HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - FDP220014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
March 20, 2023
Klara Rossouw
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Enclave at Redwood, FDP220014, Round Number 2
Please 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 y our
Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970 -221-6695 or via email at
tsullivan@fcgov.com.
Comment Responses:
Ripley Design
HKS
Cedar Creek
DHI
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 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. Please include me in all email
correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone
conversations. Thank you!
Ripley Design Response: Thanks, Todd!
Comment Number: 2
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this
2
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. 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].
Ripley Design Response: Acknowledged, updated comment letter with responses are provided.
Comment Number: 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 d rives, or CDs.
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/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-Aut
oCAD.html
Ripley Design Response: Noted, thank you.
Comment Number: 4
Once your project has been formally reviewed by the City and you have received
comments, please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid
the expiration of your project.
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are preparing to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with an expected submittal date with as much advanced
notice as possible.
Ripley Design Response: Noted. Thank you.
Comment Number: 5
ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an
3
additional fee of $3,000.00.
Ripley Design Response: Acknowledged. Thanks.
DHI Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11/16/2022: FOR HEARING: Staff understands the opposition to the Lupine
street connection by existing residents. A recommendation to the P&Z
Commission would have to be based on standards, with consideration of any
policy basis that underlies the standards. The Comprehensive Plan and code
standards have a pervasive theme of building up an interconnected pattern of
streets and blocks that "knit developments together, rather than forming barriers
between them".
At the meeting I showed how trips generated by the 70 homes along Patton
alley can only go south, to Downtown and points beyond, by deviating
out -of -direction north to the Lupine connection. It looks like a couple of buildings
could readily trade places, and allow for Patton to connect to Bergen for a more
direct route. This assumes that Bergen is not RIRO at Redwood.
Understood that it's not a large number of trips.
But, this looks like a more pertinent conversation than gates on Lupine.
Does anyone disagree?
Ripley Design Response: The attached submittal represents the conditions of approval required by P&Z Commission at the hearing
for the Major Amendment. Lupine is shown to connect, but has been designed in a way that feels pedestrian without limiting
vehicular access or physical barriers. The connection has been offset from the centerline of Collamer Drive; paving materials
change from asphalt in Collamer to concrete to read more as an alley or private access; Community gardens have been provided
along the north side of the connection with a pedestrian pole light. Roll over curbs and 25-foot inside radii have been provided to
ensure vehicular connectivity if needed.
Comment Number: 2
11/18/2022: Re gates on Lupine, the plan sheets say to "See Sheet EX-1".
Where is that sheet? Thanks
Ripley Design Response: The EX1 sheet is included in the site plan package for reference.
Comment Number: 3
03/08/2023: LABELS: Label the Lake Canal, and the various linear features
along the canal, more clearly. Use line weights or shading to show the canal
and perhaps to more clearly show the various types of paths, retaining wall, etc.
Similarly, label the linear feature shown on Tract A.
Ripley Design Response: Labels have been included
Comment Number: 4
03/08/2023: TREE PLANTINGS ALONG THE CANAL: Does the Lake Canal
allow the tree plantings as shown? Has anyone spoken with them about this
plan? I have recent experience with the Lake Canal Board on another project
and it is helpful to coordinate if they have an easement along the canal.
Ripley Design Response: All plantings have been removed within Lake Canal’s easement
DHI Response: Lake Canal has received all plan set submittals with Todd Sullivan being Cc’d on all correspondence for native seed
to be required and provided in lieu of plantings.
4
Comment Number: 4
03/08/2023: The pedestrian bridge in the northeast portion of the site along the
canal is labeled "Future" -- what does that mean? Staff assumes that it is part
of this plan. We understand that its location and design involve further
consideration with Utilities on the sewer line that runs underneath it on the plans.
Ripley Design Response: ‘Future’ label was left over from previous rounds, and has now been removed. Bridge will be built with
development.
Comment Number: 6
03/08/2023: WALKWAY ALONG BLDGS 31, 29, 11-13: This front walkway
spine becomes disjointed before connecting to Bergen in leading to downtown.
The pool and clubhouse interrupt the connection. A solution needs follow-up
discussion.
Ripley Design Response: Per discussions with Staff, the clubhouse has been shifted southeast to provide a visual connection to
Bergen through the pool area, and a connecting walk has been included from these buildings to the regional trail, which leads
downtown.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sophie Buckingham, sbuckingham@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED:
Thank you for adding the General Notes from Appendix E-1. Please also add
the Construction Notes from Appendix E-2, Sections A through E.
11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The utility plan appears to be missing the LCUASS Standard Notes. Please
add the Standard Notes, available in Appendix E of LCUASS at
https://www.larimer.gov/engineering/standards -and-guides/urban-area-street-st
andards
HKS Response: Construction Notes added to sheet 3.
Comment Number: 4
03/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED:
There are still several locations where additional contours labels are needed.
Please see my redlines.
11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Throughout the grading plan sheets, please label all existing and proposed
contour lines in at least one location on each sheet. Right now, there are no
labels to indicate the existing and proposed grading elevations.
HKS Response: Please refer to redlined for responses; additional contour labels added where requested.
Comment Number: 8
03/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UNRESOLVED-:
The comment response indicated that the grading had been updated, but I am
still seeing the grade break. Please smooth out the grading.
11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
5
The Bergen Parkway plan sheet should be labeled Sheet 113 of the utility plan,
not Sheet 105. On this sheet, there appears to be a grade break at Station
8+56.91. Why is there a grade break here?
HKS Response: The grade break represents the crown of Steely Street. This grade break is at the intersection
Comment Number: 11
03/03/2023: INFORMATION:
Has the developer been in contact with Lake Canal about the Cro ssing
Agreement? What is the status?
11/16/2022: INFORMATION:
In order to construct the box culverts for the public street crossings of Lake
Canal, the developer and the City will need to enter into a Crossing Agreement
with the Lake Canal Company. This will be separate from and in addition to the
Development Agreement for this project. Please coordinate with Lake Canal in
anticipation of the Crossing Agreement.
DHI Response: Crossing applications to Lake Canal along with plan sets have been s ubmitted for their engineering review. Sophie,
to confirm these crossing agreements will not be part of this project's Development Agreement, will Lake Canal have a signatu re
block on the Plat?
Comment Number: 13
03/02/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The centerlines of Steely Drive, Lupine Drive, and Bergen Parkway appear to
be lower than the flowlines. Please revise the elevations to achieve a
cross-slope between 2 and 3 percent toward the flowlines. See my redlines on
sheets R-2 through R-6.
HKS Response: Elevations have been revised as requested
Comment Number: 14
03/02/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The centerline of Comrie Drive appears to be lower than the flowlines. Was this
intentional? Please see my redlines on sheet R-7.
HKS Response: Flowline eions have been revised to be lower than the centerline as requested
Comment Number: 15
03/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The bike, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle connection between Bergen
Parkway and Mullein Drive needs to be dedicated on the plat as a public
access and emergency access easement. Please work with the surveyor to get
this added to the plat.
HKS Response: Public access and emergency access easement between Bergen and Mullein is shown and call ed out throughout
the plan set; it is also included on the plat. With the approval of the alternative compliance, a second public access and em ergency
access between Steely and Lupine Drive is now proposed and shown throughout the plat set and on the plat.
Comment Number: 16
03/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
At the connection point between Bergen Parkway and Mullein Drive, the curb
along the north side of Bergen Parkway needs to be constructed as a
mountable curb, not a vertical curb.
HKS Response: Connection between Bergen and Mullein is now shown as mountable curb.
Comment Number: 17
03/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
6
The intersection of Redwood Street and Bergen Parkway should be a
full-movement intersection, so it should no t have a splitter island. If you would
like to construct a median, please make sure that it does not restrict any turning
movements. You can also choose not to construct a median.
HKS Response: Splitter Island has been removed. There is now no median.
Comment Number: 18
03/03/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please include all relevant details from the LCUASS construction drawings,
located in Appendix A.
