HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHFIELD FILING 1 EXPANDED - FDP190012 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSA complete review of all other plans will be done at FDP.
11/06/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
A complete review of all other plans will be done at FDP.
09/10/2018: A complete review of all other plans will be done at FDP.
RESPONSE: Plans have been reviewed to avoid typical conflicts, etc. Thank you for your time in
reviewing our plans
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
02/11/2019: FOR 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.
RESPONSE: Please see revised Plat
11/07/2018: FOR 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.
RESPONSE: Please see revised Plat
09/10/2018: 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.
RESPONSE: Please see revised Plat
24
infrastructure is required when either 25% of building permits have been issued or prior to
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. This certification includes detention basins, water
quality/Low Impact Development facilities, grading of common areas (areas that will not be
included in lot grading certifications), etc. It is important to consider the construction plan now to
determine how this certification will fit into the timeline. Please reach out if you have any
questions or would like to discuss options for phasing/certification as they relate to this project.
RESPONSE: The public infrastructure is not proposed to be phased.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/2018
02/04/2019: Repeat waiting for FDP submittal.
08/30/2018: Same comment since PDP170041.
12/19/2017: Repeat from PDR also saw note to expect the materials at FDP. The site disturbs
more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted
for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the
Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted
do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control Report,
and an Escrow / Security Calculation. With how large of a site this is, it should be broken up into
phases. Also, based upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required
since the site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if
there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com .
RESPONSE: The erosion control report is included for your review.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/08/2019
02/08/2019: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The
irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code.
Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or
eolson @fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, *county@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
02/11/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
23
dewatering system. Please include anticipated elevation that groundwater will be limited and
how this elevation relates to proposed utility and drainage systems. Please note running
traps/siphons will not be accepted as part of the final design.
Note: this is a continuation of Comments 3 and 26 and the discussion that has been ongoing
since PDP Round 1.
RESPONSE: Exhibits from the groundwater study are provided in the drainage report. The final
groundwater study is in process and will be provided when complete, prior to next submittal.
Comment Number: 31
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
The proposed WQ/LID treatment methods are acceptable; however, appropriate sizing and
system details still must be verified for the StormTech system. This includes:
- Providing sizing calculations using Fort Collins' accepted sizing spreadsheet (contact me if
this has not been provided previously).
- An underdrain is required to drain the system.
- All chambers being utilized for water quality must be Isolator Row chambers.
Note: this is a continuation of Comments 6 and 25 and the discussion that has been ongoing
since PDP Round 1.
RESPONSE: The infiltration galleries have been sized accordingly.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
The proposed WQ/LID treatment methods are acceptable; however, appropriate sizing and
system details still must be verified for the rain garden. This includes:
- Providing sizing spreadsheet from Urban Drainage.
- An underdrain is required to drain the system and this underdrain should not have an outfall
orifice as indicated in the sizing spreadsheet.
RESPONSE: The infiltration gallery and rain garden calculations are provided. As discussed, the
IG perimeter drain is going to be used as dewatering by lowering the perimeter drain 1' below the
IG.
Comment Number: 33
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Please see redlines (PDF).
Comment Number: 34
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
Comment Originated: 02/13/2019
02/13/2019: FOR FINAL:
Has any type of phasing been considered for this project? I encourage you to consider phasing
as it relates to Stormwater certification requirements. Typically certification of Stormwater
22
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Please provide profile of the proposed box culvert for the Lake Canal at Suniga Road to ensure
clearances from the adjacent utilities, in particular the City 12-inch main on the north side of the
road, are met.
Note: this is a continuation of Comment 19 from PDP Round 2.
RESPONSE: The RCBC profile is provided.
Comment Number: 29
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Please see redlines (PDF).
RESPONSE:
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 27
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
LID requirements for this project are 50% treatment of impervious area with 25% of
private -driveable surfaces being permeable pavers. Or, 75% treatment of impervious area if not
using pavers. Please contact me if there are questions about this requirement.
RESPONSE: LID treatment is provided.
Comment Number: 28
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Please submit a LID exhibit showing treatment area for each LID facility.
RESPONSE: LID treatment is provided.
Comment Number: 29
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
The Fort Collins' OF data including the 100-year storm with 2-hour duration needs to be used
(modification of UDFCD's intensity formula will not be accepted).
