Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLOOM FILING FOUR - PDP230003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS June 7, 2023 City of Fort Collins Ms. Brandy Bethurem Harras 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80012 Re: Bloom Filing 4 Multifamily – PDP Round 1 Response to Comments Dear Ms. Bethurem Harras Thank you for your Bloom Multifamily PDP Round 1 review comments which we received on February 24, 2022. Our development team has reviewed all the comments and have addressed them in the following pages. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any other comments, questions and/or special requests for additional information. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues at the City of Fort Collins. Sincerely, Norris Design Ryan F. McBreen Principal HH = Hartford Homes NDPL = Norris Design Planning NDLA = Norris Design Landscape Architecture PBA = Studio PBA CW = CivilWorx MVC = MV Consulting Comment Summary Development Review Coordinator Contact: Brandy Bethurem Harras, 970-416-2744, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com 1. 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. Include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Response: We will copy you on all correspondence with the City and will ask questions as needed. 2. As part of your submittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. The final 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. Comments requiring action should NOT have a response such as noted or acknowledged. You will need to provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of why comments have not been addressed [when applicable]. Response: Comments responses will be detailed in their language. 3. 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. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf. File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names. Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization Study. Reach out to me if you would like a list of suggested names. *Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs. Response: The electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards will be followed as indicated. 4. All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers. Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from the PDF’s. AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set, and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and newer) in the command line and enter "0". Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdca rticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-AutoCAD.html Response: Plans will be optimized and flattened to reduce file sizes and remove layers. 5. Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. Upon initial submittal, your project will be subject to a completeness review. Staff has until noon that Friday to determine if the project contains all required checklist items and is sufficient for a round of review. If complete, a formal Letter of Acceptance will be emailed to you and the project would be officially routed with its initial round of review, followed by a formal meeting. Please check with me, your Development Review Coordinator, regarding review timelines. As you are preparing to submit your formal plans, please notify me with an anticipated submittal date. Applications and plans are submitted electronically to me by email or secured file sharing applications. Pre-submittal meetings can be beneficial to ensure you have everything for a complete submittal. Please reach out and I will assist in those arrangements. Response: Submittals will be sent at the indicated time. 6. Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the expiration of your project. Response: Resubmittals for this project will be completed within the time frame indicated above. 7. ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee of $3,000.00. Response: Understood; our intent is that this submittal provides the necessary information to move forward to hearing after this review is complete. 8. This proposed project is processing as a Type 2 Development Plan. The decision maker for Type 2 is the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission. For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners within 800 feet (excluding public right of way and publicly owned open space). Response: Understood. Additionally, it is our understanding that the City will handle all required notice. Please advise otherwise. 9. All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Staff will need to agree the project is ready for Hearing approximately 4 to 8 weeks prior to the hearing. Response: Understood; we believe we have addressed all “For Hearing” comments as part of this resubmittal. Planning Services Contact: Kai Kleer, 9704164284, kkleer@fcgov.com 1. Street & Block System: A few important Development Standards of the PUD are not being met and may have large impacts on building placement. a. First, the block containing Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 does not meet 'Multi Family and Single Family Attached Dwelling Development Standards' found on p. 9 of the PUD Master Plan. Under subsection D, Block Requirements, it indicates that all blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of 9 acres. b. Second, 'Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards" found on page 10 of the PUD Master Plan is not being met along Greenfields Court. The standard indicates that local street intervals cannot exceed 660 feet. The easiest approach would be to punch the northern most east/west street through and provide a connection into Greenfields. Traffic Services has preliminarily indicated that this could be a full movement intersection. As you work through compliance with these standards, please include planning, traffic, and engineering staff in any communication. Response: As suggested, a second access to Greenfields has been proposed. The addition of this access and subsequent east-west connection through the project, meets the block standard referenced in “a.”, above, and also addresses ‘Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards’ referenced in “b.”, above. It should be noted that the added access point suggested by Staff does not meet LCUASS access spacing requirements, so a modification to this standard has been prepared and submitted to Engineering and is currently under review. 