HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - PDP210004 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College AvenuePO Box 580Fort Collins, CO 80522970.221.6689970.224.6134 faxfcgov.com/developmentreviewNovember 15, 2021Sam
Coutts Ripley Design, Inc.419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200Fort Collins, CO 80521RE: Enclave at Redwood, PDP210004, Round Number 3Please see the following summary of comments from City staff
and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Enclave at Redwood. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions
through your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 9702216695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Response in red please contact:Sam Coutts with Ripley Design,
Inc.Response in blue please contact:Tim Hoffman with HKSResponse in purple please contact:Ruth Rollins with Rollins ConsultResponse in orange please contact:Doug Heaton with KTGYResponse
in green please contact:Aaron Posma with DHIComment Summary:Department: Development Review CoordinatorContact: Todd Sullivan, 9702216695, tsullivan@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment
Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting processes. 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. To best serve you, please include me
in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you!Response: Thank you Todd and we will coordinate with you if we have any questions
in this submittal process.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021As 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, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged.Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic
submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. Files are to be named PLAN NAME_PROJECT NAME_REVIEW TYPE_ROUND NO.Example: UTILITY PLANS_MY PROJECT_PDP_RD1.pdfResponse:
We will provide comments to the comments in this document and will ensure the File naming standards will be applied.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021All "FOR
HEARING" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the hearing for this project.Response: Thank you for letting us know Todd.Comment Number:
7 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review: Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from
the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are
necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall
automatically lapse and becomenull and void.Response: Understood and we will plan on resubmitting on 12/22/2021.Department: Planning ServicesContact: Pete Wray, 9702216754, pwray@fcgov.comTopic:
GeneralComment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021FOR HEARING: LUC Section 3.2.2 (l) For the garages located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings,
the driveway width should be increased to 28 feet.Please include dimension callouts to show 28' building setbacks in addition to the other callouts of 24' alley paving and Utility/Emergency
Access easements where applicable.Response: Labels have been added to site plan to demonstrate 28 feet separationComment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021FOR HEARING:
Private ParkPlease update plan set cover page to show 1.5-acre park size and clarify this is a private park not public. The site and landscape plans with details need ot be revised to
show how the detention pond in park tract is usable space for park operations including slope access, park amenities and lighting. Whenintegrating storm drainage and detention functions
to satisfy this requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park. This Park should
be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than
two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. Such parks shall consist of multiple use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables,
benches, BBQ, or other features for various age groups to enjoy.Response: This note has been update across plan set. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021FOR HEARING:
Privacy FencePlease show on site and landscape plan the 6' cedar privacy fence locations that match detail. This fence should be along the west and north project boundaries to provide
screening from adjacent neighborhoods to proposed paved drives, parking and buildings.Response: A 6’ privacy fence has been added to the north and west property boundary. But will need
to discuss with Environmental if allowed within the NHBZ zone.Department: Engineering Development ReviewContact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment
Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/08/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)I do not see the 9foot utility easement along Redwood between Public Street C and Suniga. Please
add this.Response: Utility Easement was shown but was not labeled. Label has been added. Please review plat for all easements09/14/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)I still do not see the
utility easements along Redwood and Suniga frontages on the plat.03/02/2021: FOR HEARING This project is responsible for dedicating any right of way and easements that are necessary
or required by the City for this project. Most easements to be dedicated need to be public easements dedicated to the City. This shall include the standard utility easements that are
to be provided behind the rightofway (15 foot along an arterial, 8 foot along an alley, and 9 foot along all other street classifications). Please add all adjacent roadway utility easements
(15foot for Suniga, 9foot for Redwood) to your plat.Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/08/2021: FOR HEARINGThe variance request has been reviewed by the City
Engineer. We would like the mitigation measures to be more clearly defined in the variance request letter. Please see my notes on the letter. With the suggested revisions, the variance
request will most likely be approved.Response: The variance has been revised per the suggestions and is included with this submittal.03/02/2021: FOR HEARINGThe geometry of the intersection
of private drive A and Steeley Dr. is very problematic. It doesn't appear to meet our standards for angle of intersection and doesn't appear to align very well from one side to the
other. This will need to be reconfigured to meet our standards.Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/08/2021: INFORMATION ONLYSpencer's redlines from Round
2 were not fully addressed. Please see my redlines for changes that need to be made in the utility plan.Response: Acknowledged.09/15/2021: INFORMATION ONLYPlease refer to the current
redlines for additional comments.03/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLYPlease refer to the included redlines for additional comments. Please contact me with any questions.Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 03/03/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)Response: Linework for the SB right turn on Redwood has been added. We’ll continue working with the City on
final design of the lane during FDP.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)03/03/2021: FOR HEARINGPer recommendations of your TIS, please show a preliminary design/layout of the southbound
right turn lane on Redwood St. approaching the Suniga intersection.Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/10/2021: INFORMATION ONLYPlease be mindful of sight
distance where the trail intersects Private Alley C, near the intersection of Private Alleys C and D.Response: Acknowledged, the trail has been shifted as far away from the intersection
as feasible.09/14/2021: FOR HEARINGI have some concern with the proximity of some of the buildings to the private alleys. There may be issues with sight distance in some locations.
