Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - PDP - PDP110018 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Comment Responses 1 3/25/2012 City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attention: Mr. Ted Shepard RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing PDP 110018, Round No. 1 Dear Ted, Attached are replications of the review comments received from the City regarding the referenced project, along with responses to each of the respective comments. The City’s comments are presented in regular black text, with the corresponding responses presented immediately below the comment in italicized blue text. If you have questions regarding any of the comment responses, please contact either myself at (970) 674-3323 or Larry Owen at (970) 226-0264. Sincerely, The Frederickson Group, LLC Deanne Frederickson Owen Consulting Group, Inc. Larry C. Owen, P.E. Comment Responses 2 3/25/2012 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 January 25, 2012 Deanne Frederickson The Frederickson Group, LLC 7711 Windsong Rd Windsor, CO 80550 RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP110018, Round Number 1 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Responses 3 3/25/2012 Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The site, landscape and architectural elevations for the clubhouse, pool, sport court, etc. will be needed at the time of submittal for Final Plan, not Building Permit as indicated in the note. The site design for the clubhouse and recreation area will be included with the Final Development Plan. The note on LS2 has been changed to reflect this. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please provide a symbol or label that indicates the front of the dwellings face either a public street or a major walkway spine. The plans should be clear that the fronts do not face the parking lots. A small triangle has been added to each building on the Site Plan to designate the front of the building. In all cases, the buildings front on either a public street or a major walkway spine. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: We will need to have a discussion with our Environmental Planner and Stormwater as to the extent of landscaping the City's detention pond in and in conjunction with the prairie dog removal mitigation plan. A prairie dog management plan is included with the second round of review comments. This plan is based on lengthy discussions between the Staff Environmental Planner, Lindsay Ex, the Consultant Wildlife Biologist, Eric Berg, the Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Judy Scherpelz, and two removal consultant agencies (Roe Environmental and Pest- Rite). Landscape treatments in the Storm water detention basin and conveyance channel include native grasses, shrubs and trees to provide informal wildlife foraging areas. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: A walkway is needed along the private drive along the north side of the clubhouse area. This walkway must be a minimum of six feet in width since the parking stalls are only 17 feet in length. Be sure to add ramps where this walkway intersects with the parking lot drive. A 6’ pedestrian walkway has been added, as requested. Comment Responses 4 3/25/2012 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: As per the Zoning comment, there should be two additional walkways traversing the north/south drainage channel in addition to the public sidewalk on Lupine. At the southern end of the drainage channel, this walkway/bridge can be combined with the walkway indicated at the south edge of the buildings as there is no need to duplicate. Again, be sure that ramps are added where this walkway intersects with the drive aisles. Two walkways have been added to traverse the north-south drainage channel at the suggested locations. These walkways will include pedestrian bridges over the channel and ramps, as necessary. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Along public streets, street trees must be two inches in caliper, not 1 1/2 inch. The note on page LS-2 has been removed. All street trees on public roadways shall be 2” cal. As indicated on the plant list page LS-1 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: For the Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (including the Two Family Dwellings where there are more than three bedrooms i.e. Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride) be sure to use 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) in calculating the minimum parking required. Off street parking calculations have been included on the Title Page to show how the plan exceeds the requirements as stated in the Development Code. The plan does not propose any extra occupancy rental houses at this time. However, the developer intends to convert the single family detached dwelling units to extra occupancy rental houses in the future. Therefore, we have also calculated what the ultimate parking requirements would be for comparison to the actual number of parking spaces provided within the project. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: Per 3.6.5, and in conjunction with the comments from Transfort, please indicate the location of the bus stop(s) and show how these bus stops are connected to the project with logically located walkways. The existing and proposed bus stop locations have been shown on the Site Plan, along with sidewalks within the project to connect the proposed bus stop to the internal pedestrian network. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: On site plan sheet 11 of 14, at the south end of the clubhouse/amenity area, please indicate that this is the clubhouse area. Are there any plans for how the clubhouse relates to Lupine Drive? Will there be a mail kiosk in this area? Is there sufficient area for a Comment Responses 5 3/25/2012 one or two-car pull-in/pull-out for dropping off rent checks or any other such frequent activity? These seems like a logical location for how the clubhouse or leasing office relates to the community at-large. The applicant and consultant team agree with this assessment. Lupine is public R.O.W. and as such allows public parking along the frontage of the recreation area. It is anticipated that “no- parking-loading zone” signs will be posted along this frontage. Appropriate mail kiosks, bicycle and short-term parking will be provided at this location for frequent tenant activities. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: There has been some discussion regarding the continuation of the "trail" along Redwood. Please coordinate with Engineering as to the location and specifications for this trail and indicate on the appropriate site plan sheets. The existing trail, south of the currently developed portion of Redwood St., lies partially within the footprint of the proposed southward extension of Redwood St. As such, it will be removed as part of the road construction. A sidewalk will be constructed along the full length of the west side of Redwood St, and the Redwood St. cross-section (minor collector) includes a 6’-wide striped bike lane in each direction. The combination of the detached sidewalk and the striped bike lane will replace the existing “trail”. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: On landscape sheet 3 of 11, there is a detail for the typical treatment for Extra Occupancy Rental Houses and Two Family Dwellings. Is a similar detail needed for the Multi-Family units? Multi-family landscape treatments will be similar to the landscape treatments for the single-family detached and two-family dwelling units. Typical landscape treatments for the multi-family units have been included on the plan for further review. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: Be sure to add ramps wherever a private walkway intersects with a parking lot drive aisle. Ramps and crosswalk markings have been added to the Site Plan where private walkways intersect parking lot drive aisles. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: As a minor point, could you please put the name Vine in quotations and indicate that the use of the name is simply as an interim placeholder until such time as City Council designates a new name. Comment Responses 6 3/25/2012 This change has been made to the drawings. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: Please be thinking about putting together a list of possible names for the drive aisles needing to be named for addressing purposes as per Poudre Fire Authority. These names will then be run through our screening system in conjunction with the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority to check for duplicates, sound-alikes or difficult to pronounce names. Names do not need to be finalized at the P.D.P. stage. A list of possible names has been compiled and tested on the LETA system for the project private driveways. These names have not yet been approved by the Developer, and will be shown on the Final Development Plan. Comment Responses 7 3/25/2012 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine: The plans appear to show that only the north half of New Vine will be constructed with this project. The full section of New Vine (4 lane arterial section) will need to be built along the frontage of this property. This site has responsibility to build the local street frontage along the full north frontage from Redwood to the west property line of Lot 3 and the local street frontage along the south frontage from Redwood to the west property line along Lot 5. From the west edge of Tract 5 to the western property line Lot 3 the project is eligible for reimbursement from Old Town North. The center portion of the street (the oversized portion) will be reimbursed through Street Oversizing Fund participation. The drawings have been revised to indicate that the full cross-section of Vine Dr. (with the exception of the south-side tree lawn and sidewalk west of Lot 5) will be constructed in conjunction with the Aspen Heights project. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine: A full design for Vine Drive will be needed. As you work on this please remember that the median needs to be designed to include a sub drain, water tap, and the landscaping for the median needs to be planned out and designed. The median will also need to be design to meet horizontal and vertical design standards. A full design for Vine Dr. will be provided as part of the Final Plan Review phase of the project. The horizontal and vertical design information for Vine Dr. presented in the Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal for Aspen Heights is a replication of the design presented in the “Public Improvement Plans, East Vine Drive Relocation” received from the City. If this information provided by the City is incorrect, please advise us immediately. A landscape plan for the median is included in the Landscape Plan set. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine:As we get to designing the Redwood/ New Vine intersection this will need to be looked at in a bit more detail. Since the row for New Vine does not exist yet to the east the full intersection with curb returns can not be constructed at this time. We will want to make sure that what is built can be easily tied into with the future extension. At this time, we have shown the full extent of the intersection layout, with the portion east of the Redwood St. right-of-way shown in dashed lines. We will design the full extent of the intersection, with the realization that it will not be possible to construct the full extent until right-of-way is acquired, some time in the future. We will anticipate working with you to define the limits of Comment Responses 8 3/25/2012 construction as part of the Final Plan Review phase of the project. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: I can not tell if the grade lines tie into existing grades within the property lines and right-of-way lines at this time. Additional clarification is needed to show how all the grading work is proposed to tie into existing. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Contours have been added to the drawings to show the proposed grading of the site and how this proposed grading ties into the existing grades around the perimeter of the site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: No proposed grade lines are shown within Vine and Redwood. This is needed to show how the grading work for these streets will work and to determine what if any off-site easements will be needed for the work. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Design contours have been added throughout the project site, including along Vine Dr. and Redwood St., and these have been extended to show how the design grading ties into the existing grades around the perimeter of the site and along the off-site road rights-of-way. It is our intent that the grading be such that no off-site grading easements will be required. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: Need to show how you plan to end the west end of Vine and Lupine. And how the grades will tie into existing grades. Also need to show Type III barricades being installed in these two locations. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The PDP drawings have been revised to show the proposed interim design for the west end of Vine Dr. The design profile for Vine Dr., as shown in the drawings provided to us by the City, shows the proposed centerline grade at the west boundary of the Aspen Heights property as being approximately 3 feet above existing ground. If we were to terminate the street improvements at the west boundary of the property, we would have to extend the subgrade fill approximately 10 feet onto the adjacent property, and acquire an easement on property that will ultimately be right-of-way regardless. Alternately, we can temporarily terminate the street improvements 10’ east of the west boundary of the Aspen Heights site, leaving room within the site for the subgrade fill slope. It is our opinion that the latter solution is preferable, and the drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: What grading is needed, if any, in Blondel to achieve the minimum cover over the waterline you are showing to be installed? Sheet PP11 of the Vine Dr. design drawings provided to us by the City shows a design profile for the water main connection in Blondel St. We will install the water main connection to essentially Comment Responses 9 3/25/2012 this profile, and will place fill over the installed pipe to provide a minimum cover depth of 4.5 feet. The fill will be placed in a trapezoidal cross-section straddling the pipe, with a minimum crest width of 8 feet, and the fill will be compacted such that it is acceptable as a subgrade for the future road construction of Blondel St. The utility drawings for the Aspen Heights project have been revised to show this fill over the water main extension. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Driveways: All driveways into the parking lots and private drives need to be designed and shown as type I driveways. Based on the total trip generation and the number of parking spaces on site none of the driveways will have enough traffic to be considered high volume drives. They are currently being shown as if they were street intersections. The driveway entrances throughout the development have been revised to be Type I driveways. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Driveways and Grading: Per LCUASS no storm flows are to flow over the sidewalk and out the driveway. Understanding that no flow is not always achievable, the policy is that a maximum of 750 square feet of area is allowed to flow out a driveway. You have driveways/ parking areas that exceed that amount. For those areas you can take the drainage into a pan and out through a sidewalk culvert into the street. Provision has been made in the design of the driveway drainage systems to divert the overland flow into a separate channel and sidewalk chase to avoid excessive discharge of runoff across the sidewalk at the driveway intersection. The drawings have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: As identified in the conceptual comments and shown by these plans additional row is needed along Conifer and Redwood to accommodate the standard parkway and sidewalk section, This additional row and the standard 9 foot utility easements behind the row need to be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The project drawings and the subdivision plat for the development have been revised to show the dedication of additional right-of-way along the south side of Conifer St. and along a portion of the west side of Redwood St. to accommodate the required sidewalk within the right-of-way. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: Redwood and Conifer Streets are considered Collector streets on the MSP. As such upon construction of improvements along these roads the developer will be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement for the oversized portion of the roadways that are constructed by this development. Comment Responses 10 3/25/2012 Comment noted. We will work with you at the appropriate time to ensure that the necessary applications for reimbursement are completed and submitted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: I have circle and noted several areas on the plans where it looks like there might be a conflict between the sidewalks and handicap ramps and other items along the roadways. Some are utilities and others I am not quite sure what they are. We will need to look at these areas in more detail and determine how things can work and what utilities may need to be relocated. We have investigated the areas of possible conflict and have identified the existing utilities on the project drawings and, where necessary, have indicated a proposed solution to any conflicts. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce: Each end of Blue Spruce as it ties into Conifer and New Vine needs to be widened out to a 36 foot cross section for a distance. This will help to accommodate the traffic movements at these intersections. Thirty six feet will allow room for 3 travel lanes that will accommodate someone waiting to turn left, someone turning right and allow room for a vehicle to turn into the site. I can provide some example of this from other plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing). The design of Blue Spruce Dr. has been revised at the north and south ends of the street within the Aspen Heights development has been revised to provide for outbound left-turn lanes. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce: The Curves on Blue Spruce. I don’t believe that these meet the minimum centerline arc length requirement, Section 7.4.1.A.4. But do believe this solution with an adequate tangent is better than meeting this requirement and having a portion of the road shift over. Please put together a variance request for this. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The centerline geometry of Blue Spruce Dr. has been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 Plan and Profile Sheets: Lupine. Need to provide a 500 foot off-site design for this street. The design profile for Lupine St. has been extended to include possible future extension for a distance of 500’ west of the Aspen Heights site. Comment Responses 11 3/25/2012 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Lupine. Horizontal curves are not to be started or ended close to the top of a crest curve or the bottom of a sag curve. Section 7.4.A.5 LCUASS. This is currently occurring in two locations along Lupine. The centerline geometry of Lupine St. has been revised to eliminate conflicts between horizontal and vertical curves. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: There are several vertical curves in which the minimum curve length is not being provided. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18 The street profiles have been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Curve information is needed on these plans. The centerline curve data has been added to the drawings, as requested. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Need to label the curb return radii for all street intersections. Curb return radii labels have been added to the drawings. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce. Per the information on the plat the minimum tangent length between curves is not being met. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The centerline geometry for Blue Spruce Dr. has been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Redwood. Where you are showing tying into the existing roadway you are exceeding the minimum grade break allowed. The profile for the southward extension of Redwood St. has been revised to ensure compliance with LCUASS criteria. Topic: General Comment Responses 12 3/25/2012 Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed. Please provide a credit against the Transportation Development Review fees applicable to the Clubhouse / Recreation area. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The project summary indicated that a modification of standards request was submitted regarding a setback from New Vine Drive. I did not receive this documentation. The site plan for the project has been revised to eliminate the condition that would necessitate a request for a modification of standards. The request for modification of standards is hereby withdrawn. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. Pursuant to discussions with City staff, we have retained the name “New Vine Drive” for the time being, understanding that this will be changed at some point prior to final approval of the project. We will make appropriate changes to the labeling on the drawings at that time. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The soils report indicates that perched water conditions maybe found on this site. If this occurs whether before construction or during construction this site will need to be designed or redesigned to include an under drain system under the public streets. The concern regarding the possibility of perched water conditions is noted, and we will make appropriate design modifications if such conditions are realized. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: A pedestrian connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off-site sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the ultimate location along this roadway. The City Capital project for North College Ave is underway Comment Responses 13 3/25/2012 and upon completion of that College Ave will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing) The drawings have been modified to add a 5’-wide temporary asphalt pedestrian connection along the south side of Conifer St. from the project site to College Ave. This temporary pedestrian connection will be constructed immediately adjacent to the back of the existing curb, to minimize the need for grading of the adjacent site. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As we continue with rounds of review I will look into placement of manholes and make sure they are designed so they are not within the wheel path of the travel lance or within a bike lane. 12.2.3.B LCUASS Comment noted. We anticipate such refinements during the Final Plan Review phase of the project. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: This is a project that is going to take a lot of meetings and discussion to make sure that everything is designed as needed and comes together as a good final plan. Comment noted. We look forward to constructive cooperation with City staff to minimize the number of meetings and the length of the review and approval process. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: It appears that sight distance easements will need to be provided at the Conifer/ Redwood intersection, the Lupine/Redwood intersection, along Lupine at the curves, and possibly along Blue Spruce at the curves. These have not yet been shown and need to be calculated and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Site distance easements, where necessary, have been shown on the drawings and on the plat. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The utility plan check sheet that was submitted was returned – please note comments on this and items that are incomplete. I tried to repeat most of these in my comments, but this maybe helpful. We did not receive a redline copy of the Utility Plan Check List. We understand that some required items were inadvertently omitted in the initial submittal, and we have tried to ensure that our current drawing revisions have addressed these omissions. Comment Responses 14 3/25/2012 Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Two City of Fort Collins benchmarks need to be provided on the plans. Currently one is provided. A second benchmark reference has been added to the project drawings. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Parking setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the distance from the flow line to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I don’t know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted. (best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers) The site layout has been revised to increase the setback of the off-street parking stalls from the edges of the public streets. We have prepared an analysis of daily traffic volumes to and from the parking lots, and have determined that a setback of 40’ is appropriate in all cases. A copy of the analysis is included with this resubmittal. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: I have noted on the plans some additional details that will eventually need to be provided. The noted additional details have been added to the drawing set. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The reimbursement for the row along Vine Dr that is being dedicated above that required for a local street connection will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Comment noted. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Upon construction of Redwood the developer can file a repay for the portion of the east side of the road that this development constructs adjacent to undeveloped property. Comment noted. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The driveway widths for the private drives have been shown so far only on the site plans. In accordance with Section 9.3.2(a) of the LUCASS the driveways that serves parking Comment Responses 15 3/25/2012 areas for more than 3 units need to have an entry width of 28 feet. Per discussions with City staff, the driveway width for parking lots serving more than 3 dwelling units have been widened to 28 feet, within the right-of-way, tapering to 24 feet, to match the aisle width, at the near edge of the first parking stall. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 1/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Site Distance easements have been included in the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to show the street trees and parkway landscaping along lot 5 that will need to be installed with this project. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Landscape treatments within the tree lawn along Lot 5 adjacent to New Vine and Redwood have been added to the landscape plan. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to show the proposed Vine Drive median landscaping. (plans need to identify that median landscaping will be provided with this project. I would doubt that we will be able to have a final agreed upon landscape plan for the median before hearing) Preliminary landscape treatments for the median are shown on the Landscape Plan. Final plant specification will occur at the time of Final Development Plan submittal. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Trees within the row and sight distance easements need to be limbed up to 6 feet from grade. The plans indicated that it was 5 feet. The notes have been revised accordingly. Topic: Offsite Work Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: At this time I do not have enough information to know if any off-site easements will be necessary for the site or road construction. As the review progresses and additional grading and design information is provided this can be determined. Letters of intent from any Comment Responses 16 3/25/2012 property owners from which easements are needed are to be provided prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. A letter of intent is a letter from the property owner identifying its intent to grant the easement(s) necessary to accomplish the proposed design. Proposed grading contours have been added to the drawings throughout the site and along Vine Dr. and Redwood St., including tie-ins to existing contours. The design is such that we do not anticipate the need for any off-site grading easements. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: We have plat language that was updated last May. I can email it to you if you would like me to. Just let me know what your email is. Mine: slangenberger@fcgov.com We have received the updated plat language from the City and have forwarded it to the surveyor for inclusion on the revised plat. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to clearly identify who is to own and maintain all of the lots. The language on the plat states that the Owner will be responsible for maintaining all of the lots. The identity of the Owner has been changed on the plat to reflect the entity that will own the property and the development by the time the plat is finally approved and recorded. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Site distance easements have been added to the plat, where necessary. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As I understand it PFA is going to require that the private drives be named, as it is necessary for the units to be addressed. Once named the private drive names need to be placed on the plat and clearly identified that they are private drives. A list of possible names for the private driveways has been developed, but the names have not yet been approved. Upon final approval of these names, the plat and the project drawings will be updated accordingly. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The areas that are to be named private drives also need to be general access Comment Responses 17 3/25/2012 easements. The labeling of the private driveways has been revised to indicate that these corridors are designated as general access easements as well as utility and emergency access easements. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements. Site distance easements have been shown on the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Plat. Comment Responses 18 3/25/2012 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Wetland mitigation locations and specifications need to be on the site, landscape and utility plans. In this submittal, I only saw them on the Utility Plans. A wetland mitigation plan has been completed and reviewed by the Consultant Wildlife Biologist. This plan is included as a separate submittal item, and will be forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers with a request for approval and appropriate permitting. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Environmental planner signatures will need to be added to the Utility Plans. Provision has been made for the Environmental Planner to sign the project drawings. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: It sounds like the mitigation and monitoring plan will be received upon the next submittal. The monitoring plan should include the n-s spine in the center of the project, which is being designed as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Also note that the City and ACOE have generally similar requirements, but the mitigation plan may need to address specific City concerns, especially if the wetlands are deemed to be non-jurisdictional. One of the critical components for City staff will be whether the proposed mitigation location has sufficient hydrology to support a wetland. Also, as per Section 3.4.1(O) of the Land Use Code, a copy of the ACOE mitigation permit will be required to be submitted to the City for proof of compliance. A wetland mitigation plan has been completed and reviewed by the Consultant Wildlife Biologist. This plan is included as a separate submittal item, and will be forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers with a request for approval and appropriate permitting. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Noxious weeds - the Development Agreement and Mitigation Plan should include a discussion on how the site will address noxious weeds, e.g., the field bindweed and Canada thistle found on the site. Mitigation Notes include appropriate management of noxious weeds. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: ECS Comments - how does the riparian forest that runs along the southern boundary of the property align with the proposed plan? It appears this forest is within the Vine Comment Responses 19 3/25/2012 Drive ROW. How will the loss of this forest be mitigated through the site plan? The boundaries of the mapped riparian forest are shown on the overall landscape plan. The majority of the riparian forest is located south of the New Vine alignment within a portion of the development property that will not be disturbed by construction. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: As this project proposed to remove a raptor foraging area and a prairie dog colony over 50 acres, at least a three-pronged approach should be taken to mitigate the loss of these resources. A prairie dog management plan is included with this submittal package. This has been reviewed by the Consultant Wildlife Biologist (Eric Berg). 1. The applicant should verify that relocation of the prairie dogs is not an option. If it is not an option, then efforts to trap and donate the prairie dogs to the ferret or raptor center should be discussed. The management plan proposes removal and euthanization of prairie dogs for use as a food source for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program. 2. The regional detention pond on the site should be designed to maximize the urban habitat opportunities, e.g., every effort should be made to design and construct the regional detention basin as a native habitat, including native grass and forb species in the design. The proposed seed mix in the landscape plan is an excellent start toward achieving this but do we think the base of the detention pond will be dry or wet? If the pond will be wet, then a wetland seed mix should be considered for the site (including the wetland mitigation area). In addition, shrubs and trees surrounding the pond should be installed to enhance the vegetation diversity (both structurally and species-specific). A wetland will be established within the regional detention pond, including the use of appropriate grasses, forbs and shrubs. A variety of native shrubs will also be planted along the margins of the detention basin and drainage corridor. This is shown conceptually on the Landscape Plan. Species will be identified on the final Landscape Plan. 3. In addition, because there will be a loss of raptor habitat, staff is exploring mechanisms to create additional or enhance existing prairie habitat (that could serve raptors upon restoration) in other areas across the City (mitigating for the loss of this habitat), e.g., at McKee Farm in southeast Fort Collins. Let's plan a separate meeting to discuss these comments in more detail. It is understood that appropriate meetings have occurred regarding this issue. The Wetland Mitigation Plan, Prairie Dog Management Plan, and Tree Mitigation Plan are included with this Comment Responses 20 3/25/2012 submittal. Proposed mitigation measures appear to be appropriate and are consistent with Municipal Code requirements. If additional fees or assessments are sought in relationship to habitat losses, it should be presented by staff for consideration and negotiation by the Developer, the Consultant Team and associated legal council. It is understood that this will be presented in the Development Agreement for the project. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: A note on all of the plans saying the following, "See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone" may need to be added in future reviews, depending on how the mitigation areas are designed. This note has been added to the General Notes, pg LS-1, and to the Wetland Mitigation Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2012 01/11/2012: Staff concurs with the ECS that a burrowing owl survey will need to be conducted, prior to construction, to determine if the owls are present on the site. Prior to releasing the Development Construction Permit, staff will need a letter of clearance from the USFWS confirming there are no known nesting sites on the property. A burrowing owl survey will be conducted and reported prior to construction. Comment Responses 21 3/25/2012 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Note 6 on sheet 1 should be changed to the code requirement for soil improvement. The following note has been incorporated into note 6 on LS 2: •The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 Add these notes to address the tree permit requirment: The following notes have been included with the General Notes on LS-1: • A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. • The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Explore the addition of ornamental trees in the front lawn or bed space of units along public streets. These lawn areas between the building and sidewalk to be reviewed for full tree stocking. The prototypical landscape treatments for housing units have been modified to include a choice for ornamental trees or large shrubs. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 Comment Responses 22 3/25/2012 01/18/2012: Add this note: Tree removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by code. This note has been added to the General Notes section on LS-1 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: “Landscape tree lawns outside of the project perimeter shall be installed by the developer of Aspen Height and maintained by the City of Fort Collins”. Contact Rodney Albers (224 6024) in Storm Water and Steve Lukowski (416 2063) in parks to discuss their requirements, and what additional statements they may require on the plan. Steve Lukowski indicated that he didn’t know how off-site landscape treatments would be maintained. He noted he would discuss this with Sherri Langenburger and report back. Until we hear otherwise, the note will remain on the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: “Street Trees on Local Roadways, internal to the development site can be a minimum of 1.5” caliper at the time of planting". Please explain why a smaller than the required 2.0 inch caliper tree would be specified here. This note has been removed. All street trees along public roadways will be a minimum of 2” caliper per City Code. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees in site distance areas should have the first branch at 6 feet. Comment noted. This has been corrected in the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please provide a statement as part of the tree mitigation information on why the existing trees on the site need to be removed. A complete tree inventory and mitigation plan has been completed and submitted with the revised landscape plan. Tree mitigation will occur with the incorporation of additional trees and increased sizing of already specified street trees along major roadway corridors. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Utility separations for trees: Six feet between water and sewer service lines. Ten feet between trees and water and sewer main lines. Comment noted. This has been corrected on page LS-1 note 11c. Comment Responses 23 3/25/2012 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Planting beds along high use and visibility walls should be 5 feet wide. Planting beds along high visibility walls (ie the fronts of the buildings facing the public R.O.W.) will be 5’ wide. Other beds, such as those facing the major walkway spine will average 5’ in width to allow for an irregular shape of foundation planintings along the fronts of the buildings. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees should be at a 30-40 spacing. They appear to be at this spacing but there is a note that mentions 50 feet. The landscape note that said “35-50’ spacing” has been changed to 30-40’ spacing Dwg LS2. Comment Responses 24 3/25/2012 Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 Staff has not identified any designated landmarks, nor any potentially eligible landmarks, that would be effected by this project. Comment noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 Should any properties over 50 years of age be identified in the vicinity of the project, they will need to be evaluated under 14-72 of the Municipal Code and Land Use code Section 3.4.7. Comment noted. Comment Responses 25 3/25/2012 Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Street trees along the dedicated City streets will need to be adjusted to provide required clearances to streetlights. Once Light & Power designs the street lighting system a copy of the plan will be sent to the landscape architect. The Landscape Plan will be adjusted as necessary, upon receipt of a street lighting design, to ensure that required separations between street lights and street trees are maintained. A note stating that trees shall be placed no closer than 40’ from streetlights is stated on page LS-1. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Light & Power Engineering is unable to determine if adequate space is provided for electric utility facilities. In order to design the electric utility system, Light & Power Engineering will need to know the number of dwelling units in each building, and if electric space heating will be used or not. The developer intends to use natural gas heat, with electric appliances, etc. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700. An electronic copy of the Overall Utility Plan has been provided to Light & Power Engineering for their use in designing electric utilities services for this project. The following table indicates the number of dwelling units in each building: • “A” units 2 dwelling units per building • “B” units 2 dwelling units per building • “C” units multi-family dwelling units – with 3, 4 & 5 dwelling units per building • “D” units Single-Family detached dwelling unit • “E” units Single-Family detached dwelling unit Total number of dwelling units = 220 See “Residential Unit Summary” on the Site Plan cover sheet for breakdown of dwelling units. Comment Responses 26 3/25/2012 Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: REQUIRED ACCESS: Emergency Fire Access Easements (Fire Lanes) DEFINITION: An emergency access easement is an easement through or upon private property, properly platted and dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for the sole purpose of providing emergency access. It is intended to provide an area designed for the safe and effective deployment of emergency response services. Emergency services shall be allowed to drive, park and/or stage any emergency vehicle or equipment upon this easement at any time. The easement may be upon public streets (except arterial streets), parking lots, private streets and private drives; this easement shall not be upon any defined pedestrian walkway. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the easement unobstructed, including parked vehicles, and to maintain its visibility at all times for emergency access and firefighter safety. DESIGN: The easement is required to meet the design specifications outlined in the locally adopted fire code, as amended by the City of Fort Collins, and in the Land Use Code. It shall be designed to withstand the imposed weights of fire apparatus, 40-ton. It is required to have a minimum width of 20 feet, with a 25 foot inside turning radius and a 50 foot outside turning radius; and it shall have 14 foot of clear air space. No canopy trees under 14 feet shall overhang into the fire lane. If the fire lane(s) cannot be provided, all buildings beyond 150 feet from the public right of way are deemed out of access and required to be fire sprinklered. This distance is measured as the hose would lay, and not as the crow flies. Please verify this distance on the site plan or the overall utility plan. Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided Each of the private driveways have been designated as Emergency Access Easements and have been designed in accordance with the criteria set out in the comment above. Thus, all buildings within the development are within 150 feet of either a public street or an emergency access easement. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: WATER SUPPLY: The water supply for this project shall provide a hydrant no further than 400 feet to every structure, and on 800 foot centers thereafter. The required volume is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. All buildings are within 400 feet of a fire hydrant and spacing between hydrants is less than 800 Comment Responses 27 3/25/2012 feet in all cases. The City has assured us that water flow from hydrants within the project can be expected to exceed 1,500 gpm @ 20 psi residual pressure. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Address numerals are required to be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background. The numerals shall be posted on the front of the building. As is currently designed, only the perimeter buildings which front on a public street can meet this requirement. All other interior buildings appear to front on a walkway spine, which cannot be named. Therefore, the private drives, fire lanes, must be properly named and addressed for emergency services to locate. Each of the private driveways within the development will be named and each of the buildings will be uniquely addressed to facilitate location of individual buildings by emergency responders. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All proposed street names shall be submitted for review and approval by LETA prior to being put in service. A list of possible street names has been selected and tested in the LETA system. This list will be submitted to the developer for approval before they are shown on the Final development plan. Alternative street names will also be provided in the event one or more of the street names are not acceptable. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: Any hazardous materials shall be declared utilizing the HMIA, as described in LUC 3.4.5. This would include the use of pesticides, and pool chemistry. Notification will be provided of all hazardous materials used or stored on site. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All multi-family units shall be fire sprinklered in accordance with the IRC. Building designs will be in accordance with the latest adopted version of the IRC. Comment Responses 28 3/25/2012 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Floodplain comments 1. A portion of the project is in the FEMA-designated Dry Creek floodplain and floodway. It is acknowledged that the southward extension of Redwood St. will lie partially within the FEMA- designated 100-yr floodplain and will cut across the upstream end of the floodway for Dry Creek. 2. Please include the floodplain and floodway boundaries on the all the plan sheets for which the floodplain is mapped. The floodplain and floodway boundaries have been shown on the applicable project drawings. 3. The plat shows the Redwood St. and New Vine Drive roads are shown to be constructed in the Dry Creek floodway. Because these roads will change the floodway boundary, a CLOMR and a LOMR will be required. In addition, this CLOMR/LOMR will need to reflect changes in the hydrology due to the construction of the pond. Please contact Marsha Hilmes-Robinson at mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com or 970-224-6036 to arrange a meeting to discuss the CLOMR/LOMR process and the timing of improvements. Discussions with City staff regarding the impacts of the proposed street construction on the Dry Creek floodplain and floodway reached the consensus that there is little concern regarding ultimate approval of a CLOMR covering this location, with the only reservation being the time that may be involved in processing the application through the FEMA review process. Accordingly, it was agreed that while a CLOMR/LOMR will be necessary, the requirements for a CLOMR would not impede City review and approval of the proposed designs for on-site improvements. We have been in contact with Marsh Hilmes-Robinson and are proceeding with preparation of the CLOMR analysis, which will be submitted independently from the current resubmittal. 4. The floodway is not correctly identified on the plat. Please identify and distinguish between the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. The plat has been revised to show a correct depiction and labeling of the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. 5. Please include further discussion in the drainage report regarding the existing location of the floodway and floodplain and the proposed floodplain mapping changes. Comment Responses 29 3/25/2012 Further discussion of the existing floodplain and floodway, and the impacts of the proposed roadway construction on the mapping of the floodway and floodplain, will be included in the Drainage Report as the CLOMR analysis advances. 6. Any vegetation placed in the floodway must be documented to be of a type and quantity such that upon maturity it will not increase the base flood elevations. Appropriate documentation of any vegetation placed in the floodway will be provided. It is anticipated that any such vegetation will be minimal. 