2. Private Streets: Please make sure that these areas are contained within a tract and depicted as public access easements. a. All parking lots adjacent to the private street system will be required to meet 10 foot landscape setback requirements contained under 3.2.1(J). Please see redlines on the plans for more information. Response: All parking lots have been configured to meet the setback requirements of section 3.2.2(j). b. All buildings along private streets must meet setback requirements established by the PUD. Response: Setbacks along Greenfields and International meeting the minimum 15’ setback for multi-family uses adjacent to arterials established within the Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan. Setbacks along Donella, Aria, and the two east-west drives that bisect Filing 4, meet the requirement for a minimum setback of 9’ for a non-arterial road, as established within the Mulberry and Greenfields PUD Master Plan. It should be noted that for the internal east-west drives this setback was measured from the back of walk. c. Provide cross section design for private streets on utility and planning set (see Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard figures as an example). Response: These street cross sections have added to the planning set (page XX) and the utility plan set as requested. d. Assign names to private streets. Response: The names have been selected as Potter Drive and Bellamy Lane, respectively. Submitted plans include this information. 3. Access to Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place: a. Please provide additional information and a depiction of how Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place standard is met. See PUD Standards p. 9. Please make sure that all park areas that are that are being utilized to meet this standard are contained within a public access easement. Response: Per section Section 3.8.30(C)(3) the community facility planned within Filing Four meets this requirement. Being a private amenity for use by those within Filing Four, a public access easement is not applicable. Additional amenities within the proposed community are provided, as well as amentized areas adjacent to the pedestrian parkway along Aria. The planned amenity package meets and exceed those requestions of the Land Use Code and the Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan. Additionally, as provided, the amenities meet the promises made in the Public Benefits Agreement, Section 3, for plans to “..include neighborhood parks, pocket parks adjacent to the pedestrian oriented greenway spine.” There are no provisions in code to provide access easements for these areas, but access will not be restricted (except for the clubhouse area) An exhibit has been included as an attachment to the narrative as part of this resubmittal that depicts the amenities provided as part of this application which include the pedestrian parkway, internal amenities, amenities adjacent to the pedestrian park, internal amenities pockets, a central clubhouse, and the connectivity between all of these spaces. b. Accurately depict amenity areas with stormwater infrastructure on both site plan and amenity plan graphic illustration. Standards require that, "when integrating 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." Response: Stormwater infrastructure is not being utilized to meet requirements for “access to park, central feature, or gathering space”. 4. Architecture: F.3. Variation Among Buildings. For all developments there shall be no similar building placed next to each other along a street or private street. Buildings 9&10 (Model C) on the SW corner of the development plan do not comply with the requirements of this standard. Response: A modification request is submitted with this round of review, with the justification that we are providing “equal to or better than” design with two smaller buildings, as opposed to one large building. Please see the attached modification request for more details. 5. Architecture: Non masonry material must be varied from structure to structure to differentiate between buildings and provide variety and individuality. It is hard to distinguish color variation from building to building. Looking at the color palette the primary colors utilized are varying shades of grey and tan asphalt shingle roof. Please provide greater differentiation in colors from one building to the next and color code table and site plan reference to each color location. Response: We have modified the color palette of the alternate architectural scheme to differ more significantly from the first one. We feel this provides the necessary variation but also provides a harmonious scheme for the buildings throughout the project. In order to demonstrate this, there are two supplemental exhibits included in this submittal: a Building Variation Exhibit and a Building Compatibility Exhibit. 6. Lighting Plan: A complete review of the lighting plan was not able to be achieved. Please indicate backlight, uplight, glare ratings for each fixture. Include 'ideally oriented' setback depiction on the plan. Response: This information has been included as part of this application. 7. Site Plan Details: a. Please show location of all fixed bicycle and enclosed racks on site plan. Response: Per our discussion with Kai on 6/5/23, we will show the fixed and enclosed bike racks at the FDP level. We will comply with the required number and split of fixed and enclosed bike racks and are happy to accept this as a condition of PDP approval. b. Please show a/c condenser units and meters on elevation plan/ site plan. Response: AC units are planned to be rooftop mounted, with the exception being the Townhome building and the clubhouse, which will be ground-mounted and screened appropriately. c. Please provide details for tables, benches, pergolas, sunscreens, waste stations, walkway portals, bike racks (fixed and enclosed) Response: This level of detail is typically provided at the FDP level. Preliminary information has been provided in amenity areas to provide guidance and general direction of amenities to be provided at the time of FDP. 8. Project Narrative: a. There are several locations in the project narrative that refer to this project being zoned as LMN, however, the zoning map indicates this area as the MMN district, please update. Response: This was an oversight that has been updated. b. The Narrative refers to this project as 'alley loaded multifamily'. I'm unfamiliar with this terminology/product type, could you provide clarification? Response: “Alley-loaded garages for multifamily” has been changed to “tuck under and surface parking” for clarity. 9. Parking: a. Thank you for the modification request related to parking. Would it be possible to provide any supporting information from ITE Parking Generation Manual, could this maybe be addressed in the traffic study? Response: Additional parking information to support this request has been added to the Traffic Study included as part of this resubmittal b. Also, I'm calculating greater than 40% allocation to compact stalls. Is this accurate? Response: Per the calculations on the revised cover sheet, we are providing compact stalls equal to ~20% of the total stalls. Applicant Note: Additional comments were provided by Kai Kleer via email on March 7, 2023, outside of the formal review period. The comments are as follows: 1. Street Framework a. Connection must be made and a modification would not be supported by staff. Response: As requested, a connection to Greenfields has been made and an engineering variance related to said connection was approved by City Engineer Brad Buckman on May 30, 2023. The utility plans include an updated LCUASS General Note #48 to indicate this. b. Raised crosswalks need to be provided