HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE PARK TOWNHOMES AT FOSSIL RIDGE (FORMERLY ZIEGLER TOWNHOMES) - PDP/FDP - FDP160043 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS01/31/2017: Please revise the easement notes as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Done.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
01/31/2017: The subdivision plat name has changed. Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The legal description has been changed.
11/17/2016: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/31/2017
01/31/2017: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The sheet index has been changed to reflect the correct titles.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221.6820, nhahn(&fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: The traffic study was received and reviewed. The study does not define the methodology used to redistribute
traffic through the new connection of County Fair. In the absence of this methodology, we calculated several scenarios
trying to recreate the numbers used in the study. In the least conservative (most favorable to the development) scenario
the south bound right turn lane warrant was met.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Due to the proximity of the access locations to the intersection of Ziegler and County Fair, the center left turn
lane needs to be extended to allow for left turns into the development. We are happy to work with you on lane widths, and
striping.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson6ofcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: 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(i}a.fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
02/03/2017: The statement on the Subdivision Plat is still in question. Please be sure that any changes on the Plat are
reflected.
RESPONSE: All changes to the plat have been reflected into the utility plans.
11/17/2016: Please change the Basis Of Bearings statement to match the revised Subdivision Plat Basis Of Bearings
statement.
comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
02/03/2017: There are sheet title & numbering issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Issues have been corrected.
11/17/2016: There are sheet title & numbering issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
02/03/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Redlines have been addressed.
11/17/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
01/31/2017: This has not been corrected.
RESPONSE: The match line sheet number has been corrected per the redlines.
11/17/2016: There are match line issues. See redlines.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: Please change the titles to match the other plan sets.
RESPONSE: The titleblock has been changed.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
11/17/2016
02/01/2017: This has not been corrected.
RESPONSE: The requested changes have been made, per your redlines. If there is still an issue, please give us a call so we
can get on the same page.
11/17/2016: Please make changes to the Basis Of Bearings statements as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:
11/17/2016
02/0112017: This has not been corrected.
RESPONSE: The owner has been updated, however there is not currently a lien holder.
11/17/2016: Please make changes to the Owners & Lienholders signature blocks as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated:
01/31/2017
01/31/2017: Please add a Sight Distance Easement statement.
RESPONSE: The sight distance statement has been added.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated:
01/31/2017
01/31/2017: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Requested info has been added.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated:
01/31/2017
01/31/2017: Please correct the right of way label for County Fair Lane as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Done.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated:
01/31/2017
01/31/2017: Please review the need for the easements as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Some of the perimeter easements have been removed. The easements adjacent to ROW have been left in
place per the requirements of Engineering.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated:
01/31/2017
01/31/2017: Please correct the distance noted along Block 2. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Done.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated:
01/31/2017
02/01/2017: One of the notes about the landscaping within the fenced areas is covering up a portion of the landscaping on
the southern most unit of Building C. Staff cannot confirm the final counts on a couple of the plants as a result. Please
move this note.
RESPONSE The note has been shifted so it doesn't cover any of the landscaoinq.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: Two of the plants have discrepancies between the landscape plan and plant list. Please resolve these
discrepancie
Leadplant - Plan shows 30, plant list shows 31
Crabapple, Prairiefire - Plan shows 10, plant list shows 9
RESPONSE: The plant counts have been revised.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Basil Harridan, 970.224-6035, bhamdan(Dfc_qov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
01/30/2017: No Erosion Control Escrow calculations were included in report.
RESPONSE: Escrow calculations have now been provided.
11/14/2016: Please note that no erosion control report or calculations were submitted with this first submittal. Since this is a
combined PDP and FDP report is required. Please provide one for review with next round.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
01/30/2017: There is no sediment protection called out for the construction of the storm lines adjacent to the existing
detention pond to the south of this project. Please address. Please add note indicating that contractor shall limit all
construction activities to areas delineated by construction or silt fence with no intrusion into the existing pond to the south.