HKS Response: All details have been added/removed.
Comment Number: 19
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Private landscape drains cannot be located in public right -of-way or public utility
easements. Please relocate the landscape drains, and indicate the new
locations clearly on the Detailed Utility Plan sheets.
HKS Response: Landscape drains have been removed from public ROW and are shown on the detailed utility sheets.
Comment Number: 20
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Sheets 114 and 115 are the same. Only 183 sheets are listed in the index, and
the set contains 184 pages because of the duplicate sheet. Please remove the
duplicate sheet and update the sheet numbering as needed.
HKS Response: Sheet index updated.
Comment Number: 21
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - REVISED:
Please add signature blocks for the City of Greeley, East Larimer County Water
District, and North Weld County Water District to the utility plans. All of these
entities have water mains in the Suniga right-of-way with prior rights that
predate the Suniga right-of-way, so they will need to approve the irrigation line
crossing Suniga. Please coordinate with these entities as soon as possible.
HKS Response: Signature Blocks added.
Comment Number: 22
03/07/2023: INFORMATION:
Please double-check that all of the design information is depicted consistently
throughout the various documents in the plan set.
HKS Response: Doublechecked.
Ripley Design Response: Doublechecked.
Comment Number: 23
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please provide construction details for all proposed retaining walls. The details
should be located in the utility plan.
HKS Response: Retaining wall detail is shown on sheet 58 of the utility plan set for reference only. Construction details prepared by
a structural engineer will be provided for City review when building permits for retaining walls are applied for.
Comment Number: 24
03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The proposed irrigation lines need to be depicted on the utility plan, not just on
the irrigation plan. Lake Canal will need to approve the irrigation line in the ditch
7
easement. For the irrigation line crossing Suniga, it will need to be clearly
indicated on the utility plan how the line will be installed.
HKS Response: The sleeve for the irrigation line crossing Suniga is shown throughout the plans; calling out a proposed bore as
means and method for construction. Additionally, irrigation tap and meter locations are shown and detailed on the overall uti lity plan,
water plans and associated drawings th roughout the utility plans. However, proposed irrigation lines are not depicted on the utility
plans as it is not industry standard to do so.
Comment Number: 25
03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please double-check the spelling of Steely on every document in the plan set.
This comment needs to be addressed by all members of the applicant team
because it applies to every document, not just the utility plan. Steely Drive is
named after a member of the Fort Collins community, and it is very important
that the name is spelled correctly everywhere it appears on the plans.
HKS Response: Spelling has been corrected throughout the final utility plans.
Ripley Design Response: Spelling has been corrected throughout the site and landscape plans.
DHI Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 26
03/13/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There appears to be a private storm pipe proposed to run for about 226 feet in
the public right-of-way of Bergen Parkway and Steely Drive. Engineering will not
permit this private utility in public right-of-way. Please relocate the private storm
pipe outside of public right-of-way and design a single 90-degree crossing of
public right-of-way. The crossing point will require an encroachment permit. If
you have questions, please reach out to Todd to schedule an offline meeting
with Engineering and Stormwater.
HKS Response: Storm has been updated to not run within public ROW, it now crosses close to 90 degrees, as previously discusse d
with both Engineering and Water/Wastewater
Comment Number: 27
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
With the next round of review, please submit a legal description and sketch for
the proposed right-of-way vacation.
HKS Response: Right-of-way vacations have been submitted to Fort Collins under a separate application.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATE: Please call out all Private
Street on the Signing and Striping plans. Privately Maintained Street Name
signs will be needed for those streets. See pdf in redlines for details.
11/15/2022: Street name signs will need to be shown on the Signing and
Striping sheets. Any Privately Maintained Streets will need to be signed with
the Privately Maintained Street Name signs. Details are provided in the
redlines folder.
HKS Response: Note that private streets will have privately maintained signs.
8
Comment Number: 5
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: If the Alternative Compliance is
accepted for the closure of Lupine to vehicular traffic, additional signage may
be needed. We will review this following the outcome of the Major Amendment.
This may include No Outlet signs, Road Ends, and possibly changing the
direction of stop control at Lupine and Steely.
HKS Response: Additional signage will be added due to the closure of Lupine to vehicular traffic.
Comment Number: 6
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Does Steely change to Comrie at
Lupine, or does it change at the corner/turn to the north? If it is at the corner,
then an additional set of street name signs will be needed, and the signs at
Steely and Lupine will need to be fixed.
HKS Response: Steely changes to Comrie at Lupine. That is where ROW ends and the private drive starts.
Comment Number: 7
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Once the median on Bergen at
Redwood is redesigned as a full movement median, Keep Right R4-7 signs
with OM4-3 signs will be needed on each end.
HKS Response: Median has been removed.
Comment Number: 8
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Discussions occurred regarding the
proposed median on Bergen at Redwood. This will need to be updated and
ADA ramps will be needed for pedestrian access across Bergen.
HKS Response: ADA ramps added across Bergen, Bergen median revised per previous comments.
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control
Contact: Andrew Crecca, acrecca@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 62
11/15/2022: For Final Approval:
Please provide details for LID (Underground Detention Systems) as well as
erosion control notes for protecting LID's during instillation and construction
HKS Response: LID details have been added to the Erosion Control plans.
Comment Number: 54
03/02/2023: For Final Approval:
Thank you for correcting all erosion redlines from FDP Round 1. All erosion
control materials are acceptable. Erosion also inspect all LID Stormwater
Features. Please see submitted redline comment from ESC regarding missing
details of underground detention. Once these are present in the submittals
Erosion@fcgov will you email acceptance with instructions for paying fees and
associated escrows along with deposit forms for both. Please reach out to
Drew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com with any questions.
HKS Response: See response to redlined comments for reference; missing details are now included with the erosion control plan s.
Comment Number: 55
03/02/2023: Fees:
9
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 41 lots, 29.66 acres of disturbance, 4.5 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 $5,880.43.
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.
The Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the nu mber of LID/WQ Features
that are designed for on this project. Based on the plans we identified 0 number
of porous pavers, 1 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 3 number of
extended detention basins, and 3 number of underground treatments, resul ts in
an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $ $2,310.00 .
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. "
HKS Response: No changes have been made to the assumed estimates.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
The cross section of the Krick Drive drainage swale is too steep at 2:1. The
FCSCM allows for a max of 4:1 side slopes on a swale. A solution will need to
be determined for the swale and grading along the west side of Krick Drive. If a
retaining wall is considered, it must be more than 15-feet from the edge of the
A2 storm main.
For my information – what are the constraints forcing the large amount of fill on
the west end of the site? Is it storm drainage, sewer main depth, or both? Or
something else?
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Along the western edge of the site, wes t of Krick Drive, I do not see a drainage
swale in the proposed grading. This project must provide for onsite conveyance
of offsite flows that enter the development site.
HKS Response: The swale has been updated per on-going conversations with Matt. A retaining wall between Krick Drive and the
10
western property line, out of the NECCO easement, has been added to reduce slope; this is in conjunction with re -grading of Krick
Drive to minimize the elevation difference (caused by the infill required for the gravity sanitary sewer). Please refer to the detailed
grading plans and drainge report for more swale information & section.
Comment Number: 12
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
A private storm main may not be located within the exclusive sewer easement
along Smiley Drive. There are other issues with the storm drain location here
(including separation from the building and the adjacent sewer main), however
we will simply not allow it in the exclusive sewer easement. See redlines for
more information.
HKS Response: Per follow up meeting with Matt – this comment was addressed with the second round submittal when the storm
main in Smiley Drive was removed.