I believe the alley width in general is still a concern of other departments with respect to utility separations, fire access, etc.Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021:
FOR HEARINGPlease add a note to the utility plans stating that the bridges and box culverts for the ditch crossings will be designed at the time of FDP. See my redlines on Sheet 24
and 25 of the utility plans.Response: Note has been added to sheet 24 & 25.09/14/2021: FOR FINALWe will want to see bridge designs for the ditch crossings as early as possible in the
FDP process. These plans will be reviewed by our Capital Projects engineers concurrently with the FDP. The bridge design will be included in the FDP utility plan set.Comment Number:
29 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)Please add a note to Sheet 12 of the utility plans, as indicated by my redlines.Response: Note has been
added to the plan sheet.09/14/2021: FOR HEARINGThe parcel on the south side of Suniga will need to have roadway improvements constructed with this project (sidewalk, parkway, etc.) to
the City's standard “Collector With Parking” street section. It appears that the needed improvements will fit within the existing ROW, although the bike lane and parking width may
not be to current standards.Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/08/202111/08/2021: FOR HEARINGSheet 25 of the utility plan appears to indicate that Public Street B will
have a ROW width of 58 feet all the way up to the property line with Northfield. Just beyond the property line, the ROW width tapers down to 57 feet. Will Enclave at Redwood be constructing
this offsite section of the street to connect smoothly with Northfield?Response: 58’ ROW is proposed because a 5’ sidewalk is proposed vs the 4.5’minimum. Sidewalks will be tapered near
the property line to connect to the Northfield walkways.Department: Traffic OperationContact: Spencer Smith, 9702216603, smsmith@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARINGI think there still needs to be some more design detail looked at during PDP for the proposed regional trail crossings of the
ditch and the public roadways. I think it would make a lot of sense to incorporate the trail section into the Steely roadway section where it crosses the ditch. If it is separate,
it will require a separate bridge structure which may not be desirable for several reasons for the City and the developer.Response: A single bridge or box culvert will be provided with
enough width to provide the roadway and trail crossing. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARINGAt this point I am wondering what the reason
is for wanting some of the internal roadways to be private. The private street section is now shown being the same as the public section. What is the benefit to the project of having
some of these roads be private if the section is physically the same?Response: Roads have been designated private for leniency in LCUASS geometry standards, while still providing circulation
and fire safety access.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANWhat is the reason for the one enhanced pedestrian crossing shown
on the site at Street A/B intersection?Response: This enhanced pedestrian crossing is to support the variance requested for the intersection angle.Comment Number: 8 Comment
Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARINGPer discussions previously about the City's willingness to consider a variance for the angle of intersection of Street A and Street B,
there will be stop signs on the minor legs of the intersection and there would be some evaluation of potential traffic calming of Street A near the transition from Enclave at Redwood
to the existing residential neighborhood to the west.Response: The variance request has been updated to specify that Stop signs will be provided on private street AA and public street
B. North-south traffic will be stop controlled.Department: Stormwater EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970)4162754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:Please see updated redlines for separation issues between trees and storm inlets. 10ft clear (min.) needs to
be provided from all storm drains and inlets to trees.Response: We will adhere to the separation requirements noted above and shown on the redlines provided from TS, SW, and Forestry.09/14/2021:
FOR HEARING – UPDATED:Please see update redlines for separation issues.03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:Show all wet and dry utilities on the Landscape Plan and provide the minimum required
separations to trees and shrubs.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATED:*Revised comment*The drainage report is stating that the UD2
detention system will be 1.66ft from groundwater, however, the FCSCM standard is 2ft minimum separation from measured groundwater levels. Please revise your design to provide at least
the minimum separation. The Stormwater development review manager is not willing to consider a variance on this.Response: System UD2 has been revised to provide the minimum 2’ of separation
from the existing groundwater.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATED:I see the geotechnical reports provided in the appendix. For simplicity, please add to the drainage report body a comparison
of the measured groundwater elevations with the proposed detention pond invert elevations. Confirm there is 2feet minimum vertical separation provided. Please note the date(s) the
groundwater measurements were taken.Response: Information on groundwater testing is on Page 4 and information on the relation to site elevations is detailed in Section IVb. Specific
Details.03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:Groundwater issues:Please confirm there will be a minimum of 24inches of vertical separation between the bottom of all stormwater facilities and the
seasonally high groundwater level (JulySept). Groundwater elevation data must be determined from piezometer data taken during high groundwater months.The previous development planned
at this location included an extensive underdrain system to hold groundwater levels down. Can you confirm if you will be needing a groundwater system? Currently the plans do not show
one.Response: We have a groundwater surface based on two Geotech reports and an extra visit to check test holes. We are confident that we have sufficient data to avoid ground water.