RESPONSE: The City's OF data is used to determine the rational runoff rates. The intensities
based on the time of concentration match in the provided calculations and the IDF curve. SWMM
is used to size pipes and detention volumes.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
I understand the running traps/siphons have been eliminated from the design with the addition of
a dewatering system. At final, please provide details on the groundwater study and proposed
21
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
There are significant concerns with the proposed location of the storm inlets on Lemay. These
are shown to be in close proximity to the both the City's and ELCO's water lines on each side of
Lemay with the City's being a 24" transmission main. The design team will need to figure out
how/where these inlets can be constructed to allow for adequate separation from the existing
water lines. Bends to relocate the City's water main will not be an acceptable solution.
Note: This is a continuation of Comment 4 that has been an ongoing discussion since PDP
Round 1.
RESPONSE: NECCO Lateral A4 is included and the roadway drainage has been updated to drain
through a curb cut to an inlet on A4, removing the waterline conflict with the City's 24" line.
ELCO's 10" waterline will have to be adjusted to provide separation. Review with ELCO is
necessary prior to detailing
Comment Number: 25
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Please show the water main crossings at Suniga in the water main profiles, and ensure there is
adequate vertical space to allow these crossings to go over at a standard bury depth.
Note: this is a continuation of Comment 15 that has been an ongoing discussion since PDP
Round 1.
RESPONSE: The waterline will have to route under the existing waterlines to achieve adequate
cover the utility separations. Profiles were not provided with this submittal and will need to be
provided later.
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Please locate the water service curb stop and meter to Flats Building 10 closer to the main.
Note: this is a continuation of Comment 17 from PDP Round 2.
RESPONSE:: An adequate landscape area and separations of adjacent utilities is unavailable.
We may need to discuss further.
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Please provide 10' of separation between the water and sewer service to the clubhouse.
Note: this is a continuation of Comment 18 from PDP Round 2.
RESPONSE: Adequate separation is provided.
Comment Number: 28
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
20
The proposed storm water line on the north side of Suniga Rd is placed where L&P electric is
usually placed (in the parkway). A variance to the separation requirements will need to be granted
in this location. L&P electric facilities will also be placed in the south side Suniga Rd in the
parkway.
RESPONSE: The storm and water lines noted are existing and not proposed with these utility
plans.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: Final Compliance;
L&P's electric facilities must be placed on the utility plan with proper separation from other utilities
before final. Please place all water meter pits and curb stop locations outside of L&P's electric
route.
RESPONSE: See utility plan for locations of electric facilities.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR HEARING:
Water mains in the green space are not going to be allowed due to the significant increase in
maintenance costs this would require. The site appears to have space in the alleys/roads for
water mains and service lines; our recommendation is to locate the mains as such. Previous
redlines have communicated options for utilizing private, common water services; please feel free
to contact me to discuss this further as an option. Private, common water services are not
appropriate in locations where there are retaining walls at the front of building.
Note: this is a continuation of the discussion that has been ongoing in utility plan redlines and
emails from Heather McDowell.
RESPONSE: The current utility layout has been updated according to previous discussions.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL:
Following up on previous discussions regarding the sanitary sewer system, it is expected this
development will provide design and construction of the improvements specified in the Technical
Memorandum from Jacobs. Further discussions on the details of funding, public outreach, etc.
will be needed.
Note: This is a continuation of Comment 1 that has been an ongoing discussion since PDP
Round 1.
RESPONSE: Please reference the offsite sewer design provided.
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
Comment Number: 24
19
RESPONSE: Proposed meter locations are shown on the utility plans. Please let us know if there
are spacing issues that need to be addressed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Final Compliance;
Streetlight placement will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Shaded trees are required
to maintain 40 feet of separation clearances and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet
of separation clearances from street lights. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting
requirements can be found below:
http://www.larimer.orq/engineerinq/GMARdStds/Ch15 04 01 2007.odf
RESPONSE: See the utility and landscape plans for streetlight locations, utility services, and
tree placement.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Final Compliance;
Commercial service information forms (C-1 forms) and a one -line diagram for each building /meter
bank will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to
the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcQov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
RESPONSE: Understood. These will be provided. Thank you.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Informational;
Please contact Luke Unruh at Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at
970.416.2724. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge
processes, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcqov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 09/12/2018
09/12/2018: Informational;
Lake Canal & Greeley Waterline Crossing Agreements may be necessary to serve the proposed
development. The developer is responsible for obtaining all Crossing Agreements at their
expense.
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you.
Comment Number: 11
Informational;
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
18
Comment Number: 16.1
Comment Originated: 02/12/2019
2/21/2019: FOR APPROVAL
Please include the tree inventory and mitigation table that was collected on 6/22/2018. Although
all these trees are off -site and will not be impacted with this project, this information should be
recorded on the plans for record -keeping purposes. Include a separate sheet in the landscape
plan set specifically for the tree inventory and mitigation table and surveyed tree locations.