where the sidewalk cross internal driveways. Response: Enhanced pedestrian crossings were developed as part of Filing One on International Boulevard. Future crossing will be developed as areas adjacent to Filing Four are developed. As required in the Fort Collins Land Use Code Sec. 3.2.2.C(1)(a), potential hazards related to pedestrians and vehicular traffic within the Filing Four project will be minimized through pavement marking and median refuge areas. c. Based on the turn bay length for Bloom Filing 1, engineering and traffic would be supportive of a full movement intersection unless it became an operational or safety issue, then we would still reserve the right to restrict it (this would be documented in the DA). Response: As requested, a connection to Greenfields has been made and an engineering variance related to said connection was approved by City Engineer Brad Buckman on May 30, 2023. The utility plans include an updated LCUASS General Note #48 to indicate this. A Traffic Memo is also included with this submittal, to assist the City in their review. 2. Architecture a. We can support a modification of standard to the buildings on the southwest side of the site. Please provide justification based on the ‘equal to or better than’ criterion under Article 2 of the Land Use Code. Response: A modification for the Building Variation requirement is being requested. The formal request for modification is included in this submittal as a separate attachment. b. Staff is concerned about the space between the building and street. Here are some notes from the overall conversation: i. Staff would like to set up a site visit with you to visit Crown at Old Town North and H25 (The Wyatt). There is significant concern that stylisticly you’re replicating what was done at H-25. Response: We are proposing a varied and interesting streetscape for these buildings along our street edges by providing direct access from some of the ground floor patios, extending some of the ground floor patios and creating a layer of activation along the ground plane to help address these issues. In addition, we are using amenity pockets around the site to activate spaces between buildings, generate interest and expand the architecture along the pedestrian level. We are also modifying our approach to spaces as we transition from south to north creating a more urban environment that transitions to somewhat suburban as we travel north along Filing 4. This also adds layers of interest and variation throughout. ii. Ground floor building design on Building A2 looks less important than the upper stories with over frame elements on second/third story and lack of ground-floor detail. Response: We have added extended ground floor patios with low walls and gates to the first floor in an effort to add some usable space, activate the ground level and provide additional interest at the ground plane. In addition to the patios, we are adding interest by creating a sense of entry and arrival at each public building entry by utilizing detailing, lighting and landscape to denote importance. iii. Other building designs staff shared similar concerns with lack of ground floor detail and differentiation from upper stories. Response: Same comment response as above. We feel the ground floor detail we’ve layered in has helped accomplish this. iv. More attention is needed regarding the layer of space between the street and building. Ideas include: i. Introducing a low masonry wall (Cherry Street Lofts was given as an example). ii. Bringing patio further out on the ground floor units and utilizing a different railing system than the upper stories. iii. Different window and architectural detail on the ground floor units than upper stories. Response: The first two items have been incorporated into the ground plane as suggested. We agree – this helps to add depth and interest at the ground level. We are not implementing the differing units at the ground level as we feel like the first two items do a great job of activation. Historic Preservation Contact: Jim Bertolini, 970-416-4250, jbertolini@fcgov.com 1. NO HISTORIC REVIEW REQUIRED: This proposal does not require historic review because there are no designated historic resources, or resources that are at least 50 years old and would require evaluation, on the development site or within 200 feet of the development site. Response: Thank you for your initial review. Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham, sbuckingham@fcgov.com 1. Engineering cannot accept the location of the proposed full movement access point onto International Boulevard. During the conceptual review, this access point was depicted as emergency access only, which was acceptable to Engineering. Please consider keeping this emergency access only. If for some reason you need to incorporate an additional full movement access point from a public street, please schedule a meeting with Engineering, Traffic, and Planning to discuss options. Response: This access point has been removed and is no longer proposed for either general access or emergency access. 2. Are there any updates from the geotechnical engineer regarding the timing for updating the soils report? Response: Two updated geotechnical addendums report are included in this submittal. 3. It is not clear if there is an ADA accessible path from the ADA parking spaces to the buildings. Please provide more information on the plans. Response: The utility plans have been updated to show crosswalks and detectable warning panels at ramps to assist in identifying the accessible paths. 4. Within the site, will there be ramps between the sidewalks and the private streets? How will pedestrians and bikes maneuver through the private streets? Response: ADA compliant ramps will be provided on all streets consistent with LUCASS and are shown on the site, landscape and civil plans. 5. What is the proposed centerline radius in the private street leading out to Greenfields Drive? The City will not enforce LCUASS criteria for a private street, but we recommend designing private streets to the same standards as public streets. Response: We understand the concern, with site design constraints provided by our site, desire from Staff to align with Peakview to the east, and the proposed layout on the parcel to the west, this solution was determined to be the best option. 6. There are a couple of spots where the proposed sidewalk along Aria Way measures less than six feet. This needs to be widened to at least six feet because it is part of the pedestrian spine. I have identified a few of these spots in my redlines, but please double check that the entire length of the sidewalk along Aria Way measures at least six feet wide. Response: The proposed sidewalk along Aria Way now measures at least six feet wide. 7. Please add the City's signature block to the cover sheet of the utility plans. You can download the signature block at https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/utilitysigblock.pdf?1611856399 Response: The City’s signature block has been added to the cover sheet of the utility plans as requested. 