The additional fill required for the site also helps with keeping our improvements above the ground water.Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/09/2021: FOR
HEARING – UPDATED:In Public Street B the sanitary profile (San Line D) shows a vertical conflict between the storm and sewer mains.Response: Pipes have been adjusted to provide the 1.5’
minimums clearances.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:Please profile the A2 lateral. Please provide profiles of storm lines up to the furthest crossing with sewer, I have highlighted
these sections in the redlines.03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:Provide profile drawings of all storm mains.Response: Profiles have been included to show clearance between sanitary sewer lines
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL – UPDATED: Per our discussions this can be provided at FDP.Response: Onsite SWMM has been added to
the NECCO model.09/14/2021: The onsite SWMM model will need to be added site to NECCO model (Existing condition or “LOMR model”.) If you are unsure about which model files, please
contact Dan Evans at DaEvans@fcgov.comComment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL UPDATED:Please consider if there is a need for a cut off wall
between the Lake Canal Ditch and the underground detention systems. Provide a response regarding your decision and the basis for it.Response: The need for a cutoff wall will be discussed
in the Final Drainage Report.09/14/2021: Detention ponds must be 20feet or greater from irrigation ditches. This is measured from top of slope to top of slope. Please review the grading
for detention pond 2.Response: UD2 is slightly over 20’ from the top of the irrigation ditch.Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATED
– Surface overflow paths from the 3 underground detention areas need to be identified and shown on the plans.The spillway for Pond 1 (above ground) is acceptable.Response: The surface
overflow paths from the Underground Detention areas are identified and shown in the plans.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:Overflow spillways must be designed at 0.5ft flow depth max per the
FCSCM. Please update designs and show spillway locations on the grading plans. If any spillways will discharge into the Lake Canal, this will require an agreement with the ditch company
and a Letter of Intent before Hearing.Response: The surface overflow paths from the Underground Detention areas are identified and shown in the plans.Comment Number: 30 Comment
Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL: Thank you for providing the easements on the southern parcel. For Final Plan please review the drainage patterns and confirm there are
easements for offsite flow paths. In addition, since this parcel is being dedicated as NHBZ, this parcel will never develop further, as a result we need to consider if any further drainage
master plan improvements on the southern parcel will be required of this project. I am planning to wait until Final Plan to look into this further. *Please let me know if you need
clarification sooner. *Response: Item to be addressed in Final design.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:A3 Lateral comments:The platted lot south of Suniga Road includes a master plan improvement
for the “NECCO A3 Lateral.” Since you are not proposing improvements or entitlement on this lot, the A3 lateral construction will not be required at this time. However, the following
are required on this lot for the development project:Provide existing ground topo.Show existing storm and other utilities.Provide 30ft drainage easement along the Lake Canal for the
future A3 line.Provide drainage easement along the flow path for all offsite flows that cross this parcel.Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR
FINAL:The underground detention will require:23 inspection ports on each water quality chamberMaintenance access ports must be provided so that all chambers may be accessible by a vacuum
truck.Access paths need to be provided so that all maintenance manholes are accessible by a truck.Underdrain for each systemSurface overflow identified for each underground system.Response:
These items will be included in the final design.Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL:I am concerned about the overall functionality of the
large underground water quality chambers. Maintenance access and ports will need to be provided to facilitate cleaning – please discuss with ADS what is needed for an installation this
large. I am also concerned about the potential for large amount of trash and debris loading and am wondering if there should be some sort of pretreatment component such as a large forebay
or sump for regular maintenance. Please consider this and respond with FDP round 1.Response: Maintenance will be addressed in detail with Final design.Comment Number: 40 Comment
Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL:An access path is needed for maintenance access to the above ground detention outlet structure.Response: Access paths to detention outlet
structures will be provided and shown with the Final design.Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL:On the detention pond summary table (Table
2 in drainage report), please add columns for: a) Total Volume required (WQ + Detention), and b) Volume Provided. Please double check the sizing of your detention and WQ facilities,
I think UD2 is slightly low (~3400cf) but not concerning.Response: Items will be added to the pond summary table and volumes verified.Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated:
11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL:Please clarify the contributing area for “standard” water quality in Pond 1 (areas not treated by an LID) and present a calculation for the WQCV in
Pond 1. (note, areas treated with LID do not need to be included in the extended detention calculation). Please show the water quality area of Pond 1 on the plans.Response: Pond one
has been redesigned to utilize underground chambers to satisfy LID requirements, but detention is now being provided at-grade.Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021:
FOR FINAL:In the SWMM model the Redwood Pond outlet has stability problems (see the hydrograph), please review the modeling methods and revised to improve stability at this location.Response:
Revised SWMM shows stability at Redwood Pond outfall.Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING:Please confirm you are intending to proceed with
the underground detention option.Response: Per previous conversations with the City, the stormwater system has been revised to provide a mix of at-grade (with underground LID) and underground
detention, as well as revisions to the existing Redwood Pond.Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/12/202111/12/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY:In response to the stormwater
pond discussion multiuse stormwater ponds are allowed and encouraged. (see Ch 6, Section 1.4 of the FCSCM for more information). Some specifics worth noting are:Active recreation
areas are acceptable at higher stages of the pondTurf grass is fine if appropriate for the surface use. Consider maintenance access needsPond grading does need to meet the articulated
and varied standard (specifically in regard to the embankment slopes – obviously a sport field would be graded uniform and flat). Also, safety and egress need to be considered. A
depth gauge is needed if the pond is deeper than 4ft.On the plans, delineate any water quality area.Response: Ponds have been reworked and shown on the revised plans.Department: WaterWastewater
EngineeringContact: Matt Simpson, (970)4162754, masimpson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING :There are multiple
locations that trees need to be adjusted or removed from the plans to provide 10ft minimum separation to fire hydrants and pipe as well as 6feet to water services and fire services.
Please check this before you resubmit. Response: Trees have been moved to avoid the conflicts03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:Show all wet utilities on the Landscape Plan and provide the minimum
required separations from trees and shrubs. This includes 10ft min. from trees to all W/WW/SW mains, 6ft min. from trees to W/WW services, and 4ft min. from shrubs to all W/WW/SW lines.Comment
Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:In Public Street B the sanitary profile (San Line D) shows a vertical conflict between the storm
and sewer mains.Response: The mains have been adjusted to avoid conflict.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:Please provide profiles of sewer mains up to the furthest storm crossing.