RESPONSE: The tree inventory and mitigation table for the existing trees off -site is included on
the cover sheet of the landscape plans.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 97041627245 lunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Informational;
Light and Power has 3-phase electric facilities at the Lemay and Vine intersection that will need to
be extended into the site to feed the development. Coordination with the frontage improvements
along Lemay will be needed and system modification charges will apply. Light and Power also has
3-phase electric facilities north of the site that may need to be extended into the site to complete a
loop feed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and will continue to coordinate through FCP approval. The
proposed transformer locations provided are shown..
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Informational;
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification
charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the
following website for an estimate of development charges and fees:
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Final Compliance;
Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Transformers must be
placed within 1 Oft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The
transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum.
RESPONSE: See utility plans for proposed transformer locations based on the schematic design
provided by L&P 2/25/2019.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Final Compliance;
Electric meter locations for all units will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering
to determine final transformer locations. Please show and label meter locations on the site and
utility plans for reference. Gas and electric meters shall be placed on opposite sides of the
buildings
17
RESPONSE: Trees have been separated from utilities according to Fort Collins requirements.
Ornamental trees have also been added wherever possible to fill in any gaps.
9/11 /2018:
Continued:
There appear to be multiple locations where street trees are placed directly over or very close to
water and gas lines. Please adjust locations of utilities or street trees to provide proper separation:
• 10' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
• 6' between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines
• 4' between trees and gas lines.
1 /3/2018:
Please adjust the locations of street tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation.
There are (3) trees on sheet LS5, (1) tree on LS6, (1) tree on LS8, and (2) trees on LS9 that are
closer than 10 feet to the storm sewer main line.
RESPONSE: Noted; trees have been moved from utilities according to Fort Collins requirements.
Ornamental trees have also been added wherever possible to fill in any gaps.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
2/12/19: FOR APPROVAL
Continued until FDP.
11 /7/2018:
Continued until FDP.
09/11/2018:
Due to the ever -changing nature of landscape plans at this stage, I will conduct a final plant count
during FDP.
RESPONSE: Thank you; plant count has been updated for final.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
2/12/19: FOR APPROVAL
Continued until FDP.
11 /7/2018:
Thank you. Final street tree separation will be confirmed by Forestry during FDP.
09/11/2018:
On Schlagel Street and Steeley Drive, the street trees appear to be spaced
greater than 40' feet apart. Where possible, street trees should be spaced at minimum 30' feet
and maximum 40' feet apart. It looks like there are utilities that might conflict with the 40'
placement of trees in the right-of-way along these streets. However, ornamental trees might be
able to fit between shade trees and utilities to achieve maximum tree stocking in the right of way.
RESPONSE: Noted; trees have been moved from utilities according to Fort Collins requirements.
Ornamental trees have also been added wherever possible to fill in any gaps.
16
RESPONSE: Will be provided
E. Prior to issuance of DCP: 1) security based on 125% cost of itemized list of
NHBZ installation costs (material and labor), 2) security based on 125% cost of
weed management and annual monitoring report.
RESPONSE: Will be provided
Department: Forestry
Contact: Jill Wuertz, 970416-20629 iwuertz@fcqov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/14/2018
11 /14/2018: Medians and Parkways in the arterial streetscapes shall comply with the 2013
Streetscape Standards. In addition, since this corridor will be a continuation of Suniga, the
median design should be coordinated with Tracy Dyer's project just west of here. Please contact
Jill Wuertz for additional detail.
RESPONSE: Landscape has been added
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-19929 mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/7/2018: PROVIDE AT FIRST ROUND FDP
Continued until FDP.
11 /7/18:
Continued until FDP.
9/10/2018:
Continued until FDP.
1 /3/2018:
Please show location of any stop signs and street lights. Identify these fixtures with a distinct
symbol in a legend on the landscape plans. There appears to be some street lights shown on the
plans with canopy shade trees proposed closer than 40 feet. Adjust tree spacing as follows or
swap out shade trees for approved ornamental trees in these locations.
• Stop Signs: 20 feet from sign
• Street Light: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and
• 15 feet for ornamental trees
RESPONSE: Noted; symbols for the above have been added to the legend and trees have been
separated from signs and lights according to the above distances.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
2/12/2019: FOR APPROVAL
Continued until FDP.
11 /7/2018:
Thank you. Final tree separation from utilities will be confirmed by Forestry during FDP.
