Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUN COMMUNITIES - THE FOOTHILLS - PDP210001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS May 19, 2021 Ms. Brandy Bethurem Harras Development Review Coordinator City of Fort Collins Planning & Development Services 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: The Foothills PDP210001- Sun Communities Round 2 Comment Response Dear Brandy: The following are Sun Communities, RVi’s and Atwell’s responses to the City comments dated Mach 30, 2021 as provided in letter dated April 2, 2021. Atwell’s responses are shown in red bold font. Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Brandy Bethurem Harras, 970‑416‑2744, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: As part of your resubmittal you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable Comment Number: 3 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut‑off for routing the same week. Please give me advanced notice of when you plan to resubmit. Comment Number: 4 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The proposed development project is subject to a Type 2 Review. The decision makers for your project will be the Planning & Zoning Board at a public hearing. Comment Number: 5 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners. Comment Number: 6 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Staff would need to be in agreement the project is ready for Hearing approximately 3‑5 weeks prior to the hearing. I have attached the 2021 P&Z schedule, which has key dates. Comment Number: 7 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: I am letting you know that your quasi‑judicial item will be heard remotely and that there is the option to hold off until an in‑person hearing can be conducted. Any person or applicant seeking a quasi‑judicial decision from City Council, a City board or commission or an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use Code, shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi‑Judicial Hearing using Remote Technology. Such person or applicant shall be entitled to request that the Quasi‑Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be conducted in person. RESPONSE: Noted Department: Planning Services Contact: Meaghan Overton, 970‑416‑2283, moverton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 03/30/2021: FOR INFORMATION – UPDATED: Carrying this comment forward for future reviews as a summary; no need to respond unless changes are proposed that impact the conditions outlined below. Please see below for a summary of conditions of approval: ‑ 15% deed‑restricted lots/houses at 80% AMI or below ‑ Adequate parking for guests and residents ‑ Street trees placed at 30‑40' intervals in parkway, irrigation required, if driveways/parking conflict trees must be placed 3‑7' behind sidewalk ‑ Housing models with entrances facing streets to maximum extent feasible, except small lots ‑ Guest parking no more than 200' from any home and landscape islands provided ‑ Minimum of 15 different elevations ‑ Distinctive housing models ‑ variety of rooflines (gables, dormers, pitch) and variety of porches (covered, uncovered) and variety in trim/color ‑ No 2 similar houses placed next to each other RESPONSE: Noted 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see below for a summary of conditions of approval and comments to address in future submittals to fully comply with the conditions: ‑ 15% deed‑restricted lots/houses: Documentation will be required prior to hearing ‑ Adequate parking for guests and residents: Meets residential parking requirements; 151 guest parking spaces is sufficient. This condition is satisfied. ‑ Street trees placed at 30‑40' intervals in parkway, irrigation required, if driveways/parking conflict trees must be placed 3‑7' behind sidewalk: Trees provided. Please clarify plans for irrigation on utility set and see comments from Forestry regarding species diversity. ‑ Housing models with entrances facing streets to maximum extent feasible, except small lots: Unclear whether site plan meets this condition; see additional comments below. ‑ Guest parking no more than 200' from any home and landscape islands provided: Guest parking meets distance requirements; does not meet landscape requirements ‑ Minimum of 15 different elevations: 15 elevations provided, but some are very similar and it is unclear how many of each elevation will be in the development. See additional comments below. ‑ Distinctive housing models ‑ variety of rooflines (gables, dormers, pitch) and variety of porches (covered, uncovered) and variety in trim/color: Unclear how many units will have porches and how many color varieties will be provided. Variety in rooflines among elevations is sufficient. ‑ No 2 similar houses placed next to each other: Unclear how this will be accomplished. Comment Number: 4 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: Thank you for the additional detail about the park/open space plan for the site. Is there any possibility to include walking paths (crusher fines or concrete) in area "6" currently defined as "passive open space"? RESPONSE: There is not a possibility to include walking paths in this area due to grading and drainage requirements. Please refer to updated Program Masterplan submitted prior to resubmittal for changes to “passive open space” and the additional of nature trail area to meet requirements. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Is the recreation area near the clubhouse intended to serve as the required “small neighborhood park”? If so, this area is not large enough. The park must be at least 1 acre in size and must be within 1/3 mile of 90% of the homes in the development. The amenity center itself is not considered to be part of the park. The location of the recreation area does appear to meet the requirement to be within 1/3 mile of 90% of homes. Comment Number: 6 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: Site plan sheet 8 still shows 2 spaces but the note indicates 4. Which is proposed? Also, the guest parking on the east side of street C at the intersection with street A shows 6 parking spaces, but the note indicates 4 spaces. Which is correct? Please ensure that the site plan, parking tables, and site plan notation are all consistent for all sheets. Additionally, note that tandem parking spaces are not considered in the overall parking count. Please either remove these from the parking table or indicate the number of tandem spaces separately from other parking provided for each home. RESPONSE: The parking counts have been verified and revisions made as necessary. A separate row has been added to show the number of tandem spaces. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Site plan sheet 8 shows 2 parking spaces on the south side of “street E” but the note indicates 4 spaces. Please clarify which is being proposed. Overall, it appears that the site layout does meet the condition of approval that requires guest parking to be located within 200 feet of each home. Comment Number: 7 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: It's not clear whether the guest parking areas meet the requirements in 3.2.2(E) (4). With the exception of parking around the amenity area, it does not appear that the guest parking areas are screened with landscapes islands with raised curbs. Please show detail in your next submittal of a typical guest parking area to ensure that the proposal demonstrates compliance with this condition. RESPONSE: Guest parking areas have been screened with landscape islands and raised curbs to the maximum extent feasible. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The condition of approval related to guest parking further states that the guest parking must meet standards in section 3.2.2(E)(4), which requires landscaped islands with raised curbs to define the ends of parkin aisles. Please show detail in your next submittal of a typical guest parking area to ensure that the proposal demonstrates compliance with this condition. Comment Number: 8 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: The landscape islands added near the amenity area likely meet this requirement, but please add a calculation to the landscape plans to verify. RESPONSE: Parking areas are less than or equal to five spaces and less than 1800 sq ft. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Any parking area greater than 6 spaces and 1800 square feet in area must have at least 6% of the interior dedicated to landscaping. This requirement may be applicable to some of the larger guest parking areas, particularly around the amenity center. Consider adding landscaped islands or similar to meet this standard. Also note that a landscaped area is required every 15 spaces, which impacts the parking proposed on the south side of the amenity center. See section 3.2.1(E)(5) for details about parking lot interior landscaping. Comment Number: 9 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: There are several guest parking areas that have 6 or more spaces, and these areas are considered a "parking lot" under the Land Use Code. That means section 3.2.1(E)(4) and 3.2.2(D) apply, which requires screening from abutting uses (6ft in height) and the street (30 inches in height), interior landscaping, and setbacks from streets and lot lines. Consider either removing some guest parking spaces to keep all guest parking less than 6 spaces or adding landscaping, screening, and setbacks to meet these requirements. RESPONSE: Guest parking areas have been screened with landscape to the maximum extent feasible. Parking areas are now less than or equal to five spaces and less than 1800 sq ft. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please add additional landscaping to further screen the guest parking areas, similar to what is shown for Sheet L5.08 or Sheet 5.14. More specific requirements for parking lot perimeter landscaping are in section 3.2.1(E)(4) and will apply to any parking area with more than 6 spaces. Comment Number: 10 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UNRESOLVED: The back elevation is still missing for the maintenance building. Please indicate whether the "front" elevation faces College Avenue or Debra Drive. RESPONSE: The rear elevation of the maintenance building has been included with this submittal. The “front” elevation will face towards the east into the maintenance yard and the “back” elevation will face College Avenue. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: It is difficult to tell how the maintenance building will be oriented on the site, and the back elevation is missing. The site plan also states that the building is 2.5 stories, but the elevations appear to show a 1.5 story building. Please clarify. Comment Number: 12 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: Staff understands that it is not possible to confirm how many porches/garages will be selected as options by future residents. Will the first section of 35‑45 homes demonstrate these options on the site? RESPONSE: The first “phase” of homes will show many home options with relation to elevation and floorplans and many will have porches and some will have garages. Sun is willing to commit to a certain percentage with porches and garages, if necessary. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The architectural elevations note that there will be porch, carport and garage “options” for residents. How many homes will include these features? One of the conditions of approval specifically requires “a variety of front porches” including covered, uncovered, and in differing dimensions. Comment Number: 14 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UNRESOLVED: Additional elevations have been added, thank you. Some elevations still do not include all sides of the building. Please provide a full elevation set with your next submittal. RESPONSE: Missing side/rear elevations have been added to the submittal. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please include elevations of all sides of the buildings in your future submittals. Floor plans are not necessary to include. Comment Number: 21 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: Thank you for adding these site plan notes. One minor adjustment to the second modification ‑ please add a bullet copying the first bullet from modification 1 (deed restriction/affordability requirement). This condition of approval applies to both approved modifications. RESPONSE: Note has been revised. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For your next submittal, please make a few modifications to the site plan notes as follows: ‑ Delete text for site plan note 7 and replace with “N/A, see Modifications and Conditions of Approval.” Currently, the note states that “A minimum of four housing models for the single family homes shall be required. These housing models shall meet or exceed the standards as outlined in 3.5.2(C) of the land use code.” ‑ Correct spelling of site plan note 12. In a couple of places, replace “accessable” with “accessible.” ‑ Add the date of P&Z approval to both modification notes so each note reads “…was approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on October 15, 2020 with the following conditions:” You can also remove the language after the bullet points on each that refers to the findings and the vote. All we need to document is the modification and the conditions. Comment Number: 23 03/30/2021: I can see that the trash enclosure has been removed. Is the intent that trash service will be provided to each individual home? RESPONSE: Yes-that is the intent. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: A trash enclosure is included on sheet L3.02 but I don’t see it on the site plan. Where will the trash enclosure be located? Please also review requirements for trash and recycling enclosures in Section 3.2.5. These standards require pedestrian access, space for both trash and recycling, and other elements. Also see the example included in redlines of a trash enclosure from a different project that meets these requirements for reference. Comment Number: 25 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Please note that the City’s Municipal Code contains regulations for manufactured home parks that you will want to review. Permitting, installation and anchoring of units, and other requirements are located at https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code? nodeId=CH18MOHO. Comment Number: 26 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: This comment is primarily to bring forward the stated intent to establish a resident/homeowner’s association. The details for this will not need to be finalized at this point, but may be incorporated in later stages of the project. Comment Number: 27 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see comments from City utilities and Fort Collins Loveland Water District. Because the requirement for a public water system will have significant site design impacts, we will need to have another utility coordination meeting and at least one more round of staff review prior to hearing. RESPONSE: It has been decided and agreed that the water system will be public and the sanitary sewer system will remain private, except for specific locations as shown on the construction plans. The plans have been modified accordingly as necessary. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970‑221‑6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: With the information provided that the North Louden is the ditch owner behind the College Avenue frontage, and running along the southern boundary, the plans should be labeling this ditch and the owner. North Louden would need to provide a letter of intent not objecting to the project proposal and changes in proximity to their ditch prior to the scheduling of a hearing. The prescriptive right of the ditch will likely require that a defined ditch easement be created on the plat and North Louden signing the plat, in order to ensure that the City's interest in easements, and right‑of‑way are not impacted by the prescriptive easement. In general, please ensure that the plans label all features that appear to be ditches and indicate whether they serve a drainage vs an irrigation conveyance and if they are owned/managed by an entity other than the developer (such as North Louden). RESPONSE: Design plans have been added to the plan set showing the proposed widening of College Avenue and the relocation of the North Louden Irrigation Ditch. An agreement with the representatives of North Louden will need to be obtained and this communication and coordination is currently taking place. This Agreement will include a defined easement for the ditch which will may partially overlap a portion of the ROW being dedicated on the Final Plat to the City for the widening of College Avenue. It is anticipated this easement and associated Agreement will be obtained by separate document and the recordation information noted on the Plat. The North Louden Ditch is the only irrigation ditch located on the property and has been noted on the plans. There are other drainage ditches/swales on the property that have been noted on the Plat if they include an existing easement dedicated to a party other than the current property owner and are to be vacated via the Plat. 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: In general, several of the following comments pertain to existing features (ditches, utilities, drainage conveyances) that are not specifically called out on the civil plans and are unclear as to how the development proposal would impact these. An existing conditions sheet on the civil set that identifies these items and how they may be changed, removed, etc. would ideally be helpful ‑‑ note that sheets 2 and 3 of the site plan provides some of this information. To the extent that these features are either private interests or utilities not owned by the City, their approval would be needed on the plat/plans and letters of intent from those parties are needed prior to a hearing. Comment Number: 2 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: With the information that North Louden has the ditch and a prescriptive easement, the City is taking that information in consideration with respect to the question on the College Avenue frontage. The lack of sidewalk along the frontage however does need to be addressed and designed at this time, with understanding how this can be constructed with the development with North Louden's ditch in mind. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to show the continuation of the curb & gutter and sidewalk constructed with Lakeview on the Rise. As a result of this widening the North Louden Ditch has been relocated to the east of the sidewalk. Plans for the ditch relocation have been included in the Utility Plans. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The site has existing ditches that traverse the property which appear to create questions as to how they intend to be addressed with the development of the site, among them: along the western boundary abutting College Avenue where frontage improvements not currently exist, along the southern boundary that the Debra Drive extension would cross, along the northern boundary abutting Trilby Road (as well as the eastern boundary between Trilby which the frontage improvements would extend over, and along the eastern boundary of which Crown Ridge Lane's extension would traverse over. In general, with the exception of the depiction of two box culverts crossing Crown Ridge Lane's extension, there doesn't seem to be information as to what these ditches are (drainage and/or irrigation) and how the development of the site intends to incorporate these ditches into their site. Designs for public streets improvements need to show how these water conveyance systems will be physically addressed (piping, box culvert?) meeting City standards (material type in right‑of‑way, cover over roadway, etc.) and whether legal rights need to be secured (signing of a ditch company on the plat and plans?) Comment Number: 5 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: The change to the frontage along Kevin Drive addresses previous concerns with the exception of the landscape plan not showing trees in the parkway (though this is depicted in the cross section on the cover sheet.) RESPONSE: Trees have been added to the parkway. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Kevin Drive is an existing street right‑of‑way that traverses the abutting boundary of the site (abutting home sites 1, & 123‑130). The existing attached sidewalk abutting is in substandard condition and is required to be re‑built to a vertical curb and detached sidewalk in accordance with the City's residential street standards (4.5' wide sidewalk, with a 6' parkway). Right‑of‑way would then be dedicated to coincide with the back of walk, with a 9' utility easement behind the new right‑of‑way. (Note that as an abutting public street, street trees are typically required.) Comment Number: 8 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: The revised preliminary design appears to better address road design concerns. Please note that the 24" RCP now shown does not appear to meet cover requirements and isn't sufficient in depth below the subgrade of the roadway. We would look to ensure a 3' minimum of cover from the top of the pipe to the finish grade of the roadway. In addition, while OK for preliminary, the plans will need to sho more of the existing grades at time of final to show that the grades are tying into existing grades or whether grade beaks are being introduced. RESPONSE: The 24” RCP has been revised to 2-18” CL IV RCP’s with headwalls on each end. 1.5’ of cover has been provided over the top of the pipe which is why Class IV RCP is being specified. The requirement of 3’ of cover cannot be provided due to the depth of the existing ditch and the elevation of the existing street connection. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The preliminary design for Debra Drive as the lone new public street being built with the development has some concerns with the K values not meeting minimum requirements in both crests and the sag condition. The indication of matching existing condition requires showing existing centerline grades on both sides of Debra Drive (within Trilby Heights and Lakeview on the Rise) as evidence of this, note that the Lakeview on the Rise plans show for instance a 2.44% centerline grade of Debra Drive to its northern boundary while the project shows a 1% tying into this. This amount of grade break would require a vertical curve. Please show an existing centerline g In general, why is a low spot being introduced into Debra (and no depiction or indication of an inlet) with the crest, sump, crest design, instead of a singular crest? Note also that the elevation shown in the profile view does not correspond to the road design data. Comment Number: 10 03/30/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Carrying this comment over. The City is having further conversations on Thursday and will look to understand what conversations may have been initiated from the applicant and the ditch owner concurrently on Wednesday. RESPONSE: Noted 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The note regarding College Avenue improvements on sheet 5 of the site plan is great for the time being. We'll want to coordinate further with Engineering's Capital group on the finalization of the approach to take for College Avenue improvements abutting the property. Understanding the existing drainage/irrigation ownership status abutting College would be helpful in this regard. Comment Number: 14 03/30/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: North Louden would likely need to be one of the signatures required on the plat based on the information provided and again a letter of intent is needed prior to a hearing. RESPONSE: It is anticipated the Agreement with North Louden Ditch will be by separate document and referenced on the Plat. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Note that the plat indicates the vacation of several existing easements within the platted boundary. It is unclear on the plat who is the owner(s) of the easements being vacated and to the extent that the ownership is not with the owner/developer of the overall parcel, the owner(s) of these easements being vacated would need to sign the plat consenting to the vacation. In addition, to the extent that there are any interests being dedicated to the City on the plat (such as a right‑of‑way or easement) that would overlap an existing easement, the owner of that easement would likely need to sign the plat in accordance with our signature requirements for plats under 2.2.3(C)(3) of the Land Use Code. An example of this would be the owners of the 50' access easement (book 1371, page 852) and 30' water line easement (rec. 2002077795) as these easements rights would overlap the dedication of Debra Drive road right‑of‑way and 9' utility easement on either side. Letter of intent from these easement holders not objecting to the project going to public hearing would be required prior to any hearing. Comment Number: 17 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: The plat appears to depict this. Note that the cross section on Sheet 55 appears to not show this and . It was noticed that the 10' parkway width specified for arterial streets isn't maintained and an 8' parkway is shown. The parkway width should be widened to meet the arterial cross section standard. RESPONSE: The Parkway has been expanded to 10’. Based on the typical section for the Modified 4-Lane Arterial, this moved the walk 2’ beyond the ROW. A 4’ Sidewalk Easement has been added to the Plat to cover this extension of the walk. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The design of Trilby Road The dedication of Trilby Road right‑of‑way should expand to the back of walk that is being established. Comment Number: 19 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: The comment provided by FCLWD/SFCSD on the need to have the water and sewer be a District maintained facility and meet the District's standards would appear to have potential implications on the utility layout of the site. It may be that a utility coordination meeting should be arranged to discuss further. RESPONSE: It has been decided and agreed that the water system will be public and the sanitary sewer system will remain private, except for specific locations as shown on the construction plans. The plans have been modified accordingly as necessary. Comment Number: 20 03/30/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: The City has adopted a utility plan approval block that is required on the cover sheet only and can be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/utilitysigblock.pdf?1611856399 RESPONSE: This block has been added to the cover sheet. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970‑221‑6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING: The US287 frontage will need to be brought up to standard and further coordination with the City Capital project at US 287 and Trilby road is needed. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970‑416‑4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Thank you for the addition of a hard‑surface trail connection from Crown Ridge. Looking at the grading plan, staff agrees that a trail connection is not reasonable behind units 38 ‑ 43. However, we think a trail (soft surface or otherwise) is reasonable behind units 2 ‑ 18. Stormwater Engineering is supportive of trail in the easement and there looks to be enough room to fit a modest trail. The trail proposal does follow a similar path as the sidewalk along the fronts of the units but it provides an un interrupted path for walking (which we presume will become an informal "goat path" anyway) as opposed to the sidewalk which has 18 curb cuts. RESPONSE: As previously discussed, a trail is not feasible behind sites 2-18. There is not enough room to function as a drainage corridor and a trail connection. Due to limited visibility down this corridor it is also our opinion this would create an unsafe condition for pedestrians. Cross sections have been provided to show the characteristics of this corridor and validate the unfeasible conditions for a trail. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The overall site plan could use several paved bicycle and pedestrian trails in the following locations: ‑ Behind units 2 ‑ 18 ‑ Behind units 38 ‑ 43 ‑ The proposed soft‑surface trail should be paved ‑ Connect to the proposed trial from Crown Ridge between unit 53 and 54 Comment Number: 2 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: As you develop the College Avenue frontage which will include a sidewalk, please plan to create a sidewalk connection from Debra Drive to College Avenue. RESPONSE: Sidewalk connection from Debra Drive to College Avenue has been added. Department: Fort Collins Loveland Water District Contact: Nate Ensley, , Development Review <DevelopmentReview@fclwd.com> Topic: General Comment Number: 4 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: Per FCLWD board determination at the March Board meeting, this project will have a customer class of Single Family Residential. Since it is Single Family Residential, all water mains, hydrants, and meter pits need to be public infrastructure. All Sewer manholes and Main pipes (excluding service laterals) need to be public as well. Please resubmit plans that reflect this requirement. RESPONSE: It has been decided and agreed that the water system will be public and the sanitary sewer system will remain private, except for specific locations as shown on the construction plans. The plans have been modified accordingly as necessary. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: The Development is not meeting the City Code requirements for WQ and LID as is currently designed. This needs to be addressed before a Hearing can be scheduled. RESPONSE: The project plans have been revised to utilize forebays and linear bioretention features to meet the City’s WQ and LID requirements before drainage enters the wetlands. Additional water quality is being proposed in the ponds as well. 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: The drainage design did not include any water quality or LID features. Per City Code, water quality and LID are required. The City suggests a meeting to discuss what is exactly required and how the design can meet code. Comment Number: 5 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UNRESOLVED: RESPONSE: Varying side slopes have been provided to the extent possible and feasible. 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide a more naturalistic shape to all the drainage channels. This includes varying side slopes. Comment Number: 6 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: The C‑factors are not per City Criteria. The 100‑yr C is C2 times 1.25. Please revise. RESPONSE: The C factors have been revised. 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please use the City's Hydrology Criteria. The Drainage Report used Urban Drainage Criteria. Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970‑416‑2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: It has been brought to my attention that the water and sewer system will be required to become a publicly owned and maintained system. If major changes to the utility layout are required, I would highly recommend another Utility Coordination meeting and may have further comments on the layout of the electric system. RESPONSE: Noted. The dry utilities have not changed significantly due to the water becoming public. The sanitary sewer is remaining private except for some locations where it was already proposed to be public. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for providing preliminary utility locations on the Utility Plans. With a preliminary layout, I would highly recommend a Utility Coordination meeting with all proposed utility providers to avoid potential conflicts or redesigns further into the process. In the next round, please provide an Overall Utility Plan for clarity. Comment Number: 4 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide AutoCAD drawing files showing all utilities, existing conditions, and the proposed site plan for preliminary designs. Comment Number: 5 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For the clubhouse, a transformer location will need to be coordinated with Light & Power and needs to be shown on the Utility Plans. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. When located close to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as defined in Figures ESS4 ‑ ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans. Comment Number: 11 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: If the private drives are proposed to be illuminated, the streetlights are considered private and will need to be privately metered. Please show all private streetlights and private meters on the Final plans. Comment Number: 12 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: All utility easement and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, floodplain, etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained by the developer. Comment Number: 13 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: For the Club House, Maintenance Building or any other commercial building, a commercial service information form (C‑1 form) and a one‑line diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C‑1 form is below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils‑procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C‑1Form.pdf Comment Number: 14 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: On the one‑line diagram, please show the main disconnect size and meter sequencing. A copy of our meter sequencing can be found in our electric policies practices and procedures below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/development‑fo rms‑guidelines‑regulations Comment Number: 17 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/plant‑investmen t‑development‑fees Comment Number: 19 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see redlines for minor explanations and revisions. RESPONSE: Responses have been added directly to the redlines and included with this resubmittal. Comment Number: 20 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: The plat is dedicating a 23' Emergency Access Easement with a 9.5' Utility Easement on either side, but the Utility Plan is showing a 42' Emergency Access Easement. Please clarify and revise as necessary. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised to reflect a “23’ Public Access, Emergency Access Utility and Drainage Easement” with “19.5’ Utility Easement” on either side. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416‑4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 19 03/29/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: A handful of resources have been provided to the DRC to assist you in your efforts – a summary of Environmental Planning mitigation requirements, Rocky Mountain Raptor Program prairie dog donation standards, and the NHBZ security estimator worksheet. RESPONSE: Noted Comment Number: 20 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: Pre‑treatment of stormwater is required prior to entering the existing wetland and/or the wetland mitigation. Options include extended dry detention, sand filters/bioretention, and forebays (half treatment/half wetlands). The treatment method(s) can be included in the NHBZ. Coordination regarding the pre‑treatment will need to be made in conjunction with the Stormwater department. RESPONSE: The project is proposing to utilize forebays and linear bioretention features to meet the city’s WC and LID requirements before drainage enters the wetlands. Comment Number: 21 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: Lots 38 and 39 in the northeast corner of the site intrude into wetland channel at right angles. This needs to be addressed. RESPONSE: The sites are not platted lots so there is no intrusion into the channel. Comment Number: 22 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for submitting a photometric plan. According to LUC 3.2.4(D)(6) and 3.4.1(E)(1)(e). The photometric plan indicates light spillage on the western edge of the NHBZ, please modify to eliminate light trespass. RESPONSE: Light spillage on the western edge has been eliminated. Comment Number: 23 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: Shrubs and trees are depicted in the same space as and immediately in front of the north‑south culverts under Crown Ridge Lane (L5.22). They need to be relocated as they will interfere with flows. RESPONSE: Shrubs and trees have been relocated. Comment Number: 24 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: Environmental Planning tree mitigation requirements can be satisfied by the numerous trees and shrubs already included in the NHBZ. All that is needed is to list some of the proposed NHBZ trees/shrubs as part of the tree mitigation. If taken on a 1:1 mitigation ratio, then 19 trees/shrubs need to be listed as Environmental Planning tree mitigation. RESPONSE: Environmental mitigation requirements have been calculated, shown, and fulfilled. Comment Number: 25 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: Please change nomenclature from ‘100’ Buffer Wetland Zone’ to ‘Natural Habitat Buffer Zone’ to standardize nomenclature within this project and with LUC language. Change ‘Wetland Acreage Chart’ to ‘Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Acreage Chart’. Same for ‘100’ Wetland Buffer Seed Mix Schedule’ – change to ‘NHBZ Upland Mix’ or similar. RESPONSE: Nomenclature has been adjusted throughout for consistency. Comment Number: 26 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: Please edit the ‘Wetland Acreage Chart’ to also provide the minimum, maximum, and average buffer width, and change name to ‘NHBZ Chart’ or similar. ‑FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A comprehensive restoration plan will be needed that addresses 1) establishment, maintenance, and weed management of upland areas within the NHBZ, 2) mitigation wetland establishment, maintenance, and weed management, and 3) restoration (primarily noxious weed management) of the existing wetland. RESPONSE: The minimum and maximum buffer widths have been added to the Wetland Average Chart. An average buffer width can only be provided between those two numbers. The name of the Chart has been changed to “NHBZ Chart”. A comprehensive restoration plan will be provided for FDP. Comment Number: 27 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The standard upland, wetland, and detention (labeled ‘100’ Wetland Buffer Seed Mix’ in the Landscape Plans) City seed mixes are called out in the Landscape Plan. These are absolutely acceptable, but seed mixes can be tailored for site specific edaphic conditions, expected uses, and desired goals. Agronomic soil testing that analyzes soil texture, nutrient levels, and alkalinity of the various areas is highly recommended, as well as further analysis of the vegetative composition of the existing wetland to guide seed mix design. Soil testing should occur post‑construction in areas to be disturbed but can anytime in areas that will remain undisturbed. For example, the upland mix is called out to be used in parkways outside of NHBZ; there are alternate mixes of low water, low maintenance, native grasses that can tolerate moderate amounts of traffic and provide good cover. Comment Number: 28 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Some riparian shrubs are depicted heavily in non‑wetland areas of the NHBZ. Some modification may be necessary to ensure that these higher water need species have adequate hydrology in the upland areas. Comment Number: 29 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Thank you for providing a prairie dog mitigation plan that provides proof of efforts to find relocation donors. Trapping and donating to a raptor recovery program is listed as an option if available; the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program (RMRP, https://www.rmrp.org/, 970‑484‑0322) is accepting prairie dogs on a continual basis. The conceptual removal plan seems to be in general compliance with RMRP’s standards. Please provide the results of communications with RMRP as matters progress. Comment Number: 30 03/29/2021: PRIOR TO DEVLOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (DCP) ISSUANCE: Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this project. A security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to the FDP approval please provide an estimate of the landscaping costs for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, including materials, labor, monitoring, weed mitigation and irrigation. We will then use the approved estimate to collect a security (bond or escrow) at 125% of the total amount prior to the issuance of a DCP. Comment Number: 31 03/29/2021: PRIOR TO DCP ISSUANCE: Thank you for providing the acreage of impacted prairie dog colony (24.015 acres). The payment‑in‑lieu fee without CO/PERC is $1,637/acre, or $39,312.56. If CO/PERC is used, then the payment‑in‑lieu fee is $1,337/acre, or $32,108.06. Whichever method is chosen, the payment‑in‑lieu is in addition to relocation, trap and donate, or euthanization costs. Comment Number: 32 03/29/2021: PRIOR TO DCP ISSUANCE: Prior to prairie dog removal, please submit 1) the results of a burrowing owl survey completed by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist, and in accordance with CPW standards if removal is between March 15 and October 31, and 2) a letter explaining how and when prairie dog removal occurred at the site and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. Comment Number: 33 03/29/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: What year is the black and white aerial imagery from revised ECS FACWet assessment Figure 1 from? Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: Thank you for adding the column. Is the tree mitigation plan that was submitted in round 1 going to be part of hearing? If so, please include this column on that plan as well (since the tree mitigation plan maps out the locations of the existing trees). RESPONSE: The Tree Mitigation Plan content is included as part of the PDP plan set. It was not intended to be a separate submittal. However, this can be done if needed. The columns showing “Mitigation Value” and “Status” have been included in the table that is part of the PDP. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for submitting a tree mitigation plan. Please add a status column to the tree inventory/mitigation table on sheet 1 indicating whether each tree is to be removed, protected, or transplanted (similar to sheet LO.04 in the planning set). Comment Number: 6 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: It appears that the species percentages indicated are inaccurate. There are a total of 457 trees proposed on this project. Sugar maples, hackberries, chinkapin oaks and lindens all exceed the 15 percent maximum. Forestry recommends incorporating additional shade tree species in the proposed palette, both to meet the diversity requirement as well as to set the landscaping up for success in the future. Increasing species diversity serves as a mechanism to prevent widespread damage against insects/pests, climate variability etc. RESPONSE: Tree species percentages have been updated and additional species have been added. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: It appears that only two species of shade trees are being proposed for the streetscape at this moment. Please see the following note pertaining to species diversity. LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to prevent insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan: Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species 10‑19 50% 20‑39 33% 40‑59 25% 60 or more 15% The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reached the maximum percentage of the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose: ‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the review process. The following list may be helpful: https://www.fcgov.com/forestry/approved‑street‑trees Comment Number: 8 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: For the Trilby Frontage: Trilby is planned as a 4‑lane arterial. LUCASS Standards require a 10’ parkway. The proposed parkway is 8’ wide. Are there any constraints to providing a 10’ parkway? If not, Forestry would like to see the full 10’ parkway width implemented. For the College Ave. Frontage: It is our understanding that further coordination is required to determine the ultimate design of the College Avenue frontage. Forestry would prefer a detached walk/parkway design (10’ parkway) with street trees. Kevin Dr: Street trees are required along the Kevin Dr. frontage as part of the improvements. Please show canopy shade trees at 30‑40’ spacing centered in the parkway. RESPONSE: The Trilby parkway has been widened to 10’. Street Trees have been added to Kevin Drive parkway. The parkway being provided along College Avenue is a little over 8’ wide. This is what was built with Lakeview on the Rise and what we have been directed to match for our frontage. Street tress have been added in this parkway. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Will this project be responsible for frontage improvements along Trilby and College? If so, please show canopy shade trees at 30‑40’ spacing centered in the parkway along both streets. Comment Number: 9 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: We understand that there may be some changes to the utility services on this project. We would like to better understand whether/how this may impact tree placement along the private streets and work through tree/utility separations in following rounds. RESPONSE: With the water system changing to a public system, water meters will now be required for each site thus requiring additional crossings of the tree lawn, potentially impacting tree locations. The water district is allowing us to incorporate their dual meter pit detail which will significantly reduce the number of crossings and conflicts with trees. Trees locations have been re-evaluated to accommodate the above stated separation distances for utilities and lights. Street signs will be provided at FDP and tree locations will be re-evaluated at that time. Please note that due to conflicting separation requirements, there are a few areas where 40’ on center streetscape shade tree spacing cannot be achieved, but we have achieved this for majority of the masterplan. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Will the water and sewer utility services to each property be shown in subsequent rounds? Standard tree‑utility separation distances currently used per Land Use Code standards are preferred and are as followed: Street Light/Tree Separation: Canopy shade tree: 40 feet Ornamental tree: 15 feet Stop Sign/Tree Separation: Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs. While the 50 feet of separation is not officially codified yet, Traffic Operations has indicated that the current standard of 20 feet does not provide adequate stop sign clearance. Driveway/Tree Separation: At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys Utility/Tree Separation: 10’ between trees and electric utilities, public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 4’ between trees and gas lines Comment Number: 3 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: Forestry would like to better understand the grading constraints around tree #29G. Please provide additional details as to why this tree cannot be protected. Can the grading be avoided around the root zone of this tree? It’s not entirely clear what the ultimate design of College Ave will be. Therefore, we would like additional information regarding how tree #30 will be impacted by the final design. Lastly, is Kevin Dr. being paved? If so, we still need to evaluate the cottonwood tree on the west side and ensure that it is being accounted for in the mitigation plan. RESPONSE: Tree 29G is a large spruce tree. It is anticipated the grading and operation of the maintenance yard site will negatively impact the drip/root zone of the tree both during grading operations and potentially into the future. Additionally, the tree is physically located in the southeasterly corner of the proposed maintenance yard in conflict with the proposed access road. The tree would interfere with the proposed 20’ wide emergency access drive required by PVA to serve this building. In addition, PVA and the fire code, require a 14’ minimum overhead clearance which would require a significant portion of the tree be trimmed, removing the branches below 14’. It is our opinion that overall, even if the site were to be revised to go around the tree, and dismissing the potential negative impacts related to grading and digging around and into the root zone, the community would be better served by removing the tree now verses in the future when the tree becomes potentially stressed and needs to be removed after the development is in operation. Additional trees have been added to the site to compensate for the loss of this tree. Tree 30 is a large cottonwood tree. Based on the design being proposed for the widening of College Avenue and the relocation of the ditch we are confident that this tree can be preserved. We are not required to pave Kevin Drive. However, we will be replacing the curb, gutter and walk on the east side as well as repaving portions of the existing road that are impacted by storm sewer improvements, mostly north of Rick Drive. In any case we will not be impacting the existing tree on the west side of Kevin Drive. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: During the tree inventory, we discussed retaining the large spruce on the west side of the property near the existing structure on College (#29G). Is it possible to retain that tree? On Kevin Dr., there is a cottonwood tree on the west side that is in the public right‑of‑way, which wasn’t inventoried. Based on discussions with Engineering, it appears that frontage improvements along Kevin Dr. may impact this tree. Please coordinate with Forestry and ensure this tree is accounted for in the mitigation plan. Comment Number: 11 03/30/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Lindens are prone to salt damage. Please substitute a different species along the arterials. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970‑416‑2869, jlynxwiler@poudre‑fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ FIRE HYDRANT SEPARATION DISTANCE: > The fire hydrant plan may be updated as follows: For Group R‑3 occupancies, hydrants required within 400 feet of any residence and on 800 feet thereafter. > The current hydrant placing indicates an excess of hydrants. The plan may be adjusted to allow for fewer hydrants and additional space between hydrants. > A hydrant is required within 300 feet of a maintenance building (Bldg. B), clubhouse, community center, business office or assembly building. Comment Number: 2 01/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: > Any Group B or A occupancy over 5,000 sq. ft. in area will require a fire sprinkler system or fire separation. > Any Group A occupancy with an occupant load over 99 will require a fire sprinkler system. Comment Number: 3 01/20/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN ‑ FIRE LANE SIGNAGE: > Add LCUASS detail #1418 to plan set. > Location of fire lane signage shall be labeled on the plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1419 for sign p0lacement, and spacing. Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970‑416‑2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ FIRE ACCESS: Maintenance building is not within 150 of fire access roads. The access road to the maintenance building (Bldg B) will need to be dedicated emergency access and meet fire lane specification. ‑Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20 feet in width, the full width shall be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ. ‑Dead‑end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround area for fire apparatus. ‑Be designed as a flat, hard, all‑weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. RESPONSE: The access driveway to the maintenance building has been widened to 20’ and has been dedicated as a 20’ Wide Emergency Access Drive. The maintenance yard has been expanded to provide adequate space to turnaround within the maintenance yard. Comment Number: 5 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ HYDRANT SPACING: Hydrant on Northeast corner of Debra Dr is located more than 300 ft from Maintenance Building (Bldg B). I would suggest moving this hydrant to the corner of the access drive to (Bldg B). The existing hydrant along the road to be vacated is located too far from the fire access road. RESPONSE: An additional hydrant has been added off the southeast corner of the maintenance yard. Department: GIS Contact: Todd Reidenbach, 970‑416‑2483, treidenbach@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 03/25/2021: Street names: Swap Street G and the north/south Rick Dr. (Rick Dr should be extended to Crown Ridge Ln and the north/south street between Rick Dr and Street E should have a unique name.) Break Street J into two names at 90 degree corner. RESPONSE: These revisions have been made. 22 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 03/31/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. RESPONSE: The corrections have been made and our responses are shown on the redlined document. This document is included in the Comment Response Folder. 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Department: Larimer Count Accessor Contact: Megan Harrity, , Megan Harrity <mharrity@larimer.org> Topic: General Comment Number: 5 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: Please update on the PLAT ‑ "FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (COLLECTIVELY.'OWNER') HAVE CAUSED THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS, TRACTS AND STREETS AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS (THE "DEVELOPMENT"). SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS‑OF‑WAY NOW Of' RECORD OR EXISTING OR INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND." RESPONSE: The Dedication Statement has been revised. Department: Erosion Control Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970‑218‑2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 9 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Review of the erosion control materials found a number of comments that will need to be addressed at next submittal. RESPONSE: The erosion control comments have been addressed per the attached comment response redlines included in the Comment Response Folder. Comment Number: 10 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: No erosion control escrow was provided. An escrow calculation will need to be provided at next submittal in accordance with FCDCM Ch Section 6.1.5 RESPONSE: Noted Comment Number: 11 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Updated fees estimate based upon submitted information. The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 204 lots, 52.65 acres of disturbance, 3 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 5 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $10,142.94 . Based on 0 number of porous pavers, 0 number of bioretention, 2 number of extended detention basins, 0 number of underground treatments, 0 number of level spreaders results in an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $500. (However there is some question as to the lack of LID to accurately estimate the Stormwater Inspections) I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. RESPONSE: Comment noted. We have no changes at this time but reserve the right to review again when documents are finalized. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970‑221‑6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit, but we would prefer them sooner. 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 HYPERLINK "mailto:eolson@fcgov.com" eolson@fcgov.com Department: Building Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970‑416‑2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 01/15/2021: BUILDING PERMIT: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments 2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete requirements. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): · 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or · Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of   Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: 2018 IRC chapter 11.  INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · 5ft setback required from property line or provide fire rated walls & openings for non‑fire sprinkled houses per chap 3 of the IRC. 3ft setback is required for fire sprinkled houses. · Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms. · Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for buildings using electric heat. Stock Plans: When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res‑requirements.php. Comment Number: 2 01/15/2021: BUILDING PERMIT: All non‑fire sprinkled houses must be 5ft minimum from the property lines or must have 10ft minimum between houses for fire separation distance.