I have highlighted these sections in the redlines. Include the offsite sewer main profile with this plan set.03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:Provide profile drawings of all sewer mains.Comment
Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL – UPDATED:*Comment revised for final letter*Thank you for making the adjustment to the site plan to provide
15ft minimum separation to buildings from the sewer mains. However, upon further review of the profiles, I was surprised to see the sewer 1213 feet deep at locations. We are not comfortable
granting the reduced easement width (24ft) for any locations deeper than 7ft. For locations deeper than 7ft the standard 30ft sewer easement will need to be provided.*Please contact
me to discuss if this creates significant site plan issues.Response: Sewer depths have been reevaluated. Previous discussions with the city have confirmed that the sanitary sewer is
15’ away from buildings and there is 30’ of separation between the foundations in the alleys. Utility easements with a width at least 24 ‘ has been provided over sewer mains less than
10’ deep per city sewer code. Sewer with depths greater than 10’ will have a 30’ easement and will be provided once a final sewer alignment has been confirmed with the city.09/14/2021:
The site plan shows 14ft separation between sewer mains and buildings. This does not meet the minimum requirement of 15ft separation from sewer mains to buildings. There are 2 options
to proceed with this:1. Revise the site plan to provide 15ft minimum separation from sewer mains to buildings, or2. We could approve a variance for 14ft minimum separation if an exclusive
sewer easement is dedicated along these alleys. This means no other public or private utilities (telcom, electric, gas etc.) may run parallel in these easements. Crossings of the exclusive
sewer easement would need to be located in a specific utility easement paralleling the crossing utility.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING
– UPDATED:*Comment revised for final letter*Thank you for the LOIs from the Ditch Co. and the Ballet Co. You will also need an LOI from the City of Fort Collins – please contact Doug
Groves (Stormwater DeGroves@fcgov.com) and Keith Hanson (Real Estate khanson@fcgov.com) to discuss an LOI for these City owned parcels. Please cc me on any of these emails. Thanks!Response:
Please see LOI email from the City.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:Please provide Letters of Intent (LOIs) for all necessary offsite easements. This includes crossings of Lake Canal (water
and sewer) and sewer across the Northfield and Schlagel properties. For final approval easements and agreements will need to be executed.Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated:
09/14/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATED – Following up on the previous comments – these items have been addressed but additional concerns have been created at location where there
are more than 3 water service lines in a joint trench. This is more than I anticipated with allowing the separation requirements to be relaxed on the customer side of the meter and
raises the following questions:How do you anticipate these being built? I am concerned that this is not maintainable longterm. How would an individual water line be excavated to repair
a future leak? This item is my main concernHas the MEP sized these yet? These long service runs will have large pressure losses. Does any other criteria apply here such as Building
Code?Can any of the mechanical rooms be relocated to shorten services?These concerns need to be addressed to demonstrate the site plan is workable before Hearing – and demonstrated that
the design is constructible/ maintainable before final approval.Response: Service connections and city owned facilities have been designed per city code. Secondary service alignments
have been coordinated with the city to provide 1' of clearance between similar utilities. These lines are the responsibility of enclave ownership. This site will never be subdivided
so all secondary service lines will be owned and the responsibility of a single ownership entity.09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:Please address the following items regarding water and sewer
services:Separation to storm must be 10ft min.Domestic water taps must have 3ft minimum separation. Fire line taps should have 5ft separation. (See Water Wastewater Stormwater Construction
Standards, section 02646, 3.02) Will the buildings need fire service lines? If so, please show on the plans.Private water services should not run parallel to ROW in the utility easement.
Along Public Street A there are 2 services that need to be relocated. (see redlines.)Water services need to be perpendicular to the water main until the water meter.Sewer services
should be perpendicular to the sewer main within the ROW.Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING:More detail is needed for the offsite sewer
main (RE: alignment and profile) to evaluate if this is a constructible option. Specifically:Access needs to be provided to all manholes for maintenance. This is a 15ft wide path that
can support 40tons. It may make sense to discuss stabilized turf options for manholes in the open space areas.LOIs will be needed for all offsite easements – including the City of Fort
Collins parcels.c. All utilities in the area need to be located and shown on the plan and profiles. Specifically, the following items need to be added to the drawings:Storm system on
the south and east side of the North Lemay Avenue Plaza PUD parking lot.City of Fort Collins electric duct bank (roughly along north side of Lake Canal)Lake Canal Bridge crossing.Response:
Per discussions with the city the adjacent utilities have been located and shown on the plan. The sewer alingment has been revised to provide desired crossing angles with existing utilites.
Once the sewer alignment is confirmed. Paths to ensure access and maintenace will be provided during FDP review.Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021:
FOR FINAL:For FDP, all water services will need to be sized following the AWWA M22 method. Please submit a service sizing summary memo with calculations attached.Response: Water services
will be sized and submitted with Final. A preliminary memo has been included in this submittal.Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL: *Notice
of Changes to Domestic Water Fees and Irrigation Service Requirements*On Oct. 5, 2021 Council adopted changes to Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirements and Plant Investment
Fees. In general developments that use more water may pay more and developments that use less water may pay less. These changes are to be implemented 1/1/2022; more information can
be found at:www.fcgov.com/wsrupdate*For Final Plan the following items will be required for this development:Irrigation tap(s) shown on the Utility and Site Plans.Preliminary Irrigation
Plan: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities//img/site_specific/uploads/wsrcalc_irrigation.pdf1614887246Water budget and peak flow per irrigation tap. (this should be shown on the Preliminary
Irrigation Plan) Hydrozone table on the Landscape Plan will need to be updated to match the 2021 City hydrozones. See this page for more information: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/wsrupdateResponse:
Preliminary irrigation plan will be provided at FinalResponse: DHIC has been in communication and have coordinated the with Water Management and are aware of the future updated model
structure. Irrigation Plans and taps to be shown and provided for Final. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINALFire service lines should have
a shut off valve at the connection point to the water main and not a curb stop (General comment).Response: Shut off valves will be shown for Final. Depending on fire line size valves
or curb stops will be added as applicableComment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL: Please see the included redlines for more comments related
to final plan. The redlines also include more information about written comments needing to be resolved before Hearing.Response: Please see included PDFs for response to comments.Comment
Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL:Please update the wastewater utility report to show flow calculations broken down by each trunk main (Redwood
and Lemay) that the site is going to connect to.Response: Per conversations with the City, Lemay will need to be upsized in support of this development, as shown on the plans. Previous
reports has shown that Redwood has the capacity to convey the entire project. The updated wastewater utility report will be included with final.Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated:
11/12/202111/12/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY:For more information about the Lemay and Conifer development (gas station and ballet company), see the zip file with previous plans I included
with the redlines.Response: Noted, thanks for the additional information.Department: Light And PowerContact: Rob Irish, 9702246167, rirish@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number:
3 Comment Originated: 03/01/202111/09/2021: Updated: Many of the proposed transformers are still considered out of access. The requirement is 10' from an all-weather drivable
surface. Some of the transformers are 15'-20' behind the curb line. On the private drives, the pad mount transformers could be placed in the parkway. On the public ROW this is not allowed.