15
Lemay and Schlagel St.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019:
The building shown on Lot 1 Block 11 as retail with two apartments above will be designed with an
approved sprinkler system. Please contact Assistant Fire, Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire
sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019:
STREET NAMES, ADDRESSING AND WAYFINDING SIGNAGE
A comprehensive addressing and wayfinding plan shall be provided to PFA for FDP approval.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019:
An update on possible project phasing is requested.
RESPONSE: All public improvements will be installed at one time
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-4164290, sblochowiak@fcclov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 02/14/2019
02/14/2019: READY FOR HEARING. FYI AND INFORMATION ONLY:
A. Applicant has provided information that Nationwide permit from USACE
process has begun. Thank you.
B. By Final Plan: documentation of jurisdictional determination letter from
USACE and sign off that project meets Clean Water Act requirements.
RESPONSE: Will be provided
C. By Development Agreement: weed management and NHBZ annual
monitoring plans.
RESPONSE: Will be provided
D. Prior to issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP): copy of
Nationwide 404 permit documentation.
14
>The appropriate curb radii should be shown for the alleys.
>PFA is requesting clarification that all street gates and barriers have been
removed from the plans.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
02/11 /2019:
To provide optimum hydrant spacing please move the hydrant located on Schlagel Street between
Building 9d and Building 11d to between Building 11d and Building 13d.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
11 /07/2018:
The added Hydrant shown on Schlagel will be moved to the Alley location as requested.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
11/02/2018: UPDATE
>The hydrant between buildings 9 and 13 close to Lemay Avenue is not flagged
as such on the Utility plan. Please confirm its location.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
>The hydrant added to this Planset between Buildings 2b and 4b was to provide coverage along
the Alley. Please move it to the Alley side of Buildings 2b and 4b.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
>The added hydrants on Suniga and Lemay are in appropriate locations.
09/10/2018:
HYDRANTS
>As noted in the previous round, hydrants will be required on Suniga Street and North Lemay
Avenue that produce 1500gpm at 20psi residual pressure. These do not appear to be shown on
the provided Utility plans dated 8-22-2018
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
>A hydrant is required within 400ft of the SFA residential units along an
approved fire access route. Maintaining the appropriate hydrant spacing on
Schlagel St will require a new hydrant located close to the intersection of N
13
Avenue. Should any internal streets or alleys be greater than 660ft in length, a second approved
point of access is required.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
At is understood that the new Lemay Avenue may not be constructed for some years. Buildings 9,
13 and 15 face Lemay Avenue which is classified as an Arterial Street. To try keep parked
emergency vehicles out of arterial traffic lanes while at an incident at these Buildings, it is
requested that two Fire Lane areas be established along Lemay Avenue until the new Lemay
Avenue is constructed.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
>The walkways are noted to the front of buildings and PFA is requesting walkways be added
between Buildings 12 and 14 and Buildings 13 and 15 to improve access.
>Connecting cement pathways are requested between the access ways from
Schlagel St and the cement path that is located along the ditch.
>The Alley between Buildings 2b and 3b is shown as 26ft wide AE on the overall Site Plan dated
10-17-2018. This is a required aerial emergency Access Easement therefore it should be shown
as an EAE on the Site Plan.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
09/10/2018:
ACCESS
>All the 24ft and 26ft wide alleys shown as Access Easements are required to be shown as
Emergency Access Easements on the Plat or dedicated by separate legal document. For clarity
they should be should on the Site Plan not Utility plan.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
>The Autoturn shows significant overhang at the center entrance off Pioneer Trail which shows
this is out of compliance.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
>The required perimeter access for Buildings 8b and 12b will require an approved turnaround at
since each accessway is 200ft long. Access less than 150ft is allowed.
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
12
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 02/12/2019
02/12/2019: FOR FINAL
Can we look at the trail width between the trail crossing of the ditch and Lemay to see if there's
any way to widened it?
RESPONSE: 10' width is provided.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
02/12/2019: FOR FINAL - Draft mitigation amounts were provided, but are being reviewed for
potential refinements. They will be available for final.
11/07/2018: FOR FINAL -APF regulations have been changed. Mitigation requirements for
LemayNine should be available mid -December.
09/10/2018: After the hearing mitigation for the Vine/Lemay intersection will need to be worked
out to address the new Adequate Public Facilities language.
RESPONSE: APF Mitigation negotiations are in process.
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@goudre-fire.orq
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
02/11 /2019:
2018 IFC CODE ADOPTION
Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins (Town of Timnath, Larimer County) are in the
process of adopting the 2018 International Fire Code. Code adoption is anticipated in early 2019.
Building plan reviews shall be subject to the adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of
plan review submittal and permit application.