RESPONSE: We have added BMP's at the pipe outlets
11/14/2016: Please provide erosion control protection for the inlet along Ziegler Road and please address any other
redlined comments on the plans.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(Dfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
02/03/2017: Please revise storm sewer system to provide a by-pass system for the 100-year flows.
RESPONSE: A by-pass is now provided.
11/16/2016: It is unclear how the chamber system will operate with the major flows entering the chambers and no bypass
system.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
02/03/2017: There are still some conflicts with trees and storm sewers north of County Fair Lane.
RESPONSE:
11/16/2016: There are some locations where trees are not 10 feet away from storm sewers. Please revise.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/03/2017
02/03/2017: The existing 24-inch outfall storm sewer needs to have capacity for all site drainage as well as all off -site flows
directed to the Zeigler Road inlet.
RESPONSE: The design has been changed so that the stormwater outfall will drain directly the McClelland's channel and not
affect the existing storm drain. Please note that because of the County Fair connection, flows from the north of County Fair
that would have traveled south to the existing inlet will now be redirected through the onsite storm system, which will actually
reduce the existing flows to the existing inlet.
Please provide calculations supporting this. If there is not enough capacity in the existing storm sewer, additional
conveyance for the 100-year site flows will need to be provided.
RESPONSE: See above.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountvCa fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
overlapping dashed and solid lines. Please adjust accordingly. In addition:
> An EAE is not currently labeled on the Utility Plan.
> The NW boundary of the EAE is not well defined on the Site Plan (with both arrows pointing to the east).
> The EAE turnarounds are not well differentiated on the Site Plan.
RESPONSE: The EAE has been labeled more clearly (hopefully').
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/29/2017
01129/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
Place an additional "No Parking - Fire Lane" sign to the west side of drive lane between Buildings E & F (at mail kiosk).
Refer to LUCASS detail 1418 for sign type to be included in plan details. Directional arrows required on all signs in all
locations.
RESPONSE: The requested sign has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/29/2017
01/29/2017: ADDRESS SIGNAGE & WAYFINDING
Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise needed to aid in wayfinding. Access to all units will be
my a means other than the road on which they are addressed and as such, additional posting and wayfinding
signage will be required before FDP approval.
RESPONSE: A signage exhibit is included with this submittal.
All building fronts shall be posted with unit address. All back of buildings will be posted with unit number and entire street
name. South ends of Buildings A & D will require posting of street name (if it is to be a Ziegler address). North end of
Buildings C & F will require posting of street name (if it is to be a Ziegler address). PFA is requesting that applicant to submit
a plan for review. It seems important to bring city GIS into this discussion at this time. Code language provided below.
> IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building
identification placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted with
a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where access is by means of a private road and the building
cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure.
> IFC 505.1.7: Buildings, either individually or part of a multi -building complex, that have fire lanes on sides other than the
addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickev&Icgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/31/2017
01/31/2017: Please re -check the dimensions of the building footprints shown on the elevations. Some of the dimensions
seems to be inaccurate at the scale provided.
RESPONSE: The elevations are not drawn to scale, however the dimensions are correct.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
01/31/2017: Thank you for the revised modification requests to 3.5.2(D)(1) and 3.5.2(E)(2). Staff generally supports the
modification requests.
RESPONSE: Thank you.
11/03/2016: Thank you for your modification requests for Land Use Code sections 3.5.2(E)(2) and 3.5.2(D)(1)(b). Staff did
not receive a modification request for Land Use Code section 4.5(D)(1)(b). Staff will look for this modification request for the
second round of review.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/31/2017
01/31/2017: While the project meets the parking requirement, staff is concerned about the lack of guest parking. Are there
opportunities to provide more guest parking on -site? With the lack of on -street parking on County Fair Lane at present, staff
would feel more comfortable with the plan if you could accommodate more guest parking spaces. This is especially true
since one of the units has a one car garage and two of the surface spaces are handicap spaces.
RESPONSE: The revised plans show an additional 2 spaces on the north end of Building B.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11118/2016: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges
necessary will apply to this development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required
between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental
trees and streetlights.
