Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAPSTONE COTTAGES - FDP - FDP150046 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - 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 October 28, 2015 Response to Round Number 3 Staff Comments Letter dated: September 25, 2015 Linda Ripley RIPLEY DESIGN INC. 401 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Capstone Cottages, PDP140004, Round Number 3 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Pete Wray, at 970-221-6754 or pwray@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please consider variation in building details such as doors, trim, corner boards, bracket details on gable ends, lintels/head casings above windows, and porch posts and details. Updated elevations are provide with the FDP submittal Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 01/16/2015: A notice was added to this record on 2014-12-09. Condition: Over payment of $100.00 to be applied to final development plan per Daman Holland (applicant). Acknowledged Comment Number: Comment Originated: 09/24/2015 09/24/2015: Staff has determined a 4th round of review is needed to resolve issues identified at staff review meeting and follow up discussions. I will provide a routing sheet to only include staff with active issues for this next two week review period. Please coordinate with the Development Review Center for submittal appointment. Acknowledged Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Add Landscape Plan cover sheet that starts with overall landscape for first page. An overall landscape cover sheet was added to the landscape plan set. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015:Is Tract C off of Webster required parking for buildings or extra overflow parking? See environmental comments on mitigation of existing wetlands in this area. A justification statement regarding the need for proposed parking and the natural resource value of existing wetlands was submitted to City staff September 30, 2015. Subsequent meetings with the staff resulted in agreement that the parking as proposed was not excessive and the .04-acre isolated wetlands could be mitigated in the stormwater detention area located at the southeast corner of the site. Providing adequate parking was a predominant issue at the last neighborhood meeting as well. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Private Drive off of Duff - add sidewalk on east side to conect to Tract A so there is a sidewalk on both sides of drive similar to other entry drives. This change will remove 1 parking space. A walk was added to both sides of the private drive connecting to Duff Drive. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: The response indicates that the roundabout design is conceptual in nature and that further design details would occur at time of Final. This approach would require that the PDP approval is subject to the final design approval of the roundabout, with the understanding that the assumptions made regarding the size and design of Tract D (as apparently both a natural habitat buffer zone and a detention pond) as well as potentially the size and number of lots/units in general could be impacted should additional right-of-way be needed as part of the further evolution of the design for the roundabout and street approaches. The project will also be responsible for obtaining required offsite easements/rights-of-way dedication made necessary for the construction, which would also become more apparent with the evolution of the design. 01/14/2015: The roundabout design has a flowline that is disjointed on the International Boulevard approach to the roundabout. It's unclear how the alignment with bike lanes is to occur. Acknowledged Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: The plans show the extension of sidewalk along the south side of Duff Drive to go past the property boundary of the development. From my perspective, it would appear to be sufficient to stop the sidewalk at the property boundary and then place the required Type III barricades at the property line. The termination of the sidewalk shown on the plans appears to be at an odd location midway through the abutting lot. This walk and barrier was corrected. 01/14/2015: The extension of Duff Drive to existing Duff Drive to the east should be showing more existing features such as existing driveways on both sides of the street. The new driveway onto Duff might have distance between driveway edges that are not met in Table 7-3 of LCUASS. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The Lemay/Lincoln cross section on the cover sheet labels the correct cross-section but displays the minor arterial cross section and should be updated. Northern Engineering Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 09/15/2015: The response indicated that the easement is negated by the access being only a right-in movement with no exit movement, has it been vetted that this access would not be open to two way traffic upon the realignment of Lemay Avenue? I am under the impression that the right-in movement was only intended in the interim condition of existing Lemay Avenue. I'm concerned with the premise of the enforceability of the right-in movement upon Lemay's realignment and the exaggerated movement no longer being necessary. Under the premise that the private drive would be open to two way traffic upon the Lemay realignment, the roadway should be designed to be wider at this time to better allow for two way traffic, and the sight distance comments would still be applicable. 01/14/2015: Understanding the parameters used in the response letter, a variance request should still be provided for review prior to hearing. 05/28/2014: The parameters used to calculate sight distance should be provided. The present standard in LCUASS Figure 7-16 requires a corner sight distance of 1030 feet based on the 50 mph design speed for Lemay Avenue. This doesn't appear to be parameters used for the sight distance easement prescribed on the plat. Per agreement with the neighborhood and staff, the connection to Lemay is kept as right-in/one-way access to the project. A right turn lane was added from Lemay and the lane geometry was modified to prevent changes to the access when the Lemay road improvements implemented. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: The response is noted, but the local portion is still obligated with this development at time of first building permit. If an arrangement is worked out where the party that acquires the property provides the local street obligation, then that's certainly fine as well. 01/14/2015: How is Tract H envisioned to be developed? We may need the local street portion obligation of realigned Lemay Avenue abutting this parcel at this time if it's not evident that this Tract is developable. (Further staff discussion on this has the City requiring the local portion of this tract be obligated with the development.) Tract H (now labeled Tract G on the revised Plat) was traded for the Royval piece north of the future Buckingham Street connection. Tract G now joins with the parcel to the north under one ownership (currently with Royval.) Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: A letter of intent is needed from the Royval property owner prior to a hearing. The offsite easement for the roundabout can be a post hearing item. 01/14/2015: The project should be identifying the offsite easements that are required to develop the project and then provide letters of intent from the identified property owners prior to hearing. It appears that the Royval's and Buffalo Run Apartments LLC are among the parties that the Developer would need to obtain letters of intent from at this time. A copy of the land swap Agreement signed by Diana and Norman Royval has been supplied. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: The landscaping required may need to be part of the condition contemplated in Comment 20. 01/14/2015: The Landscape Plan should be identifying the landscaping of the medians on Lincoln and International as well as the roundabout. A corresponding underdrain system beneath the medians will also then need to be designed and provided on the civil plans. Acknowledged Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: The response indicating that this has been coordinated with PFA is acknowledged. Engineering does not need to review the graphical output, especially with the roadways no longer being public streets internal to the project. 01/14/2015: There's been recent "in the field" evaluations done by PFA on their ability to navigate narrow roadways with features such as neckdowns at intersections, with the discovery that they've been unable to navigate turning movements in instances. We'll need to coordinate with PFA on providing turning template information for review. The turning movements at Cottage Drive and North Club House Drive will be needed as a public street intersection. PFA may want additional private roadway intersections evaluated as well. Turning movements per PFA’s criteria were added to the site plan and sent to PFA for review. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: The striping plans should be labelling the widths of the travel lanes, turn lanes, and bike lanes along with indicating taper and storage lengths used for the turn lane designs. 01/14/2015: The design and right-of-way dedication for realigned Lemay Avenue needs to account for the separate right turn lane for northbound Lemay onto eastbound Duff. Northern Engineering will include these items Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 09/15/2015: Prior to a public hearing for the project, a letter of intent from the Royval property consenting to the concept of the access easement and construction of the connection from Andersonville to Duff Drive. 01/16/2015: Further City staff discussion has confirmed that the indicated connection for vehicles between the development and the Andersonville neighborhood can be in an access easement (not necessarily right-of-way). The design of this connection should be one-way eastbound/southbound and indicated that way via signage. A copy of the land swap Agreement signed by Diana and Norman Royval has been supplied. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The revised drawings with private drives throughout the interior of the development instead of some public streets is acceptable from an Engineering perspective. Presently there appears to be two named private drives: "Cottage Drive" and "South Club House Drive". Any named private drives should be reflecting the dedication of tracts on the plat along with the name of the streets followed by "(Private Drive)" for each named private drive, in order to define the area in which the street naming occurs. The vetting of which driveways become named private drives and the identification of corresponding tracts on the plat should be completed prior to a hearing. The Private Drive name was added to Cottage Drive and South Club house Drive Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: With the premise that the some of the entrances off of public streets will have street names on the private drive, and others do not, please have the plans specify the placement of "Begin Private Maintenance" informative signs as was designed with the Lakeview Subdivision completed by Northern Engineering. Signage indicating Private Maintenance was added to the Site Plan Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The site plan indicates the total number of units as 201, however the plat appears to show a total of 200 lots. Under the premise that the lots shown on the plat equate to units on the site plan, there would appear to be a discrepancy. The number of units was reconciled (201) Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The plat's indication of the 200 lots being created along with their indicated lot numbers isn't clearly depicted on the site and landscape plan, which makes understanding the legal status of the lots in combination with the proposed development plan site design difficult to understand and review. The lots lines being created as single family attached along with their unit number would seem to need to be the most predominant feature on the site, landscape and civil plans. An informational overlay exhibit has been supplied to help illustrate platted lotlines and lot numbers on the Site Plan. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: In general the lot lines that are created on the plat are creating situations where sidewalk connections to get access into units have to cross lot lines to get to/from streets and/or parking lots. How is the legal right ensured for access to the units of the occupier of the dwelling ensured? Under the premise that every lot is owned and maintained by one property owner, it perhaps wouldn't be viewed as a trespass type issue, but I'm confused as to how single family attached aspect would ever allow a clean way to sell lots to other owner(s) and ensure access is maintained. The manner in which it's subdivided into single family attached vs. perhaps multi-family units with building envelopes is confusing from this perspective. An Outline Proposal has been supplied to address how these items will be resolved through a declaration of covenants to be recorded against the property following approval of the development plan. This was discussed in further detail in a meeting with Staff on 10/26/2015. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The plans show water and sewer services that aren't extended to each lot created by the plat, but instead attempts to show a single water and single sewer service for a clustered group of several lots corresponding with a single family attached product. I'm wondering if the water/sewer district is aware of the nuance of the 200 lots being created, as ensuring access and delivery of utilities to each lot seems unclear, or if there's an acceptable manner to them in which the services can cross into lot lines and buildings. Will electric and gas expect to gang their meters for a building, but in doing so would be placing their respective meters on one lot and then realize they would need to provide their meters on each individual lot and not find insufficient space to do so? Either we should have written verification from all the utility providers that they can serve the site based upon the premise of these being single family attached, or we should have a utility coordination meeting prior to a hearing. See response to Comment Number 36. This issue has also been discussed specifically with ELCO Water District and Fort Collins Wastewater Utility. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Division 5.1 of the Land Use Code defines "Lot" to be "...a designated parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision or otherwise permitted by law to be used, occupied or designed to be occupied by one (1) or more buildings, structures or uses, and which abuts a dedicated right-of-way, private street or private drive, any of which is at least twenty (20) feet wide at all points." It would perhaps need to be verified with Zoning on whether the lots being created on the plat having a width of only 16.33 feet in some cases is problematic with the Land Use Code defining the 20 foot minimum width. (this comment should be cleared in Accela at this point) Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Amenities shown on the site plan such as the shared courtyards, bike racks, and landscaping appear to cross lots lines (or even in the case of some the shared courtyard, span four different lots). Shouldn't the amenities not necessarily span lot lines as it makes ownership and maintenance of these unclear with the typical scenario of several lot owners? Similar to the question regarding the sidewalk access to the units, does the aspect of needing to traverse other lots outside of the lot in which the person inhabiting the dwelling resides to gain access to bike racks, the shared courtyards, etc. result in a concern? See response to Comment Number 36. No structures requiring building permits are currently proposed across lotlines. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Under the premise that the development remain a single family attached development with individual lots created, I wonder if it would be appropriate to have notes on the plat and/or development agreement as notice to future potential interested purchasers of individual lots (should the product convert to individual ownership) in the development, that access, utility services, and amenities cannot be guaranteed? See response to Comment Number 36 Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Similar to the depiction of the lot lines, the depiction of the boundary of Tract A should also be clear on the plans. See response to Comment Number 35 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/15/2015: Carried over pending verification of Comment 10. 01/14/2015: The Landscape Plan doesn't label the sight distance easement shown on the plat and shows several Vanderwolf's Pine trees encroaching onto the sight distance easement. Only limbed deciduous trees can be within a sight distance easement per the notes on the plat, and the landscaping would need to be revised with the pine trees out of the easement. Sight distance easements and landscape clearances were added and corrected on the landscape plans Topic: Plat Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Additional right-of-way on Lemay Avenue should be dedicated to ensure that upon the realignment of Lemay Avenue the sidewalk along Lemay across the private driveway is fully in right-of-way. Additional right-of-way was added Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/13/2014 05/13/2014: Additional $60.12 due for PDP fees. This is based on a submittal for 33 single family detached du, 148 non single family detached du, 9,450 sq non residential, 28.264 acres. A fee check is included with the submittal Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 9/25/2015: There appears to be room to leave the two small isolated wetlands (wetlands 2 and 3 from the ECS) intact, with a 50' buffer around them and either remove all of the overflow parking shown on the site plan or leave just the west edge of spaces. On SP2.0 you show the total required spaces as 666 and the total provided is 739, which provides an extra 73 spaces. There are 82 spaces in this overflow lot, so it is possible to keep 10-20 of these spaces on the western edge of the lot, remove the rest, and thereby leave wetlands 2 and 3 intact with their required buffers, meeting both your parking and environmental requirements. Furthermore, if the wetland mitigation area within the stormwater basin is not successful, the buffer and area around the two smaller wetlands could be further enhanced as upland habitat, which could be detailed as part of the wetland mitigation plan. It appears to be feasible to avoid impacts to the wetlands with the project as currently proposed. If the applicant chooses to continue with the proposal to fill the wetlands and locate a parking lot in this area, then staff requests a Modification of Standard to Land Use Code section 3.4.1(C) with a justification of the applicant's approach. The applicant may pursue a stand alone modification, or may include the modification alongside the PDP. A plan for mitigating impacts to the wetland (outside of the stormwater detention area), will also be required. 