11-7-2018 UPDATE AFTER CITY MEETING
>Further discussion can be continued off line at PFA regarding:
Project Phasing
Add ressingMayf inding/Al ley naming
Schlagel to Lemay temporary access.
Sprinkler and alarm system requirements
FDC Locations
EAE signage
Pull-out areas for emergency responders on Lemay 60ft X 10ft in two places.
The project team agreed to add the requested walkways between Buildings 12
and 14 and Buildings 13 and 15. Thank you
RESPONSE: Ongoing discussions with PFA have resulted in numerous changes, please refer to
the plans.
11/02/2018: UPDATE
>Further discussion is required relating to the proposed access to Schlagel St from Lemay
11
identified on sight distance exhibit, dedicated on the plat.
RESPONSE: The sight distance easements have been coordinated with the plat.
Comment Number: 44
11/06/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
Engineering is okay proceeding to hearing, as long as the comments noted "FOR HEARING" are
addressed.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
02/12/2019: FOR FINAL - detailed signing and striping review will occur at final
11/07/2018: FOR FINAL
A signing and striping plan will be needed. A comment from back in January was to please
remove uncontrolled crosswalk striping along Suniga.
RESPONSE: Signage & striping plans for Suniga Road and Lemay Ave are provided in the plan
set. On -site signage is included on the horizontal control plans. Crosswalks removed except at
controlled intersections.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
02/12/2019: FOR FINAL - This will be addressed at final
11/07/2018: FOR FINAL
Please compare the landscape plan with the sight distance information (sheet 25) and other code
requirements for visibility of stop signs to ensure that sight distance and visibility is adequate.
RESPONSE: Trees have been moved away from stop signs according to the requirements by the
city.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 02/12/2019
02/12/2019: FOR INFORMATION
The TIS, addendum memo and variances have been received, reviewed and the conclusions
accepted.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/12/2019
02/12/2019: FOR INFORMATION
Thank you for providing the pedestrian connection to the north. This is an importance
improvement.
RESPONSE: You are welcome
10
sections have been provided as requested by Park Planning.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
All of the proposed walk and drainage pan or swale crossings will need to be detailed/designed at
final.
RESPONSE: Design of sidewalk chases across drainage swales is provided on the detailed
grading plan sheets.
Comment Number: 39
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
The reconfigured trickle pan in the private alley on the north side of the Schlagel and Pioneer Trail
intersection needs to be redesigned. I don't think that the current configuration will work.
RESPONSE: Layout of the drainage pan and channel in the alley has been reconfigured, refer to
the detailed grading plan sheets.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Please identify the emergency access only connection to Suniga on the south side of the street.
The design will need to ensure that public access is restricted and that it meets PFA design
standards/criteria.
RESPONSE: Signage and knox locks are provided at the emergency only access connection
south of Suniga, refer to horizontal control plan sheets.
Comment Number: 41
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
The proposed crosswalk striping at the intersection of Suniga and Lemay should align with the
pedestrian ramps.
RESPONSE: Crosswalk striping revised accordingly, refer to Suniga Road signage & striping
plan.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Lot 6, Block 8 building envelope should be outside of the sight distance easement.
RESPONSE: The easement is proposed to be dedicated crossing this lot. No building is
proposed within the easement.
Comment Number: 43
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Please coordinate with surveying consultant to get all necessary sight distance easements
E
RESPONSE: Line over text and text over text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
09/10/2018: The offsite access easement to the north needs to be in place prior to final approval
of this project. Please provide confirmation of easement recordation prior to then.
RESPONSE: Easement dedication will be by separate document and is currently being prepared
by the surveyor.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
09/10/2018: At Final - We will want to see spot elevations and slopes labeled on all pedestrian
ramps in public ROW. Coordinate with Engineering on what is being requested prior to submitting
final construction plans.
RESPONSE: Requested information is provided on the street intersection detail sheets.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
09/11/2018: At Final - Provide elevation and slope information for the proposed access road that
connects off -site, to the north of the site.
RESPONSE: Requested information is provided on the detailed grading plan sheets.
Comment Number: 33
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
The ditch crossing of Suniga will need to be included with the final design plans. The consulting
engineer will need to coordinate with City CIP Engineering (Tim Kemp and/or Jin Wang) regarding
the design.
RESPONSE: Lake Canal RCBC design under Suniga is included in the plan set.
Comment Number: 35
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Please include a reference to ADA standards in the Site Plan Notes, as the project will need to
meet these standards in addition to City walk/ramp standards.
