Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - FDP220014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 5 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 1 of 24 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 September 17, 2023 Klara Rossouw Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Enclave at Redwood, FDP220014, Round Number 4 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 your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Comment responses: Ripley Design  HKS    DHI Irrigation Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan tsullivan@fcgov.com 970-221-6695 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 Page 2 of 24 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: Comment letter populated and submitted with this round of review.  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 drives, 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-AutoCAD.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.  Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes cmapes@fcgov.com 970-221-6225 Topic: General Comment Number: 7 07/11/2023: ALTERNATIVE LUPINE CONNECTION: This needs fundamental discussion at the meeting. 1) I was surprised to see a vehicular connection. I thought we might see a hammerhead turnaround there. There certainly are Page 3 of 24 benefits to the connection...but would you explain that? For confirmation and agreement at the meeting. 2) The concept for pedestrians does not look acceptable -- walkways should simply continue and connect to Lupine's sidewalks. The concept shown is for people walking to simply share the little drive connection via the asphalt on Lupine - is that right? 3) Plan drafting: the site and utility plans should show the nearby context of the two closest driveways, sidewalks, and maybe the two closest houses on Lupine, as part of showing how the whole alternative connection is made. 3) The site and utility plan drawings should match in showing concrete and "drive surface" - presumably asphalt? That's a minor point, just drafting and labeling. Ripley Design Response: Site plans have been updated to show nearby context, and surfacing has been coordinated. The overall design of Lupine has been amended to show the walks coming straight off the existing ones at lupine now. The overall design became more linear to assure emergency vehicle access. Comment Number: 8 08/18/2023: On the site plan and plat, LABEL the private streets as PRIVATE STREET TO BE MAINTAINED BY OWNER(S) Ripley Design Response: All private street labels, (Coutts drive, Graham Dirve, and Comrie circle), have been updated to reflect. Comment Number: 9 07/12/2023: Do you have an idea for address signs at the walkway spines, e.g for units with Coutts addresses? Ripley Design Response: The building addresses will be posted on the building on the alley side and front side. Pedestrian connections to the front from the alley were approved in PDP instead of person doors in the rear. Comment Number: 10 09/12/2023: Confirm at the meeting: asphalt and concrete shown differently on different plans. Doesn't really matter except maybe at the Lupine connection where a walkway crosses the n-s "alley". Ripley Design Response: Surfacing at lupine connection has been correlated to reflect the same as civil plans. Comment Number: 11 09/12/2023: NEW COMMENT/QUESTION: Walkways between buildings: 16-17, 22-25, 1112. It looks like it would be GREAT to get little -cutthrough- walkways, maybe with little decorative picket fences to complement the landscaping. Understood this is a late observation... Ripley Design Response: Thanks Clark! While little decorative picket fences would greatly complement the landscaping, the design team has chosen the keep walkways between buildings as turf as we’d like to keep hardscape to a minimum in spaces that we can and find that Turf instead of shrub beds in these areas provide the option of circulation as well as recreation. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham sbuckingham@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 27 09/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: The legal description and sketch for the right-of-way vacation need revisions. Please make the changes and resubmit the legal description and sketch with the next round of review. HKS Response: Right-of-way vacations have since been submitted separately and passed the first reading by City Council on 12/5. The second reading is scheduled for 12/19. Page 4 of 24 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. Comment Number: 28 09/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Are there any updates on the status of the crossing agreement? DHI Response: The crossing agreement is now handled with the Ditch FDP and should be sent to the City today. 06/28/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: When you have a draft of the crossing agreement with Lake Canal, please provide it to City staff so that the City Attorney's Office can review it. The City will need to be a party to the agreement as future right-of-way is involved. The crossing agreement will not be part of the Development Agreement, but Lake Canal will need to sign the plat and utility plans for the project. Comment Number: 29 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: The entire box culvert structure needs to be within public right-of-way. The City will not accept a structure that is partially within right-of-way and partially on private property. If you are not able to obtain offsite right -of-way dedication from Northfield, you can redesign the box culverts so that the parapet walls are tucked in and the box culvert footprint is smaller, so that it fits within the standard right-ofway width. But if you want to use the currently proposed design, you’ll -qs need to prepare additional right-of-way dedication and have it signed by Northfield. 