05/28/2014: Instead of burying the borrow ditch, is it possible to relocate it to the north side of the sidewalk? This would allow for on-site mitigation of the wetlands (0.22 acres) and serve as an attractive amenity for the site. There also appears to be shallow groundwater in this area. 01/13/2015: This comment was addressed with the following note: A wetland mitigation area is noted on the site and landscape plans at the location noted. Additional area is allotted in the detention area as well. Final design for these areas will be included with FDP. However, it was unclear in the response if the ditch will be buried. Please confirm whether the ditch is being buried or not. It appears so on the plans, but please confirm. 9/15/2015: There appears to be room to leave the two small isolated wetlands (wetlands 2 and 3 from the ECS) intact, with a 50' buffer around them and either remove all of the overflow parking shown on the site plan or leave just the west edge of spaces. On SP2.0 you show the total required spaces as 666 and the total provided is 739, which provides an extra 73 spaces. There are 82 spaces in this overflow lot, so it is possible to keep 10-20 of these spaces on the western edge of the lot, remove the rest, and thereby leave wetlands 2 and 3 intact with their required buffers, meeting both your parking and environmental requirements. Furthermore, if the wetland mitigation area within the stormwater basin is not successful, the buffer and area around the two smaller wetlands could be further enhanced as upland habitat, which could be detailed as part of the wetland mitigation plan. A justification statement regarding the need for proposed parking and the natural resource value of existing wetlands was submitted to City staff September 30, 2015. Subsequent meetings with the staff resulted in agreement that the parking as proposed was not excessive and the .04-acre isolated wetlands could be mitigated in the stormwater detention area located at the southeast corner of the site. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 09/15/2015: Thank you for submitting a letter from a Professional Ecological Consultant regarding the suitability of the chosen mitigation site to support wetlands long-term. The report states that the site might be suitable with sufficient surface runoff and access to the groundwater table, however, additional data is needed during the growing season (April 15 - October 1) to be certain of the potential of this site. Given the timing of this submittal and that we have not received any additional monitoring data, the success of this site for wetland mitigation is uncertain. Therefore, we would only approve mitigation of the borrow ditch wetland (0.18 acres) in this location, which overlaps with your stormwater requirements. The wetland mitigation area and 50' buffer around it will need to be clearly labeled on the site and landscape plans, and the stormwater basin should also be modified to provide a more naturalistic design, including a berm on the eastern/northeastern side with a thicket of native fruit-bearing and evergreen trees and shrubs of varying calipers. Additionally, as per comment #1, wetlands 2 and 3 should be left-in-place, with the elimination of at least 50 of the additional parking spaces in this overflow lot. See response to Comment Number 1 Conceptual sketches illustrating the proposed grading and landscape for the mitigation area have been submitted for review. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 09/15/2015: Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), and prior to prairie dog removal, please submit the results of a burrowing owl survey completed by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist, and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. Note the timing requirements of these surveys are between March 15 and October 31, as no burrowing owls are expected to be present between November 1 and March 14 . This issue will be included in Development Agreement language and is required due to the presence of prairie dogs on the site. Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 09/15/2015: Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), please submit a letter explaining how and when prairie dog removal occurred at the site and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. This issue will be included in Development Agreement language. Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 09/15/2015: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) of fifty feet (50 ft) is required in Land Use Code 3.4.1(E) for wetlands less than one-third (1/3) acre in size. The NHBZ needs to be labeled on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plans delineated for all wetlands and mitigated wetlands. Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 09/15/15: Please add this note. I do not see this note on current plans. 01/13/2015: Please add the following statement to the notes on any sheets(including site, landscape, utility, grading, and storm sewer plan) that show the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone: "The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone area is meant to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This will help preserve the intention behind the natural habitat buffer zones and the natural features into the future. Items are included with the FDP landscape set Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Prior to Final Plan approval, the following will be needed: -Additional groundwater monitoring data as recommended by the Ecological Consultant -A detailed mitigation and weed management plan -An itemized estimate of the amount of bond required for wetland mitigation costs associated with this development Items were provided prior to hearing Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Within the natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E) (1)(a), the project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable impacts of development, and Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. From a quantity perspective, additional material should be provided to meet these standards and planting enhancements should include appropriate native vegetation, species diversity and variety in vertical structure. Thus, please provide the following on the landscape plans at or before the time of Final Plans: A. Provide additional plant material in accordance with these standards. B. Label each individual species that will be planted within the natural habitat buffer zone so staff can fully evaluate the plan for appropriateness. C. A table listing each specific plant species, quantity, and caliper. Items are included with the FDP landscape set Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/29/2014 09/16/2015: CONTINUED 01/14/2015: This comment is continued from 5/29/14. If not already indicated show the location of stop signs with a defined symbol in the site plan legend. Adjust street tree locations to a distance of at least 20 feet from stop signs. 