RESPONSE: See Sheet 01 — Site Plan Notes #16
Comment Number: 36
Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
There may be a conflict with the proposed drainage facilities within the proposed 50-foot public
access and trail easement along the ditch. Please work with Park Planning to ensure that the
drainage design and future trail and easement will be acceptable.
RESPONSE: The grading/drainage/utility design accommodates the future regional trail. Cross
Batten, varying width of the Lap Siding, adding shutters, and enriching the color combinations with
new and different colors.
RESPONSE: See elevations and sheet 01 for additional information
Comment Number: 85 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: On Landscape Plans sheets 18 — 20, for the Rowhouses facing Suniga Road, Staff is
concerned about providing a sufficient amount of plant material to both help screen and mitigate
the traffic noise. Staff is interested in discussing practical options for this area that would
enhance the livability of these units being so close to Suniga Road.
RESPONSE: Foundation plantings have been added for the rowhouses along Suniga (as well as
for all of the multi -family buildings on -site).
Comment Number: 86 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: None of the Landscape Plan sheets indicate street trees along N. Lemay Avenue.
Street trees are required in the parkway at 40-foot intervals.
RESPONSE: Street trees have now been added along N. Lemay.
Comment Number: 87
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Please see the redlines on the Landscape Plan. There remain areas where street
trees are needed along internal streets to fill gaps and where trees could be added to mitigate the
long alleyways.
RESPONSE: Street trees have been added and separated according to the separations required
by the city of Fort Collins for street lights, signs, and utilities. Ornamental trees have also been
used to hopefully fill in some of the gaps where shade trees will not fit.
Comment Number: 88 Comment Originated: 02/12/2019
02/12/2019: Regarding the trail in the area north of Alta Vista, it appears that at one point the
trail comes very close to the Milcan property. This trail should be shifted away from the Milcan
north property line.
RESPONSE: Trail has been adjusted
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
09/10/2018: There are quite a few line -over text and text -over text issues. Please ensure that all
text is legible.
• MWS that exceeds 350 feet;
• MWS that crosses an alley;
• MWS that does not meet the definition.
In all cases of non-compliance, the design team is encouraged to consider adding features that
would allow the Modification to be considered equal to or better than a design that would
otherwise comply. (Please refer to Section 2.8.2(H)(1). These mitigation features include, but
not limited to, enhanced cross -walks, additional trees, widening the walkway, adding benches,
seat walls, planters, pedestrian lighting, and the like.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 81
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Regarding compliance with Section 4.5(E)(4) — Design Standards for Multi -Family
Dwellings Containing More Than Eight Dwelling Units — these standards apply to the 1512-unit
buildings (Flats). Because there is a relatively high number of buildings (26% of the total) and
that they are clustered and are placed in sequence, greater differentiation among the three -
building design options is required in order to meet the standard.
RESPONSE: See elevations and sheet 01 for additional information
Comment Number: 82
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Please introduce a new non -stucco siding type as all 15 buildings feature Board and
Batten. In addition, please introduce a new stucco color as ten buildings feature the Light Gray.
And, please introduce a new entry style as ten buildings feature the Flat Roof with Stone Header.
Finally, please introduce a different window style as all 15 buildings are specified identically.
RESPONSE: See elevations and sheet 01 for additional information
Comment Number: 83
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Regarding compliance with Section 3.8.30(F)(2 - 7) — Design Standards for
Multi -Family Dwellings — these standards apply to the multi -family (3 — 4 units) and (5 — 7 units)
(Rowhouses). Staff is concerned that for these 17 buildings, with 13 clustered south of Suniga
Road, there appears to be a repetitive aspect on an overall basis. Please consider for the nine
5-plexes, introducing a new and different color scheme.
RESPONSE: See elevations and sheet 01 for additional information
Comment Number: 84 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Regarding compliance with Section 3.5.2(C)(2)(a) - Housing Model Variety and
Variation Among Buildings — Three Building Designs — these standards apply to 20 Single Family
Attached (Brownstones). Please note that 5-plex and 8-plex buildings are identical and the only
differentiation is the building footprint size, but that the standard calls for distinctly different
building designs. While compliance is achieved with three building designs versus four, staff is
concerned about overall repetitiveness especially given that there are 20 buildings (35% of the
total). Please consider introducing different elements such as varying the width of the Board and
Comment Number: 75 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building 7c (12-unit M-F Flats) —this building is disconnected from Toomey Drive by
distances (as measured from either side of the building) that exceed 200 feet but under 350 feet.