Additional transformers and/or vaults may be necessary once the load information is available. Response: Transformers have been adjusted for access, based on preliminary load information.
Coordination will continue as additional load information becomes available. The C-1 forms have been included with this submittal.09/09/2021: Updated: Some of the transformer locations
are considered out of access and are not in the most suitable locations. The number and location of transformers will be determined by the load and the number of service-runs into the
transformer. The transformers are limited to a maximum of 8 runs with a maximum cable size of 350kcmil. 03/01/2021: For Hearing: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with
Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 feet of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 feet
and side/rear clearance of 3 feet 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: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/202109/09/2021: Updated: Once transformer
/ vault locations are firmed up, Light & Power will work on a streetlight layout to be shown on the plan set. Response: Acknowledged, photometrics and light & power will continue coordination.03/01/2021:
For Hearing: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation
on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/202111/09/2021: Updated: Leaving this one active
as this information will determine the amount of transformers and vaults needed for the design which could affect the site plan.Response: Please see the provided C1 Form as requested.
Transformer sizing and locations have been coordinated with our MEP engineer. 09/09/2021: Updated: This would be helpful earlier on in determining the number and locations of transformers
on the site.03/01/2021: For Final: A customer owned service information form (C1 form) and a one line diagram for all electric meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light
& Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C1 form is below:http://zeus.fcgov.com/utilsprocedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C1Form.pdfComment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: For Hearing: Please label the customer owned secondary services differently from the Light & Power primary cable. This will make it much
easier to distinguish between the two. Thank you.Response: Service lines are now dashed to differentiate from the UE primary.Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021:
For Hearing: Please field locate and show the existing offsite electric infrastructure where you are proposing the offsite sanitary sewer alignment so we can see if separation is being
met or if there are any conflicts. There is a major electric duct bank running east west along the north edge of the property from Redwood to Lemay.Response: Field locates and survey
have been complete for the off-site sanitary sewer extension.Department: Environmental PlanningContact: Scott Benton, (970)4164290, sbenton@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number:
10 Comment Originated: 03/02/202103/02/2021: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A development agreement and security for the installation, materials, and monitoring of the NHBZ will
be required prior to DCP issuance.Response: DHI acknowledges that a development agreement will be required prior to DCP issuance. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021:
FOR HEARING: Environmental Planning is supportive of the sewer main alignment to the south of the stormwater pond that located offsite to the northeast, but additional detail is needed
to fully understand the expected impacts. NHBZ standard restoration will be required as the proposed alignment is within the wetland buffer.Response: We will coordinate with our engineering
consultant(s) on showing additional detail.Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING: Additional discussion is required regarding locating underground
chambers within the NHBZ. Points of discussion (and further clarification, additional detail, etc.) include the depth of the chambers, the frequency and kind of required access for maintenance,
access locations(s) and extent, the landscaping that can be utilized on the surface (i.e., shrubs?), and the extent to which the project would alter the hydrology/moisture regime above
it.Response: The chamber layout is preliminary in its design to provide water quality and detention volume. Further detail will be provided at FDP. It is anticipated that the chamber
system will have an impermeable liner that will not alter the hydrology above the camber system.Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Since the southern NHBZ parcel is being used to satisfy buffering requirement, it should be dedicated/monumented as nondevelopable on the site plans to prevent its sale or development
in the future.Response: The southern parcel has now been delineated as a Tract.Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Prior to issuance
of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), and prior to prairie dog removal, please submit the results of a burrowing owl survey completed by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist,
and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards if removal is between March 15 and October 31. Note the timing requirements of these surveys are between March 15
and October 31, as no burrowing owls are expected to be present between November 1 and March 14. Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), please submit a letter
explaining how and when prairie dog removal occurred at the site and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. If trapping and donating is not pursued then a payment
in lieu fee will be required. Payment in lieu fees are set by the Natural Areas Department and currently is set at $1,637/acre if CO/PERC methods are not used, or $1,337 if CO/PERC
methods are used.Response: DHI acknowledges that prior to DCP a burrowing owl survey is to be completed along with a prairie dog removal plan per LUC 3.4.1(N)(6) Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All plant species specified to be used in the NHBZ, whether grass, forb, tree, or shrub, must be native to the
area. The following tree species are called out for use in the NHBZ but are not native: Texas red oak, catalpa, Austrian pine, gingko, and Kentucky coffee tree. There are some native
tree species and a plethora of shrubs that could be used. I am happy to coordinate further with the applicant team and Forestry if desired. I commend you for your use of the Patriot
elm.Response: Species in the NHBZ have been changed to use native species only.Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The straight
species of native chokecherry is of greater value to wildlife (both invertebrates and vertebrates) than the suckerpunch chokecherry cultivar. Please substitute the suckerpunch in the
NHBZ with the straight species.Response: Understood, species have been switched within NHBZ. Suckerpunch remains in other areas of the siteDepartment: ForestryContact: Christine Holtz,
, choltz@fcgov.comTopic: Landscape PlansComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/09/2021 FOR HEARING UNRESOLVEDThere are multiple tree separation issues with
stormwater utilities, sewer lines, water lines, structures, and other trees. In some situations, the separation requirements between trees are not absolutely necessary, such as in detention
areas where trees have plenty of room and will not compete as much with each other. However, conflicts with utilities must be ameliorated. I have submitted some redlines for these issues,
but there may be more that I missed. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines4’ between trees and gas