06/29/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Additional right-of-way is needed from the Northfield property to support the proposed box culvert design. Please coordinate with the Northfield property owner. With the next round, please submit right-of-way dedication fees, legal descriptions, sketches, and closure reports. HKS Response: Box culverts are now apart of FDP230021 and have been removed from this plan set. Comment Number: 30 09/12/2023: INFORMATION: City staff recently became aware that the Lake Canal box culvert under Suniga Road does not rate for the loads it was designed for. We are working to determine whether the structure needs to be posted as weight limited. Please keep this in mind if it will impact haul routes for construction of this project. DHI Response: Thank you. We will notify our construction team and take this into consideration for the haul routes. Comment Number: 31 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Thank you for showing a pedestrian ramp at the Lupine connection. Please confirm that the ramp location will not be in conflict with emergency vehicles or other large vehicles that are unable to turn around in the Lupine dead-end and need to use the connection. HKS Response: Ramp location has been shifted to not be in conflict with emergency or other large vehicles. Ripley Design Response: Turning exhibits have been presented to PFA and shall not conflict with emergency vehicle access. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist sgilchrist@fcgov.com 970-224-6175 Page 5 of 24 Topic: General Comment Number: 5 09/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATED: A few minor changes to the Signing and Striping have been made in the Utility Plan mark-ups for the Lupine connection, and a street name sign that was not identified as privately maintained. Please reach out if you have questions. 07/07/2023: An additional No Outlet sign will be needed for eastbound traffic on Lupine at the corner of Redwood for traffic coming straight from the west. The Dead End sign is not the appropriate sign for the end of Lupine. Will need to look at this area closer. Object markers will be needed to delineate the end of roadway/sidewalks. 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: Signage plan has been revised per the Utility Plan markups; please refer to response to redlined comments. Comment Number: 12 09/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL/INFORMATION: I have crossed off the No Outlet sign for WB traffic as it approached the Lupine connection. Since the alley turns and makes a connection to Bergen, the No Outlet sign would not be applicable. A No Outlet is used to identify a street with no other access than than the current access where it is placed. If a sign is wanted to help deter traffic from using this Lupine connection over to Redwood, I would suggest the use of a Not A Through Street sign. This is a custom sign (not in the MUTCD) that the City uses on occasion. HKS Response: No outlet sign has been removed; thank you for the suggestion. Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control Contact: Andrew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 76 07/03/2023: Accepted: Thank you for providing the requested erosion control plans, report and escrow calculation. All submitted erosion materials are accepted. You will be notified via email with instructions to submit fees and escrow along with the required forms. This email will also have instructions for requesting an initial erosion control inspection when you are ready you start your project. If the nature, scope, size or design of this projects deviates from the submitted materials updated Erosion Control Plans, Report and Escrow calculation may be requested as well as a recalculation of Erosion Control and Stormwater inspection fees. HKS Response Comment noted, thank you! Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson masimpson@fcgov.com (970) 416-2754 Page 6 of 24 Topic: General Comment Number: 41 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: - The Pond 3 overflow needs to show up clearly on plan sheets. This means linework with labeling. See redlines on sheets C-32, C-37, ST-34, ST-45 for more information. - The Redwood Pond overflow needs to be labeled on sheet ST-34, 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: The pond overflow location for Pond 3 is not clear on the grading plans. Please review redlines and revise. 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 Pond 3 Overflow has been labeled and clarified on all plan sheets where it is shown. The path is directed toward public ROW. A flush curb has been added to delineate the spillway crest and a cross section and profile has been created on the Pond Detail sheets. Calculations have been added to the drainage report for all spillways. Comment Number: 51 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 building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-anddevelopers/-plant-investment-developmentfees- 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: Understood. Thank you. Comment Number: 55 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: The Utility Plans were not thoroughly bookmarked. This sheet set is 199 pages and is difficult to navigate w/o bookmarks throughout. This adds to review time and reduces my effectiveness at providing thorough reviews. Please check this before resubmitting. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: Page 7 of 24 Please add compete bookmarks to the Utility Plan PDF. This sheet set is 197 pages and is difficult to navigate w/o bookmarks throughout. 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: It would help if the Utility Plan PDF and Drainage Report PDF were bookmarked. HKS Response: Drainage report and plans have been bookmarked. Comment Number: 59 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - NOT ADDRESSED: Follow up on sump overtopping locations (comments 39 and 59) – The updated information confirms that there may be 9 buildings that are below overtopping elevations of sumped areas and are not adequately safe from flooding if street inlets were to clog. Please review redlines and recent email for more information. Please A) clarify the design for me if I am mistaken, or B) adjust design to provide 1-foot freeboard from minimum overtopping elevation of adjacent sumped areas to building FFE. (Buildings 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18) 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - NOT ADDRESSED: The “sump inlet location arrows” are not accurately located to reflect the location and elevation of primary surface flow paths (or overflow paths). As such there are several buildings elevations I am concerned about onsite, as well as existing homes on the west side of the site. I would like you to confirm that onsite and adjacent offsite structures are adequately safe from flooding in the