Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY & STRAUSS CABIN CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CENTER (FORMERLY HARMONY & I-25 NORTH) - PDP - PDP140022 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONSCommunity 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 16, 2015 Joseph J Kish Post Modern Development 144 N Mason St Unit #4 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Harmony and I-25 North, PDP140022, Round Number 1 Now referred to as: HARMONY & STRAUSS CABIN SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 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, Clark Mapes, at 970-221-6225 or cmapes@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The building character as depicted is consistent with goals for this area as a gateway to the city in harmony with the river valley setting. It is understood that the elevation is highly speculative and that actual users will require further development of building programming and design. The character elevation should be further described in a note as providing a unifying theme, style, and character for the Convenience Shopping Center. Subsequent plan amendments for actual building design, if it varies from these elevations, will be treated as Major Amendments to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. An alternative approach, as discussed at the meeting, would be to further develop elevations for all of the building types and then require users to substantially conform to the character so that Minor Amendments could be done for each user. Response: Additional Architectural Elevations (4) have been developed and are being submitted with this submittal. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2015 From GIS regarding addressing: 1. Please request a street name reservation for Access A through the GIS office and note the approved name on the subdivision plat prior to recording. Availability of street names can be checked at Larimer.org/streets. Response: Noted. A request has been made. 2.Addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. Response: Noted. 3.Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address changes. The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: From the water and sewer districts: "Previous comments from the FC/Loveland Water District and S. FC Sanitation District, letters dated May 15, 2014; June 30, 2014; and July 22, 2014 need to be addressed before the above mentioned submittal can be reviewed. Please do not hesitate to contact Terry Farrill at 226-3104 x 104." Response: Noted. We are in the process of preparing master utility analysis and design for the region. This analysis and conceptual design will need to be presented and discussed with the District prior to their reviewing the preliminary plans for the first site plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Staff requests a different project name for the plans the would get filed: how about Harmony/Strauss Cabin Convenience Shopping Center? Response: Noted. The plans are now named “Harmony & Strauss Cabin Convenience Shopping Center”, and the plat is now named “Harmony & Strauss Cabin Subdivision Filing. No. 1” Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 From Larimer County: The township is noted on the plat as being in township 7 when it is in township 6. Response: Revised as requested. Also, the dedication of the subdivision as currently listed does not include the wording Filing No 1. Please add that also as filing no. 1 is listed in the plats title. Response: Revised as requested. Thank you, Megan Harrity Subdivisons Larimer County Assessor 970-498-7065 mharrity@larimer.org Response: Noted. These changes have been made. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The termination of the cul de sac street should be reconciled on these PDP plans. (Versus having line work simply end with no treatment indicated. Response: The cul-de-sac has been removed from the plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 An overall effect of comments on these plans and throughout the process is that the image of development in this location will be largely landscaping, with buildings behind and among the landscaping; and this is different than typical highway commercial exit development which relies on extremely high visibility corporate development with limited emphasis on landscaping. For this project, visibility will be in openings that frame intermittent views of buildings, and any signs that may be located closer to the street. Response: Agreed, as we move to final landscape design these themes will be carried forward. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Add "Cottonwoods" to legend and indicate clumps on the plans. This can best be done via "greenlines" (equal to redlines) on plans; and discussion. The point being to to implement vision and discussion. This includes further discussion of Comment Number 2 from the PDR -- the project is ALL in the river valley which is our most prominent natural feature and is the defining context for land use in this area. The river valley character should be continued throughout the whole development, not just in the swale along Harmony. The idea of a transition to typical commercial landscaping in parking lots should be blended with a special river valley character. Staff can discuss examples, and ideas for this landscape plan. Response: This has been updated on the landscape plan and will be further detailed at final. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Show the Harmony Road frontage (parkway and sidewalk). Response: This is shown on the plans now. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: A few clean-up items: Show correctly and label the sidewalk along Harmony. Label "Building Envelopes" or "Building Locations". Remove the existing tree notes, they seem like a distraction on the Site Plan. The "Active Recreational Use Areas" should be called something else, perhaps "Outdoor Use Area and Pedestrian Connection" or something - "Active Rec" typically refers to sports or playground uses...just semantics, not a big deal. In the callout for Outlot A on Sht. 3, add "with gateway landscaping" to the end of the callout - again, just semantics, but these plans will be used and interpreted over time. Response: These have been updated. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: As discussed at the meeting, the status of Road A will determine the acceptable design approach, type and location of parking stalls; cul-de-sac/intersection treatment, sidewalks, and other details. Further conversations/emails are expected to be useful in reconciling the questions. Related to this, the treatment of the space between the buildings and the street is unclear on current plans and should be clarified - e.g., tree grates are shown as if there is streetscape/plaza paving but it's not clear. Response: Road A – now Hacienda Drive, is now designed to be a street like private drive. There are street trees shown in grates along the back of the outlot, and the specific street scape will be detailed at the time of each building design and minor amendment. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: I suggest removing the 6-story reference on sheet 3 - it looks like it could only create problems to state that one standard and not any others that are related to building size, massing, and compatibility; and it is inconsistent with the character elevation. Response: Reference to 6-story buildings has been removed. We anticipate a maximum of 2-storied buildings only. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The project owes an additional $2,584.63 for the PDP fees. The total acreage being platted was not used in the calculations submitted. Response: A check for this amount was submitted with this submittal. The miscalculation was due to an error on the Larimer County Assessor Site that listed the property as an incorrect size. The plat information was received after the initial fee calculation was made and never revisited. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The site plan in the TIS does not match the site plan submitted. In the TIS there are only buildings north of the proposed roadway. Also the uses shown in the TIS do not match the uses identified on the site plan and the square footage in the TIS is slightly lower than that shown to be allowed/ constructed on the site plan. Response: The TIS has been updated to match the site plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Need to show the existing sidewalk along Harmony on the plans. Response: This label is now included as requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Need to have a conversation with the applicant and PFA in regards to how the emergency access areas are to be and can be designed and what barriers will be put in place. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Before I can provide much in the way of comments in regard to Strauss Cabin design, we need to get the ultimate Harmony and Strauss Cabin intersection figured out. We will be meeting on Jan 22 to further work on this, but here is some direction on what we need to see now that we know what lanes are required. Turning templates need to be provided showing that E-W and N-S lefts can be made at the same time. Where there are single lefts a WB-67 shall be shown. Where there are double lefts a WB-67 using the outside turnlane and a Single Unit Truck shown using the inside turn lane. There shall be at least 4 feet between the opposing turning movements. On Harmony a 7 foot minimum median island (the arterial standard) will need to be achieved. This will ultimately be a raised, curbed, and landscaped median. On all legs pedestrian refuge islands need to be designed and shown. For the two legs in which we have an acceleration lane (onto Harmony) these will be per detail 8-18 and the other two will be per detail 8-19. Turning templates using WB-67 will be needed to determine how wide the travel/ turn lane is. These islands will help to define where the pedestrian crossing and median refuge islands are to be located and where the signal poles will be located. The 4 foot ultimate median on Strauss Cabin will be acceptable. Please plan on this median being landscaped as per standards when medians are provided – this will also include the underdrain and the need for a water tap out to that area. Response: In our meeting with Sheri and Martina on 1/22/15, turning templates and an updated intersection design was reviewed and discussed. We have since made further updates and believer that all design issues/requests have been addressed at this time. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Once we get an intersection layout then I will start looking at the rest of the design including the turn lane designs. Response: See response above. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: For Road A – if you want this to be a public street the City will not support the variances needed to design it as shown with the diagonal parking. What I recommend is that becomes a street like private driveway. If you do that the parking will need to meet the parking setback requirements from Strauss Cabin, but then you can configure the diagonal parking however you want provided it meets the parking stall and drive isle standards in the LUC. Response: We no longer want Road A to be a public roadway, but now plan for it to be a “street-like private drive”. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The site plan needs to show where the parking lot drive isles will connect to the south. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Need information on each buildings proposed square footage and proposed uses. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The curb, gutter, and sidewalk will need to be installed along the full frontage of this property. It is not currently being shown to be constructed south of Road A, but will need to be designed and installed with this project. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The right turn lane into the site will need to be installed with this project. It will likely be constructed as a combination of the ultimate turn lane and interim as it transitions back to the existing roadway section. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Right-of-way for ultimate Strauss Cabin Road adjacent to Outlot D and Outlot E along with the adjacent utility easement needs to be dedicated with this plat. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The development will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the landscaping in the medians on Strauss Cabin Road. Notes as such will be placed in the DA identifying that this project is responsible for the installation and maintenance at such time the median is installed. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: How many stories are these buildings proposed to be? A note on the site plan states maximum building height for HC zoning non-residential buildings 6 stories. That may be true, but how many stories are you proposing? This needs to be specified on the site plan and definitely impacts the traffic study. Response: Reference to 6-story buildings has been removed. We anticipate a maximum of 2-storied buildings only. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Comments from Tom Knostman with Street Maintenance Program We feel that diagonal on-street parking is not appropriate for a public street, and conanot support a variance from the LCUASS sections for this configuration. You could: Keep the section and the road private, or modify the section to match an appropriate LCUASS section. Response: We no longer want Road A to be a public roadway, but now plan for it to be a “street-like private drive”. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: If Road A is proposed to remain public then it would be a commercial local section and would need to end in a cul-de-sac. The driveways off of it would need to be designed and built to standards (concrete to property line), and no driveway medians in the ROW. The parking lot to the east would need to meet the parking stall setback requirement of 40 feet. The sidewalk would need to go around the cul-de-sac. Access easements for the connections to the south drive isles and sidewalk would need to be within a public access easement. Response: We no longer want Road A to be a public roadway, but now plan for it to be a “street-like private drive”. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: If Road A becomes a ‘street like private drive’ it would need to meet the requirements in the LUC for ‘street like private drive’, the LUC standards for a parking lot, and PFA requirements for access. The driveway out to Strauss Cabin would need to be built like a driveway (concrete to the property line). The parking on Road A would need to be setback to meet the parking setback in the LCUASS (100 ft). Response: Changes to the site layout have been made to accommodate the “street-like private drive” requirements. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Provide Street Cut note on utility plan sheet and any sheet in which a street cut would be shown. Response: Please provide the specific “street cut note” language. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Need a letter of intent from the property owner(s) in which off-site easement will be needed for the sewer line connection that they plan on dedicating this easement. Letters of intent are required to be received prior to a project being scheduled for a hearing. Response: The forcemain line connection has been moved further south. We will work with the offsite property owners on a letter of intent once we have buy-in from the SFCSD on the location of the forcemain. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: If Road A is public you are showing to vertical curves that are not meeting minimum length requirements. Response: Road A is now a “street-like private drive”. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: The east bound right turn lane on Harmony Road that will be installed as part of the interim improvements - Where is the existing ROW line? Can this be installed and the grading done within the existing ROW. IF not a letter of intent for dedication of ROW and/ or easements needed to construct this will be needed prior to hearing. Response: The existing ROW line is in between the proposed edge-of-asphalt and the edge of shoulder, so additional ROW will be required for the installation of this turn lane. We will work with the offsite property owners on a letter of intent once we have buy-in from you on the turn-lane design. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Are the OHE lines going away? Several poles may need to be moved in order to accommodate the right turn lane improvements and the signal poles for the intersection. Also the project is responsible for either undergrounding the lines that run along or through the property. Response: Noted. Relocation of utilities will be included in the final design plans. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: Plat Need to provide a signature line for SFCSD to sign the plat accepting the easement being dedicated to them. Response: Revised as requested. Also added the FCLWD signature block. The standard plat note regarding covenants needs to be added. Response: See notice of other documents. The ultimate ROW for Strauss Cabin and the associated 15 foot utility easement need to be dedicated with this plat. Response: Revised as requested. The ROW for the right turn lane onto Road A needs to be dedicated with this plat. The public access easements, utility easements, drainage easements and emergency access easements needed by this project need to be shown and dedicated on this plat. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 01/16/2015: See additional markups on the plans for additional comments. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-2401, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2015 01/06/2015: The native grass seeding is identified on the landscape plan, however, the seed mix composition is not. Please clarify the native seed mix composition that will be used. The City of Fort Collins can provide you with a recommended species list. Response: A native seed mix has been added to the Landscape Plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/06/2015 01/06/2015: Please provide a photometric plan before hearing. Response: A photometric plan is provided with this submittal. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The following Forestry comments pertain only to trees and to tree related components of the plan. Response: Noted. Thanks. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Thank you for providing the tree inventory and mitigation plan with this submittal. Retaining desirable existing trees along Harmony is an objective. To determine the final refinement of the details and decisions pertaining to the proposed tree retention, transplanting or removal contact Ralph Zentz Assistant City Forester (221 6302 rzentz@fcgov.com) for an on-site meeting. Response: The site was walked again with Ralph Zentz (1/30/2015) and the mitigation and landscape plans have been updated with the results of that walk. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Consider replacing tree transplanting notes 2, 3 and 4 with the following note. Timing of season, transplanting technique, and aftercare including watering shall follow recommendations of a qualified tree transplanting consultant. Reference in Tree Transplanting note number one should be changed in reference to Ralph Zentz to say a say representative of the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. Response: The plans have been updated to include these notes. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Review with the Project Planner Clark Mapes how the Harmony Corridor Plan and or LUC Street Tree Standards should be applied to the frontage along Harmony Road. Response: At this point we are asking to delay any improvements to Harmony Road that are not specifically required by this Project. We anticipate major improvements along that frontage that would include street trees and detached walk, but they are being designed in conjunction with other improvements for the future phases of this Project. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: As the Plant Palette is refined for the next submittal round consider these adjustments to the tree lists. Please select street trees from the City of Fort Collins Street Tree List. Provide species quantities and percentage used for each species and review the Minimum Species Diversity standard LUC 3.2.1 D 3. Adjust quantities to meet the standard if necessary. Consider use of Lanceleaf and Plains Cottonwood in preference to Narrow leaf Cottonwood Consider use of Coffeetree, Catalpa, Bur Oak, Accolade Elm and other suitable canopy shade trees Consider use of more ornamental trees such as Radiant and Thunderchild Crabapple, Hotwings Tatarian Maple and Peking tree Lilac Consider use of Fat Albert Spruce, SW White Pine and Rocky Mountain Juniper Consider use of Gambel Oak and Russian Hawthorn and Peachleaf Willow in lower maintenance areas such as Outlot A Response: Noted, these have been added to the Plant Table and note has been added under the plant table about species diversity. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Tree protection notes on the Tree Inventory and Mitigation Plan: Please add the table associated with tree protection specification number 7 found in LUC 3.2.1 G. Response: These notes have been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Add the following notes to the landscape plan under as separate heading Street Tree Notes. Eliminate duplication of these notes in other places on the plan. 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. 2. 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. 3. Street tree shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor. 4. The developer shall replace all dead and dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. 5. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility standards, separation between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees shall be centered in the middle of the parkway. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. Response: These notes have been added to the Plans. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Add the following note in larger print with a wide line border to all landscape sheets. A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and Curb. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Response: This note have been added to the Plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please provide this note in reference to tree separations to replace current notes 8-11. Show locations of water and sewer lines, storm drain lines, gas lines, stop signs and streetlights and place trees to meet these standards. Trees shall not be planted closer than 4 feet to any gas line, no closer than 6 feet to any water or sewer service lines, no closer than 10 feet to any water or sewer main, and no close than 8 feet to a driveway or alley. A horizontal distance of 40 feet between standard street trees and street lights and 15 feet between ornamental trees and street lights shall be maintained. Trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a traffic control sign or devise. Response: Response: This note and revisions to existing notes have been added to the Plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please add these landscape notes. Landscaping must be installed or secured with an irrevocable letter credit, performance bond, or escrow account for 125% of the valuation of the materials and labor prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 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. Response: These notes have been added to the Plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please provide species groupings within street tree rows as described in the Streetscape Standards section 4.1.2 Species Groupings within Tree ROWs. The Streetscape standards are Appendix C of the Larimer county Urban Area Street Standards. Response: Our intention is to detail the landscape plantings at final plans and we will base the design on these standards. A note has been added at the bottom of the plant table to reference this standard. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the tree inventory table on the mitigation sheet 3 of 3 make this change to mitigation required column. Change the negative numbers to a positive number and those that are a positive number to a negative number. Those that are a 0 can be left the same. This change will result in the final tally of mitigation trees being a positive number at the bottom of the column instead of a negative. Response: These changes have been made to the Plans. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: 1. New development charges will apply to include off-site and kVA capacity charges. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 2. C-1 forms will need to be submitted for each commercial meter. Response: Noted. C-1 forms are located at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/c-1_form.pdf Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: 3. One line diagrams will need to be submitted for each commercial meter Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: 4. Transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated through Light and Power. Transformers will need to be located within 10ft of paved surface. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/31/2014 12/31/2014: 5. Street lighting along Strauss Cabin Rd. will need to be coordinated with Light and Power to meet City of Fort Collins standards. Response: Noted. Shade trees are required to maintain 40 feet of clearance with street lights and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of clearance with street lights. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation and shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. Response: Emergency Access easements are now shown on the preliminary plat. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: TURNING TEMPLATE The fire marshal has requested that all projects provide turning templates to indicate fire apparatus movement along private drives and throughout Emergency Access Easements within the development site. Response: An exhibit showing the turning movements for emergency vehicles has been included with this submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION A plan for addressing, street naming, and way finding shall be submitted to Poudre Fire Authority for review and approval no later than FDP. Code language provided below. > 2012 IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Response: Noted. This will be addressed during final design. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: FIRE LANES To recap a few points from the city staff meeting on 1/14/2015: > PFA requires turnarounds and site circulation but does not require it in the form of a cul-de-sac. That would be driven by city requirements. > Fire only, access connections may be gated and be designed with roll-over curbs. Bollarding and vertical curbing is not permitted. > Fire only, access connections, may be labeled as temporary and later vacated if the site is planned for future development which will increase connectivity above minimum standards. In this case, a note shall be added to the plat providing specific details. Response: Emergency Access easements are now shown on the preliminary plat, temporary areas are also shown and noted separately. The Site Plan shows where the fire only access points are and indicates gates and curb type. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2015 01/02/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Plan Submitted does not meet requirements please correct redlines (included in the Stormwater Plans). Please submit; Erosion Control Report and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: We did not submit an erosion control plan or report for this project yet as we are still working through the preliminary plans. You will see an Erosion Control Plan and Storwmater Management Plan/Report with our final submittal. Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: In the WQCV table in the Drainage Report, the 32.10% imperviousness number does not look realistic when compared with the North site plan. Response: This has been corrected. The overall imperviousness for basins N-1 through N-7 is included in this calculation. It’s now approximately 65% Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The triangle shaped area at the east edge of the site needs to either be accounted for in the drainage calculations, or language added to the Drainage Report describing how the runoff from that sub-basin will be handled. Response: The future improvement areas in basin N-1 have now been included in the area weighted basin runoff coefficient calculations and developed flow rates have also be been adjusted. The Drainage Report also discusses how the future developed runoff is anticipated to be handled. Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 1 of the Plat, please include the benchmark number and elevation (NAVD88). Response: The benchmarks used are shown on the engineering plans but not on the plat since there are no elevations referred to on the plat. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 1 of the Plat, include a note referring to the LOMR-F (Case #00-08-175A, 12.12.2000). Response: Per phone call with Mark Taylor 2/27/15 this reference was added to note 4 on sheet 1 of the plat. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 4 of the Plat, please include the FEMA floodway and flood plain boundaries as already shown on Sheets 2 and 3. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On the Site Plan, add a note to the Floodplain Notes on Sheet 1 stating that no work may commence until all fill in the floodway associated with the LOMR-F has been removed. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On the Site Plan, revise note number 11 so that a pre-construction FEMA elevation certificate is not required. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheets 3, 14, & 15 of the Construction Drawings, please show the X-Sections along with stationing and BFE Elevations (NAVD88). Response: FIRM Map Zone AE cross-sections and BFE’s are shown. I’m not sure what you mean by “stationing”….? Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please show the limits of the LOMR-F. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please include a note that no work may commence until all fill in the floodway associated with the LOMR-F has been removed. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please include building numbers and finished floor elevations as shown on Sheet 3. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please add a note that a FEMA Elevation Certificate will be required for each building before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please add a note that Floodplain Use Permits for individual buildings will be submitted at the time of the building permit application. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please change the note regarding Emergency Response Preparedness Plans. Buildings within the LOMR-F do not have to meet this requirement. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please create one typical detail drawing showing the foundation type (e.g. slab-on-grade, crawl space, etc.), and including the FF, BFE, RFPE, HVAC, etc. for the buildings. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: On Sheet 15 of the Construction Drawings, please create a table which indicates the Bldg. #, FF, BFE, RFPE, HVAC elevations for all eleven buildings. The BFE should be at the upstream edge of each building. The RFPE will be 12-inches above the BFE for all buildings within the LOMR-F, and 24-inches above the BFE for any buildings not in the LOMR-F. (Even though the RFPE requirement is only 12-inches above the BFE in the LOMR-F, we strongly suggest that the finished floor of all buildings be located 24-inches above the BFE as currently shown.) Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Please change the notes on Sheets 3 and 14 of the Construction Drawings to reflect the changes requested to the notes on Sheet 15. Response: Updated as requested. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, the cover letter is addressed to Brian Varrella. He is no longer with the City, so it should be addressed to the project manager for this particular development, Mark Taylor, PE, CFM. Response: The cover letter has been updated accordingly. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, discuss the LOMR-F, its history, and how it relates to this project in much more depth. Response: More information is now included. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, note that all fill located within the floodway, which was associated with the LOMR-F, must be removed prior to any development on this site. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, it states that the CLOMR (Case # 14-08-182C) is shown on the Drainage Plan. The comment is fine, but please remove it from the drainage plan. Response: I don’t understand this comment….but we have now included the CLOMR linework on the drainage plan as requested in a previous comment. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, please indicate that Floodplain Use Permits for individual buildings will be submitted at the time of the building permit application. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, please discuss how the work being proposed satisfies Chapter 10 of City code and specify any relevant sections. Response: Included as requested – in the Floodplain Management section of the report Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, please describe the foundations being proposed (e.g. slab-on-grade, crawl space, etc.). Response: I have conceptually described the foundations that may be proposed as the details on this have not yet been determined. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, please include a table which indicates the Bldg. #, FF, BFE, RFPE, HVAC elevations for all eleven buildings. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, please discuss the FEMA Elevation Certificates for the buildings and their timing in relation to Certificate of Occupancy for each building. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: In the Drainage Report, please highlight this site on the two FEMA FIRM Maps. Response: Included as requested. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Cache la Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $7,817/acre ($0.1795 sq.-ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.-ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City’s web site at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development- fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees. Response: Noted. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please remove "PDP" from the title. Please rename to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: This has been changed. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please remove "PDP" from the title. Please rename to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the following information in the EXACT format shown below. If your project is started on NAVD88 datum: 1)PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum: 2)PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: If using NGVD29 UNADJUSTED the following equation statement will be needed. NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED + X.XX Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in the profiles. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please remove "PDP" from the title. Please rename to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please move the "3" in the index on sheet 1 to line up with the other sheet numbers. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal description on the Subdivision Plat. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please add a north arrow, scale & scale bar. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Please change the township number to "6" in the sub-title, legal description, and Basis Of Bearings statement. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: There is a discrepancy between the legal & plat for course #2 along the Harmony right of way. See redlines. Response: Legal is correct, plat was incorrect. Bearing has been corrected as requested. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Please add "Filing No. 1" to the legal description, and the Surveyor's Certificate. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a signature block. If not, please add a note stating there are none, and include response in written comments. Response: According to the title commitment there are no liens on the property. Note 2 has been revised to add the sentence “NO LIEN HOLDERS ARE SHOWN ON SAID TITLE COMMITMENT.” Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Please review the language for the Repair Guarantee, there appears to be a typo. See redlines. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: There is a signature block for Boxelder Ditch Company. Please label the ditch on sheets 2-4. Response: The ditch is on Sheet 3 only and has been labeled as requested. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Please review Note #4. There appears to be an incorrect value. See redlines. Response: See redlines. Revised as requested. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com Response: These will be updated as part of our final field work prior to final plat submittal. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Please make changes on sheets 2-4 as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: Sheets 2-3 have been checked and are all drafted at a scale of 1”=100’. The preliminary copies may have had a slight distortion or have been printed to fit instead of to scale. We’ll make sure they are printed to scale in the future. Sheet 2 redlines: revised brg & dist. ROW information for the N side of Harmony has been included to the best of our information. The N ROW line has been shown per CDOT plans as specifically noted. I have done research at the Clerk and Recorder, with CDOT, at Larimer County Engineering.. The 30’ Temporary Construction Easements Rec. No. 20120007000 and Rec. No. 20110066244 do not contain language defining an expiration date or expiration event for these easements so the easements are shown. We are pursuing avenues to have those easements extinguished and our hope is that they will not exist at the time of final plat. The frame around the detail area has been removed. The detail note has been added across the area as requested.The incorrect bearing near the SE corner of Lot 2 has been corrected. The adjacent easements that do not impact the subdivision have been removed.See above response to comment 26 about monument records and below response about areas marked “unplatted”. Sheet 2 & 3: The SFCSD an FCLWD easements are being dedicated by this plat and the acceptance blocks and requested dedication language have been added as requested. The PVREA easements have been annotated. Sheet 3: The ROW near the SW corner of the site has been shown in a detail at a larger scale. Boxelder Ditch Co. lateral has been re-labeled. At this time they have not responded regarding their desires for the ditch. The parcel crossed by the ditch is not a buildable parcel so it seems adequate to defer the definition of a specific easement to such time as development is proposed. The match line linetype has been changed. The PVREA easement has been truncated and annotated to show only the portion within the subject property. Dimensions have been added and moved as requested. Sheets 2-4: Unplatted adjacent parcels have been labeled “unplatted” and have the adjacent owner’s name added. Anywhere “ROW varies” appeared has been replaced with “ROW width varies”. Sheet 4: Flood lines have been added. Line over text issues have been addressed. Building envelopes have been redefined as areas excepted from the blanket easement over Lots 1 & 2. Sheets 5 and 6 have been added in order to provide some clarity for the easements that are proposed to be dedicated via the plat. I believe the lineweight issue has to do with how the pdf was printed. I have been using the same print palette since 2000 and have had no issues. If the issue persists I will bump all the lineweights up one level. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please remove "PDP" from the title. Please rename to match the Subdivision Plat. Response: This has been changed. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please revise the legal description to match the corrected legal description on the Subdivision Plat. Response: This has been changed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been changed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Response: This has been changed. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been changed. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The internal roadway connection to the south is an important interconnectivity item. It is not shown on the plans. This should be planned for, and built to the property line. Response: Included as requested Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The internal cul-de-sac has access drives/roads off of it, so it looks a lot like an intersection or roundabout without a central island. This is problematic. Response: The cul-de-sac has been removed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please add pedestrian connectivity on the east side of the property to Harmony. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: THe northbound right turn lane at the access isn't shown to be built in the short term. This is along the property frontage, and the TIS acknowleges that its logical to be built with this project. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The access road seems to be more like a parking lot road. If the design stays as shown, it should be private. Response: Road A is now a street-like private drive. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: On the ultimate plan sheets, please label the accesses to correspond with the naming of the accesses in the TIS. Its tough to tell what is what. Response: Included as requested. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The Kechter/Srauss Cabin intersection needs additional review. The TIS assumes two additional lanes are built with the short term analysis, but since a roundabout is recommended, the TIS doesn't recommend building the lanes. We'll need an analysis of the short term total with existing lane configuration if that is what will be in place. It is likely that this development will need to plan on building the roundabout with the southern portions of the property. Response: Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Engineering will have some comments on the Harmony/Strauss Cabin intersection in terms of interim and ultimate designs. Response: Noted. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Traffic study indicates that land use and site plan shown in the TIS is different than plans submitted, but that the difference isn't 'significant'. Can you please provide information on what has changed - is the trip generation higher or lower, and by how much? If it is lower, than its likely fine. If it is higher, then we'll need to understand by how much. Response: The TIS has been revised to match the site plan. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma Belmont, 970-224-6197, ebelmont@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: A bus stop will not be required for this phase but may be for later phases of development. Response: Noted. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The build to line requirements of 3.5.3 for Strauss Cabin Rd a is 0-15ft from the public ROW. The plans are showing a 25' setback from the ROW. The landscape plan and/or site plan do not indicate any enhance outdoor space. The applicant has stated the build-to-line is being met; this is unclear. Response: The build-to line and footprint have been moved to the edge of the utility easement at 15’ behind the ROW. At the time of Minor Amendment for this building, we will do the final siting of the building which will either meet the 15’ build to line, or more likely, have an enhanced outdoor space. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The build to line requirements of 3.5.3 for Road A is 0-15ft from the Public ROW. The plans are showing a 19' setback from the ROW. The landscape plan and /or site plan do not indicate any enhance outdoor space. How, is the alternative compliance being met or why can't the building be brought to the 15' build-to-line? Response: Road A is no longer a public ROW and will be designed as a “street like private drive”. Our understanding is that this will not require a build to line. The design concept is to have a pedestrian oriented area along Hacienda Drive, with Patios and pedestrian amenities in the streetscape. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: If the OUT Lot A has required landscaping is it an outlot? Should this not be a tract or lot that can be part of another PDP if need for drainage and utilities. Response: This has changed to a tract. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Sidewalks should extend to the east property line to provide connection to future development. Response: This has been included in this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Lighting plan is required Response: A lighting plan has been included in this submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Trash and recycling enclosures are required. Response: These have been included in this submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: It is unclear what prevents vehicles from driving and parking on the landscaped area on the north and east of building 7. Is there a curb and gutter along the parking drive here? Response: An asphalt curb has been shown on the grading plan to indicate the end of the parking lot. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Because of the lack of elevations shown in the submittal, a Major Amendment will be required before a building permit could be issued for a building. Response: 4 Full Architectural Elevations have been included with this submittal as discussed in the comment review meeting. It is our intention to have only Minor Amendments to these approved plans, unless there is a significant change to the site. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: The sheet index should include any sheets that are not part of the Utility set or plat. Response: The sheets have been reorganized to include site, landscape, architectural and photometric under one cover. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Remove the Planning and Zoning Certificate signature block. Response: This has been removed. The Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services is all that is needed. However, this signature block misspelled the word Director. Response: This has been updated. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: North of building 4 rows of parking are exceeding the 15 max before and landscape island is required. Response: A landscape island is planned in that area and will be added in the next submittal. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: On the Plant Palette we need the quantity of the species of tree. Response: We have added a note under the plant table saying that the plants will meet the city code for diversity, until we do the final planting plan we will not know the exact numbers or percentages.