Comment Number: 21
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED:
Additional comments on the stormtech systems and isolator row designs:
g. The isolator rows (IR) may not be configured in a “flow through” design and
must be a “cul-de-sac” configuration. Please revise the design.
h. Provide more detail for the water quality diversion structures.
i. The plans show orifices on the IR water quality diversions. These should be
removed from the plans. For these IR to be considered LID (in Fort Co llins), all
water quality flows must flow through the filter fabric.
j. The IR diversion weirs must be included as a control in the hydraulic pipe
analyses.
k. Provide detail plan for each unit showing invert elevations, cross sections,
and a subgrade excavation plan.
l. There is a calculation problem with isolation chamber calcs. See redlines.
m. Let’s have a focused meeting to go over stormtech systems.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Stormtech isolator row comments:
a. Stormtech isolator row facilities used to meet City LID requirements must
have 2-3 inspection ports per row and maintenance ports (manholes) on each end.
b. Stormtech isolator rows may not include a “flow through” design. High flow
diversion weirs must be included on the upstream end to route larger flows
around the water quality chambers.
c. Stormtech isolator rows may not be located in a public utility easement.
Stormtech IR-3 must be relocated out of the public utility easement.
d. All details to construct the isolator rows must be included with the Utility Plans
e. All stormtech chambers must include an underdrain.
f. Please see redlines of isolator row details for more comments. (Located
both in drainage report and Utility Plans).
HKS Response: Isolator row systems have been redesigned with a cul -de-sac configuration. Additional calculations and higher level
of detail for the water quality diversion structures have been added to the drainage report and plans. The orifices have been
removed from the diversion structures, and the diversion weir has been adjusted to the WQCV stage. The weir has also been add ed
to the pipe hydraulics model using a strategy agreed-upon by the reviewer. The isolator row chamber calculations have been
updated to show the correct amount of chambers based on the CoFC spreadsheet.
Comment Number: 22
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED:
Thank you for working with me on the updates to the Redwood Pond design.
11
We are generally very happy with the direction the pond design is progressing.
However with that said, I have encountered a few significant issues that need to
be looked into further and resolved with me directly before the next submittal:
i. There is a discrepancy in the 100 -yr WSEL and volume. The required
master plan volume is 9.86 AF. The Detention Pond Plan (ST-29) is labeled
that this volume is provided at elev. 4959.48, however the stage storage table in
the drainge report shows that this volume will not be achieved untill ~4960.5
(see page 143 of drainage report).
This issue needs to be clarified and resolved before I can have further internal
conversations about the acceptability of the updated regional pond design.
HKS Response: 9.86AF is provided in the Redwood Pond, and correlated between the project SWMM, stage ta bles and plans.
Coordination is on-going between HKS and Fort Collins for final SWMM and Redwood Pond design.
j. There is an issue with the peak outflow rate. I did some further research into
the NECCO master plan and related designs. I am not finding the 15.96-cfs
discharge rate, rather 12.05-cfs. I need to do further research to figure out what
is going on here and provide direction for you to proceed.
HKS Response: Coordination is on-going between HKS and Fort Collins for final SWMM and Redwoo d Pond design.
k. There is an issue in the SWMM model related to upstream pond inflows. I
need to do some research about an upstream area and provide you with
direction to proceed.
HKS Response: Coordination is on-going between HKS and Fort Collins for final SWMM and Redwood Pond design.
l. The forebays on the north side of the pond need to be designed and
detailed.
HKS Response: Forebays have been designed and detailed and are included in the plans.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The design of the Redwood Pond will need to be revised. **We want to have a
design meeting with you in December talk through design concepts that the City
wants to see implemented in this regional stormwater pond.** Items include:
a. The existing outlet needs to be removed.
b. We will provide an outlet structure detail as an example for this project.
c. The maintenance access paths need to be increased to 15 -feet stabilized
turf or crushed granite paths (supporting 40 tons) with 15-ft (min.) radii at the
entrances from the alley. 10% max slope.
d. A concrete trickle channel may be required, or the pond bottom slope may
be required to increase to 2%. We will discuss design concepts with you at the
December meeting.
e. An inflow spill weir and bank protection need to be added at the northwest
corner of the pond at the location where storm flows overtop conifer. The top of
bank elevation may need to be cut down. Please see the included 2009 plan
set for more information.
f. Add forebays to all inlet pipes, these will be custom designs and should be
discussed further with us
g. The wetland area may need to be relocated and incorporated into the
detention pond grading.
h. Please meet with me to discuss further.
12
HKS Response: HKS and the City held design meetings per comment. A) outlet is labeled to be removed B) Outlet structure is
included per example C) Maint path added and designed per comment D) Design of low flow left without concrete per meetings wi th
City E) Spillway weir added per 2009 plans F) Forebays are added and detailed G) Wetland left per meetings with City
The NECCO Line and Redwood Pond flowrates and WSELs have not been coordinated since HKS has not received the most
updated master planning SWMM Model to calculate upstream pond flows. All forebays for Redwood Pond have been detailed in the
plans. Coordination is on-going between HKS and Fort Collins for final SWMM and Redwood Pond design.
Comment Number: 25
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED:
Thank you for adding the cutoff walls to the A2 storm main. Please extend the
walls vertically to the top-of-pipe. I also owe you the detail from the A4 main
project to add to the plans.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Add cutoff walls along the A2 storm line. We will provide a detail from a
previous project to be added to the plans.
HKS Response: Cutoff walls along A2 and A3 storm main have been adjusted to extend above top of pipe. HKS is still waiting on
cut-off walls to be provided by the City – they will be included in the plans when received.
Comment Number: 27
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- NOT ADDRESSED:
Please delineate pond 100-yr WSELs on the detailed grading plans.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Label and delineate the 100-yr WSELs for all detention ponds on the grading
plans and on the pond details.
HKS Response: Pond WQCV and 100-year WSELs have been shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 36
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide water quality outlet sizing calculations.
HKS Response: Water quality outlet sizing calculations have been added to the drainage report. The SWMM model has been
updated with the orifice design.
Comment Number: 37
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
Previous comment addressed. Please summarize outlet sizes in the drainage
report.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide detention outlet sizing calculations and rating curves. Or use physical
SWMM elements and describe in report.
HKS Response: A summary table of outlet sizes has been provided in the drainage report.
Comment Number: 38
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
The stormtech IR diversion weirs must be included as a hydraulic control in the
pipe hydraulic analyses.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Pipe hydraulic analysis and calculations were not included. These must be
included in the next submittal. Per criteria, pi pe systems must carry at minimum
the 2-yr storm. However, the street capacity and cross flow criteria must be met
for 100-yr conveyance. Refer to the Streets, Inlets & Conveyance chapter of the
FCSCM for more information.
13
Please discuss the assumptions and results of this analysis in the drainage
report body.
HKS Response: Stormtech diversion weirs have been included in the pipe hydraulics (StormCAD) model. Sump inlet locations have
been coordinated and more information s hown
Comment Number: 39
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
a. In the drainage report body provide a table summarizing street flow depth at
each inlet and documenting that street capacity requirements are met.
b. For all sumped inlet locations, the overtopping flow path and min. O.T.
elevation must be shown on the plans.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Inlet sizing calculations and street capacity calculations are not included and
must be provided with the next submittal. For all sumped inlet locations, the
overtopping flow path must be identified on the plans and freeboard calculated
to adjacent structures.
HKS Response: A table of street flow depths and capacities has been pr ovided in the drainage report body.
Comment Number: 41
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
a.Follow up on (a) – the overflow for Pond 3 is pointed at the adjacent
apartment building. The overflow must be directed towards a public ROW.
Please adjust grading or discuss options with me.
b.Follow up on (b) – the overflow for Redwood Pond exceeds the max
allowable 0.5-ft flow depth on an overflow spillway. Please see if you can revise
to meet this requirement or let me know if a variance will need to be discussed.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide spillway sizing calculations for all spillways. Refer to requirements in
the FCSCM, Ch 8, Section 3.5. Also please note the following:
a. The overflow spill location shown for Pond 3 does not match the grading on
the plans.
b.Please show in more detail how the overflow spills from the Redwood Pond
will be conveyed into the existing Redwood Channel.