event of an inlet clog. I have provided an additional redline PDF showing 5 locations on the site where it appears an internal sump has been created. Please review the grading and identify the minimum overtopping location and elevation for each internal sump area. Confirm that all adjacent structures are adequately safe from flooding. See redlines for more information. Sheet St -32 03/17/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On the plans the lowestovertopping location and elevation for all sumped - inlets needs to be identified. HKS Response: Grading has been updated per emails with Matt regarding the understanding of sump overtopping requirements. Additionally, an exhibit showing the minimum overtopping elevation and associated finished floor and inlets is included in the drainage report. Comment Number: 68 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: HKS Response: “Updated groundwater readings have been included.” Please point me to these or provide. I did not find updated groundwater readings in the drainage report or elsewhere. **I know some updated emails have been sent on this. I have not been able to read and review them. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: I have seen your response. Please provide updated groundwater levels with the next submittal. JulySeptember- are the high groundwater months during the year. 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: Updated groundwater readings have been provided in the drainage report, Appendix A. This includes all data from all geotechnical Page 8 of 24 groundwater tests performed on site. Comment Number: 71 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: HKS Response: "A temporary construction easement has been provided for the Redwood Pond parcel and the channel disturbance.” Please point me to these or provide. I did not find these in the submitted documents. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: A temporary construction easement (TCE) will be needed for the full Redwood Pond parcel and for any areas to be disturbed in the adjacent Redwood Channel parcel. Please draft these TCEs and send them to use for review. These will need City Council approval. I do not foresee any issues here, mainly a formality. 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: At the direction of the City, a tract has been conveyed to to the City in the plans and plat for the Redwood Pond emergency spillway area. Comment Number: 76 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: e.Thank you for the recent design discussions about the offsite flows from Meadows at Redwood. Since an overtopping flow path is not available, below the FFE of the adjacent houses, please update the plans with the redundant overflow inlets that we discussed. See redlines for more information. f.I did not find the requested swale profile in the updated plan set. Please send an exhibit to me over email. g.We want the storm drain lines laterals west of the A2 main reconfigured. The northern 2 pipes and inlets will become public storm pipes (City will maintain). See redline on Sheet ST-5 for more information. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Follow up on previous Krick Drive swale comments and offsite flows from Meadows at Redwood. Please provide me with more information showing that the proposed design can adequately convey the 100 -yr offsite flows from the west of the site. Specific items of interest are: a.Provide flow calcs, inlet calcs, and pipe analysis for this drainage system (west of Krick Drive and north of Bergen Parkway). Show that this system can safely convey the 100-yr onsite and offsite flows collected by these inlets and pipe system. b.Provide a swale profile and pipe profile. c.Identify the lowest surface overflow elevation along the flow path and confirm this provides adequate protection from flooding for the existing houses to the west. d.Side note: the offsite flows, from Meadows at Redwood, do not need to be detained or treated by this development and may be directly connected to the A2 storm main. HKS Response: A swale profile has been provided as an exhibit in the drainage report, Appendix G. This has been sent via email in the past, with updates completed based on interim comments. FFEs for adjacent houses have been provided. 100 -year water surface elevations at inlets have been provided. The profile and plan show that the staged flow stays on the Enclave property. Redundant inlets have been provided in reasonable l ocations to provide adequate flood mitigation. Comment Number: 80 Page 9 of 24 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED: Upon further review, the Stormwater department does not like the proposed inlet and storm drain configuration at the east end of Lupine Dr. Concerns are likely potential for clogging and street maintenance problems. Stormwater wants Type R inlets (open curb throat) in the curbline at the end of the road. We do not want a grate-only inlet in the roadway to intercept 100-yr flows. These could be configured in 3 ways: a) “Squared off” curbline with inlets in both corners, perpendicular to roadway. The access drive will need to be adjusted. b) “Rounded” curbline (street extended east and rounded) with 1 inlet in the center low point. c) “Extend Roadway” and place inlets in normal sumped configuration, parallel to roadway. See redlines for more information. Please send updated concept(s) to me for review before the next submittal. HKS Response: Per emails and meetings, the Lupine connection has been adjusted and incorporated into this submittal. The ROW of Lupine has been extended on-site, with two curb inlets in the normal parallel configuration. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: At the east end of Lupine Drive, the proposed stormwater inlets are conflicting with the existing driveways, the site design will need to be revised to resolve this. Please also show where surface overflows will proceed to from these inlets in the event of a plugged inlet. HKS Response: Per emails and meetings, the Lupine connection has been adjusted and incorporated into this submittal. The ROW of Lupine has been extended on-site, with two curb inlets in the normal parallel configuration. Comment Number: 83 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: The pipe size of NA3-D system was not updated. This pipe should be 24-inch diameter to match the equivalent capacity of upstream twin pipes. Please revise to 24-inch or present additional information. **New Written Comment – Please realign NA3-D to the location shown in the redlines. This is a follow-up on previous redline comments. City does not want a storm pipe running along the public UT easement. This alignment and profile will need to be evaluated. **New Written Comment – There are issues with the invert elevations in NECCO Manhole A37 on Sheet ST-37. Wondering if it is possible to remove this MH and reconnect to upstream MH? Please see redlines. ***Additional Comment*** - I think there are multiple issues with the storm configuration at the south end of the A3 main. It may be most efficient to have a design meeting with City staff to talk through the objectives and constraints. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A3 Storm Main - Thank you for providing more design information for the connection of existing Redwood Street storm crossing to the A3 main (located at SW corner of site, on Tract A). Regarding storm line NA3 -D, will an 18-inch pipe be sufficient to convey these flows? Our data shows the incoming pipes are (1) 18-inch RCP and (1) 23”x14” HERCP. An equivalent capacity single pipe would be 24-inch diameter. Please provide calculation and evaluation of the capacity of this drainage improvement. A calculation showing matching capacity is acceptable. See comments on Sheets C-10 and ST-7. Page 10 of 24 HKS Response: Per previous discussion with Matt, we tried a few different options for this area related to conveyance of the culvert flows. The duct ban k in this area is shallow, a few inches higher than the outlet of the culverts. Due to the conflict, we have revised the design to connect to existing manhole NECCO- A38. The solution avoids any disturbance of infrastructure in the duct bank area, and allows the culvert flows to be adequate ly conveyed to the NECCO-A3 line. Comment Number: 84 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: This comment does not appear to have been addressed. Please see redlines and let me know if you have any questions about how to address this comment. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Maintenance access to two A2 storm main manholes, just north of Suniga Road, needs to be provided. I know there have been several changes occurring between rounds with the concrete paths/ trails and the storm lines. We still need 40T, 15feet wide, access provided to these manholes. -See redlines for more information. (Sheet R-36) HKS Response: A 15-foot maintenance access has been provided and detailed and dimensioned on the plan set. Comment Number: 86 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – NOT ADDRESSED: “HKS Response: Wetland boundaries have been adequately shown and labeled on the drainage maps." This comment does not appear to have been addressed. I am unable to find wetland boundaries shown and labeled on the drainage maps. Please point me to them or add and label. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Existing wetlands do need to be depicted on the drainage maps (according to criteria). Please check and confirm they are being adequately shown. HKS Response: Wetland boundaries have now been labeled on the Final Drainage Plan. See sheets ST-41 and ST-42. Comment Number: 89 09/12/2023: FOR INFORMATION UPDATED: We need to start discussing items and quantities to go into the repay. Please send to me an exhibit highlighting the repay items and a tabulation of quantities. HKS Response: Noted, the applicant team will continue working with Matt and the City on the repay. 07/06/2023: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The Development Agreement will need to include provisions for the developer repay for the A2 storm main, A3 storm main, and Redwood Pond (landscaping only). To start on this, we need you to provide an engineer’s cost estimate with line items and quantities for our review. The City’s developer repay process will need to be followed, which will include obtaining 3 competitive and qualified bids for these items. The low bid contractor does not have to be selected, but sets the price for what the City will reimburse. We can discuss this further with you. Comment Number: 91 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: SWMM modeling comments – I provided updated SWMM comments over email on 8/29, 9/14, and 9/15 for recent comments. Let’s keep working directly over email, outside of the formal process, to wrap this up. I think this is getting close. HKS Response: The SWMM model is being resubmitted with this package for final approval. After many interim reviews we have made changes to the Redwood Pond outlet structure, the UD2 outlet structure (faulty “weir” link), the catchment areas and imperviousness, Page 11 of 24 Comment Number: 92 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Follow up on comment 39 (inlet sizing results) – The inlet sizing results in the drainage report show that 2 locations do not meet street depth or spread (street capacity) criteria. Please refer to the drainage report and UT plans redlines for more information. Larger inlets at these 2 locations may be necessary. HKS Response: Inlet capacity has been clarified. The 2 inlets in question have been upsized and added to the plans. Inlet sizing calculatio ns also now reflect the west edge sump inlets and internal sumps. Comment Number: 93 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please review and confirm if Class III RCP is appropriate for the NECCO A2 Main based on the depth of the pipe or if the RCP rating should be increased to IV or V. HKS Response: LRFD fill height tables from the American Concrete Pipe Association have been included in the drainage report to show that the pipe class is adequate as specified. Comment Number: 94 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Provide more detail and information about the Mullein Drive flows that enter this site. How much area is draining to the end of the Mullein roadway. These flows need to be conveyed into a drainage system in a non-erosive manner. Please review and confirm there is a clean flow path for flows leaving these curb gutters. HKS Response: The Mullein drive basins have been updated. At the south end of Mullein Drive, it was found that flows travel north based on the existing surveyed surface. We have provided slope arrows on the Final Drainage Plan to