The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS - FDP190021 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSDepartment: Zoning Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: All mechanical equipment, meters, conduit, vents and RTU's shall be screened from public view from both above and below by integrating it into the building and roof design as per 3.5.1(1)(6). COMMENT #2 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: Site lighting shall be provided as per 3.2.4(C). Alighting plan is required, including photometrics and fixture cut sheets. Use of warmer color temperatures (3000 Kelvin) in sight lighting is preferred. I will need to have the photometrics for the entire site. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/2017 11/01/2017: One of the Handicap parking spaces is required to be van accessible, and be a minimum of 8' wide and adjoin a 8' wide access aisle. Can you please add the handicap accessibility ramps in both the parking garage and the north east corner of the building. COMMENT #4 RESPONSE: (2) Van accessible parking spaces have been provided on the ground level. Per this comment, (1) of those spaces has an 8ft wide stall with an 8ft side access aisle. H.C. accessible ramp/walks are provided at the northeast portion of building to allow access from public way to building entrances. Within the parking garage itself, the entire parking garage slab at the ground floor, will be gradually warped upward from the south; and meet the elevation of all building entrances and elevator access at the main entrance to the building. The slopes will not be greater than 2%. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: Please provide direct pedestrian access to the Spring Creek MAX Station (160' beyond the project property line). In order to do so, a potential solution would be providing access out from your third floor (above the parking) to bridge the Sherwood Lateral and garner an easement to the station. Direct access to MAX stations is a top priority for development plans in the TOD Overlay Zone. This access creates a realistic transportation alternative and is how the code is able to provide so many reductions in parking requirements. Sections of the Land Use Code that facilitate this are 3.2.2(C)(7), and 3.5.1(J)(7). Response: Noted, this has been worked out during the hearing, and was determined that the existing connections are adequate. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/25/2017 09/25/2017: 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: Noted Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/31/2017: Please add a thrust block as well due to the size of tap being 4 inches. W Thrust block added 10/03/2017: Please revise 3-inch water tap to a 4-inch wet tap with TB, 4-inch gate valve, and a 4X3 reducer. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: The western sanitary sewer service can not outfall into the existing manhole. Please revise the service to enter the main just downstream of the manhole. W Sewer service has not been moved downstream of manhole. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 017: Please label the size of the existing sanitary sewer main. 1W Size is not indicated on the utility plan and existing plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Discussion needs to take place regarding the existing 6-inch water main and the conflict with the proposed 18-inch storm sewer. W A lowering is shown on the waterline for this storm crossing. 11/01/2017: 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. 10/05/2017: 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 res onse letter. We do not have any record of redlines from Technical Services on 11/1/2017. We have addressed all comments from redlines reviewed on 10/4/2017. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: The TIS assumes a pedestrian connection to MAX. The plans do not show this. The interest would be in having the connection. If the project does not intend to construct a connection we would need a memo update of the TIS indicating whether the project meets pedestrian LOS requirements. Response: Noted, a memo has been provided by Delich. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: The cross sections of Johnson Drive and Spring Court will allow for continued parking. The area is in an RP3 zone, and it may be helpful to determine whether the zone still makes sense, and/or if changes are needed for the zone. You may need to work with Parking on this issue. Response: Noted Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/31/2017: The revised study includes this analysis and recommends the addition of a northbound left turn arrow at the signal of College / Spring Park. As we move into final, we'll need to work with you on the details of this - timing for installation, feasibility, cost. etc. 10/03/2017: There was no discussion of modifications of the signal at College Avenue and Spring Park/ Johnson. A left turn phase could be necessary to accommodate the amount of traffic this development will generate. This could have been discussed on the missing pages of the study. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-4164320, slorson@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: The proposed development is in an Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) zone. As such, your development will be able to receive a few permits depending on availability. Permits will be provided to residents on a per unit basis, first come first served. Without a permit, on -street parking on the surrounding streets is limited to 2-hours. Response: Noted Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/03/2017: Note that an approved floodplain use permit is required prior to building permit issuance. Acknowledged. A note is provided in the floodplain exhibit. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 Please be aware that per Section 10-103 (9), Critical Facilities are prohibited in the floodplain. The definition for Critical Facilities includes facilities for at -risk populations (daycares, schools, nursing homes, etc.), facilities utilizing hazardous materials (gas stations, auto repair, laboratories), emergency services facilities (urgent care, hospitals, fire, police) and government services (municipal offices, library). Please keep this regulation in mind when planning uses for the commercial portion of the structure. W No critical facilities are associated with this development. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/25/2017 09/25/2017: The note was observed that materials will be provided at a later time. The prior comments will need to be address before plans can be approved. Erosion Control Materials will need to be produced, reviewed, and accepted to meet City Erosion Control Criteria before Development Agreement Language can be drafted. If you need clarification concerning the Erosion Control Material Requirements or Comments presented above please contact mvself. Jesse Schlam (970) 224-6015 Ischlam@fcgov.com W Erosion control plan, escrow, and SWMP report have been included with this submittal. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31 /2017: The concrete pan along the west property boundary can be removed due to these slopes being close to 4%. W Pan has been removed. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/05/2017 11/01/2017: All plans will be thoroughly reviewed at FDP. 10/05/2017: All plans will be reviewed at the next round of review. Response: Noted Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/05/2017 COMMENT #28 - RESPONSE: Utility sized brick in earth tones and brownish -reds will be used in spirit of TOD standards. A utility sized brick is 4"x4"x12" nominal size. This is larger than modular brick (used on a house for example) but using the utility sized brick will look proportional on this sized building. The brick is still a clay product like all other brick veneer. We have also added a stone feature on some of the stair towers for more architectural character especially at the pedestrian level. Please refer to updated material sample board. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 Please label the MAX line on the site and landscape plans. Response: Noted Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-68549 hhansen@fcqov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 A portion of this property is located in the FEMA regulated, 100-year Spring Creek floodplain. Any development within the floodplain must obtain a floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. There are multiple projects planned or under review that may modify the floodplain and floodway in this area in the future. The project must meet the floodplain regulations based on the adopted regulatory map at the time of building permit issuance. There is a small amount of 100-year Floodway that crosses the northwestern corner of the site. Please include the floodway line on drawings. This project meets the safety regulations set forth in Chapter 10. A Floodway Exhibit has been included with this submittal to help show compliance. The FEMA Firmette does not show this floodway line. The City GIS doesn't match FEMA's mapping or the recently approved LOMR. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/03/2017: Please use the floodplain development review checklist available at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents for the floodplain information that should be included on the Plat, Site Plan and Drainage/Grading Plans. Include the boundaries on the site plan and add a note stating that the development must comply with the floodplain regulations in Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code. Add floodplain requirement notes to the Utili Plan set. Note added to drainage sheet, utility plan, grading plan. Floodplain checklist is provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/03/2017: The drainage report states that the structure will be fully elevated to the Flood Protection Elevation which is 18 inches above the highest Base Flood Elevation on the structure. Please place a note on the plans stating the Base Flood Elevation, Flood Protection Elevation and the lowest floor elevation so that it is clear that the entire structure is elevated to meet the requirements. Please be aware that the bottom of an elevator pit is considered the lowest floor elevation. W Information is now provided on Floodplain Exhibit. This exhibit is added to the drainage report. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Site Plan: See site plan redlines for minor comments. Response: Noted Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Site Plan: can you look at adjusting the transformer location. Response: Noted, the location has been updated. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Site Plan: northwest corner of building is slightly over utility easement and over existing F/O lines? Response: Noted, the building has been shifted outside of the easement, a survey has been ordered to determine the location of the FO lines. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Site Plan: should an off -site street sidewalk continue along Spring Court/Arthur along the south side to College. Please also see page 24 - 27 of the TIS which suggests that a staircase is proposed and needed to provide an acceptable pedestrian LOS. Response: Noted, there is an accessible walk installed with the Elevations Credit Union project providing access to College from the site. It was determined that the staircase over the ditch was not necessary. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Building: Elevations show a painted concrete label; detail on A3.2 shows a painted block and concrete panel. Are the walls block or concrete and can the labels be clarified. COMMENT #25 -RESPONSE: Refer to revised exterior elevations. An updated material board has been provided to further explain materials. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Building: Can we get a material samples board, this will be most helpful for the metal siding. There is some concern about the dark tone being too dark, but it may be fine. COMMENT #26 -RESPONSE: Refer to revised exterior elevations. An updated material board has been provided to further explain materials. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Building: The cornice treatments— are these intended to be white, is this too much contrast. Are there examples that would help show the design character here? Is this darker than, for example, the color scheme used at the 901 Western building COMMENT #27 -RESPONSE: Refer to revised exterior elevations. The cornice treatments have been shown accurate as alight tan color with darker tan accents. These will accentuate the podium level cornices, and the overall building edge cornices for more dramatic effect and character. The contrast would be minimal contrast as it compares to adjacent materials. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Building: The building details mention a utility sized brick which is larger than a modular brick. Are there photo examples of this look that can be emailed to me? Is this the pattern/size that was used at 901 Western Avenue? Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Regarding the enclosure location, 3.5.1(1) requires that trash enclosures be set back at least 20 feet from the right of way (back of sidewalk). Response: Noted, the enclosure design has been updated. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Please see comments below from Jonathon Nagel Environmental Compliance Inspector 970-416-2701 office 1. Regardless of final location I highly discourage the use of recycling carts for anything but single family homes, dumpsters offer increased efficiency. Cardboard (which has to be recycled per our ordinances) is very challenging to fit into carts and often leaves them overflowing if not serviced incredibly frequently which can lead residents to throw out their recyclables. The larger dimensions of dumpster allow cardboard to fall more easily to the bottom of the bin and get better use of its space. 2. As for location, I would be very hesitant to move the enclosure much farther back into the garage structure as it will most certainly be navigated in reverse, which just increase the risk of accident/injury. Would it be possible to put it on the South wall straight back from the entrance to the garage? (Essentially behind the "Outdoor gathering space"). You will also want to verify height clearance given it is inside the garage. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Regarding the car share, we are still evaluating the two options proposed in the narrative. Typically mitigation measures are required to be provided by the developer if proposed to reduce the required parking and staff will recommend that the proposal be conditioned that the 5 car share spaces be a development obligation. Response: Noted, the car share has been removed from the project Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Landscape Plan: More foundation landscaping in the bed along the east side of the bldg. is recommended. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: Landscape Plan: two existing trees to the southeast show grading/cut around the tree dripline. Please take a closer look at this this area and evaluate if it is feasible or if low walls are needed. Response: Noted. 10/03/2017: The Site Plan and the Grading Plan show that the north bank of Sherwood Lateral will be re -graded, which will not be allowed by the irrigation company. Any grading work associated with either bank of the ditch must be approved by the ditch company. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/30/2017: As stated above, I would like a site visit to discuss tree plantings along the ditch bank. Response: Noted, we will set up a meeting and review with natural areas to discuss. 10/03/2017: The Landscaping Plan shows several trees and shrubs being planted along the banks of the Sherwood Lateral. New plantings of any type will not be allowed by the irrigation company. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: Sherwood Irrigation Company would like an easement dedicated on the plat, to be used for the operation and maintenance of the irrigation ditch. Our preference is to have the north boundary of the easement 25 feet from the centerline of the ditch. W An Easement has been added to the plans and plat. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: NOTE #17 ON SITE PLAN There is some confusion on my part as to Note #17 on the Site Plan (pg. LS101). Does this comment apply to this project? Response: Noted, the notes have been updated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: FIRE DEPT. HOSE CONNECTIONS TO COURTYARDS A standpipe with hose connections will be required inside the courtyard access/egress doorways. COMMENT #4 RESPONSE: A standpipe with hose connections will be provided at each egress/ingress doorway to the courtyards. Standpipes with hose connections will also be installed in each egress stairway. Comment Number: 5 10/31/2017: FDC Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 The location of the Fire Department Connection shall be within 100' of a fire h drant. A FDC is located near the NE stairs within 100' of the existing hydrant. COMMENT #5 RESPONSE: The Fire Department Connection will be within 1 00'of a fire hydrant. See revised plans. transformer. If so, the transformer will need to be a minimum of 10' from the building. Transformer location has moved and is now 15.5' away from the building but still next to a drivable surface. 