HKS Response: The park pond overflow has been directed to Lupine street. Redwood pond spillway calculations have not been
coordinated because HKS has not received the final master-planned SWMM Model. Coordination is on-going between HKS and
Fort Collins for final SWMM and Redwood Pond design.
Comment Number: 51
03/17/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
11/17/2022: FOR INFORMATION:
- NECCO Fees will apply to this development. This site is located in subbasins
113, 313, and 413.
Fees for 113 and 313 (“yellow sub-basins”) are $10,170 per acre (2019
NECCO fee update).
Fees for 413 (blue subbasin) are $44,859 per acre. (2019 NECCO fee update).
The fees go toward the City’s construction of the NECCO regional stormwater
management and outfall system. These fees are in addition to the base
stormwater developments fees.
- The 2022 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $10,109/acre
($0.23207/ sq. ft.) of new impervious area over 350 square feet. No fee is
charged for existing impervious area. This fee is to be paid at the time each
14
building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970) 416-4252 or
UtilityFees@fcgov.com for questions on fees. Monthly fees -
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/rates
DHI Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 54
03/17/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
Major concerns on the FDP Round 2 submittal include:
a. The SWMM modeling still has issues. Concerns include infiltration
parameters and discrepancies with Redwood Pond storage. As a result, I am
not clear if the detention ponds are adequately sized. This needs to be
resolved directly with me before the next submittal.
b. Private landscape drain storm pipes.
c. Krick Drive swale grading on western property line.
d. UD2 stormtech system is too close to the City’s A2 storm main.
e. Stormtech isolator row systems need reconfiguration and diversion weirs
must be in the pipe hydraulic analyses.
Since there are many items still being worked out and refined in your site
design. Please expect new comments in future rounds.
HKS Response: Infiltration parameters have been adjusted in the SWMM Model for all Enclave catchments. The size of UD2 has
been reduced, and the southern edge of the system was pulled back to achieve 15’ separation from the NECCO -A2 Main.
Comment Number: 55
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It would help if the Utility Plan PDF and Drainage Report PDF were bookmarked.
HKS Response: The drainage report PDF is bookmarked as a guide.
Comment Number: 56
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide an overall storm sheet with the storm system names labeled.
HKS Response: Overall storm sheet added.
Comment Number: 57
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide an overall grading plan with more detail. The detailed pages are
appropriate for construction, but too small of a scale to review the overall context.
Please produce a 1 or 2 sheet overall grading plan that shows the 1-ft proposed
and existing contours and does not have the sheet key map over the site plan.
HKS Response: Overall sheet with contours has been added.
Comment Number: 58
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The grading on Park Pond, Pond 3, needs to be adjusted so that the overflow
spillway is directed into the public ROW and not in the direction of the apartment
building southeast of the pond. (This is follow up on previous comment 10).
HKS Response: The overflow spillway for the park pond has been directed to Lupine, away from the building. Overflow spillway is
detailed throughout the plan set.
Comment Number: 59
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
On the plans the lowest overtopping- location and elevation for all sumped inlets
15
needs to be identified.
HKS Response: These locations and elevations have been shown in the drainage plans.
Comment Number: 60
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Private landscape drain pipes should not run parallel within the ROW or
streetside public UT easements. They also must provide adequate separation
from WT mains, SS mains, and services. Private landscaping drains need to
be shown on the Detailed UT Plan sheets.
HKS Response: Landscape drain pipes have been removed where they ran parallel within the ROW. They are also now shown in
the detailed utility plan sheets.
Comment Number: 61
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The large stormtech system, UD2, is too close to the City’s A2 storm main. The
UD2 system appears to have gotten larger with this submittal. 15 -feet (min)
separation must be provided between the A2 main and the stormtech system.
In addition, the A2 main should have a 45-foot easement by criteria, however I
missed this in previous rounds of review, and we will accept the 30 -foot easement.
HKS Response: The size of UD2 has been reduced, and the southern edge of the system was pulled back to achieve 15’ separation
from the NECCO-A2 Main.
Comment Number: 62
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
See redlines for suggested reconfiguration of LID1
HKS Response: LID1 has been reconfigured based on the redlines provided.
Comment Number: 63
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Show topographic contours on the plan view for storm sewer profile sheets.
HKS Response: Topography shown on plan view of P&P sheets.
Comment Number: 64
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Use City of Fort Collins or CDOT inlets and not City and County of Denver
stormwater inlets.
HKS Response: City of Fort Collins or CDOT inlets are now shown everywhere.
Comment Number: 65
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Updated SWMM modeling Comments
a. Regarding the Redwood Pond, there is a volume discrepancy between the
SWMM model, the drainage report, and the plans. This will need to be
investigated and resolved before the next submittal. Please follow up directly
with me as you work this out.
Issue Detail: The enlarged Redwood Pond must provide the master plan
volume of 9.86 AF (7.7 AF detention + 2.16 AF for water quality) plus any
additional needed for Enclave’s storge. The SWMM model is reporting a max
storage of 3.2 AF (at WSEL 4959.06). I recognize that the model did not
include WQCV (2.16 AF), so adding those together brings the provided volume
to 5.36 AF. Please review and follow up with me.
b. There is a discrepancy in Redwood Pond allowable peak dis charge from
the NECCO documentation – 12.05 cfs vs 15.96 cfs. I need to look into this
16
further and report back to you for direction to proceed.
HKS Response: The reviewer looked into this and found that 12.05 cfs was gathered from the “link flow” of the outlet from Redwood
Pond in the NECCO report and represents the allowable maximum flowrate from the pond. Coordination is on -going between HKS
and Fort Collins for final SWMM and Redwood Pond design.
c. Many of the new or revised subcatchments do not have infiltration values
matching criteria. This revision will likely produce more runoff and affect the
detention pond sizing. This issue was previously addressed during PDP review
but appears to have returned. Please see redlines for more information.
HKS Response: The infiltration parameters have been updated to match the criteria.
d. There is an issue in the SWMM model related to upstream pond inflows. I
need to do some research about an upstream area and provide you with
direction to proceed.
HKS Response: The reviewer researched this issue and found that a node link had been removed from the model at some point
during the last few years and the model provided to HKS did not accurately re flect site conditions. A link has been added to the
SWMM Model upstream of Redwood Pond to mitigate the issue. Redwood Pond updates reflect the added inflow.
e. The submitted SWMM model turned on “select reporting options.” For the
next submittal please provide reporting for “All” subcatchments, nodes, and
links. (See “Options” “Reporting”)
HKS Response: SWMM reporting provided for all SWMM elements per comment.
f. In the drainage report discuss how the water quality stage was modeled for
each pond. Also, place a note in SWMM briefly describing how the WQ stage
was modeled for each storage element. Place the note in the SWMM
“description” field on each respective element.
HKS Response: Discussion of the water quality design and modeling approach has been added to the report. When the final
SWMM base modeling is received, notes will be added to the respective SWMM elements. Coordination is on -going between HKS
and Fort Collins for final SWMM and Redwood Pond design.
Comment Number: 66
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Label Q100 on the storm profiles.
HKS Response: Q100 is labeled on the storm profiles.
Comment Number: 67
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide an existing conditions drainage map. I would accept the existing
conditions City SWMM basins or delineate if you chose to. This map must
show any existing condition wetlands onsite.
HKS Response: An existing conditions drainage map has been provided in the drainage report.
Comment Number: 68
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide continued groundwater monitoring through 2023 and present updates
in the drainge report. Please also provide the groundwater monitoring in the
Redwood Pond and show on the pond profile.
HKS Response: Monitoring in the Redwood POnd is ongoing and profiles will be provided when available.
Comment Number: 69
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
17
Provide more documentation for the Lake Canal culvert analyses. Specifically,
the tailwater conditions need to be documented and presented. See redlines
for more info.
HKS Response: Lake Canal culverts were analyzed using HY -8 software which calculates tailwater based on downstream channel
conditions. HY-8 reports are included with the drainage report appendix.