show the drainage pattern in this area. The area west of Mullein drive flows direct to the Redwood St. ROW. Comment Number: 95 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Pavement design: a) Confirm the paving design for all onsite alleys with public storm or public sewer can support 40T. Revise plans accordingly. b) Provide a pavement cross section for the A3 access path. This may be gravel, but must support 40 tons. HKS Response: Paving plan has been revised to note the public storm and sewer alleys that will be required to support 40 -tons. The final pavement design will come from the geotechnical engineer. Comment Number: 96 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All walls over 48-inch height, and related to any drainage facilities, will require a railing at the top. Other departments (such as Building and Engineering) may also have requirements. Please review and add to plans. Specifically, walls in Pond 1, Pond 3, and along Private Alley B (Krick Drive swale) appear to be tall. HKS Response: All walls will have fall protection on the top of the wall, and is shown throughout the plans. Details are prov ided on the landscape plans. Private Alley B will have a fence on top of the wall, in lieu of a rail. Comment Number: 97 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Overflow spillway crests need to have a hardened surface defining the crest Page 12 of 24 location. Often this is accomplished with a flush concrete curb. Pond 3 appears to be lacking a hardened crest delineator. Please review plans and add this or explain. HKS Response: A hardened crest delineator has been added to the Pond 3 spillway crest. The hardened crest for Pond 1 is the top of the retaining wall. The hardened crest for Redwood Pond is the thickened edge on the north side of the sidewalk. Comment Number: 98 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Use the City of Fort Collins standard outlet detail for Pond 1 and Pond 3 outlet structures. It appears these were removed with this submittal and replaced with a custom detail. HKS Response: The Fort Collins detail D-46 has been added back to the plans. Since the ponds do not have a WQCV, the custom detail will remain to show any differences between the standard detail and the proposed solution. Water quality related features have been crossed out in the standard detail. Comment Number: 99 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The flow rates for the A2 main labeled on the plans are confusing. Please review and revise or explain. The SWMM model (July version that I reviewed) is showing about 50cfs. See redlines of A2 profiles. HKS Response: SWMM model flows for the NECCO-A2 and A3 lines have been pulled directly from the SWMM model and added to the plans. Please see that these match the most recent update of the SWMM model. Comment Number: 100 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Drainage easement comments: a)A public drainage easement will be required along the flow path for offsite flows entering the Enclave site from the Redwood Meadows subdivision. This includes both surface flow paths and pipe alignments. Please add to UT plans and Plat. b)A special drainage easement for the Redwood Pond overflow, located on developer property, will need to be defined and dedicated. This will need further followup - on my part. Please define the easement on the plat and I will supply more information. c)Drainage easements should be shown and correctly labeled on the utility plans. These should match the plat. Please use the term “drainage easement” and not “storm easement”. Review utility plans and update. HKS Response: A. A drainage easement is provided for the eastern property line where Redwood Meadows flows are entering the Site; B. Per follow-up conversations, a tract is now provided for the Redwood Pond overflow; C. Plans have been revised throughout to correctly reference the drainage easement. Comment Number: 101 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Redwood pond comments – based on 9/15/23 internal design meeting – thank you for your patience! a)Pond volume – it is possible that with the final iteration of the SWMM model, the required pond volume may end up being slightly higher than the grading volume at the spillway crest. Once these values are finalized, we will need to touchbase. However, we would rather that the pond grading need no further revision for volume reasons. We will most likely write a variance allowing for a small overlap between water quality volumes and 100 -year detention volumes. b)The “northern berm” next to the inlet channel is too thin in width. See redlines. Page 13 of 24 c)The overflow spillway should not have heavy vegetation – such as trees or shrubs. Dense grass is preferred. Please see redlines and let me know if you have questions. d)Provide more detail on the design of the pond overflow. Specifically: Provide the overflow velocity and spec a TRM to match. Provide a detail for installation of the TRM. This should include how it is anchored or toed-in on upstream and downstream edges. e)The measured groundwater depths appear to be at the pond invert near the outlet structure. We are concerned about the potential for exposed groundwater. As such, the developer will need to design an underdrain system to hold the groundwater elevation to a maximum of 12-inches below the pond bottom. f)On our end we need to finalize the permanent irrigation tap for Redwood Pond. This will be for irrigation of trees only. Please design a “tree -only” irrigation system for the City pond parcel. Can the service and meter size for this be reduced to 1-inch? g)The City wants to reduce the amount of shrubs and trees on the Redwood Pond parcel. Planning (Clark Mapes) and Environmental Planning (Scott Benton) will provide a markup on this for guidance. HKS Response: we have touched base after the finalization of the Redwood Pond volume. The “northern berm” has been thickened and raised. A detail for TRM has been provided in the storm detail sheets. The detail shows anchors for the mat. Groundwater information has been conveyed to the city of fort Collins and subsequent design iterations have been submitted. The solution was to keep the pond invert as high as possible, and const ruct underdrains for the groundwater in the area, keeping in mind that groundwater measurements broke records this year. Ripley Design Response: The overflow