Compliance could be achieved if connected by a MWS. If not, then a Modification would be
needed.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 76 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building 10c (12-unit M-F Flats) — this building is disconnected from Toomey Drive by
a distance that exceeds 200 feet. Therefore, it must be connected by a MWS (meeting the
definition) or a Modification would be needed.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 77 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building 6d (8-unit SFA Brownstone) — this building is disconnected from Lemay
Avenue or Landmark Way by distances that exceed 350 feet. (Note, this walkway is not labeled
as MWS.) Therefore, a Modification will be needed.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 78
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building 12d (6-unit SFA Brownstone) — portions of this building are disconnected
from either Toomey Drive or Pioneer Trail by distances that exceed 350 feet or must cross an
alley to Schlagel Street. Therefore, a Modification will be needed.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 79
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building 14d (5-unit SFA Brownstone) —this building is disconnected from Pioneer
Trail by a distance that exceeds 200 feet and under 350 feet, but the walk is not a MWS. A
Modification will be needed.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 80 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: For the buildings that do not comply with Section 3.5.2(D), a single Modification can
be requested that consolidates all the instances of non-compliance. The request could be
submitted in a table format that describes the aspect(s) at issue, either singularly or in any
combination, on a per building basis. Please indicate how compliance may be achieved with a
plan revision or the aspect, or degree of non-compliance:
• CW that exceeds 200 feet but under 350 feet;
• CW that crosses an alley;
5
One solution would be to dedicate that portion of the MWS that is on private property as an
easement thereby ensuring that the minimum required width of 35 is preserved. Or, a
Modification of Standard could be requested that seeks to reduce the width to include only the
area outside the individual lot.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 71 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building la (5-unit M-F rowhouse) — this building is disconnected from the nearest
public street sidewalk — Suniga Road. This can be remedied, and compliance achieved by either
a direct walk to Suniga or a direct walk to the walk on the west side of Building 2a. In either case,
the distance is under 200 feet so this could be a Connecting Walkway.
RESPONSE: Connecting walkway to Suniga has been established
Comment Number: 72 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building 3a (5-unit M-F rowhouse) — this building is disconnected from Steely Drive
such that the westerly two units exceed the maximum allowable distance of 350 feet for a Major
Walkway Spine. Or, the building is disconnected from Suniga Road because the walkway must
cross an alley. The distance to Suniga is under 200 feet so this would be a Connecting Walkway.
In either event, a Modification is needed. Note, when crossing an alley, the grade break must be
on alley, not the crosswalk.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 73 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: In conjunction with the aforementioned comment, the Major Walkway Spine that
connects Buildings 3a and 5a to Steely Drive must cross an alley to tie into the public sidewalk.
Also, this MWS is not tree -lined along its entire length to Steely. Also, staff is concerned that this
MWS bends in such a way as to come very close to the two buildings such that there is little or no
space between the walkway and fence/gate. Is there a way to shift walk slightly to the south?
Additional trees must be added so that the walk is tree -line all the way to Steely (LS 19). Also, as
noted, when crossing an alley, the grade break must be on the alley, not the crosswalk.
RESPONSE: walks have been adjusted and trees added Currently all pedestrian spines go
around buildings to avoid private drive crossings
Comment Number: 74 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Building 11a (6-unit M-F rowhouse) — this building is disconnected from Steely Drive
such that the easterly 4 units exceed 350 feet and an alley crossing is needed. Or, this entire
building is disconnected from Suniga Road with a Connecting Walkway that must cross an alley.
In either event, a Modification is needed.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
4
RESPONSE: Pullouts have been added to allow for addressing off Lemay
11/07/2018: For the three buildings that front on N. Lemay Avenue (Bldgs. 9,13,15), they will be
addressed off N. Lemay versus the private drive (alley). As such, emergency responders will
need to stage on N. Lemay, which, until Lemay is realigned, will function as an arterial street.
Please investigate adding two interim pull-outs for emergency equipment. Each pull-out needs to
measure 10' x 60'. When Lemay is realigned, existing Lemay will be down -classified to a local
street and these pull-outs can be removed.
RESPONSE: Pull outs have been added to allow for addressing off Lemay
Comment Number: 68
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019-. For the neighborhood center, consider placing the building so that there is a stronger
relationship to Steely Drive and subordinate the parking lot. This will create more interest and
provide opportunity for outdoor gathering and patio activity. A denser screen of landscaping is
needed along the parking perimeter wherever it adjoins Steely Drive or faces Suniga Road.
Please refer to Section 3.2.1(E)(4) for specifics.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion. Building is oriented to allow upper residences to
have views towards open space / lake canal
Such landscaping will not only helps screen the parking lot but will also help to buffer traffic noise
emanating from a four -lane arterial street. Staff acknowledges that additional details, and
perhaps a Minor Amendment, will be forthcoming at the time an end -user is identified to ensure
that the development will encourage pedestrian and bicycle usage, neighborhood engagement
and activation.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion; parking lot screening has been added.