Comment Number: 70
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Along Redwood Street on the western edge of the site there are proposed
drainage easement(s) overlapping with existing electric easement(s). Please
coordinate with City Engineering, Survey, and Light & Power regarding the
electric easements and confirm these are non-exclusive and/ or can be vacated
and that there are no issues with proposed drainge pipes located within them.
HKS Response: Easement is shown to be vacated.
Comment Number: 71
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
A temporary construction easement will be needed for work on the Redwood
Channel. Please provide a draft easement for our review.
HKS Response: Per conversations with Matt at follow-up meetings, it is our understanding that a temporary construction easement
may not be required if an access permit is obtained. Matt to follow up with dir ection; if a temporary construction easement is
necessary, a draft easement will be provided.
Comment Number: 72
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The outlet pipe from Pond 3 will be considered a "private pipe" (not City O&M)
untill it connects with the A2 main. The ROW Engineering department will need
to issue an encroachment permit for this. Please check with Sophie in
Engineering regarding this.
HKS Response: The outlet for Pond3 ownership has been coordinated and denoted on the plans as private.
Comment Number: 73
03/17/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
I will need to look into what approvals are needed for the developer to construct
the Redwood Pond and get back to you.
HKS Response: Noted. Thanks.
Comment Number: 74
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
See redlines of the Utility Plans, Drainage Report and Plat.
HKS Response: Please refer to response to redlined comments.
Comment Number: 75
03/17/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
I did not have time to review the Landscape Plan or Planning Site Plan. Please
review these and confirm that all utilities and sidewalks are shown the same
between plans. Please check that trees and shrubs provide 10 -feet and 4-feet
respectively clear from storm main pipes.
Ripley Design Response: Landscape has been reviewed for utility separations. Note, separation from small private landscape drains
have been provided to the extent feasible, however they do not meet City standard 4’ separation in all locations. These are private
lines that will be maintained by the developer. These conditions occur throughout the City and function appropriately. If a standard 4’
separation is required to these small drains, it would remove dozens of trees, which is violates various land use codes.
18
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED:
I did not find this note (a) on the plans. If I missed it, please show me, otherwise
please add to the plans.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Water crossing comments:
a. Please note and label on the plans:
“In all cases where water is BELOW sewer or storm, the joints of the sewer or
storm shall be wrapped with butyl adhesive tape or encased within 10 -feet of
the water main.
In all cases where water is less than 18 -inches ABOVE the sewer or storm, the
joints of the sewer or storm shall be wrapped with butyl adhesive tape within
10-feet of the water main.”
b.Service connections, valves, and tees are not allowed within a lowered
section. Please revise the plans.
HKS Response: Note added to water plans, and called out in profile view, where applicable. Any service connections, valves, and
tees within a lowered section of pipe have been revised to no longer be within lowered portions of the main.
Comment Number: 14
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – Updated:
Updates on previous comments:
a. No answer yet on Redwood pond irrigation tap. I will let you know when we
have a direction forward here.
b. Addressed.
c. If you are intending to cross Suniga with a private irrigation line, this will
need to be coordinated with Engineering and permitted. This may require
approvals of easement owners for the ELCO and Greeley water transmission
mains in Suniga.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Irrigation Plan Comments:
a.We need to discuss how the Redwood Pond parcel will be irrigated, both for
temporary stabilization and also for permanent irrigation. Look for an updated
comment here in the future.
b.There is a private irrigation line crossing on to the City’s Redwood Pond
parcel, this needs to be relocated to the developer’s property.
c.The irrigation plan shows an irrigation line extending across Suniga Road,
south to Tract A. It should be discussed if this is necessary, and if so, how it
should be done. A 2nd irrigation tap may be required.
HKS Response: Irrigation tap is now shown crossing Suniga into Tract A through a sleeve. We are standing by on the Redwood
Pond irrigation tap – will revise as needed when direction is provided.
Comment Number: 25
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED:
Please try to reduce the number of sewer service cleanouts located in paving. It
is acceptable to have taps 2-feet apart on opposite sides of the sewer main.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Avoid having sewer cleanouts in drivable areas
19
HKS Response: Sewer cleanouts reduced at where possible. Services on opposite sides have been reduced to a min of 2’ where it
will reduce cleanouts in dirvable areaas.
Comment Number: 26
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Provide an overall water sheet
HKS Response: Overall water sheet has been added to set.
Comment Number: 27
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
At the Lupine Drive connection, there is a conflict between proposed
stormwater inlet and an existing hydrant. It appears the hydrant will need to be
relocated. Please review and revise.
HKS Response: Hydrant shown to be relocated to the other side of Lupine.
Comment Number: 28
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There is an existing water main located offsite, north of Bergen Parkway, that
will need to be abandoned and a new connection made to Mulein Drive. See
redlines for more information.
HKS Response: Existing main north of Bergen Parkway is now shown as to be abandoned, and a new connection to Mulein Drive is
shown. Per follow-up conversations with Matt, there is an existing irrigation meter and tap off of the main to be abandoned. The City
will be relocating the irrigation meter and tap to the existing water main in Redwood; prior to the main being abandoned.
Comment Number: 29
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are several water meters to relocate outside of the public utility
easements. In all cases the water meter locations must provide 4 -feet (min)
separation from adjacent structures.
HKS Response: Water meters have been relocated out of the public utility easement; a minimum of 4 -feet clearance is provided
from adjacent structures.
Comment Number: 30
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The pipe restraint calculations do not m eet Utilities requirements. See included
“CoFC Water - Pipe Joint Restraint Requirements” and update the calculations.
HKS Response: Pipe restraint calculations have been updated per CoFC standards & coordination with Matt.
Comment Number: 31
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
For the offsite sewer main, between Lemay and the Lake Canal ditch crossing,
the design needs to find a way to provide 0.2% slope. Here are the items we
want adjusted on the profile. Please make updates and send to m e directly for
review and response.
a.At A7 MH Drop- 10-inch PVC invert by 0.17’
b.Reduce steel casing from 16inch to 12. -provides 2-inches.
c.Reduce encasement from 6-inch cover to 4inch. provides- 2 inches.
d.No drops in intermediate manholes
e.Profile pipe run with constant slope from A11 to A7 MH
f.See redlines for more information (SS-2 and SS-3 sheets)
HKS Response: a. Invert at MH dropped .17’
b. Steel casing reduced from 16-inch to 12-inch
c. Cover will need to remain 6” per coordination with structural engineer.
d. Intermediate manholes providing no drop.
20
e. Pipes ran at a constant slope from MH A11 to MH A7
f. Noted, thank you.
Comment Number: 32
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The proposed box culvert crossing Lake Canal (northeastern most RCBC) may
not overlap with the proposed sewer main. 15 -feet separation (min.) must be
provided from sewer main (and encasement) to box culvert. We would accept
wing walls at 10-feet from sewer main encasement.
HKS Response: Northeastern-most culvert crossing has been removed and a pedestrian bridge is proposed. A minimum of 10 -feet
from pedestrian bridge structure to sewer is provided per more-recent direction from Matt.
Comment Number: 33
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Along the offsite sewer main, show the existing services to be connected to new
main. An interim plan will need to be put together to show how these homes will
remain in service during construction.
HKS Response: Previous survey efforts of locating the existing services (survey and test holes) did not provide all existing sewer
services – A video scope was performed to locate the existing sanitary service connection points and the plans have been updated
to reflect the reconnection of the existing sanitary services. Means/methods of construction will be provided by the GC.
Comment Number: 34
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please submit the offsite sewer easements (deed and exhibit), for the offsite
sewer main, for City review of legal boundaries and easement deed text.
HKS Response: Offsite sewer easements (both deed and exhibit) will be submitted under separate cover.
Comment Number: 35
03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
See redlines of the Utility Plans.
HKS Response: Please refer to response to redlined comments.