7. A floodplain use permit is required for any work in the floodplain or floodway. The permit fee is $325 which includes review of the hydraulic modeling for the CLOMR/LOMR. A floodplain use permit will be obtained. 8. Please see the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists for additional items needed on the plans and in the drainage report. All floodplain regulations can be found in Chapter 10 of City Code. The 50% floodplain development review checklist has been completed and is included with this resubmittal. 9. The floodplain use permit, and development review checklists are available on our website at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The Development is within the Dry Creek Master Plan basin which contains the planned and designed future NECCO improvements. This development is required to construct several NECCO improvements on and around the site. A meeting to discuss these requirements is needed. A NECCO improvement plan is included for reference. These requirements are outlined in the following comments. Numerous discussions have been had with City staff, subsequent to receipt of these review comments, and an agreement has been reached regarding the extent to which NECCO improvements are to be installed by the Aspen Heights developer. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding setting out the details of that agreement is included with this resubmittal. The memorandum addresses the requirements set out in Comments 3 – 11 below. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The regional NECCO pond needs to be excavated to final grade including low flow channel and outlet structure. Comment Responses 30 3/25/2012 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build the NECCO regional pond outfall storm sewer to the eastern edge of Redwood Street right-of-way. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build storm line b1 from the outfall into the regional pond up to the existing storm sewer in Conifer including the inlets on lateral b9 in Blue Spruce drive. This will allow for existing ditch south of Blue Spruce Drive to be eliminated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build storm lateral c6a from the outfall into the regional pond up to the west end of the Developer’s property. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: If the entire final cross-section of Vine Drive is required to be built with this development then storm line c2 needs to be built from the outfall into the regional pond up to the west property line. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: A pumping system is required to pump the site’s drainage up to the Lake Canal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The Developer will be reimbursed for anything above there appropriated share of NECCO improvements when funds are available. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is the responsibility of the Developer. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The hydraulic (including inlets, storm sewers, street capacity, etc.) and erosion control design for this Development will be reviewed during final compliance after a public hearing. Comment Responses 31 3/25/2012 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Revisions have been made to the project drawings to address the items identified in the comments below. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: No comments on the Street Cross Sections Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23 & 25. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There is a mislabelled matchline sheet number on sheet 9. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 13 & 20-24. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: The index on sheet 1 doesn't match the sheet numbering in the title block. This has been corrected with the inclusion of a Tree Mitigation Plan and Wetland Mitigation Plan that were not included in the original submittal set. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Sheets 9 & 11 are missing from the plan set. This has been corrected with the inclusion of a Tree Mitigation Plan and Wetland Mitigation Plan that were not included in the original submittal set. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 2. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Comment Responses 32 3/25/2012 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The boundary & legal description close. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please change the section location in the legal description to match the subtitle. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The bottom of the sheets are cut off. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please correct the spelling of "owner" on sheets 2 & 3. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There are line over text issues. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The record bearing for the south line of Section 1 is incorrect. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There are easements that need to be labelled. See redlines. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please change the section location in the legal description to match the subtitle. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There is a street running through the middle of sheet 2 with no name. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please add "See Sheet 1" to Detail "A" on sheet 2. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please move the tie information as shown on sheet 3. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/19/2012: Please correct the spelling of "Principal" in the legal description on sheet 1. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 2, 7 & 14. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 9 & 11. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There is missing text on sheet 13. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Comment Responses 33 3/25/2012 Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Routes 8 and 81 serve this area of the city along Blue Spruce Drive and Conifer Street. An improved north bound stop is located on the north side of Conifer, just west of Redwood Street, but a south bound stop needs to be integrated into this site. Applicant shall locate a 12' x 18' pad approximately 50'-80' west from the intersection of Redwood and Conifer Streets. Exact location should be coordinated with site plan to provide direct access into the site. The project drawings have been revised to show a pad for a bus stop located along the south side of Conifer St., west of Redwood St. The pad is located further west than suggested in the comment, in order to avoid impeding visibility west along Conifer St. for northbound vehicles at the Conifer / Redwood intersection. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The intersection of Blue Spruce and Conifer may need a light with the addition of this development's traffic. Buses already experience difficulty heading east on Conifer Street. The Traffic Impact Study for the project does not indicate the need for signalization at the intersection of Conifer St. and Blue Spruce Dr. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The existing stop located at the food bank is in rough condition, if off site improvements are proposed in this area, Transfort requests providing an accessible pad for a bus shelter. This request will be considered, but upgrading of the existing off-site bus stop is not included in the scope of the project at this time. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Sidewalks need to be shown on site plan to show how pedestrians access the site. As this is a student housing project, it is expected that the bus stop would be frequently used, please provide an enhanced access to the bus stop near the intersection of Redwood and Conifer. The project Site Plan has been revised to show connecting sidewalks between the bus stop and the development within the site. Comment Responses 34 3/25/2012 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Show the existing ELCO water main in Conifer on the utility plans. The ELCO water main in Conifer St. has been added to the utility plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Due to the shallowness of the sanitary sewer, information is needed at preliminary to insure that the sanitary sewers for the development can be designed with acceptable grades and depths of cover. This information must also include storm drain elevations at crossings to see if conflicts exist. Design calculations have been performed to confirm that the sewer mains can be installed at acceptable grades and depths of cover, and to confirm that there are no conflicts with storm main crossings. A copy of those calculations is included with this resubmittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Water main valving will be evaluated with next submittal. It appears that some valves can be eliminated. Water valving has been reviewed and adjusted, per discussions with City staff. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Plan and profile sheets(s) will be required for the 12-inch water main. Plan and profile sheets for the 12” diameter water main in New Vine drive will be provided, along with plan and profile sheets for other utilities, as part of the Final Plan Review phase of the project. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Show water and sewer services. Water and sewer services to the respective buildings within the project have been added to the utility drawings. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Indicate number of units in the multi-family buildings. A table has been added to the Overall Utility Plan setting out the number of dwelling units in each Comment Responses 35 3/25/2012 building. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Schedule a meeting for a general review of water and sanitary sewer locations and general routing. The requested meeting was held. Comment Responses 36 3/25/2012 Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(B) Permitted uses included Extra Occupancy Rental Houses, Two Family attached, Multi-Family, and Single family on lots less then 6000 sq ft. Note that if applicant is proposing single family it would need to be an addition of a permitted use because the proposed lot sizes are greater then 6000 sq ft. If single family is not intended then the plans need to state Extra Occupancy rental house with no reference to single family, be sure this is consistent throughout the application and plans. The plan proposes a mix of single-family detached, two-family and multi-family dwellings. There are a total of 5 lots that exceed 6000 sq.ft. each. The buildings will not be placed on individual lots. The plan does not proposed single-family attached dwellings (which must be on lots of less than 6000 sf. The plan does not propose extra occupancy rental houses; however, we note that such use is a potential future use. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(D) Land Use standards is a minimum of 5 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of five stories. Current plans show only 2 story buildings there is a possible opportunity to increase building heights, which would also meet the North College Corridor Plan standards. The applicant does not wish to increase the height of the buildings. However, a clock tower or some other vertical element can be added to the Club House building if required by City Staff in response to the North College Corridor Plan. Also, if proposing single family housing it is limited to 40% of the development. Section 4.19 (D)(1) states”…Single-family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area.” Staff advises that the CCN zone in the vicinity is the geographically distinct district area. We calculate the CCN zone to be approximately 140 acres in size. The potential area approved for single-family in the zone (Old Town North) together with the proposed single-family in Aspen Heights totals approximately 36.92 acres, which does not exceed 40% of the CCN zone.. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(E) All Development in the CCN shall also comply with the North College Avenue Corridor Plan to the extent the plan applies to the property to be developed. The entire 31 acres of the development is within one-half mile of North College Avenue which is contained within the North College Avenue Corridor Plan boundaries. Comment Responses 37 3/25/2012 It is understood that the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan is in compliance and is consistent with the North Fort Collins Avenue Corridor Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 3.2.1 (C) A detailed landscaping plan is required at the Final Development Plan stage. The typical landscaping treatments currently provided in the Project Development Plan is not enough detail to say if it meets the standards of the Land Use Code. It appears that the Preliminary Landscape Plan, as shown and corrected is in sufficient detail to demonstrate the ability to meet the Land Use Code. It is understood that the Final Landscape Plan will provide detailed plant specification for trees and shrubs as indicated on the preliminary plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.2 Access, circulation, and parking for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles shall be provided. Access, circulation, and parking for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles are provided in excess to requirements of the Fort Collins development code. Landscape islands that break up the parking lot spaces should line up with each other to provide a straight crossing for the pedestrian reducing interaction with vehicles. Landscape islands line up where a pedestrian walk is present. Other islands are placed within the parking areas to provide shade. Two Pedestrian/bicycle bridges should be placed to cross over the 50ft drainage easement. One on either side of Lupine Drive. Preferably on the south end of the drainage continuing the pedestrian walk from east to west and one continuing the pedestrian walk from east to west about 100ft north of Lupine Drive. Pedestrian bridges are shown as requested. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) Pedestrian crossing drive aisles or internal roadways require the crosswalk to be continuous across the drive aisles/ways. This means the change in grade shall be for the vehicle and not the pedestrian. This will apply to all pedestrian crosses over any drive way/aisle. Comment noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 Comment Responses 38 3/25/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.2(K) Outlines the parking requirements of the proposed uses. Because requirements are based on number of bedrooms details on the exact number of bedrooms for each building and the locations shall be provided to determine if parking is in compliance. (This will require floor plans for each type of building) The parking calculation tables have been revised to demonstrate required parking vs. the number of parking provided. In all cases provided parking exceeds the requirements – not including additional parking that can occur on the public R.O.W. Once exact numbers are determined then bicycling and handicap parking requirements can also be determined if they are in compliance. Exact bicycle rack locations shall also be placed on the plans Prototypical bicycle rack locations are shown on the landscape plan. It is understood that this is sufficient detail for the purposes of Project Development Plan. If required, these pads will be shown on the Final Site Plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.4(A) Site lighting plan with details of light fixtures shall be provided for private lighting. Right now it appears that there is no private lighting. For security reasons it would seem that parking lots and walkways would need lighting. No lighting is planned for the development with the exception of wall-mounted entry lights and street lights that will be specified by the City Light and Power Division. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.5 There shall be enough areas provided for the Trash/Recycling needs of the project and residents. There are only eight trash/recycling enclosures identified on the plans this is not enough to meet the needs of the project neither is the location convenient for all the tenants. The project needs more trash/recycling enclosures and more locations to be conveniently accessible for all tenants. This is understood, and additional trash enclosures have been placed on the site. With the absence of guidelines regarding trash enclosure placement and quantities, the developer believes current placement is adequate to meet the needs of the local residents.