8. The utility plan appears to propose eight utility stubs from utility mains in public streets, which would involve street cuts. Please be aware of the City's street cut fees, which are tripled for streets that have been paved within the past five years. Would it be possible to stub these utility services to the property line before the streets are paved with Bloom Filing One? Response: The proposed stubs match those stubs as proposed in the currently under review Bloom Filing One Amendment. This should alleviate, or greatly reduce the need to cut into the street. 9. It is not clear from the Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan if there will be curb and gutter demolition to install access points into the Bloom Filing Four property. If there will be any demolition of existing streets, please be aware of the City's street cut fees. Response: The intent for this project is that the access points will be installed as part of the Bloom Filing 2 project and not be cut out as part of this project. 10. This filing of Bloom will need to comply with the PUD, the Public Benefits Agreement, and any relevant provisions of the Filing One Development Agreement. If this filing requires a new development agreement, it will be an amendment to the Filing One DA. Response: The Applicant and Applicant team believe this Filing Four application meets all relevant and applicable documents that guide development for this parcel. Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970 224 6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com 1. The Traffic Impact Study has been received and is currently being reviewed. Response: An updated Filing 4 memorandum has been provided following a scoping call had with the City. 2. The Traffic Impact Study provided is titled Filing 2. We would like to get a study that clearly identifies this as Filing 4. This should include a narrative with a map of the parcel being developed in this filing. It should describe the number and type of units being proposed with this filing, the anticipated trips that will be generated by this filing, and the access locations for this parcel. If desired we can set up a meeting to go over this. Response: An updated Filing 4 memorandum has been provided following a scoping call had with the City. 3. All internal signing and striping should be shown in the Utility Plans. This will be reviewed in the Final Development Plan but would be beneficial to start planning for sign locations so they don't interfere with landscaping. i.e. Trees should not be planted within 50 feet of the advance to a Stop sign to maintain visibility. Response: Signing and striping plans have been added to the plan set for preliminary review. 4. The access onto International was previously depicted as an Emergency Vehicle access only. It is now a full movement access that does not meet the spacing requirements for an arterial roadway, and would require a westbound left turn lane on International into the site. The current location of this intersection will likely impede into the eastbound turn lane for International at Greenfields. Coordination with our Engineering Department will be needed as to whether or not a variance would be approved. If so this access may need to be restricted to a right in, right out with islands/medians to help restrict this. Response: This access has gone away and is no longer proposed. 5. A northbound left turn lane will be required on Greenfields at the access to this site. Plans should show the change to the striping on Greenfields, as this is not depicted in the infrastructure plans for Bloom Filing 1 which plans to build this section of roadway. Response: Greenfields is a 2-lane arterial and thus has a continuous turn lane and it is our understanding that thus a dedicated left is not required. 6. If the parking stall lines on Donella are being used to calculate the parking requirements for this project, it should be noted that parking is restricted within 20 feet of a marked, or unmarked crossing at an intersection. (Basically within 20 of an ADA accessible ramp.) Please make sure parking is set back far enough to meet this requirement within the Model Traffic Code. Response: The parking on Donella has not been included for the parking counts for this project and parking setbacks have been verified. Erosion Control Contact: Andrew Crecca, acrecca@fcgov.com 1. This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the erosion control requirements located in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion. This project was evaluated based upon the submittal requirements of FCSCM. Based upon the provided materials we were able to determine a total disturbed area. This project is part of a larger common development. Based upon the area of disturbance or this project is part of a larger common development, State permits for stormwater will be required should be pulled before Construction Activities begin. Response: It is understood that Stormwater permits will be required prior to construction and they will be procured at the necessary time. 2. For Approval or Final Plan: a. Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets one of the other triggering criteria (sensitive area, steep slopes, or larger common development) that would require Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted. Please provide an erosion control plan for 'Final Plan or Approval Submittal'. b. This project disturbs 5 or more acres so erosion control phasing materials will need to be provided in the erosion control plans, reports and escrow. Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and Reports include phasing requirements (FCSCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5) c. Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 1 acre or is part of a larger common development that requires Erosion and Sediment Control Report to be submitted. Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal. d. Based upon the supplied materials, an Erosion Control Escrow Calculation will need to be provided. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5) at time of Final Plan or Approval Submittal. Will look for complete plans, report, SWMP towards FDP Response: Complete erosion control plans, report, escrow information will be provided at FDP as requested. 3. Fees: a. The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5 2 was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. 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. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 10 lots, 16.50 acres of disturbance, 2 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 3.00 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $2,512.16. Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to 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. b. The Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the plans we identified 0 number of porous pavers, 0 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 0 number of extended detention basins, and 1 number of underground treatments, results in an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $415.00. Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for you to 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: All fees noted above will be paid at the time of erosion control escrow. 4. Erosion Escrows are calculated using unrealistic numbers, ($9,000/ AC for seeding) Please recalculate using more realistic numbers. For reference Bloom Filing Two used $1,350/ AC for seeding. Response: The costs for the erosion control items have been updated in the erosion escrow spreadsheet included in the submittal. Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970 416 2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com 5. It appears sub basin OS 6 needs to be broken into additional sub basins. Portions of this basin drain into the on site pond, while other areas drain to the south. Please revise. Response: The entire site layout was changed and thus the basins were redone. Basins were updated to only drain to one location. 6. The overall sizing of the onsite detention pond, which includes onsite and offsite areas, is required before hearing. This entails the quantity and "standard" water quality detention sizing to ensure the proposed detention pond configuration is adequate for the proposed Site Plan. The Minor Amendment for the Overall Bloom Filing 1 Filing will need to be "preliminarily" accepted before Hearing. Response: We understand that the minor amendment for the Overall Bloom Filing 1 project needs to be preliminarily accepted prior to hearing. 7. Regarding the two (2) phases proposed for this project, the LID underground chamber system with the associated storm sewers would need to be built with Phase 1 to comply with Stormwater Criteria. Response: The LID underground chamber and the associated storm sewers will be constructed in the 1st phase of the project. 8. Please provide text describing the water quality & LID design in the storm water section of the Drainage Report. It is included within the Erosion Control Section, but should be in this section as well. Response: The information on the water quality and LID design was added to the storm water section of the drainage report as requested. 9. Please provide a LID exhibit and/or table documenting the development is treating 75% or more of the site's proposed impervious area. Response: An exhibit and table documenting the treatment of greater than 75% of the sites impervious area has been added to the report. 10. Drainage easements are required for the underground storage chamber system and all storm sewers needed to convey flows from the 100 yr storm. Response: Drainage easements were added for the underground chamber system and the storm sewers that are carrying the 100-year storm event. 11. Fort Collins encourages a thoughtful approach and design of the stormwater system and its incorporation into the overall site design. Please review Fort Collins’ Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater & Detention Facilities and include concepts and goals from these guidelines into this site’s design. Available along with full Stormwater Criteria here: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/buildersanddevelopers/developmentformsguideli nesregulations/stormwatercriteria Response: The guidelines have been reviewed and more details on the approach will be added as we move forward with the FDP submittal Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com 1. Light and Power will extend primary electric facilities from the surrounding Bloom filings to feed Bloom-Filing Four. Response: It is understood that light and power will extend electric facilities to Bloom Filing 4 from the surrounding sites. 2. Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. 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. Response: Transformer locations have been added to the drawings and can be found on the Utility sheets 3. Meter location(s) will need to be coordinated with Light and Power. Please show proposed meter location on the utility plan. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINA L_18November2016_Amendment.pdf Response: Conceptual meter locations are indicated on the preliminary plans to begin the discussion and will be finalized as part of the FDP 4. Multi family buildings and duplexes are treated as customer owned services; therefore a C-1 form and one line diagram must be filled out and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for each building. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer and their electrical consultant or contractor. A C-1 form can be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-gui delines-regulations Response: Understood. This information will be provided during the FDP review. 5. 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 to discuss development fees 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-investment-develo pment-fees Response: Understood. Thank you. The team will reach out at the appropriate time to get final fee calculations. 6. Light and Power facilities must have a ten foot clearance from all water, wastewater, and storm sewer facilities. We also require a three foot clearance away from all other utilities with the exception of communication lines. Response: The clearances are understood and will be accounted for with the final routing of lines on the FDP 7. Any existing electric infrastructure that needs to be relocated as part of this project will be at the expense of the developer. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. Response: The developer understands that they are responsible for utility relocations for this project 8. Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement or public right-of-way. Response: It is understood that proposed electric facilities need to be located in either the right-of-way or and easement and easements will be provided as part of the FDP as the layout of the transformers and electric lines are refined. 9. During utility infrastructure design, please provide adequate space of all service and main lines internal to the site to ensure proper utility installation and to meet minimum utility spacing requirements. A minimum of 10 ft separation is required between water, sewer and storm water facilities, and a minimum of 3 ft separation is required between Natural Gas. Please show all electrical routing on the Utility Plans. Response: Conceptual electrical routing is shown on the utility plans with routing to be finalized as part of the FDP. 10. All utility easements and required permits (crossing agreements, flood plain, etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained and paid for by the developer. Response: It is understood that the developer is responsible to obtain and pay for the required easements and permits. The easement layout will be finalized with the FDP 11. Streetlights will be placed along public streets. 40 ft separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. 