Comment Number: 36
03/17/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
I did not have time to review the water service sizing calculations or the
waste/wastewater report. I will look at these during review of the next submittal.
HKS Response: Per follow-ups, the water service sizing calculations were approved by Matt via email.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: Thank you for submitting revised
C-1 Forms. From Rnd1 to Rnd2 the new C-1 forms are calling for 200amp
services for all the dwelling units and apparently gas is not being installed on the
site. This will affect the size and/or number of transformers need to feed the site
and some of the locations planned. Also, the new C-1 Forms do not match the
original Oneline diagram submitted. Please update the -Oneline to match the-
new C1 Forms submitted-. Thanks.
11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Thank you for submitting C-1 Forms for this
round. That being said, the C-1 Forms need to be filled out differently and in full.
21
Have reached out to David Rigsby for clarification and sent an example C-1
Form also. Please contact me directly with any questions or to go over
completing the forms correctly.
DHI Response: Updated one-line drawing provided 3/24 to match revised C1 forms per previous email correspondence. Per email
conversation, those forms are still used for this submittal.
Comment Number: 2
03/06/2023: For Final Approval Updated-: Thank you for labeling the transformers.
11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Please label each transformer on the plan set
by XR1, XR2, etc.. This will make it easier when filling out and discussing C-1
forms and transformer locations.
HKS Response: Transformers labeled throughout the plan set.. Note that some transformers have been rearranged.
Comment Number: 3
03/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: There are still a few transformer
locations and electric routing that is not meet separation requirements from
other utilities. Please see Electric Redlines for reference and work with me
directly to figure out alternatives.
11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Thank you for showing tran sformer locations
on the plan set. A few of the locations will need adjustments to meet separation
requirements for crossings. Please work with me directly to firm up the locations
and electrical routing.
HKS Response: Electric has been shifted in locations where separation requirements were not met.
Comment Number: 4
03/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: Please reference Electric Redlines
for preliminary additional electrical routing, electric crossings, streetlights, and
additional vaults needed. This is preliminary as some of this may need to
change with the new loading information on the C-1 Forms and the elimination
of gas in the site. Please place this information on the plan set so other
departments can see this in their reviews. Thank you.
11/10/2022: For Final Approval: Light & Power is working on an electric layout
for the proposed transformer locations along with streetlighting. Once this is
complete, Light & Power will share this with the project team to have it placed
on the plan set.
HKS Response: Redlines for additional routing, and crossings have been added.
Comment Number: 5
03/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: HKS response "noted". Thank you.
Keeping this one active for further review.
11/10/2022: For Final Approval: The Developer will be responsible for payment
and acquisition of any ditch crossing agreements necessary for the Lake Canal
to bring electric infrastructure into the site and provide any sleeves necessary to
do so. Light & Power will need to cross the canal with 2 -4" & 2-2" conduits
each along Steely Dr. and along Lupine Dr. I didn't see any box culvert details or
bridge design but maybe I missed it. Please coordinate these crossings with
Light & Power.
HKS Response: Conduits added.
Comment Number: 6
03/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: Hydrants have been moved to
minimum 30" of back of curb. Light & Power will swing behind the hydrants by a
22
couple of feet if this is fine with Water?
11/14/2022: For Final Approval: Water would prefer electric go behind
proposed fire hydrants. Fire hydrants are shown at the back of the tree lawn.
Could the fire hydrants be moved closer to back of curb to allow more
separation for electric to go behind the proposed fire hydrants?
HKS Response: Electric is a minimum of 3’ behind hydrants.
Comment Number: 8
03/06/2023: For Final Approval: With the new electric load information
submitted this round, it will be necessary to set larger transformers for most of
the site. That being said, a few of the submersible transformers will not fit in the
vaults, therefore, they will need to be pad mounts and different locations will
need to be determined. Please see Electric Redlines for reference and work
directly with me to coordinate solutions.
HKS Response: Transformers have been upsized through the site per electric redlines.
Comment Number: 9
03/06/2023: For Final Approval: Most of the transformers along Comrie
(private drive) will need to be upsized to larger transformers for the increased
load. These are all proposed as pad mounts in the parkway but will need to be
relocated out of the parkway. A couple of them could be changed to
submersible type but the majority will need to move. Please see the Electric
Redlines for reference and work directly with me to coordinate new locations or solutions.
HKS Response: Transformers have been adjusted per electric redlines and follow-up meeting with Light&Power.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
03/06/2023: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND DCP ISSUANCE:
Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural Habitat
Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this project. A
security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development
Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to the FDP approval please provide an
estimate of the landscaping costs for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, including
materials, labor, monitoring for a minimum of three years, weed mitigation and
irrigation. We will then use the approved estimate to collect a security (bond or
escrow) at 125% of the total amount prior to the issuance of a Development
Construction Permit.
The applicant will be responsible for the success of Redwood Pond
revegetation and a security deposit will be required for the establishment
phase. Upon successful establishment, the City would then assume
responsibility of the pond. This relationship needs to be clarified with all
pertinent City departments and monumented in the Development Agreement.
DHI Response: Landscaping estimate to be provided with next submittal. Can the City provide their Development Agreement draft
or template with 3rd round review comments?
23
Comment Number: 5
03/06/2023: (UPDATED) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Lake Canal ditch
company must sign off on the new plans, including the Landscape Plan.
DHI Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6
03/06/2023: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Since active relocation or
trap and donating of prairie dogs was not utilized and prairie dogs were already
removed, a payment in lieu fee is 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/acre if CO/PERC methods are used. The
acreage should be equal to the orange ‘Potentially active prairie dog burrows’
polygon displayed in the ‘Prairie Dog Memo’. Proof of the removal methods and
the details of the removal effort (date, etc.) will need to be provided to the
Environmental Planner by the contractor who performed the euthanization.
DHI Response: Acknowledged, area of “potentially active prairie dog burrows” is approximately .25 acre.
Comment Number: 8
03/06/2023: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND DCP: Any seed mixes
applied to fulfill the Stockpile Permit requirements must be approved by the
Environmental Planner and seed tags provided prior to actual seeding.
Ripley Design Response: Seed mixes have been provided and reviewed offline by Environmental Planning
Comment Number: 10
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Several landscaping items need to be
addressed:
-All species used in NHBZs must be native. Multiple non -native species are
scattered throughout the NHBZs, especially the narrow northern NHBZ. There
will be a lot of landscaping changes in the narrow NHBZ strip on the north side
of the development (i.e., wood mulch, different species, etc.) and
-The use of Drummond’s willow (Salix drummondiana) has a wetland rating of
FACW. Several of the locations where it is displayed in dry upland areas needs
to be reconsidered;
-Several areas, in between Suniga and the southern detention basin for
example, show the Upland Seed Mix and other native, sun-loving flowers and
shrubs directly underneath tree cover. Alterations are needed to either thin the
shade or changes the species selection in these areas;
-Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis) is a short -lived perennial and is not
typically used as an ornamental grass. Its use should be reconsidered;
-Species to be planted in the northwestern rain garden must be specified;
-Consult the recommended species for the NHBZs and Redwood Pond in the
Restoration Plan.
Ripley Design Response: NHBZ planting are all native now, locations of Drummond's Willow have been altered, and Canada
Wildrye has been replaced.
Comment Number: 11
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The seed mixes and their locations
need to be better thought through. I highly recommend that the landscape
24
architect consult with the ECS contractor on these mixes. At a minimum, the
following points need to be addressed:
-The seed mixes specified detailed on the Landscape Plan do not match those
prescribed in the Restoration Plan. This must be rectified. The Restoration Plan
mixes should be used with the only exception being the Low Grow mix from the
Landscape Plan. The Low Grow mix or something similar can be used with
some alterations (namely the seeding rate – see below).