05/29/2014: Please show the locations of street lights and stop signs and adjust street tree locations as necessary. Street lights: 40 feet for shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees Stop signs: 20 feet for any tree Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comm ent Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/16/2015: CONTINUED 01/14/2015: Some street trees at the following locations appear to not be labeled as to species. Four street trees located at Duff Drive and North Club House Drive on n North Club House Drive. Some street trees located at the corner of Cottage Drive and International Boulevard. Some street trees located at Cottage Drive and North Club House Drive NE corner. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/16/2015: CONTINUED Providing only drip irrigation to trees with no other irrigation to turf will not sustain street trees long term as they grow and mature. Providing spray irrigation to the turf in parkways appears the best way to provide for the future irrigation of City street trees in parkways. 01/14/2015: Prairie Turf (Reduced Irrigation) is indicated in the perimeter parkways. Parkway turf needs to receive irrigation by a pop-up spray or equivalent system. This should be clarified by possibly describing it as Irrigated Prairie Turf. Providing for reduced irrigation in landscape areas is a great concept but the irrigation of street trees still needs to be adequately provided for. Significant reductions in turf irrigation would limit the growth and survival of street trees. Provide specific information on how irrigation with this concept will be adequate to establish and sustain street tree growth. Incorporate information and or design elements into the project design plan that clearly defines the level of irrigation that is needed and will be provided for the street trees. All turf areas (including Prairie Turf) will receive pop-up/pivot spray irrigation. Trees located in all areas will receive individual drip/bubbler irrigation. Irrigation plans indicating details of this will be provided as soon as landscape alignment is accepted. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/16/2015: CONTINUED 01/14/2015: Include 35 upsized mitigation trees on the project. Identify upsized mitigation trees in the Landscape Material Legend and by direct labeling of trees used as mitigation trees. Typically placing an asterisk with footnote by mitigation trees in the Landscape Material Legend and placing an M by those that are direct labeled has been an effective way to identify mitigation trees. Canopy Shade trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height. 35 upsized canopy trees are included on the landscape plans Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/16/2015: CONTINUED 01/14/2015: Include species diversity percentages in the Landscape Material Legend. Adjust quantities if necessary to meet the standard in LUC 3.2.1 D 3 Minimum species diversity. Species diversity is included on the landscape legend Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/16/2015: CONTINUED Provide a final landscape plan for the round- about at final plan. Follow the requirements in the streetscape and median standards. Contact Clark Mapes in the Planning Department to obtain information on how the round- about will be reviewed by the City streetscape and median team 01/14/2015: Will a landscape plan be provided for the round about? Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/16/2015: CONTINUED 01/14/2015: Tree Selection Comments: Please list Sensation Boxelder as a large deciduous tree. Princess Kay Plum by City Forestry Division evaluation has not survived or thrived well in the Fort Collins area. Consider using an alternative ornamental tree that might include flowering crabs , Tatarian maple, tree lilac or another adapted ornamental trees. Include some Kentucky Coffeetree as street trees. Using Kentucky Coffeetree in some of the perimeter street tree locations seems appropriate. Use some additional Bur Oak as street trees possibly in place of some of the Skymater English Oak. Toba Hawthorn is listed as conditionally recommended on the Front Range Tree Recommendation List because of some health and survival issues. Consider reducing the quantity by using another ornamental tree(s). Lot 2 Detention Pond Tree Selection Comments: Change the 4 Greenspire Linden to Honeylocust in the parkway along the south side of Webster Avenue for improved drought tolerance. Show irrigated turf in this area. Using Bur Oak in place of English Oak along the International Boulevard side of the detention pond area would provide for a more drought tolerant species. Using Texas Red or Shumard Oak in place of the four Hackberry along the Lincoln Boulevard side of the Detention Pond would provide for good fall color and some increased drought tolerance. These changes are included on the landscape plans Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: Use the newly developed project landscape, tree protection and street tree notes. These notes are avaialbe from the Project Planner Pete Wray or the City Forester. Please provide these notes with the FDP comments. A request was made to Pete for the notes but not received. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC. 2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential chapter. 3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial chapter. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. Capstone Cottages – project specific concerns: 1. Fire-sprinkler systems are required for R-2 multi-family. A new code amendment effective in 2014 will require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system and not allow a 13-R system. In addition effective Aug1 all duplexes and property-line townhomes require fire-sprinkler systems. 2. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler. 3. All windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24” 4. Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units. 5. New Green Code requires: a. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling. b. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building located within 1000ft to train tracks. c. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required. d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances. e. Low VOC interior finishes. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/25/2015 09/25/2015: Dwellings on individual lots must have utilities installed to each property without crossing adjoiing property lines unless there is an access easement agreement to allow such. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated through City of Fort Collins Light and Power, 221-6700. Transformers will need to be within 10ft of paved surface. Transformer locations still need to be confirmed by the architect. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Development charges will apply. An online development estimating guide can be found at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees/electric-development-fee-estimator Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: One-line diagram needs to be submitted for the clubhouse Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2015 9/14/2015: Please show public street lighting on the Landscape Plan to ensure proper clearance requireemnts are met with ornamental and shaded trees Public street lights were added to the site and landscape plans Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Boxeldder Sanitation. Lisa Ford (Larimer County Assessor) was in touch with our office yesterday as three parcels that are part of Capstone Cottages are in the Boxelder Sanitation District. These parcels (individually) need to petition for exclusion from the District. I am attaching the information you will need to provide to the property owners or you may have them contact me. The soonest the petitions for exclusion could be addressed is at the February 26 board meeting. Here is the ownership and respective parcel number per the Larimer County Assessor office. I suspect that ownership has changed and if so, please let me know. Parcel #87072-00-016 Ft Collins Business Center One Parcel #87072-00-017 Ft Collins Business Center Two Parcel #87072-00-019 Niforos, Tonia L Pat Patricia S. Mathena Assistant Manager & Controller XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Boxelder Sanitation District 3201 E. Mulberry St., #Q P. O. Box 1518 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-498-0604, 970-498-0701 Fax PMathena@boxeldersanitation.org Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Larimer County: I have a new comment to include for this preliminary plat. I noticed that you have a signature block for a total of three owners. We have four owners and this is how they hold title: Technically the Ft Collins Business Center holds title under two different ownerships. 87072-00-002 NORTH VALLEY BANK 87072-00-016 FT COLLINS BUSINESS CENTER ONE 87072-00-017 FT COLLINS BUSINESS CENTER TWO 87072-00-019 NIFOROS TONIA L Also, just to touch base again on the difference in the parcels tax districts, which encompass the new sub, I understand that there will be an order recorded for exclusion from the Boxelder Sanitation District which will accomplish getting all the parcels into one tax district. I'm hoping this gets done before your final recording of this plat. If you have questions on the exclusion process, please contact Lisa Ford in our office as she can answer any questions you may have on this process. Her direct line is 970-498-7068. Megan Harrity Subdivisions Larimer County Assessor 970-498-7065 mharrity@larimer.org Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/16/2015 03/16/2015: WATER SUPPLY The installation of private hydrants require special approved and permitting from the fire department. Private fire hydrants shall have an approved maintenance plan as per IFC 507.5.3. Fire hydrants must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Acknowledged Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: FIRE ACCESS Minimum width of any fire lane serving a commercial property is 20'. The Emergency Access Easement overlaid on the private drive connecting the property from the west side of the complex to Lemay Ave is currently shown as 19'. The lane width was increased to 20’ Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: BUILDINGS OVER 30' IN HEIGHT Only five of the three-story building footprints meet access requirements for aerial fire apparatus. Compliant buildings are #29,30,31,32,& 45. All other 3-story footprints appear to exceed the 30' maximum distance to the edge of the fire lane. The Clubhouse also exceeds 30' in height and needs to meet the same access requirement. See code language below and also Appendix D of the 2012 International Fire Code for more details. > AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WHERE REQUIRED IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. > AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WIDTH IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. > AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - PROXIMITY TO BUILDING IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Adjustments to these buildings were made to bring them as close as possible to the adjacent 30’ fire access lanes, while maintaining the staff-preferred front porches and porch/utility easement clearances. Some of the 3-story buildings along the private drives are beyond the 30’ distance (35’ average with the exception of building 49 at 39’). To mitigate this distance beyond the 30’ aerial access distance, we propose providing sprinklered units and 2 hour fire separation walls between units. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS As of August 2014, full NFPA 13 sprinkler systems are required in multifamily residential occupancies. Acknowledged Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: CLUBHOUSE The location of the clubhouse does not meet minimum standards for fire department access. The building also exceeds 5000 square feet. As such, an automatic fire sprinkler system will be required. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. The clubhouse will be fire sprinklered Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: FDC > IFC 912.2: Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. Acknowledged Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: HYDRANT PLACEMENT A hydrant is required within 300' of every building within the complex. That distance is to be measured along the path of vehicle travel. Code language provided below. The proposed plan shows some areas of deficiency in hydrant coverage. An additional hydrant will be required as follows: > In the area of the landscape island at the east end of the head-in parking, south of Bldg. 16. > In the area of the landscape island at the east end of the head-in parking, north of Bldg. 38. > Along Lemay Avenue, between old Lemay and International Blvd. > IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM New buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Admin Policy #07-01 Acknowledged Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/16/2015 09/16/2015: STREET NAMES A plan for the naming of streets shall be submitted for review and approval by time of final development plan. Monument signage and a plan for way finding within the complex should be ready for review at that time as well. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Currently plans show offsite flows being routed through the detention pond. Please discuss how this will affect detention pond design, allowing off site flows to be routed over spillway rather than by increasing release rate. A rain garden treatment train was added above the detention inflo Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 05/30/2014: Add notes to both the plat and the site plan; 1) The entire site is located within the FEMA-regulatory Poudre River 500-year Floodplain (shaded Zone X). 2) At-Risk Population and Essential Service Critical Facilities are not allowed within the limits of the 500-year floodplain. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 05/27/2014: Larimer County has to sign off on the release rate for this development due to the outfall being the county maintained Lincoln Channel. Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please make sure that the storm sewer crossing in International Boulevard will meet the minimum cover requirements per LCUASS standards Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 1/13/2015: Please document the contributed flows from offiste drainage area to the north of this site. Show how these will be routed through Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The proposed detention pond along Lincoln Avenue does not meet the spirit or the letter of the detention pond landscaping standards. The pond needs to be naturally landscaped, less symmetrical, . An alternate design that emphasizes the use of the pond as a multi-purpose amenity with a naturalized function and some recreational use is recommeded. The City would like to participate in a discussion on what can be done to enhance this facility prior to re-submittal. Conceptual sketches illustrating the proposed grading and landscape for the mitigation area have been submitted for review. The revised detention pond design meets or exceeds the referenced guidelines. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 09/09/2015: Repeat Comment - Saw acknowledgment 03/17/2015: Repeat Comment - Saw acknowledgment 01/13/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, 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 Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 09/17/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 01/13/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 09/17/2015: There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 01/13/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please add the title of "Capstone Cottages" to all sheets. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: There seem to be some sheets missing, or the sheet numbering is not consecutive. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 09/17/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 01/13/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: The sheet numbering does not match the sheet references shown in the sheet keys. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 09/17/2015: No plans were provided for review, so we cannot verify this was addressed. 01/14/2015: There is text that needs to be masked. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Plat Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/16/2015 09/17/2015: Note #4 is contradictory. If it is not known whether or not there is a Lienholder, please add a signature block. This can be removed later, if it is not needed. 01/16/2015: 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. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: The Sight Distance Easement is not needed if there is no easement on the Plat. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please add the distance for the Basis Of Bearings. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please make sure that all Lots, Tracts & Outlots are labeled on all sheets. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please label all surrounding properties with "Unplatted" or the subdivision name. This includes properties across right of ways. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Should the little triangle noted on sheet 2 be conveyed to other owner? See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: All easements must be labeled & locatable. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: All internal Lots must be tied to the Plat boundary in some way. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Specific names are needed for the ownership in the Land Use Table. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please add dedication information for all street rights of way. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Is International Blvd. the correct name for the street running along the east side of the property? Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please add "Matchline" to the lines on sheets 2 & 3. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please remove "Proposed Right Of Way", and add "EAE" to the legend. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: What is the line noted along Lot 5? is this the Sight Distance Easement? See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please add bearings and/or distances as marked. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please remove all mark lines on sheet 3. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: All reception numbers for documents recorded by separate document, must be added prior to producing mylars. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please show what was reset for the easterly boundary corner as noted on sheet 3. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 09/17/2015: There is still text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. 01/14/2015: There are still masking issues. See redlines. 05/27/2014: Please mask all text within hatched areas, or as marked. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/27/2014 09/17/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 01/14/2015: There are still line over text issues. See redlines. 