15 ft separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. Please reach out to me before the first round of the Final Development Plan so I can provide a streetlight layout. The City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf Response: Proper streetlight to separation will be provided. The photometric plans included are preliminary in nature, and conflicts between lighting and landscaping will be resolved at the FDP level. 12. This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Residential units will need to be individually metered. For all attached units, please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided here: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINA L_18November2016_Amendment.pdf Response: The utility plan shows the proposed electrical meter locations on one end of each building. 13. Please contact Tyler Siegmund with electric project engineering if you have any questions at (970) 416-2772. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/electricservicestandards.pdf?16 45038437 Reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Response: As the project moves into the FDP stage we will be in contact with Tyler. Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416 4290, sbenton@fcgov.com 1. POLLINATOR MASTER PLAN More detail and additions are needed to satisfy the Pollinator Master Plan: a. The entirety of the Pollinator Master Plan needs to be included in Filing 4. It will need to be included on all Bloom filings. That way the details and requirements will be clear for all future entities involved. b. Which typical node example from the Filing 1 Master Plan do the Filing 4 nodes correspond to? c. The Filing 1 Master Plan also stipulates distance requirements between pollinator features. Please indicate distances to ensure these are adhered to. d. Please indicate which Master Plan pollinator requirements (primary nodes, minor nodes, etc.) Filing 4 is satisfying. Response: Pollinator Master Plan and conceptual plan for Filing 4 has been added to the drawing set to address item a, c, and d. Additional information will be provided at FDP to address item b, when detailed planting design is completed and can be coordinated with the rest of the project. 2. Page LP103 of the Landscape Plan depicts the detention pond. A unique hatching is displayed for a seed mix which I assume is the detention basin seed mix, but the hatching is not defined in the Legend. Response: Seed mix notes and hatching have been added to clarify mixes to be used within the lower elevation of the detention pond. Additional plantings and seed mixes may be added as the project progresses into FDP. 3. Thank you for placing numerous pollinator plantings of various sizes along Aria Way and elsewhere in Filing 4. Unfortunately, many of these plantings are either directly under tree plantings or even have a street tree planted in the middle of the pollinator planting. This is disconcerting for a couple of reasons a. 1) these trees will have mulch rings and so the actual area planted is smaller than how it is depicted, and b. 2) the level of shade will severely limit both the species palette available for a pollinator planting and the level of success of what is planted. Number 2) also applies to native seed areas with trees planted in the middle. Normally landscaping matters could be addressed during the FDP stage but given how many areas have this problem on the landscaping plan a discussion is warranted during the PDP stage. Response: See response above to #1, the conceptual pollinator plan has been added to address specific locations that will demonstrate compliance with the overall Pollinator Master Plan. Detailed pollinator planting design will be finalized during FDP and will address concerns noted above. Notes have been added on the pollinator plan to address concerns above: 1. Pollinator nodes shall not be located within tree understory to maximize palette and chances for success. 2. Node square footages shall remove any plants or other features that are not pollinator plants and shall not count toward square footage requirements. Forestry Contact: Freddie Haberecht, fhaberecht@fcgov.com 1. Please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code (LUC) 3.2.1 requirements. This should include the existing tree inventory, any proposed tree removals with their locations clearly noted and any proposed tree plantings (including species, size, quantity, and method of transplant). The plans should also include the following City of Fort Collins notes: General Landscape Notes Tree Protection Notes Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable. These notes are available from the City Planner or by following the link below and clicking on Standard Plan Set Notes: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php Required tree sizes and method of transplant: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlapped Required mitigation tree sizes: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Response: Landscape Plan provided includes standard notes and meets required tree sizing. No existing trees are present on the site, therefore there is no tree inventory or mitigation plan needed. 2. 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. 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 to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs. Utility/Tree Separation: 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines 10’ between trees and electric vaults Response: Landscape Plan provided includes standard all required items listed above. Street lighting has not yet been completed or coordinated with Light and Power and will be shown at FDP. The photometric plans included are preliminary in nature, and conflicts between lighting and landscaping will be resolved at the FDP level. Clearances to utilities and signage are accounted for in the plans. 3. Per Land Use Code 3.2.1.(D)(c), canopy shade trees shall constitute at least 50 percent of all tree plantings. Response: Canopy trees meet or exceed the 50% requirement. 4. Canopy shade trees should be planted at 30 40’ spacing (LUC 3.2.1 (D)©) along street frontages. Response: Street trees are planted at 30-40' spacing as required. 5. Each landscape island should be 8’ in its smallest dimensions to allow for tree root growth (LUC 3.2.1). Response: Landscape islands meet the minimum 8’ requirement where trees are included. 6. Please adhere to the updated LUCASS standards and include proper parkway widths. On the west boundary of this submittal it appears that the sidewalk along Aria Way changes in widths along the stretch reducing parkway width below 8’. Response: Aria walk has been adjusted to meet 8’ minimum parkway width. 