-The Low Grow Native Seed Mix is prescribed in several locations, both on the
site and the City-owned Redwood Detention Pond, and is detailed to be
seeded at a turf rate (218 lbs/PLS/ac), which is far, far too high for the intended
naturalistic condition and not sustainable over the long term without irrigation to
support it. This mix could be used at a lower rate or altered species -wise, but
the low growing part is very important for these areas. However it could be
appropriate at that rate in the central park area where the Upland seed mix is
currently prescribed;
-A specific seed mix must be designed for use over the stormtech chambers.
The gravel/squeegee/etc. material surrounding the chambers will essentially act
as a giant French drain that will direct water away from the chambers. A narrow
soil profile sits above the chambers and the resulting effect on the soil profile
will be hotter and drier than the surrounding soil profile. An appropriate seed
mix will likely resemble something more commonly seen in drier, hotter places,
like southwest Colorado, the Grand Junction area, or New Mexico. Consultation
with the ECS contractor is highly recommended.
Ripley Design Response: The seed mixes on the landscape plan have been updated to match those in the Restoration Plan. The
seed rate for the Low Grow mix has been altered to a much lower rate after discussion with Cedar Creek. A specific seed mix h as
been added for the area over the stormtech chambers designed for hot and dry conditions.
Comment Number: 12
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide a cross section of the
stormtech chamber in order to know how much soil will be above the chambers.
HKS Response: Cross sections of the chamber system are shown in the plan set for reference; please refer to sheet ST -47.
Comment Number: 13
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All areas of disturbance need to be
indicated on the Landscape Plan, and the seed mixes/methods that will be
needed to revegetate that disturbance. For example:
-The ‘Limits of Disturbance’ in the Landscape Plan does not indicate that the
inlet structures work distributing water into Redwood Pond will be
constructed/modified and will require disturbance;
-The permanent reinforcement on the western edge of the existing wetland;
-The sidewalk extension to Conifer St is being portrayed on the Utility Plan but
not the Landscape Plan.
Ripley Design Response: Limits of Construction (linetype ----LOC-----) is now shown on landscape plans
Comment Number: 14
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Redwood Pond design is very
close in Environmental Planning’s opinion. Some landscaping alterations are
needed (see the seed mix comment above), and please add some native tree
logs for habitat improvement throughout the pond. They will likely need to be
25
anchored in some way. Examples can be seen the large NECCO pond to the
south of the site.
Ripley Design Response: Seed mix alterations have been incorporated, and logs are added to the pond to enhance the natural
habitat.
Comment Number: 15
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please update note #7 in the Native
Seed Mix Notes to the following:
“AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED
STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS.
PLASTIC-BASED EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS (I.E.,
PLASTIC-WELDED BLANKETS) SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT
EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER AS
THESE MATERIALS HAVE PROVEN TO CAUSE WILDLIFE ENTRAPMENT
ISSUES.”
Ripley Design Response: Note has been updated.
Comment Number: 16
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Restoration Plan states that a
report will be submitted to the City by September 30th but the abbreviated
version on the Landscape Plan says October 30th. Please change the
Landscape Plan to reflect the Restoration Plan. Also note that shorter
reports/memos/communications may be necessary to ensure timely action is
taken for restoration and weed management activities.
Ripley Design Response: Landscape plan note has been updated to match the Restoration Plan.
Comment Number: 17
03/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Full restoration of Tract A is required
due to pipe installation and grading activities. Weed management (especially of
leafy spurge) and soil management is critical prior to construction and
restoration efforts. The prevalence of leafy spurge in Tract A makes the
spreading of the topsoil from one place to the other problematic without
planning and/or prior weed management.
Ripley Design Response: Weed management and restoration plans recommendations include Tract A
Department: Forestry
Contact: Christine Holtz, choltz@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/06/22 UNRESOVED
11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
There are numerous tree-utility separation issues on the landscape plan that
need to be addressed. See forestry redlines, though there may be some that I
missed. Keep in mind the following separation requirements:
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
Ripley Design Response: Separations have been confirmed, with exception to small private landscape drains (mostly in front of
26
units) per previous comment responses.
Comment Number: 5
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
With the installation of the stormwater utility at the southwest corner of the
development (tract A) what are the impacts to existing trees? Please show the
critical root zones of all of these trees on the landscape plan, site plan, and utility plan.
Ripley Design Response: Critical root zones are shown on site and landscape plans. The proposed stormwater line will encroach on
several critical root zones, so those trees have been updated on the tree mitigation plan to be removed
HKS Response: Critical root zones are now shown on the Tract A utility plans (NECCO A3 lines)
Comment Number: 6
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
In tract A there are existing trees that are not shown on the landscape plan (L30)
or site plan (L14). They are only shown on the tree mitigation page (site plan
L15). Please add them to the other plans, and add the critical root zone.
Ripley Design Response: Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Tree Mitigation plan now all show the same trees
Comment Number: 7
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
There are approximately 38 trees proposed in the ditch easement. The ditch
company requires that no trees or shrubs are planted within 15 ft on the uphill
side and 35 ft on the downhill side of the ditch. Please shift the location of these
trees.
Ripley Design Response: Per other comments from Lake Canal, all proposed plantings have been removed within the ditch
easement.
Comment Number: 8
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
There are a few more species replacements that are needed in your planting
schedule. Unfortunately Rocky Mountain Maple does not survive at these
elevations—they do not tolerate our soil. You can increase one of the other
ornamental tree numbers to make up for the 8 Rocky Mountain maples.
Additionally, please replace patriot elms with choice city elm, or triumph elm.
Patriot elms are extremely susceptible to European elm scale.
Ripley Design Response: Rocky mountain maples and patriot elms have been replaced.
Comment Number: 9
03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
How are the landscape drains constructed? To ensure that trees are not
damaged when maintenance is needed on these drains, and to follow standard
separation requirements please ensure 6 feet separation from trees.
Ripley Design Response: These are small private lines which will be maintained by the developer. Historically these have not been
required to meet separation requirements. These drains and lines occur in close proximity to landscape throughout the City without
issues. If standard separations are required, dozens of trees will need to be removed from the plan (specifically in front of units)
which undermines various land use codes and design intent of a tree lined neighborhood.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Missy Nelson, mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
27
03/07/2023: INFORMATION: Both Park Planning & Development and Parks
department comments will be provided by Missy Nelson | mnelson@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 2
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Continue regional trail as shown on
redlines and add the necessary trail and public access easements to plat.
Ripley Design Response: Trail design and alignment now represents what was discussed and agreed upon during an offline
charrette with Park Planning Department.
Comment Number: 3
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Need cross-section view of trail (all the
line work makes it difficult to see what exactly is happening).
Ripley Design Response: Section has been provided to Park Planning offline for coordination while updating trail design.
Comment Number: 4
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A regional trail is a wonderful amenity
for this project and one of the community's top most important outdoor facilities!
Thank you for working on getting a route through your site. However, this
section of regional trail needs a little more work. Think of the us er experience,
as well as the residents' experience. This is a regional recreational trail, not just
a means to get from point A to point B. Please provide a landscape buffer and meander the trail.
Ripley Design Response: Trail design and alignment now represents what was discussed and agreed upon during an offline
charrette with Park Planning Department.
Comment Number: 5
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please confirm ground cover between
trail and internal sidewalk is grass (cannot be rock cobble). The edges of the
paved trails should have a minimum 3 feet of horizontal clearance from vertical
obstructions so the wall directly adjacent to the trail is not acceptable. The
gravel path should also have 3 feet of horizontal clearance on both sides.
Ripley Design Response: Landscape is now provided between the wall and the trail with wood mulch, shrubs and trees.
Comment Number: 6
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL/INFORMATION: Landscaping 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 surface.
Ripley Design Response: Comment 7 below indicates the City Parks dept will maintain the trail. Please clarify whether or not that
includes landscape within the trail easement.
Comment Number: 7
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add notes to the site plan that
developer is building the regional trail. The City Parks department will maintain.
Ripley Design Response: Notes Added.