RESPONSE: Ackmowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Multi family buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a(C 1) form must be filled out and
submitted to Light & Power Engineering. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer and their
electrical consultant or contractor.
RESPONSE: A C-1 form will be provided as final electrical design is completed for the project and submitted to L&P.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Transformer locations shall be within 10' of a paved surface and must have a minimum of an 8' clearance from
the front side and a 3' clearance around the sides and rear.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Transformer locations are shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show
the locations on the utility plans.
RESPONSE: Per our meeting with staff, we have moved one transformer to the south end of the project. We will have our
electrical engineer confirm that the locations shown are acceptable on their end.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Please provide a one line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and Power Engineering, The C-1 form can be found
at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWikVWikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf
RESPONSE: A one line diagram and C-1 form will be provided as final electrical design is completed for the project and
submitted to L&P.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may
reference Light & Power's Electric Service Standards at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL — 17June2016.pdf
You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimatr at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilit esibusiness/builders-and-developers.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/31/2017
01/31/2017: No changes on behalf of Light & Power since the November 2016 review meeting.
RESPONSE: Acknowleaged.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickeycDfcgov.com
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016
11/07/2016: Comment from the County Assessor: There is an additional 'call' that has been added. Immediately following
the verbiage, 'POINT OF BEGINNING;' the following call is not needed -,'thence continuing along said East line, South 01 45'
51" East, 701.48 ft;'
RESPONSE: The requested change has been made.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler(apoudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/29/2017
01/29/2017: FIRE LANE LIMITS
The limits of the fire lane shall be labeled on the plans. Currently there are some challenges in reading the EAE limits due to
* It appears that there are an adequate number of new trees on the site to account for 35 mitigation trees. Off -site mitigation
is not necessary. Please review placing 35 upsized mitigation trees on site.
* Tree #58 is listed as to be protected, but should be removed based on its size and condition. Proper mitigation will need to
be discussed.
* Please set up a site visit to discuss construction impact of trees #59 (Cottonwood) and #47 (Green Ash — multi -stemmed).
These existing trees seem appear to be pretty close to proposed foundations.
In regards to tree #43 (Hackberry), please explore placing the proposed sidewalk at a further distance away to reduce the
impact to the roots.
RESPONSE: We believe there is insufficient space available to jog the walk to the east to provide an appropriate buffer from
the Hackberry, and realign the walk to the future connection point at the northern property boundary. In addition, revising the
walk would result in an awkward tree lawn alignment which would need to quickly transition from an 8' lawn down to 3'4' and
then back to 8'. At the most constrained point, maintaining a healthy tree lawn would become challenging. For these
reasons, the Hackberry is listed as 'to be removed'.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
2/1 /17: Continued: If there are street lights, please show their locations and proper tree separation: forty (40) feet
between shade trees and streetlights; fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees and streetlights.
RESPONSE: Street lights have not been provided by Light and Power at this time. They will be added to the plans and any
trees will be revised once they are provided.
There may have been some confusion, please review the first tree North of Country Fair Lane along Ziegler Road. It appears
that this tree impacts sight line visibility. Please evaluate eliminating this street tree for improved visibility.
RESPONSE This tree has been eemoved.
* Comments marked with an asterisk have been resolved.
11/17/16: Street Trees
If there are street lights, please show their locations and proper tree separation: forty (40) feet between shade trees and
streetlights; fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees and streetlights.
RESPONSE: Street lights are now shown on the glans.
* Please show locations of stop signs and proper tree separation: twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees
and traffic control signs and devices.
The first tree north of County Fair Ln on Ziegler appears to impact sight line visibility. Please evaluate eliminating this street
tree for improved visibility.
RESPONSE: This tree has been removed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
211/2017: Continued: Is it possible to add more coniferous trees in this area? Forestry suggests that Colorado Blue Spruce
may be a good choice.
RESPONSE: 6 additional coniferous trees have been added along the western boundary. Due to the limited space, a
variety smaller than a Colorado Blue Spruce was used.