05/27/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The TIS acknowledges the need for a southbound right turn lane at Lemay / Lincoln, and this development is currently proposing to add 15% to that movement. This improvement is not shown in the plans. Will this be a variance request? Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: This TIS acknowledges that at the site access and Lemay the northbound right turn will warrant a right turn lane. The warrant is 40. The proposed turns are 106. The TIS recommends not installing the lane since it is 'temporary'. Will this be a variance request? Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The long term geometry at new Lemay and Duff includes a northbound right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane. The ultimate layout (and ROW dedicated now) should accommodate this, and Duff should be built for this. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: There is some parking shown to be very close to intersections. (Such as site access to new Lemay). Are parking setbacks to ROW met? Throat distances to major intersecions (such as Lemay and International) should be reviewed. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The TIS acknowledges that the pedestrian LOS is not met. Additional information on what is not met, why, and to what extent Capstone IS providing ped facilities I think will be needed as the project moves forward. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The TIS notes that three intersection do not meet LOS standards. Additional information/narrative/explanation on these specific intersections, and to what extent Capstone is impacting these intersections (especially Lemay/Buckingham and Lemay/Vine) I think will be needed as the project moves forward. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma Belmont, 970-224-6197, ebelmont@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/28/2014 01/15/2015: The site plan is difficult to verify if the stop shown meets our needs for ADA accessibility. Please revise the plan to show the bus stop upgrades we have discussed on phone calls and in the Staff Review meeting. I have also provided some example stop designs for your review, this stop needs to be a type III stop. Take a look at the options and choose the one that works best for you. Due to line of sight concerns and potential traffic back up in the roundabout, please move the stop to the west side of the drive aisle into the development. I'm happy to discuss this further to help out as needed. 05/28/2014: The City of Fort Collins values providing accessible transportation options to all residents and in accordance with the LUC Section 3.6.5 all new development shall provide ADA accessible bus stop facilities in appropriate locations. The location of this project is served by one existing route on Lincoln Avenue and one planned route on Future Lemay Avenue. Please provide a bus stop pad on Lincoln Avenue, approximately 50'-80' west of International Boulevard and one just north of the property line on Future Lemay Avenue. The bus stop pads shall be 22' wide adjacent to the street and 12' deep, they need to be attached to the sidewalk and curb and be within the public right-of-way or in a Transit Easement. Please refer to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards detail 711 for more information and feel free to contact me if you need assistance locating the stops. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Please also include the bus stop on the opposite side of the street. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2015 01/15/2015: Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: Please differentiate between City of Fort Collins sewer lines, by calling out all publicly owned COFC lines on the plans, differentiating them from private utilities or ELCO lines. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 01/13/2015: Please add notes on the cover sheet to show that sanitary sewer service for this site is provided by City of Fort Collins Utilities and water service is provided by ELCO. Please update the contact list names for Fort Collins Utilities as it is outdated. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2015 05/29/2014: Minimum easement width for sanitary sewer is 30 feet (15 feet each side of the sewer). This will apply to the existing sewer crossing the site and the new proposed sewers. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/17/2015 09/17/2015: The plat shows that these units will be platted as single family attached lots. City code requires a sewer service be extended to each property which would require that each single family attached unit have a separate sewer service. City staff will consult with the City Attorney's Office and investigate this code requirement and how it applies in this case. Pursuant to further discussions with the Wastewater Utility, the internal sanitary sewer mains (and services) will be a private system. Thus, providing one service per building is acceptable. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: The one central trash and recycling location for the entire project does meet code. Please provide further details as notes on the site plan that discuss the convenient trash and recycling pickups. 4 trash/recycle enclosure locations are include at the residential area and a trash compactor at the maintenance building location Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/14/2015 01/14/2015: Are the raised cross walks acceptable by other interests of the project? NA Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: Eaves are allowed to encroach a setback 2.5 feet LUC 3.8.19(A) (6). Post of the porch is required to meet the setback. Acknowledged Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/15/2015 09/15/2015: The project t is meeting the Handicap spaces. However, the location of the handicap space near the maintenance building may be under used. There are not handicap spaces near the Club house, perhaps this would be a better location for one. There is an additional refuse/recycle drop at the maintenance building location and the handicap spaces redistributed overall to associate better with the accessible units. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/18/2015 09/18/2015: Please add street tress along Lemay. Please include the landscaping around the detention pond and round about when design details are complete. Please add trees in along the drive from Duff. Will be addressed with Final Compliance Plans