Please also add a page showing the trail details, including: trail thickness, fiber
mesh, yosemite brown color, heavy broom finish. Please note, Park Planning
and development is working on a standard detail, but your trail is wider and
therefore thicker than what our standard detail will look like. We are happy to
share the CAD file once complete if you would like.
HKS Response: Draft of standard detail is included within the plan set, and will be revised as Park Planning and Development
revise/issue. Note that the trail is no longer wide and thicker than what the standard follows as coordination of maintenance paths
28
with WW have removed the maintenance requirement of the trail since the previous submittal.
Comment Number: 8
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: As trail width changes, please call out
on plans (all plan sets that depict the trail)
Ripley Design Response: Sheets that depict trail have been dimensioned.
HKS Response: Trail width changes have been detailed on trail plan and profiles. They are also shown through the plan set.
Comment Number: 9
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Be consistent with labels, ex: “public
access and trail easement” through the plan sets.
Ripley Design Response: Labels checked for consistency and changed.
HKS Response: Public access and trail easement is called out consistently throughout the plan set.
Comment Number: 10
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide detail for the pedestrian
bridge on northern portion of property? Need details & specifications, no
kickplate (plowing issue for Parks) and preferred concrete, not wood). Please
note, the bridge needs to be rated for a 10,000 lb vehicle, minimum 10' wide,
and railing height of 52".
HKS Response: Pedestrian bridge called out, and reference to structural plans has been made.
Comment Number: 11
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Add details so that civil, site and
landscape are consistent. For example, the civil plans show a fence between
paved trail and internal sidewalk, but not shown on others. The requested
section in previous comment view will also help clarify what is happening.
Also, add off-site details to all of the above plan sets. Where is top of bank?
Where is centerline of ditch, where do the regional trails connect off -site?
Ripley Design Response: Section has been provided to Park Planning offline for coor dination while updating trail design which
shows these types of details. Centerline of ditch and ditch easement has been shown in red on site and landscape plans for cl arity
now.
HKS Response: Details showing where the regional trail connect to offsite hav e been added to civil plans.
Comment Number: 12
03/07/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please add note to the landscape
plans that the public right-of-way landscaping along E. Suniga Rd. will be
maintained and watered in perpetuity by the HOA/adjacent property owner.
Ripley Design Response: Note added been to Landscape Notes.
Comment Number: 13
03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Grading within the designated 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.
HKS Response: Trail profiles and cross sections have been added to the construction document set.
Comment Number: 14
03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Regional trail details, cross-sections,
etc., including pedestrian bridge details, cross-sections, elevations, need to be
together as a separate section of pages in the civil set. Please make sure
those pages are referenced and noted on the site plan.
29
HKS Response: Regional trail details and cross-sections have been added to the civil plan set. Final pedestrian bridge design will
be provided by a structural engineer. The utility plan sets call out the pe destrian bridge, and to see structural plans for details
through the plan set.
Comment Number: 15
03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please add the public access and trail
easement across to align with the Northfield project (northern pedestria n bridge).
HKS Response: Public access and trail easement extended along northern pedestrian bridge.
Comment Number: 16
03/09/2023: Please note: I made notes on the site plan that also apply to other
docs. For example, I point out the areas that need the Public Access and Trail
Easement which need to be also dedicated via the plat.
HKS Response: Acknowledged
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/06/2023: Note 17 on the site plan cover sheet, has not been updated.
PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING
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.
Site plan indicates building numbers will have a minimum of six -inch numerals-.
This shall be changed to minimum of eight -inch- numerals.
Ripley Design Response: Sheets have been updated to eight-inch numerals.
DHI Response: Acknowledged, details showing 8” numerals to be provided at time of building permit submittal.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Lauren Wade, 970-302-5962, lwade@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/24/2023: GIS: Street names need to be reviewed. Many of the private street
30
names are not necessary with the exception of Bratcher Lane, Coutts
Drive/Patton Court (chose one, this is a continuous road), and Graham Drive.
These are necessary for addressing the structures that face an open space,
rather than a road.
Ripley Design Response: Noted, Bratcher Lane, Coutts Drive and Graham Drive remain and all other ancillary private drive name s
have been removed.
Comment Number: 2
02/24/2023: GIS: Lupine Dr continues until the 45+ degree turn to Collamer
Drive. Correct this on the plan. Steely Drive continues north past Lupine until the
90 degree turn to Comrie Dr. Please assign a name to Comrie Drive where it
intersects Collamer Dr on the plans. Due to the 90+ degree change in street
direction, a new street is designated.
Ripley Design Response: Comrie is a private drive while Collamer and St eely are public. In order to help designate this separation
we have proposed to name it Comrie Circle. In addition, Lupine no longer connects to Collamer via right -of-way so Lupine
designation will end and Collamer will ben 90 degrees into Steely.
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
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 Colo rado
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.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, see local amen dment.
· This building is located within 250ft of a 4 lane road or 1000 ft of an active
31
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.
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/res-requirements.php.
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.
DHI Response: Acknowledged, pre-submittal meeting requested 9/13/23 and held on 9/15/23, please see attached meeting minutes
for reference. Pending DRC approval for Building Department submittal release, Russ would you like to review the project again for
continuity.
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11/18/2022: FOR FINAL
The spelling of Steeley Drive has been corrected/changed to Steely Drive and
is recorded with Larimer County. Please update all documents to reflect this
change. Thank you.
HKS Response: Noted. All instances of Steeley Drive will be changed to Steely.
Ripley Design Response: All instances of Steely have been changed.
DHI Response: Acknowledged.
32
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 5
03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
This has not been addressed.
11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please note that the legal description will need to be revised, as the Subdivision
Plat legal description will need to be corrected.
HKS Response: Legal description on Civil CD cover has been revised per plat legal description revisions.
Comment Number: 6
03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please revise the equation as marked up. See redlines.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the
EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’.
HKS Response: Benchmark has been updated per the requested format.
Comment Number: 8
03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
HKS Response: Noted. Please refer to response to redlined comments for resolution.
Comment Number: 10
03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
33
There are text over text issues. See redlines.
11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are text over text issues. See redlines.
HKS Response: Noted. Please refer to response to redlined comments for resolution.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11
11/15/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
ROW VACATION: The legal description & sketch will be reviewed next round.
HKS Response: Noted; revised vacation documents have been submitted under separate cover.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 13
03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
IRRIGATION PLANS: There are matchline issues. Sheet I-200 does not match
what is shown on the actual sheets.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
03/07/2023: 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. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
11/14/2022: 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. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
HKS Response: Noted. Changes will be made where marked, if we cannot make the change or disagree we will comment the
reason why. Please refer to redlined responses.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2
03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
This has not been addressed.
11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please note that the legal description will need to be revised, as the Subdivision
Plat legal description will need to be corrected.
Ripley Design Response: Legal description has been updated.
Comment Number: 3
34
03/08/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UNRESOLVED:
This has not been addressed.
11/14/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are matchline issues. See redlines.
Ripley Design Response: Match line issues are now resolved.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Melissa Buick, melissahbuick@gmail.com,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Lake Canal Company of Colorado
Melissa provided the Information Request Form to Aaron directly:
Hello Aaron, good to hear from you. Please send the plans, a list of ditch
crossings for the project and the completed Information Request Form
(attached) for each of the ditch crossings. Once we have this information, we
can determine if an engineering review is required, the number of agreements
needed and the crossing fees. Upon receipt of the fees, and approval of the
plans, the agreements can be drafted.
DHI Response: Ditch crossing applications have been submitted as required and will be re submitted with the next submittal with
Todd Sulivan Cc’d on all correspondence.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/21/2023: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
DHI Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
02/21/2023: The submitted preliminary irrigation plans look good. Please add
irrigation details to the irrigation plan identifying individual zone locations, flow
rates, details and design criteria. Irrigation must comply with the provisions
outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning
irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Ripley Design Response: Additional detail on irrigation plans will be provided on the next submittal.