan and profiles will help answer any questions. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Blaine at Northern directly. Thanks Spencer. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please add speed limit signs on your on-site signing and striping plans that reduce the speed on the elbows that do not meet connector local centerline geometry standards (per previous discussion with Engineering). Response: It was discussed that this was no longer the approach we were taking since it is essentially a stopped condition. If I misunderstood the conversations between engineering and traffic I apologize, and I will get these put back in. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL The owner information that is shown on plans is not the same as what was provided with the DA information form. Response: Owner information will be revised prior to going to mylars. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 Page 6 of 14 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are some easement acronyms used in the plat that are not defined in the legend. Response: Acronyms have been updated. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL An irrigation line was added to the plans with this submittal. I don't see an easement for it on the plat. Response: Easement is now on the plat. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Why does Tract 'Y' encroach into the 15-foot utility easement on the south side of Suniga? Response: The utility easements that were within tracts have all been removed. Tract uses have been updated to include Utility use. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL There is a proposed pocket park and pedestrian walkways within Tract 'G', which is currently only designated for utility and drainage easement. These other uses need to be included or separated from the Tract. Response: Tract description has been updated to include public access. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Not all ROW/tract linework is the same between what is shown on the plat and on the plans (see redline on Grading Plan Sheet C3.10 for example). Response: Callouts on the utility plans have been revised. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are numerous instances of previous comments that were not addressed with this second submittal. My redlines have identified all of those with a "Repeat Comment" prefix. Response: Spencer, I apologize about missing so many of those repeat comments I was not intentionally ignoring those and I did my best to make sure all of your comments have been revised per this comment letter, your redlines, and the countless meetings we have had. I really appreciate all the help and quick turn arounds with all the meetings these last few weeks. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are a few vertical curves on the Suniga profile that appear significantly short per LCUASS. Response: Per our meeting we discussed that these vertical curves met the requirements laid out in table 7.3 and are adequate. These are also the same profiles that were presented in the 3rd Filing. Page 7 of 14 Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Many sheets throughout the plans do not label Tract 'J' of Waterfield 3rd Filing. The ROW along that portion of Suniga is also mis-labeled as 130 feet, rather than 115 feet? Response: Call outs have been revised. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please make sure that the new irrigation line has been shown on all pertinent profile views for streets, water, sewer, storm sewer, etc. The proposed irrigation line needs to be within an easement that should be dedicated on the plat. Please see if you can get more separation from the proposed walk along Timberline Road (north of Suniga). Since this will be serving as the public pedestrian route until the ultimate Timberline section is built, we don't want it to be closed if the line needs to be excavated for repairs or maintenance. Response: Irrigation line is now shown in all pertinent profile views. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL The underdrain details provided don't really look like they match how the system is being laid out and designed. There are a couple of missing storm drainage details (see redlines). Response: The underdrains for the rain gardens have been removed. The northern underdrain to lower the water table has been revised both vertically and horizontally. Because we are daylighting the underdrain into an inlet we have to pick up a substantial amount of grade so it becomes a-typical very quickly. Once the underdrain is above the sanitary line it is no longer perforated. A plan and profile of the underdrain system has been provided. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL The landscape plans show vehicle sight lines throughout the site. These are incorrectly being labeled as "sight distance easements". There only actual sight distance easements are as dedicated on the plat. The sight lines that fall within public ROW are not actually easements. Response: Labels have been updated to correctly identify sight distance triangles. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL There may be some sight distance easements being dedicated on the plat that do not need to be. Coordinate with Engineering to determine which ones may be removed from the plat and plans. Response: Sight easements have been removed per your redlines. These were at all the elbows but several sight distances are still applicable because they are not “stopped” conditions like the elbows. Page 8 of 14 Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please refer to the entire set of redlines for additional comments on this submittal. Response: Spencer, I just want to say thank you again for sitting down with us and going page by page through your redlines. All redlines have been addressed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Regarding the Timberline striping: Can you please delete misc. non-traffic related callouts in the plans, add a legend and striping labels? See additional signing and striping redlines Response: Misc. non-traffic related callouts on the plans have been removed, legend added, and redlines addressed 05/07/2019: We'll have signing and striping redlines for T-Line and Suniga. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Regarding the internal signing and striping: Please delete stop signs from alleys onto roadways. See additional redlines. Response: All stop signs at the end of alleys have been removed. 05/07/2019: Can you please add a signing and striping sheet (or 2) for the internal areas? The signing is shown in the plan/profiles, but these are such short sections of road, it is very difficult to get an overall understanding when there are 30+ sheets to review. Once we get those sheets, we can review internal striping. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Regarding Suniga signing and striping: Please see redlines. Response: Suniga redlines have been addressed Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The typical sections for the private boulevards need to show 11 ft travel lanes (since there is no gutter pan). The median can be narrowed so the total ROW width remains the same. Response: Curb has been switched to barrier curb for the medians and the flow line was moved out 1’ on each side therefore reducing the median by a total of 2’ Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Page 9 of 14 Can you please call out the signs on the landscape plans? We need to ensure that street trees are at least 50 ft from stop signs to ensure visibility. Response: All stop signs have been labeled on the landscape plan. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please address all EC redlines supplied on the redlined Utility plans. Please contact Basil Hamdan bhamdan@fcgov.com, (970) 222-19801 if you have any questions regarding the comments. Response: EC redlines have been addressed. 05/01/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Plans based upon the returned redlines to meet City Criteria. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Thanks for addressing SWMP comments. Please add a section in the SWMP report addressing how the phased construction will be handled for Erosion Control as the EC plans are not phased at this point. Response: Additional section in the SWMP report is now addressing how the phased construction will be handled. See updated SWMP for additional information. 05/01/2019: For Final: Please resubmit an Erosion Control Report based upon the returned redlines to meet City Criteria. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Repeat Comment. Response: HGL’s have been provide in both the report and storm plan and profiles 05/07/2019: Please provide HGLs for all storm sewer profiles. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please contact the City on edits to the drainage report. Response: Please see modified drainage report text 05/10/2019: Please revise the text in the drainage report to state that 100% of the southern 32 acres is being treated with extended detention water quality which is __% of the entire site. Also, please clarify what percentage of the entire site is being treated by the forebays and wetland. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 Page 10 of 14 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide a detail for the concrete forebays at the upstream end of the pre-treatment areas. Response: Concrete forebay details have been added Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL: In the Drainage Report, the text states Basin 7 is being treated by a rain garden in one section, and by a forebay in another. Please clarify and revise text. Response: Please see modified drainage report text Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/10/2019 07/10/2019: There are a few areas where lot grading for the townhomes are very steep. Driveways were calculated to be at 15% slope (4.5 ft rise in 30 feet). Also, side yard maximum slope criteria of 3 to 1 may be very difficult to achieve. When the townhomes are built, retaining walls may be required to meet the maximum slope of 3 to 1. Response: Acknowledged. Per conversation with Wes Lamarque on Friday, August 2nd 2019, retaining walls and driveway slopes will be addressed on an individual lot or building basis at time of building permit & construction via interior garage steps into the unit or by stepping building foundations on townhomes as applicable to meet building codes. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 7/5/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Continued: Forestry redlines will indicate additional locations where shade trees should replace ornamental trees. Response: Landscape plans have been updated to reduce the number of ornamental trees. 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL Ornamental trees should only be used only when there isn’t adequate space for a canopy shade tree in the parkway. For example, sheet 16 shows three chanticleer pears on Merganser Dr., but there are no apparent utility conflicts that would necessitate ornamental species in this stretch. Please replace ornamental trees in right of ways with shade trees when space allows. Please also note that canopy shade trees must encompass at least 50% of all trees on-site. Right now, the development is just shy of this requirement (currently 49.1% of trees are canopy shade trees). Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 7/5/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED Continued: Thank you for updating the Tree Species Diversity table. There appears to be Page 11 of 14 one error – there should be 33 Chinkapin Oaks (not 32). Please update the table. Response: The Tree Species Diversity table has been updated. 