7. Thank you for including such a diverse palette of trees on this plan. We recommend several of the species/selection on the plan be changed based on long term observation by the Fort Collins Forestry Division. Abies concolor has not shown to be a reliable conifer in areas that have been disturbed or have high PH often becoming chlorotic. We recommend replacing this tree with another conifer such as Pinus heldreichii – Bosnian pine, Pinus cembra – Swiss stone pine, Hesperocyparis arizonica – Arizona cypress, or Picea glauca ‘densata’ Black Hills spruce. Tulip poplar has not shown to be a reliable shade tree in exposed sites and Princeton elm has shown to have significant disease issues in Colorado. Consider using shade trees such as Accolade elm or Choice city elm or increasing the use of other species already specified. Thornless cockspur hawthorn is a good tree for Colorado but winter king hawthorn has shown to be a better more disease resistant selection. Prunus americana, American plum forms large thorny thickets that are not suited for most urban landscape designs and should be reserved for xeric and detention areas. If a multistem small size tree with low water use is desired consider gambel oak, Quercus undulata– wavyleaf oak, or prunus virginiana – western chokecherry. If another small ornamental is desired consider using Japanese lilac, Peking lilac, or American hophornbeam. Consider adding additional large trees to the detention area depicted on LP103. Populus sargentii, Populus acuminata x sargentii, and Salix amygdaloides are the only native large trees to the front range and can add significant environmental and cultural value to sites that allow for their mature size. Response: Thank you for the detailed species review and recommendations. The following trees have been removed and replaced with suggested alternatives: Abies concolor, Tulip Poplar, American Plum. Additional native trees have been added within the detention area. Park Planning Contact: Missy Nelson, mnelson@fcgov.com 1. INFORMATION: Both Park Planning & Development and Parks department comments will be provided by Missy Nelson | mnelson@fcgov.com Response: Thank you for your review. 2. Please confirm the metro district will be watering and maintaining the landscaping in the public rights of way along International and Greenfields. Response: That is correct; the metro district will be maintaining the landscaping in the public rights-of-way along International and Greenfields. Poudre Fire Authority Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 1. Fire access is required to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of any building, or facility ground floor as measured by an approved route around the perimeter. For the purposes of this section, fire access cannot be measured from an arterial road. Any private alley, private road, or private drive serving as a fire lane shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement (EAE) and be designed to standard fire lane specifications. In addition, aerial apparatus access requirements are triggered for buildings in excess of 30' in height. All areas to be used as Fire Lane including aerial access shall be dedicated as EAE on the plat. Response: We have modified the building locations and roads to comply with fire access requirements. 2. Buildings over 30' in height measured from grade to roof access point trigger additional fire lane requirements in order to accommodate the logistical needs of aerial apparatus (ladder trucks). The intent of the code is to provide for rescue operations and roof access via ladder trucks when ground ladders cannot reach upper floors. Aerial access should therefore be available on at least one entire long side of the building, located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. Dead end access roads shall have a minimum width of 30 ft. Parapet heights greater than 4' in height do not support ladder truck operations. All the buildings are required to meet aerial access requirements but all buildings do not provide access on 1 entire parallel side of the building. Response: Aerial access has been provided on one entire long side of the buildings meeting the requirements set forth above 3. IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Many of the corners on the site do not meet the minimum requirements. These corners shall meet the minimum requirements or an autoturn exhibit can be submitted as an alternative. Response: With the entire update to the site the access roads have been updated to meet the minimum 25’ internal radius as required by the IFC. 4. Fire lanes shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. Private drives used for fire lanes shall provide geotech information confirming the design can handle fire truck loading. A note shall be added to the civil plans indicating the fire lane meets this requirement. Response: A note was added to the Civil plan sheets (refer to the GR sheets) noting the need for fire lanes to be designed to meet fire loads. 5. ROOF ACCESS: New buildings four or more stories above grade plane, except those with a roof slope greater than four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33.3 percent slope), shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1011.12. Such stairways shall be marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof. Where roofs are used for roof gardens or for other purposes, stairways shall be provided as required for such occupancy classification (IFC 504.3). Response: Stairway access to the roof on the 4-story buildings will be provided. FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM: Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 905 of the 2021 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approved fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure. Buildings equipped with standpipes are required to have a hydrant within 100 feet of the Fire Department Connection (IFC Sections 905 and 913). Response: Standpipes will be provided as described above HYDRANT FOR STANDPIPE SYSTEMS: Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant capable of providing Fire Flow according to IFC B105.2, located within 100 feet of the fire department connections. Response: Buildings 10 and 11 are the only two buildings that will be equiped with a standpipe system and a fire hydrant has been provided with 100’ of the fire department connections for those buildings. 6. Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. A fire hydrant capable of providing Fire Flow according to IFC B105.2 is required within 300 feet of any commercial/multifamily building and every 600 feet on center 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). An additional hydrant is needed around the clubhouse. The distance from the hydrant is beyond 300 feet when measured to the clubhouse along an approved path of travel. Response: An additional fire hydrant was added to ensure the 300’ 7. The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire inspection. Code language provided below. a. IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. SIGN PLACEMENT b. IFC D103.6.1; ROADS 20 TO 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide. c. IFC D103.6.1; ROADS MORE THAN 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide and less than 32 feet wide. Response: A signing and striping plan was added to the plan set that shows the FIre Lane and has the appropriate signage. 8. Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official. Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane. Response: The two access drives to the site have been named as private drives. The need for address identification for the buildings is noted and will be addressed with the FDP submittal. GIS Contact: Lauren Wade, 970-302-5962, lwade@fcgov.com 1. Plat and plans will need N/S prefixes for Aria Way and Greenfields Dr. due to crossing the base line of where our address grid changes direction. The closest intersection would be at International Blvd. to the point of direction change. Response: The prefixes were added to Aria Way and Greenfields Drive on the plat and utility plans as requested. 2. Addressing and building number designation will be done after recording. Please provide floor plans of the buildings for unit level addressing. Response: Floor plans will be submitted after recording. Building Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970 416 2341, rhovland@fcgov.com 1. Building Insp Plan Review: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2021 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments 2021 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments 2021 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments 2021 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments 2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments Colorado Plumbing Code (currently on the 2018 IPC) 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 Accessibility: State Law CRS 9 5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1 2017. Snow Live Load: Ground Snow Load 35 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 Colorado Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: • Multi family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2021 IECC residential chapter. • Commercial and Multi family 4 stories and taller: 2021 IECC commercial chapter. Response: The project design follows all IBC requirements as described above. 2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, see local amendment. · This building is located within 250ft of a 4 lane road or 1000 ft of an active railway, must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min. · R 2 occupancies must provide 10ft to 30ft of fire separation distance (setback) from property line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC. · All multi famliy buildings must be fire sprinkled. City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2021 International Fire Code limit what areas can avoid fire sprinklers with a NFPA 13R, see local IFC 903 amendment. · Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire sprinkler. All egress windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24”. · If using electric systems to heat or cool the building, ground source heat pump or cold climate heat pump technology is required. · A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi family structure. · Energy code requires short hot water supply lines by showing plumbing compactness. · For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain the requirements for each district. Response: Architect to provide these informational items above in building department submittals. 3. Stock Plans: When the exact same residential building will be built more then once 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/resrequirements.php Response: Will provide if necessary depending on the building types. 4. Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting: For new buildings, please schedule a pre submittal meeting with Building Services for this project. Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed above. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new projects should email rhovland@fcgov.com to schedule a pre submittal meeting. Response: We will schedule this meeting prior to the FDP process. Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970 221 6588, jcounty@fcgov.com 1. INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: Noted; we will look for comments at the FDP level. Topic: Plat 1. 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 970 221 6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com Response: The plat was updated per the redline comments and responses to those comments are included on the marked-up pdf. Outside Agencies Contact: Melissa Buick, Lake Canal Company, melissahbuick@gmail.com 1. Lake Canal has a prescriptive easement for the delivery of irrigation water to its shareholders through the Lake Canal ditch system and its structures. The easement is typically 100 feet in total, 50 feet on each side of the ditch being measured from the centerline of the ditch. Access to the ditch must remain unobstructed for maintenance, repair and replacement of the ditch or its structures. Maintenance may include burning, spraying and require access by heavy equipment. Lake Canal has the right to remove trees, brush and debris obstructing the flow of water for delivery to its shareholders, but is not the landowner and is not responsible for maintaining the property, that responsibility falls to the landowner. Requests for ditch crossings, any encroachment to the ditch and/or the ditch easement or for historical discharge into the ditch are subject to plan review and Board approval, requires a legal agreement be in place prior to any work being done and may be subject to an engineering review. Lake Canal requests a list of ditch crossings, encroachments, requests for variances or historical discharge necessary or proposed as part of this development to complete them in a timely manner and not to delay construction or any approvals necessary. Lake Canal prefers the ditch and or ditch easement to be crossed via directional bore. Installation via an open cut of the ditch will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the fees will be adjusted accordingly. Directional bores are requested to be a minimum of 10 feet below the bottom of the ditch. Installations less than 10 feet below the bottom of the ditch will require a steel casing and/or a concrete cap. Access to the ditch must remain unobstructed and may require curb cuts for access off the public streets onto the ditch access road and limits landscaping within the ditch easement to ensure continued access for vehicles and heavy equipment when necessary. Please contact this office with any specific requests for encroachment or variances within the ditch or ditch easement requiring approval from the Board of Directors and the completion of an agreement with the Company. Response: Understood; thank you. Filing 4 does not have an impact to Lake Canal, and the developer will coordinate with Lake Canal on other filings when necessary. Water Conservation Contact: Emma Pett, epett@fcgov.com 1. Please provide a landscape plan. Please provide a detailed and complete irrigation plan that includes your water budget, hydrozones, irrigation components and irrigation zones. Preliminary irrigation plans (PIP) are required for review at Final Development Plan (FDP), prior to issuance of building permit. The requirements for the PIP must comply with the irrigation requirements outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Emma Pett or Eric Olson. Response: Landscape plan is provided and was during the last round of review. Preliminary irrigation plans will be provided at the FDP stage.