10/02/2017: The proposed transformer location will need to have a minimum of 3' of clearance along the back and sides and 8' of clearance in front of the doors. Please refer to our Electric Service Standards at the following link. . http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/02/2017 10/02/2017: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all proposed commercial buildings and multi -family (commercial) buildings larger than a duplex or greater than 200amps. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations COMMENT #6 RESPONSE: Once all building loads are known, a commercial service information form (C-1) and a one line diagram will be submitted to Light and Power Engineering for review. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/02/2017 10/02/2017: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970-221-6700. Please reference our Electric Service Standards, development charges and fee estimator at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers COMMENT #7 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31 /2017: Please field locate and show on the Utility Plan the exact location and electric facilities North & East of the existing tunnel under railroad where the no says "Approximate vault location connect to 3-phase power". Light & Power has a major duct bank running North & South, East of the RR. COMMENT #9 RESPONSE: Acknowledged W Survey has been ordered and the exact location will be updated next round. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Mark Taylor, 970416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/30/2017: The Limit of Disturbance (LOD) shown on the grading plan (Sheet 3.0) looks reasonable. I would still like to schedule a site visit to meet and discuss the project and its impact on the ditch and ditch operation. W LOD remained the same. 2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the fcgov.com/building web page to view them. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 129vult or 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2015 IRC Chapter 11 or 2015 IECC. 2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2015 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2015 IECC commercial chapter. COMMENT #1 RESPONSE: This project will use the latest building codes, structural criteria, energy calculations, accessibility codes and all amendments thereto, as listed on the City of Fort Collins website under "Building Services" and the page pertaining to building codes Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/04/2017 10/04/2017: Please schedule a pre -submittal meeting with Building Services for this project. Pre -Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed above. The proposed project should be in the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective. Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com to schedule a pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. COMMENT #2 RESPONSE: The pre -submittal meeting with Building Services has been scheduled for 1 pm on October 291h via phone conversation and email confirmation with Tenae Beane; project coordinator. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/04/2017 10/04/2017: Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. Please provide an accessibility plan showing compliance with these requirements. COMMENT #3 RESPONSE: This project will comply with the CRS 9-5 and other accessibility code standards listed on the City of Fort Collins website under `Building Services" and the page pertaining to building codes and accessibility standards. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/02/2017 10/31/2017: Will any windows be placed in the parking garage behind the 10/30/2017: Narrowleaf Cottonwood produces an abundance of sucker growth and can be difficult to maintain as well as become a nuisance. Please consider whether this species is appropriate where shown. Please also consider the use of Lanceleaf and Plains Cottonwood on the landscape plans. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: On Sheet LP100, there only appears to be one `tree to be removed' symbol for trees T5 and T6. Please show two symbols that clearly display two removals. Response: Noted. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/03/2017: The development site contains existing buildings that are more than 50 years old. Demolition of buildings 50 years old or older need to be reviewed under the City's Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Municipal Code Section 14-72). This process determines a building or structure's eligibility to qualify for recognition as a Fort Collins Landmark. The determination of eligibility requires current color photographs of all sides of each building or structure, provided by the applicant. Sufficient photos should be taken to show the current condition of the building, especially any previous alterations or additions. Additionally, photos of the front elevation of abutting buildings or structures in each direction are also required, to show the context of the building. Digital photos should be sent to cbumgamer@fcgov.com. If any of the buildings or structures are found to be individually eligible for Landmark designation, then the project would be reviewed for compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7. Section 3.4.7. is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Response: Noted. Department: Internal Services Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated 10/04/2017: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2015 International Building Code (IBC) 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 10/04/2017 Please use the most current version of the City of Fort Collins General Notes (November 2015), which are available through City Forestry (Molly Roche L mroche@fcgov.com). Response: Notes will be updated per the most current available. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/30/2017: Continued: Will the Texas Red Oak shown in a northwest mulch bed receive any irrigation? Response: All planting beds will have irrigation. 10/03/2017: Please show irrigated turf used within the right-of-way. Response: All turf will be irrigated Comment Number: 5 10/30/2017: Continued: Continued comment until FDP. Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/03/2017: Show location of any stop signs and street lights. Identify these fixtures with a distinct symbol. Space trees if needed as follows. Stop Signs: 20 feet from sign Street Light: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees Response: Noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/30/2017: Continued: Thank you for showing the correct number of Rocky Mountain Juniper on the landscape plans. However, one of the three Rocky Mountain Junipers is covered by some text on the landscape plans. Please shift text so that all plants and trees are visible on the plans. Response: Noted. 10/03/2017: There appears to be only (6) Rocky Mountain Juniper shown on the landscape plans. Please show the remaining (3) as instructed on the landscape schedule. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: City Forestry prefers the use of Accolade or David Elm in place of Discovery Elm on this project. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/30/2017: In the Landscape Schedule, please specify how many Regal Prince Oaks will be upsized mitigation trees. City Forestry suggests adding another line in the legend specifying mitigation size and quantity. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/30/2017 10/31/2017: lam happy to participate in a site visit to review landscaping and grading in the vicinity of the ditch, if it's helpful. Response: Thank you. 10/03/2017: BUFFER ZONE: Prior to hearing, please provide documentation of coordination with the ditch company to determine whether any easements or restrictions apply for the ditch. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: LIGHTING PLAN: Given the need to illuminate the pedestrian walkway, the current plan for site lighting cannot meet the requirements in section 3.2.4(D)(6). As such, Alternative Compliance OR a Modification of Standard will need to be requested for the lighting plan. The justification for either approach needs to be provided prior to hearing. Additional measures to reduce lighting in the buffer, including motion activation of lights, time limits, dimming, and other controls should be considered. Alternative Compliance process and criteria: "3.2.4(E) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative lighting plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting the standards of this Section. (1) Procedure. Alternative compliance lighting plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with submittal requirements for lighting plans as set forth in this Section. The plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. (2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a lighting plan which complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall consider the extent to which the proposed design protects natural areas from light intrusion, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, and demonstrates innovative design and use of fixtures or other elements." Response: Alternative compliance is requested; the pathways will be luminated with motion sensor lighting. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017 10/30/2017: Continued: Please clarify where General Landscape notes #14-18 originated from. Response: Notes will be updated per the most current available. 10/03/2017: Fort of Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO B0522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax kgov. com/developmentreview November 03, 2017 Craig Russell Russell + Mills Studios 506 S. College Ave, Suite A Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Johnson Drive Apartments, PDP170034, Round Number 2 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, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 orjholland@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-65015 kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/31/2017 10/31/2017: All PDP level comments are resolved and Engineering is ready for the project to go to public hearing. Please note that there will likely be additional FDP level comments at the time of FDP review. Response: Thank you. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-65735 slangenberger@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/15/2017 09/15/2017: The project owes an additional $73.25 in TDRF PDP fees. The acreage used on the form was not the full acreage being platted as identified on the cover of the plat. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, rverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017