spillway has been amended to be only dense grass, no shrubs. Trees and shrubs have been removed based on redline guidance. Irrigation Response: A permanent “tree only” irrigation system will be designed for the Redwood pond. 1” size is noted. Comment Number: 102 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Regarding the northwest rain garden: a)Add a forebay at the bottom of slope on the rundown entering the pond. (see redline of sheet ST -44) b)Update the landscape plan to match the rain garden grading. See comments on LS plan redlines. HKS Response: A landscape drain has been added for the flow coming from the alley near the rain garden. This is connected to the forebay we already had shown in the area. Comment Number: 103 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of Landscaping Plan. Ripley Design Response: All redlines have been amended. Comment Number: 104 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of Drainage Report. HKS Response: See response to redlined comments. Comment Number: 105 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Page 14 of 24 See redlines of Utility Plans. HKS Response: See response to redlined comments. Comment Number: 106 09/12/2023: FOR INFORMATION: Please review and recheck “DR” elevations on detailed grading plans. It seems that with the recent FFE adjustments some door elevations were not updated. This is not as much the stormwater department concern - but will make it hard to get your grading certifications done if these are incorrect. Please review and revise as necessary. HKS Response: Door and building grading elevations have been corrected. Comment Number: 107 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Landscape plan – along the Parks trail on the southeast side of the site, between Steeley and Collamer, there are many trees that are too close to the public storm main. Please review and revise to provide 10-feet clear separation. Shifting a manhole location may be able to resolve. See redlines of UT and LS plans. Ripley Design Response: Manhole has been shifted, trees in this area with 10 ft separation will be canopy, 6ft separation shall be ornamental. Comment Number: 108 09/14/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Adjust Pond 1 grading to be 4:1 max. See comment on sheet ST -38 HKS Response: Pond 1 grading has been adjusted to 4:1 max. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson masimpson@fcgov.com (970) 416-2754 Topic: General Comment Number: 27 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: See redlines for updated comments on the re-configuration of Lupine Drive. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: The new location for the fire hydrant, at the east end of Lupine Drive, is in conflict with an existing domestic water service. In addition, the water main in this area is too close to the parallel storm main. Please see redlines on sheet C-6 for more information. 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: Per on-going conversations, the existing hydrant was acting as a blow-off and is not required to be re-located. Comment Number: 44 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED: Page 15 of 24 Please update the water deflection labeling to include callouts for the length of deflections. 07/06/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On water main profiles, label deflection angles for all joint deflections at fittings. HKS Response: Deflection labels updated. Comment Number: 46 09/12/2023: FOR INFORMATION: Due to construction of utilities (W/WW/SW) in a fill condition on this site, we have compaction concerns. The Right-of-Way Engineering and Inspection department will take the lead on this issue. Please think about how your contractor will be performing compaction, testing, and confirming adequate soil compaction on this site. DHI: Acknowledged by DHI Construction Comment Number: 47 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The hydrozone plan should be included with both the PIP and Landscape Plan sets. Please provide the hydrozone tabulation for Redwood Pond separately. Irrigation Response: Refer to sheet HZ-200 for the separate Redwood Pond hydrozone plan/tabulation. Comment Number: 48 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In the Preliminary Irrigation Plan – please relocate the irrigation main line, just north of Suniga Road, so that 10-foot minimum separation is provided from the City water main. See redline of PIP for more information. Irrigation Response: Noted. Irrigation mainline will be relocated. Comment Number: 49 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Irrigation Plans: Please confirm that the Enclave irrigation system is set up to provide temporary irrigation of the City Redwood Pond untill vegetation establishment is obtained. Irrigation Response: The Enclave irrigation system is setup to provide temporary irrigation for the Redwood pond until establishment is obtained. Comment Number: 50 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: [hold on proceeding with this comment untill I confirm] Please design a permanent irrigation system for the City Redwood Pond that is for irrigation of trees only. We would like to see if a 1 -inch water service and meter could be sufficient for this purpose. The remainder of the pond parcel will remain dryland after establishment. Irrigation Response: A 1” service is sufficient for the purpose of “trees only”. A permanent “trees only” irrigation system for the Redwood pond. Page 16 of 24 Comment Number: 51 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of Landscaping Plan. – Specifically, 1 location a tree is too close to a water main. Ripley Design Response: Tree has been moved away from water main. Comment Number: 52 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: See redlines of Utility Plans. HKS Response: Please see response to redlined comments. Comment Number: 53 09/14/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Has the existing water main depth, at the south end of Mullein Drive, been confirmed with a pothole locate? If not, please confirm this depth and update water profile. Please also add all potholes locates to the plans for confirmation. HKS Response: Pothole information has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 54 09/15/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: On the hydrozone plans, please tabulate the hydrozones for the City Redwood Pond parcel separately. Irrigation Response: Refer to sheet HZ-200. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish rirish@fcgov.com 970-224-6167 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 09/11/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: C-1 Forms for transformers #22 & #23 appear to be incorrect. Please verify and make necessary changes. Also, C-1 Forms will need to be completed in full before DCP meeting. Please reach out to me with any questions. 07/05/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: The C-1 Forms do not match up with the correct transformers on the plan set. 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 One-line diagram submitted. Please update the One-line to match the new C-1 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. 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 Page 17 of 24 completing the forms correctly. DHI Response: Understood. We would like to verify that the layout shown on this submittal is acceptable and then we can coordinate the update C1 forms with you. Comment Number: 3 09/11/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: Please see markups on Dry Utility Plan for a couple of possible separation issues. T7 & T14. Thank you. 07/06/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: In a few locations, proposed Light & Power facilities are not 10 feet from Storm Sewer and or drain pipes. Are these considered private? What is an acceptable separation for Stormwater? 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 transformer 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: Please refer to markups for responses. Comment Number: 4 09/11/2023: For Final Approval- Updated: A few proposed vaults and crossings are not shown on the plan set. Please reference the Dry Utility Plan for markups of the propose vaults, crossings and a few relocated electric crossings. Please show all electric changes on the Utility Plan. Please reach out to me directly to discuss if need be. 07/05/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: Proposed electric vaults, and 1 or 2 streetlights, shown on the Electric Redlines are not shown on the plan set. Please show all items on the plan set so other departments can determine if separation requirements are being met. Thank you. 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: Dry Utility Plan has been revised per redlined markups. Comment Number: 8 09/11/2023: For Final Approval - Updated: Please see markups on Dry Utility Plan. Could a couple of submersible transformers be pad mount behind the Page 18 of 24 walk and still meet clearance requirements? This would be more cost effective. 07/06/2023: For Final Approval-Updated: Some transformers are showing as submersible in the parkway, but are being called out as pad mount behind the walk in the redline responses. A couple of transformers moved behind the walk do not appear to be meeting clearance requirements from windows and/or doors. Please make sure transformer clearance requirements are being met. 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: Dry utility plan has been revised per redlined markups; however, there were clearance concerns with changing th e submersible transformers to pad mounted; and no changes were made. Comment Number: 11 09/11/2023: For Final Approval: Please submit new One -line diagrams to go along with the updated C-1 Forms. Updated mains on the C-1 Forms do not match the previously submitted One-Lines. Please reach out to me with any questions. Thank you. DHI Response: We are currently finalizing the one-line diagrams and C1 forms and will submit and coordinate with you prior to final approval. Comment Number: 12 09/11/2023: For Final Approval: Transformer 1 is out of access in it's current location. Please see markups on Dry Utility Plan. Could it be moved back to it's former location? HKS Response: Transformer 1 has been shifted back. Comment Number: 13 09/13/2023: For Final Approval: NECCO-A37 Manhole at the southwestern edge of this project is very close to an existing large electric duct bank. Any modification or relocation of this duct bank would be very challenging and very expensive. Please reach out to me directly if we need to discuss this area or any clearance issues. HKS Response: Noted; thanks. Design of the NECCO system was re-worked to avoid the crossing of the duct bank. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton sbenton@fcgov.com (970)416-4290 Topic: General Comment Number: 4 09/12/2023: (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 Page 19 of 24 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 ligha 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. UPDATE: A cost estimate is needed for the restoration work of all NHBZ areas (including Tract A) and the Redwood Pond, including a minimum of three years of weed management and monitoring is needed FOR FINAL APPROVAL. I look forward to reviewing the cost estimate. DHI Response: A cost estimate has been included with this submittal. : Comment Number: 6 09/12/2023: (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: No prairie dog removals have been conducted with our development. The area of “potentially active prairie dog burrows” shown on the Prairie Dog Memo is approximately 0.25 acres. Please let us know when and how this fee needs to be paid. Comment Number: 20 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The stormtech and rain garden seed mix rates are incorrect on the Landscape Plan when compared to the Restoration Plan. Please correct. Ripley Design Response: Storm Tech and rain garden seed mix rates have been edited on landscape plan to reflect restoration plan rates. Comment Number: 21 F 09/12/2023: INFORMATION ONLY: When the time comes to grade the Redwood regional detention pond, a City Environmental Planner must be present to assist with wetland soil salvage. Ripley Design Response: Understood, Thank you. Department: Forestry Contact: Christine Holtz choltz@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 09/12/2023 FOR FINAL APPROVAL UPDATED Please see Storm water’s comments regarding shifting the meter head on L27 Page 20 of 24 along the trail. There are multiple separation issues with trees and the storm water utility. Please do all you can to shift the utility and keep the proposed trees. 