lines10’ between trees and electric vaults40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights15’ between ornamental trees and streetlightsResponse: The redlines seemed to point out only
separation issues to other trees, not utility conflicts. Updated plans have been reviewed for utility separations.03/02/2021: FOR HEARINGContinued: When looking at the site plan, which
includes utilities, compared to the landscape plan, there are multiple separation issues that would eliminate very high numbers of proposed trees. Please work with stormwater to find
new locations for utilities, so that trees can be planted along the parkways. I have included submitted some redlines, but they are not exhaustive since the utilities are not shown
on the landscape plan. Please include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, streetlights,
and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation.10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines6’ between trees and
water or sewer service lines4’ between trees and gas lines10’ between trees and electric vaults40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights11/13/20:
INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDPPlease include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, streetlights,
and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation.10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines6’ between trees and
water or sewer service lines4’ between trees and gas lines10’ between trees and electric vaults40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights15’ between ornamental trees and streetlightsComment
Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/09/21: FOR HEARING UPDATED Thank you for providing street trees along Suniga just east of Redwood. After having discussions with
Stormwater Utilities, I was made aware that the stormwater drain on the north side of Suniga is extremely significant for is flood water drainage and is the backbone drainage pipe for
NECCO. Due to the importance of the integrity of this pipe, please change the species along this area to ornamental trees so there is a minimal chance of root interference. Response:
Understood, ornamental trees have been provided in that location.03/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR HEARINGThank you for providing street trees along Redwood and the north side of Suniga.
The Northfield development is responsible for constructing Suniga Dr. and is therefore providing trees in the median just east of Redwood. The parcel south of Suniga, however, is on
the plat for your development. Please provide street trees on the south side of Suniga Dr. as well at the north side.Comment Number: Comment Originated: 03/03/202111/09/2021
FOR FINALSpring snow crabapple trees have a canopy spread of 20 to 25 ft—they are one of the largest ornamental species. There are quite a few locations that there are spring snows proposed
closer to shade and ornamental trees than 15’. Although exceptions can be made with some ornamental species, this will cause overcrowding with spring snows. Please do not eliminate trees,
rather change locations with other species that have a larger growing area. See Forestry redlines for locations. I may not have marked them all.Response: Trees have either been moved,
or species swapped in areas of tight spacing between trees to better accommodate mature growth.Department: ParksContact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment
Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021 FOR HEARINGThere are no public parks shown at this location in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/.
Please label the Park as 'Private Park/Privately Maintained, Publicly Accessible'.Response: Note has been changed across plan setComment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/202111/09/2021:
FOR HEARINGRelated to the above, if this area is going to be a combined park and a detention facility, please specify how you plan to keep play or passive recreational facilities from
flooding and posing safety issues for park users.Response: The park amenities will be located along the NE edge of the park area, outside of the proposed detention pond area.Department:
Park PlanningContact: Kyle Lambrecht, 9702216566, klambrecht@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONPlease adjust
the trail alignment at both the northeast and southwest connections to the regional trail planned for the Northfield development. Per LCUASS Section 17, the minimum radius is 95 feet
for 20 miles per hour. If a substandard radius must be used, please take into account that curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings will be needed. Please also consider
widening the trail at these locations to partially offset the substandard curves or attaching sidewalks to make additional room to accommodate better trail radii.Response: The trail
alignment has been designed to connect to the proposed trail stubs provided by the Northfield development. Previous responses determined the 50’ easement for the trail to be acceptable.
Additional trail elements can be evaluated during FDP review.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONPlease remove the manholes from the Regional
Trail. If necessary, a separate utility access or alternate storm sewer alignment might be required to access the line and manholes. Further coordination is required. Please set up
a meeting with PP&D and Utilities to discuss constraints and options.Response: Noted. Further coordination with parks and utilities will be necessary during FDP review pending on proposed
sanitary and storm sewer alignments that may require the trail to be used for utility access.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONAs the
trail will be near access points to residential units, please provide clarification on how the trail will be separated from the numerous residential access points.Response: All residential
units have a fenced in “front yard” for separation.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONLocal street at grade intersections with a recreational
trail are to be avoided. When necessary, the location of a future recreational trail at grade crossing must be coordinated with Traffic Operations.Response: Comment noted.Comment Number:
9 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONPark Planning and Development must approve the trail alignment and design. The developer will be required to develop
a centerline profile and Cross sections for the trail as part of the site design.Response: Comment noted. Centerline profile and cross-sections will be provided during FDP.Comment Number:
10 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONA trail easement may not be located within a ditch easement unless the applicant provides written approval for the
trail easement within the ditch easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface cannot function as a ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the trail to maintain
the ditch.Response: Previous response from the city determined that the trail easement was sufficient. Please see Round 2 Comments from Suzanne Bassinger. Further coordination with the
Ditch Company will be provided during FDP review.Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INOFRMATION Grading within the designated recreational trail
easement is required to occur during overall site grading. Plans must indicate that the final grade within the easement can provide a trail alignment that meets the American Disabilities
Act (ADA) standards for cross slopes between 1 and 2% and a maximum centerline profile grade of 5%. Construction documents should include trail profiles and cross sections to demonstrate
the ability to meet ADA standards.Response: Comment noted. The trail will be detailed with grading information during Construction Documents, including trail profiles and cross sections.