11/18/2016: Please look at placing additional trees along the west of edge of the project north of County Fair Rd to
increase the buffer for adjacent homes.
RESPONSE: 6 additional coniferous trees have been added along the western boundary. Due to the limited space, a
variety smaller than a Colorado Blue Spruce was used.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, 970-224-6150, CAlthoff(&fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Light & Power will need to extend electric facilities to this area by installing primary conduit and cable along
the west side of Ziegler Rd. and also along the north side of County Fair Ln. (as it will become a through road to Ziegler
Rd.)
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
distance easement note on the plat). We should have a discussion with Traffic Operations and Forestry on the tree's
potential impact to sight distance and/or what might be the potential of removing the tree. As it is, might the taper for the
turn lane be considered a concern with its proximity to the root zone for the tree, and cause impact to the tree with the turn
lane's construction?
RESPONSE: The tree will be removed.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/02/2017
02/02/2017:Please remove the right-of-way row shown on the Land Use Table in the Plat. I'm concerned that the indication
of maintenance by the City could be in conflict with City Code provisions that would indicate certain aspects of right-of-way
maintenance are the responsibility of the abutting property owner.
RESPONSE: The ROW will be removed from the land use table
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reveretteanfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
01/17/2017: Three additional trees were identified for removal, so an additional 8 mitigation trees still need to be shown on
the plans. Please add (or upsize) the additional mitigation trees.
RESPONSE: Please note the additional mitigation trees were added with the last submittal package dated 1.11.17. The
mitigation trees shown on the chart (Sheet 2) is consistent with the mitigation required per the trees removed. One more tree
has been removed as a part of this submittal, the mitigation has been increased accordingly.
11/16/2016: It appears that many of the street trees are being used to account for mitigation, but they do not appear to
have been upsized (Y caliber for canopy shade trees, 2.5"caliper for ornamental trees, 8' height B&B for evergreen trees),
per LUC Section 3.2.1(F).
RESPONSE: The deciduous trees were previously shown in the plant list as upsized. I have added the appropriate
ornamentals to the plant list as upsized as part of this submittal. There are not any evergreen trees serving as mitigation trees.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017
01/17/2017: Please add a label to the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on sheet G3 of the grading plan.
RESPONSE: The requested note has been added.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, mroche(cDfcgov.com
Topic: Landsca a Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: Due to changes on the Landscape Plans and the removal of additional tress, the required number of
mitigation trees is now 43 trees. 43 mitigation trees are shown with trees on the Landscape Sheets, however the Plant List
does not reflect this. Please adjust the Plant List to account for all required upsized mitigation trees.
RESPONSE: The plant list has been revised to include the missing ornamental mitigation trees. Evergreen trees are not
being used for mitigation.
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tbuchanan(d7fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
2/1 /17: Continued: It appears that this good tree, #43 Hackberry, could be retained. Please look into providing 3 to 4 foot
separation between outer bark of the tree and sidewalk to allow for additional protection.
Comments marked with an asterisk have been resolved.
RESPONSE: We believe there is insufficient space available to jog the walk to the east to provide an appropriate buffer from
the Hackberry, and realign the walk to the future connection point at the northern property boundary. In addition, revising the
walk would result in an awkward tree lawn alignment which would need to quickly transition from an 8' lawn down to 3'-4' and
then back to 8'. At the most constrained point, maintaining a healthy tree lawn would become challenging. For these
reasons, the Hackberry is listed as 'to be removed'.
11/17/16:
Tree Inventory/Mitigation Plan
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
02/01/2017: We'll need confirmation on the outcome of Xcel's overhead lines. Either the plans should depict that they are
undergrounded abutting the property, or conduit is installed by the development to accommodate future undergrounding.
RESPONSE: The Xcel lines will be buried.
11/16/2016: Please verify the status of the existing overhead line along Ziegler Road abutting the property. It would appear
that this is no longer needed with the development and would then be undergrounded (or removed) with this project and
should be indicated as such on the plans.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
02/0112017: Please provide the spot elevations shown on the grading plan sheets that depict these also on the intersection
detail sheet to provide a more centralized location for the intersection and ramp information used by Engineering
Inspection.