07/10/2023: 07/06/23: FOR FINAL APPROVAL In talks with Park Planning, they have approved plant locations in the planting bed along the west side of the trail. Trees should be slightly more spread out here and planted no less than 40 ft apart. Tree species should be fruitless. Please plant from the following list: Shumard oak, Texas red oak, Kentucky coffeetree ‘espresso’, American elm, linden, hackberry. Ripley Design Response: Trees which meet 10 ft separation from utilities have been made canopy trees based off the recommende d list. Comment Number: 13 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Is the tree mitigation plan for round 4 FDP the same as in round 3 FDP? Ripley Design Response: Yes, between round 4 and 3 the Tree mitigation plan remained the same, but an updated plan shall be included in round 5. Comment Number: 14 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Thank you for adding additional trees to the landscape plan. The tree species diversity table does not match up with the updated plant schedule. According to the new planting schedule there are 687 trees proposed. Ripley Design Response: Tree diversity table has been updated to latest count. Department: Park Planning Contact: Missy Nelson mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UPDATED COMMENT. In your comment response letter you say to see page 4. I believe you meant page 6, but still, it's not clear that the Enclave at Redwood easement and Northfield easement align. See redlines on sheet R-30 of Utility Plan set. Thanks! 07/14/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - REPEAT/UPDATED COMMENT: The question was asked during the meeting if final design of pedestrian bridge can be reviewed at or before building permit instead of prior to this project approval. As long as the location and easements are established now that should not be an issue. It looks like the bridge location may have to shift per Stormwater's comment so prior to approval, Park Planning will want to review how the bridge will tie into the existing Northfield trail. Thanks and we're happy to review the bridge details prior to building permit submittal! 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - REPEAT COMMENT: Plans say "Re: Civil" and "see structural plans" but it looks like the bridge was bleft out of the submittal. Please include for next round of review, and in addition, we can review in between rounds if you have ready to send over. 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". Page 21 of 24 HKS Response: Easement has been added to and correctly called out on the roadway plan. We are currently using the example bri dge details you provided to engage manufacturers on the final bridge design. We will provide details for review as soon as we receive them. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869 Topic: General Comment Number: 3 07/11/2023: The fire lane connection between Lupine and Steely does not meet turning radius requirements. A turning exhibit can be submitted for approval or the access drive can be redesigned to meet requirements. 09/11/2023: Comment is remaining due to potential changes required by other department HKS Response: An additional turning exhibit is included with this submittal. Department: Internal Services Contact: Lauren Wade lwade@fcgov.com 970-302-5962 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 02/24/2023: GIS: Street names need to be reviewed. Many of the private street 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: This comment has been addressed and finalized in previous rounds of submissions. Please review the street names as we head towards final approval of the plat. 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. HKS Response Comrie Circle is shown and included on the plat and plans. Contact: Russell Hovland rhovland@fcgov.com 970-416-2341 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) Page 22 of 24 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017. Snow Live Load: Ground Snow Load 35 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): · 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: • Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2021 IECC residential chapter. • Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2021 IECC commercial chapter. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, see local amendment. · This building is located within 250ft of a 4-lane road or 1000 ft of an active railway, must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min. · R-2 occupancies must provide 10ft to 30ft of fire separation distance (setback) from property line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC. · All multi-family 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/resrequirements.php -. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588 Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 10 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: There are text over text issues. See markups. 03/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Page 23 of 24 There are text over text issues. See redlines. 11/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. HKS Response: Markups addressed. Comment Number: 14 07/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See markups. HKS Response: Markups addressed. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 15 09/12/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. See markups. HKS Response: easements revised per markups. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 09/11/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com 07/10/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com 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: Comments noted, thank you. Page 24 of 24 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: Understood. This information has been coordinated with the Ditch FDP. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Emma Pett epett@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 07/10/2023: INFORMATION: Preliminary irrigation plans look good. Final irrigation plans are due at building permit application and should include a pressure loss and smart controller chart. Irrigation Response: Noted. Contact: Eric Olson eolson@fcgov.com 970-221-6704 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 09/07/2023: Final irrigation plans are required in order to issue a 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 Irrigation Response: Noted.