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL In some cases, the Tree Species Diversity Table does not match the number of trees or correct species names in the plant list. Please update the quantities and species names to reflect what is proposed in the plant list. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Due to a family emergency, I am out of the office this week so the Forestry redlines will be provided next week. I apologize for the inconvenience. The redlines will include required changes such as: Additional landscaping along Suniga median (follow Larimer County Urban Streetscape Standards) Specific site changes from ornamental to canopy shade trees Species list changes Language regarding private property Cottonwood maintenance responsibilities along arterials Response: Please see response to redlines attached. Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL There is a line that runs through the center of the Suniga median. If this a utility line, please label it. Response: There only line which runs through the center of Suniga is a centerline. Additional labels have been added to identify this line. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Lots less than 60 ft in width should only have one street tree per lot. There are certain instances where there are either no trees provided on these lots or more than 1 street tree. Specific locations will be provided on the redlines. Response: Per email correspondence with Molly on 7/31, forestry would like to see trees spaced out 30-40’ and no less. It is not possible to meet the 1 tree/lot standard, the 30-40’ tree separation standard, and meet the utility separation requirements in every situation, especially where lots taper down to about 30’ at the street elbows. It is for this reason that in some cases there is not a street tree directly in front of a lot or there are two trees in front of a lot, but priority has been taken to ensure the 30’-40’ separation standard is being met. Department: PFA Page 12 of 14 Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/03/2019 07/03/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL PHASING >The Phasing plan is noted on sheet 2.1 and is approved. HYDRANTS 7-10-2019 UPDATE The project team agreed to re-label and add the missing hydrant labels. The hydrant already called out at the Clubhouse will be added back. Response: Fire hydrant has been added back in and callout is on Utility sheets 7-10-2019 UPDATE >After the staff review meeting, Ridgeside Lane will be shown to join to join to Oak Knoll Road to form a routable street network >Brookfield St will be given another name where it turns to the north at its west end to connect with Suniga because residences will be addressed from it. >Please correct the spelling for Shearwater St where it is spelled Sheerwater on a different sheet. Response: Street names have been updated in response to comments. ADDRESSING >After further discussion with GIS, the named alleys such as Ridgeside Lane will be required to attach to a street such as Oak Knoll Road to form a routable street network. Response: Ridgeside Lane and similar alleys are now shown connecting to the adjacent local street. 05/08/2019: >After the meeting at the PFA offices 5-7-2019, the hydrant locations are all verified and correct. >There will be no parking in the Alleys >There will be no parking allowed on Meadow Boulevard or Blue Vine Boulevard in the areas where aerial access is required for the 3 story townhomes. >PFA will be included in phasing plans regarding access and hydrants 05/06/2019: The EAEs, including the Clubhouse Drive, are noted on the Site Plans. Thank you. No further action needed for EAEs. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: INFORMATIONAL Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any necessary system Page 13 of 14 modification charges will apply at owners’ expense. Please see the Electric Estimating Calculator and Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Department: Building Inspection Plan Review Contact: Katy Hand, , khand@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: the attached units are subject to CRS 9-5 state accessibility. Provide a site-wide accessibility plan showing how the required accessibility points will be achieved throughout the site. khand@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged. Per conversation with Katy Hand on Tuesday, July 30th 2019, Builder/Developer will provide accessibility plan to demonstrate compliance with CRS 9-5 state accessibility requirements and will demonstrate with each applicable building permit application. Builder/Developer acknowledges proper compliance with state accessibility requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 Please visit our website for a list of current adopted building codes and local amendments: https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php Response: Acknowledged. Thank you for update on current codes and local amendments. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: New homes and attached homes must be EV / PV ready (conduit in place). Response: Acknowledged. Homes must be EV/PV ready with conduit in place. This will reflect on individual unit plans at time of building permit application. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/08/2019 07/08/2019: All attached units (townhome, duplex, etc.) are required to be sprinkled (P2904 min). Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/24/2019 06/24/2019: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Page 14 of 14 Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/09/2019 07/09/2019: READY FOR MYLARS. Environmental Planning is ready for mylars.