Comment Number: 69
Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Regarding compliance with Section 3.5.2(D) — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets
and Parking — Orientation to a Connecting Walkway, there are Dwelling and areas that need
either to remedied with a Connecting Walkway (under 200 feet in length) or a Major Walkway
Spine (MWS - meeting the definition of such and under 350 feet in length) in order to comply or
need a Request for Modification of Standard. In order to fully evaluate compliance that MWS be
placed within a 35-foot area, please label all retaining walls on either the Site Plan or the
Landscape Plan. Any retaining wall in the 35-foot MWS must be included and factored into any
Request for Modification.
RESPONSE: Modifications have been submitted and approved per April 2019 P&Z Hearing
Comment Number: 70 Comment Originated: 02/11/2019
02/11/2019: Regarding the width of the Major Walkway Spine along south edge, and the
requirement that it be 35-feet wide, a portion of this required width is behind the fence and on the
private property of the individual lot per Section D, SP 13. This will require one of two solutions.
3
Comment Number: 36
Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
02/12/2019: Regarding the Typical for the Single Family Attached (Brownstones), it appears there
are two fences: one that is behind the sidewalk and one that cuts through the yard. Please
clarify.
RESPONSE: Extra lines have been removed
11 /05/2018: The following comments are based on the Lot Typicals on Sheet SP 13:
A. Regarding the Typical for the Single Family Attached (Brownstones), please
note that the front yards are bisected by a line that parallels the street and aligns
with the bottom of the stairs. While it is clear that in front of this line is the front
yard, it is not clear what is between this line the unit. What is the purpose of this
line or does the front yard simply consist of the entire area between the unit and
the back -of -walk? Please clarify. Also, please clarify that the area between the
fence and the public sidewalk is considered part of the front yard.
RESPONSE: See new typical sheet SP 13
B. Regarding the Typical for Multi -Family with Fenced Yards (Residences and
Rowhouses), for the Residences, please note that the drive aisle width could be
reduced from 24 to 20 feet. This would enlarge the yards and lengthen the
driveways.
RESPONSE: Widths have been reduced to 20'
C. Also, please note that the fence and gate must be two feet behind the public
sidewalk. For the Rowhouses, be sure to clarify that the area between the fence
and the public sidewalk is considered part of the front yard.
RESPONSE: Note has been added to typicals sheet SP 13
D. It would be helpful to add to both Typicals a label and dimension for the
parkway (tree lawn).
RESPONSE: Dimensions have been added
E. Regarding the width of the parkways, they scale at 5.5 feet. Please note that
LCUASS Figure 7-8F, on a Connector Local Street (57-foot right-of-way), the
parkway width must be six feet wide. Please adjust the parkways accordingly.
RESPONSE: Incorrect. LCUASS actually indicates 5.5' parkways as shown on plans
Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
02/12/2019: Without pull-outs on Lemay, these buildings will need to be addressed off the alley
and the alley will need to be named.
2
Fort Collins
� -
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
tcgov. com/developmentre view
February 15, 2019
Jason Sherrill
Landmark Real Estate Holdings, LLC
6341 Fairgrounds Ave., Ste 100
Windsor, CO 80550
RE: Northfield Filing 1 Expanded, PDP180011, Round Number 3
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 If you have questions about comments, please
contact your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan, at 970-221-6695 or tullivan@fcpov.com .
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 33
Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
02/12/2019: This detail cannot be in plan view. A continuous grade for the walkways is
imperative in order to comply with the standard. 11/06/2018: Please provide a schematic that
indicates compliance.
10/09/2018: Comment Number Seven - Emphasis: For Section 3.5.2(D) - connecting walkways
or major walkway spine - if there are walkways that cross an alley to gain access to nearest public
sidewalk, then such crosswalks must comply with Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) which states: "Street
Crossings. Where it is necessary for the primary pedestrian access to cross drive aisles or
internal roadways, the pedestrian crossing shall emphasize and place priority on pedestrian
access and safety. The material and layout of the pedestrian access shall be continuous as it
crosses the driveway, with a break in continuity of the driveway paving and not in the pedestrian
access way. The pedestrian crossings must be well -marked using pavement treatments, signs,
striping, signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques, median refuge areas and landscaping."
Please provide a schematic that indicates compliance.
RESPONSE: Currently all pedestrian spines go around buildings to avoid private drive crossings