The trail has been preliminarily graded to comply with ADA requirements.Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONPark Planning and Development
(PPD) would like to explore constructing the regional trial in conjunction with the development of the site. There is no current schedule for City construction of this portion of the
trail. Construction is scheduled as funds become available. Partnerships for cost sharing between the site developer and the City for trail construction along with site improvements
may allow construction to occur in a timely and cost effective manner. Park Planning & Development would be interested in developing such a partnership.Response: Noted, cost sharing
will be discussed during FDP.Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONLandscaping within the recreational trail easement shall be provided in
accordance with all applicable City codes and will remain the responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide acceptable clearances from the trail surfaces as specified
in the Trail Master Plan. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed, and maintained to avoid spray on the trail. As there are currently substandard curves shown on the trail,
please show that adequate sight distance for trail users is accommodated.Response: Understood, landscape will be provided at Final PlansResponse: Trail alignment will be further coordinated
between parks and utilities during FDP review.Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATIONPlease plan to coordinate with Park Planning and Parks
on the long term maintenance determination for this segment of trail. If the trail is publicly owned, the Parks Department will maintain. If the trail is private, the developer will
maintain. Maintenance consists of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 23’ adjacent to the trail surface and repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail.
The underlying property owner shall be responsible for all other landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance within the easement.Response: Noted. Further coordination with parks to determine
maintenance responsibilities will be coordinated during FDP review.Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 9704164340, sbassinger@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 3 Comment
Originated: 03/03/2021UPDATED 11/09/2021 FOR HEARINGThank you for showing the enhanced pedestrian crossings for the regional trail street crossings immediately west of the Lake Canal
street crossing (Public Streets ‘A’ & ‘B’). Please label them as well on all applicable sheets for clarity.Response: Enhanced pedestrian crossings are shown and labeled on applicable
sheets.09/14/2021: FOR HEARINGPlease show and label an enhanced pedestrian crossings for the regional trail street crossings immediately west of the Lake Canal street crossing (Public
Streets ‘A’ & ‘B’).Department: PFAContact: Marcus Glasgow, 9704162869, marcus.glasgow@poudrefire.orgTopic: GeneralComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/202103/01/2021:
FOR FINAL PLAN: Fire lane identification Fire lane to be identified by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. Fire lane sign locations or red curbing should
be labeled and detailed on final plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs.Response: Any
required signage and striping will be detailed and submitted at FDP.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/202103/01/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Address PostingNew buildings
shall have approved address numbers placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of eight inch numerals on a
contrasting background. Address shall be clearly visible on approach from any street, drive or fire lane that accesses the site. Buildings that have fire lanes on sides other than the
addressed street side, shall have address numbers on the side of the building fronting the roadway from which it is addressed. Buildings that are addressed on one street, but are accessible
from other drives or roads, shall have the address numbers AND STREET NAME on each side that is accessible from another drive or road. Where access is by means of a private road and
the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure and best route.I would advise an earlier meeting with
GIS to address concerns with buildings facing greenspace that are only accessible by an alley. 11/01/2021: The note added to the plan indicates 1/8-inch numerals. Please correct to
8-inch numerals.Response: Correction has been made to note on elevation sheets to indicate 8-inch numerals.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/202103/01/2021: FOR
HEARING:Access to BuildingsFront doors onto a greenbelt or other landscape feature shall be provided with an approved sidewalk to the front door that connects to with fire access roads
or lanes so as to provide direct and efficient access to any individual unit. Some of the units are out of compliance and will need to provide this access. 11/01/2021: Please provide
sidewalk connection on side of building or between all alley access only buildings. Buildings 8,9,10,11,24,27,31,33,34, 38,40 and 41.Response: All sidewalk connections between buildings
has been added as requested.Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/03/20219/03/2021: FOR HEARING: Required Fire Access Fire access is required to within 150 feet of all
exterior portions of any building as measured by an approved route around the perimeter. If the building is equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the distance can be
extended to 200 ft. Where this distance cannot be achieved from public streets, private drives required for access shall be required to serve as fire lanes and constructed to minimum
standards. Fire lanes established on private property shall be dedicated by plat or separate document as an Emergency Access Easement. At this time, it is unclear where fire lanes are
located as the plat does not indicate an Emergency Access Easement. 11/01/2021: The Emergency Access Easements on the plat do not align with the site plan. The hammerhead in front of
building 34 shall be dedicated EAE as well.Response: The plat has been revised to align with the site plan, including the hammerhead in front of building 34.Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 09/03/202109/03/2021: FOR HEARING: GROUP R SPRINKLER SYSTEMSComment response and narrative indicate a 13D sprinkler system installed in all dwelling units. This
type of system is only permitted in single family dwellings. As these buildings will appear like single family attached (R3), they will be considered multifamily buildings (R2). New
multifamily buildings shall be provided with NFPA13 (full protection) fire suppression systems. Exception 1: MF units with six (6) or fewer dwelling units per building will be allowed
to install 13R fire suppression systems provided the units are separated by one hour construction (walls & floors). Exception 2: MF units with seven to twelve (7 -12) units per building
will be allowed to install 13R fire suppression systems provided the units are separated by two hour construction (walls & floors).Response: The buildings are planned to be R2 multifamily
buildings utilizing 13R sprinkler systems with both exceptions 1 and 2 noted (depending on building size). Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/07/202109/07/2021: FOR