RESPONSE: The requested spot elevations have been added.
11/16/2016: Please provide additional spot elevations and cross slopes along the access ramps/sidewalk at County Fair
Lane and Ziegler Road to verify that street standards/ADA compliance is being met. There is the implication that at least
the cross slope for the access ramp at the north leg exceeds 2% cross slope.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
02/01/2017: I'm comfortable with the representation that no offsite work/easement is needed. Please revise the property
boundary on the civil set to depict the eastern property line boundary as the new right-of-way line of Ziegler Road. Depicting
this to be within Ziegler Road itself is confusing.
RESPONSE: Per our discussion on the phone, we will leave the boundary as shown to keep it consistent with all other
submittals and applications to date by both this applicant and the previous applicant.
11/16/2016: Please confirm the ability to construct the work fully within the project's development boundary. The grading
plan is a little difficult to follow in some regards, and I'm aware that the previous submittal was doing offsite work
on the Harvest Park property.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: The right turn lane added for Ziegler Road doesn't reflect any further adjusting of right-of-way dedication
and/or access easement dedication for portions of sidewalk that fall outside of right-of-way. We'll want to have the
plat and plans reflect the agreed to right-of-way/easement configuration that addresses the right turn lane addition. [Further
follow-up on this comment from Wednesday is such that Engineering is OK with just providing access and utility
easement for encompassing up the back of sidewalk for the portions that are outside of right-of-way.]
RESPONSE: An access easement has been provided to encompass the sidewalk.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: The right turn lane design needs to have a variance request submitted for the length not meeting LCUASS
requirements.
RESPONSE: A variance request has been provided
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: The right turn lane needs to provide additional offsite design to the north to reflect how future
extension/continuation of the turn lane north of the property can be built without needing to rebuild portions of the turn lane
frunting this property (evidence that it is being built in the ultimate condition fronting this property.)
RESPONSE: The offsite design has been provided.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: Per the email to Andy that (also references the previous previous comments), we'll want to have language in
the development agreement for this project that in the event that the developer/owner of this project (or its successors in
interest) acquires title to the Ruff property and develops that property with access out to County Fair Lane, that the
Developer acknowledges the requirement for constructing of the extension of the turn lane to City standards at the time of
that future development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/01/2017
02/01/2017: With the addition of the right turn lane, I'm thinking that there could be some concern with the evergreen tree
being preserved at the northeast boundary of the site with its location and sight distance for folks approaching Ziegler Road
on eastbound County Fair Lane that wasn't perhaps as much of a potential concern before the turn lane. Ideally trees in
right-of-way are deciduous and limbed up such that branches are not less than 6 feet from ground level (per the sight
City of
Flirt Colons
February 03, 2017
Cathy Mathis
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Ziegler Townhomes, FDP160043, Round Number 2
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/developmentreview
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the
above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct
your questions through the Project Planner, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or cfrickey@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
02/01/2017: Carried over as unresolved.
RESPONSE: A variance request letter has been provided.
11/16/2016: The street design has three different tangents (a tangent between the existing curve on County Fair Lane and
the proposed curve, a tangent between the two proposed curves, and the tangent from the intersection) that are short of the
required 100 feet specified in Table 7-3 of LCUASS (the three tangents are 56.81, 75, and 50.95 respectively). A variance
request is needed for the minimum tangent lengths not being met. It is acknowledged that a similar variance request was
needed from the previous proposal on the property and was granted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
02/01/2017: Please add the following sight distance easement criteria on the plat:
"Sight Distance Easement — The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street intersections
where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for
merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight
distance easement for level grade:
RESPONSE: The requested notes have been added.
(1)Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions:
(a)Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of sight for motorists.
(b)Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves
thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight
for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of visibility."
11/16/2016: Figure 7-16 in LCUASS would appear to demonstrate the need for a sight distance easement at the northern
drive approach onto County Fair Lane heading west.