HEARING: WATER SUPPLY Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. A fire hydrant capable of providing 1500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure is
required within 300 feet of any commercial/multifamily building as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. For the purposes of this code, hydrants on the opposite side of
arterial roadways are not considered accessible to the site. An exception to this rule pertains to buildings equipped with a standpipe system which require a hydrant within 100 feet
of any Fire Department Connection (FDC).11/01/2021: Hydrant location is measured by hose lay from fire apparatus route. Buildings 7,8,32,33 and 34 are greater than 300 feet from the
nearest hydrant.Response: Additional hydrants have been added to provide fire suppression for the mentioned buildings.Department: Outside AgenciesContact: Todd Sullivan, 9702216695,
tsullivan@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/202111/09/2021: FOR HEARING:LAKE CANAL MELISSA BUICK, melissahbuick@gmail.comLake Canal's
Easement is 50 feet from the centerline of the ditch; any crossing or encroachment of the ditch or ditch easement will require an agreement with the company prior to any work taking
place, access to the ditch and or ditch easement needs to remain unobstructed, existing trees impacting ditch operations or the flow of water may need to be removed. Lake Canal requests
the developer provide this office with a list of ditch crossings involved with this project so they may be addressed.Response: Current Civil plans have been provided to Lake Canal Company
for crossing coordination of the following: -Ditch crossing at bridge/culvert crossing on Lemay for upsizing storm pipe.-Public street connections at Steeley St. and Collamer Dr. -UE
crossing and culvert at the Steely St. connection future culvert connecting to the Northfield site. -Future regional trail crossing connection to adjacent Northfield property. -Sanitary
Sewer line running parallel to connect at Lemay via Canyon Concert Ballet to be determined in FDP. Department: Internal ServicesContact: Katy Hand, , khand@fcgov.comTopic: Building
Insp Plan ReviewComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/08/202111/08/2021: NOTICE: Locate buildings 10ft from property lines and 20 feet from other buildings or provide fire
rated walls with parapets with limited openings (i.e. reduced doors and windows). The following buildings are closer than 20ft apart: 20 & 21 19 & 20 25 & 28 23 & 26 27 & 24 11 &
10 12 & 13 39 & 37 38 & 40Response: Where buildings are less than 10ft to property lines or 20ft separation from other buildings openings meet the maximum prescribed opening percentage
allowed by code. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/08/202111/08/2021: NOTICE: City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA13 sprinkler system
in multifamily units. Exception: NFPA 13R systems in buildings with no more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12 dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2 hour fire barrier
with no more than 6 dwelling units on each side).Response: Our buildings shall utilize a 13R sprinkler system. The 8-plex buildings proposed shall be divided with a 2 hour fire barrier
to allow for the 13R sprinkler system.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/08/202111/08/2021: NOTICE: Accessible parking and access aisles must be provided in covered
and open parking areas per current including van spaces where required by code.Response: A van spot has been provided at the clubhouse.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated:
11/08/202111/08/2021: NOTICE: 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place) including accessible parking. Accessible parking should be provided in the garages as where
required by code.Response: Conduit for EV charging will be added in the public lot at the clubhouse.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/08/202111/08/2021: NOTICE: Accessibility
is required per IBC, ICCA117.1 and state law CRS 95 (title 9) Plan grading accordingly and disperse accessible unit types across the site (not all in one building) submit a sitewide
accessibility plan showing how points will be met at time of building permit pre-submittal meeting.Response: Accessible units are dispersed across the site and a sitewide accessibility
plan will be provided at time of building permit pre-submittal meeting showing how points are met and accessible units are allocated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated:
11/08/202111/08/2021: INFORMATIONAL: Each detached structure requires a separate permit, this includes carports, bike shelters, trellises, pergolas and garage buildings, maintenance
buildings shade structures and pools.Response: Detached structures proposed (maintenance building, mail kiosk, amenity building, etc.) will obtain a separate permit as required. Comment
Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/08/202111/08/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: Multifamily Residential located within 1000ft of rail tracks, 500 of highway, or 250ft of a 4-lane
road must provide exterior wall composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.Response: Buildings at such locations as described in comment above shall provide exterior wall design to account
for 39STC min.Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/08/202111/08/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new
multifamily structureResponse: DHIC acknowledges the requirement to registered General Contractor with the City prior to Building Department permit approval. Contact: Lauren Wade,
9703025962, lwade@fcgov.comTopic: GISComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/202109/13/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In addition to street names, please name alleys which
will be used for addressing buildings that are not adjacent to streets.Response: Alley & street names will be provided during FDP review.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:
11/12/202111/12/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please name alleys D, E, F, and H for addressing purposes.Response: Alley names will be provided during FDP review.Department: Technical
ServicesContact: Jeff County, 9702216588, jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/08/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:Unless required
during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.09/15/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.03/02/2021:
INFORMATION ONLY:Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.Topic: PlatComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/202111/08/2021: FOR
FINAL APPROVALUPDATED:No changes have been made to the Plat. All of the previous rounds of redlines have been provided.09/15/2021: FOR FINAL 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. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 9702216565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com03/02/2021: 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: Water ConservationContact: Eric Olson, 9702216704, eolson@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/202108/24/2021:
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.comResponse: DHIC acknowledges that Irrigation plans are required to be provided prior to Building
Dept. Permits being issued.