Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN NORTH, 3RD FILING - PDP - PDP160017 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview March 4, 2016 Russ Lee Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Old Town North Block 6 - Preliminary Design Review, PDR160002, Round Number Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Comment Responses: Ripley Design, Shear Engineering Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The Project Narrative needs to be revised to clearly indicate the arrangement of the attached dwelling units that face Suniga Road and to use the semantics that refer to the definitions in the Land Use Code. The narrative needs to emphasize that there is actually more density than simply 24 units arranged as “Single Family Attached.” Otherwise, how do 24 “Single Family Attached” lots yield 48 dwelling units? Resoponse: See narrative for clarification Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: In terms of semantics, please do not use the terms “duplexes” or “accessory dwelling units” as these terms are not used or defined in the Land Use Code. Resoponse: See narrative for clarification 2 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: For example, both the narrative and plan sheet need to explain that this portion of the project is fundamentally dwelling units that are arranged as “Two-Family Dwellings.” The combination of the lower and upper units meets the definition of a “Two-Family Dwelling.” The upper unit could be called Unit A and the lower unit could be described as Unit B. Resoponse: See narrative for clarification Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: This arrangement does not meet the definition of “Single Family Attached.” A logical reading of the definitions would lead us to call this arrangement “Two-Family Dwellings Attached” even though this definition does not exist in the Land Use Code. While “Two-Family Attached” is not defined, and therefore, not a listed permitted use, Staff is willing to provide an Administrative Interpretation to find that the proposed arrangement is a reasonable combination of two permitted uses. Resoponse: See narrative for clarification Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The “Two-Family Dwelling” arrangement could be further explained by not only clearly showing the relationship between Units A and B in plan view, but also showing a cross-section, including the garage. This would help illustrate the concept. Resoponse: Plan view is provided on sheet 2. Also addressed in narrative Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The Site Data on the plan sheet needs to be revised based on the preceding comments. Resoponse: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Where is the front door for the primary unit (Unit A, Lot One, Unit A, Lot Two etc.) for each individual second floor dwelling unit? The first floor plan shows a single entrance from the alley, and one set of stairs leading to the floors above, but these features are divided by the property line, shown in red dash line, as if they were to be shared. But, if these units are to be on their own fee simple lots, then how can these features be shared without establishing a legal common area? Typically, in a “Single Family Attached” arrangement, there would be one interior common wall, built to a specific fire rating (double one-hour) because it is the property line, with separate entrances, and no openings would be allowed. Resoponse: See sheet 2 for plan view of access Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The same comment applies to the second floor where there appears to be a common hallway divided by the property line indicating interior space that is shared by two units. The project seems to be, at this stage, a combination of both fee simple and condominium ownership. It is not clear yet how these are reconciled. Resoponse: See narrative for clarification 3 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: In discussing this arrangement with the Building Inspection Plans Examiner, a property line cannot divide open, common entries, stairs and hallways. Individual properties (fee simple lots) must be separated by double, one-hour fire rated walls. These walls must extend to the top of the roof and out to the most exterior point of the building. The floor plans do not indicate this separation. Resoponse: Lot lines are divided on one-hour fire rated walls and each unit has individual access Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: In addition, the fire separation between Units A and B within a single fee simple lot must be constructed with one-hour fire rated walls and ceilings. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The Plans Examiner also states that all 48 attached units must be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: It’s not clear how two garage spaces are allocated. If each space is allocated to a different unit, then they must be separated by a one-hour fire rated wall. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Staff is concerned that if the primary access to the upper floor units is the alley, then the alley should be upgraded to a Street-Like Private Drive. As we have discussed, this may be challenging due to the alley serving 48 garage parking spaces and three parking lots. In terms of way-finding and establishing a sense of place, Staff finds the proposed layout and entrances for the upper level attached units to be unconventional and awkward. Resoponse: Applicant has met with PFA to discuss addressing options. Alley will be named and each unit will have individual access. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: In terms of platting the 24 lots for the Two-Family Dwellings, how much lot area would there be outside the building envelope? How is it established that the private land contained within each lot, but not part of the building envelope, is divided (if at all) between Unit A (upper) and Unit B (lower)? Resoponse: See narrative for clarification Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: How will it be established that the Unit B (lower) could not be divided off and sold into separate ownership? Or, if it can be divided off, there would have to be a requirement for the establishment of a condominium form of ownership with clearly defined exterior and interior common areas and maintenance obligations. Resoponse: See narrative for clarification Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: A preliminary plat would be helpful that describes the boundaries 4 of each lot. Besides the alley, would there be any other common Tracts? Resoponse: Plat included in submittal Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: For the attached units, the minimum required number of parking spaces will be regulated by Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a). Based on the upper unit being a two-bedroom unit and the lower unit being a one bedroom unit, the following minimum number of spaces will be required: Unit A – 1.75 spaces; Unit B – 1.50 spaces; Total Per Lot – 3.25 spaces Total for the 24 Attached Units – 78. For the 26 detached units, with each lot width being less than 40 feet, the minimum required parking is two spaces per unit for a total of 52 spaces, per Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(c). Combined, the project needs to provide a minimum total of 130 parking spaces. Also, please note that guest parking is encouraged. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The attached dwellings will need to include a walkway that connects the front (north facing) entries to the public sidewalk on Suniga Road with three exceptions. The building at the corner of Blondel and Suniga can be connected with a walkway out to Blondel. And the two easterly most buildings can rely on a shared path since Block Six curves away from Suniga in that location. Resoponse: Multiple connections to Suniga have been added. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Please note that the lower unit within each Two Family Dwelling will be assessed individual building permit fees. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The project narrative describes the single family lots having a range of varying front yard setbacks but the extent of the range is not provided. Nine feet is specified as being the front setback on the low end of the range, but what would be the setback at the high end of the range? Staff is expecting the variation in front setback to include setbacks that exceed 15 feet perhaps up to 20 feet. Please note that any building with a setback between nine and 15 feet must comply with Section 3.5.2(E)(2)(a). Resoponse: All single family detached lots are setback 15’ from Osiander Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Regarding the fencing just behind the front building line, parallel to Osiander, please emulate the design across the street. For the ten feet separation between buildings, a common style ten-foot wide fence (six feet high) has been constructed versus two, five-foot wide fences with differing materials and height. Note how fences styles are varied among the pairs of houses to create additional interest. 5 Resoponse: Acknowledged Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or proposed adjacent or within the site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project. R Acknowledged. Refer to LCUASS General Note 42 on Sheet 2. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary or required by the City for this project. This shall including the standard utility easements that are to be provided behind the right-of-way (15 foot along Suniga, 8 foot along an alley, and 9 foot along Blondel, Osiander and Redwood). R Acknowledged. Refer to final plat. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Utility plans will be required and a new Development Agreement for this development will be entered into and recorded once the project is finalized. 6 R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Depending on the proposed x-section, width, and design of the drive behind the units this may not be accepted as a public alley. R Acknowledged. Alleys will be dedicated as public alleys and will meet LCUASS Drawing 803 and Figure 7-12F. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The project is responsible for designing and constructing Osiander Street from where it currently ends to the connection with Redwood Street. R Acknowledged. See Osiander Street Plan and Profile designs with Final Utility Plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: This Development has the responsibility to complete the parkway landscaping along the street frontages adjacent to this development (Suniga Street, Blondel Street, Osiander Street, and Redwood Street). The project is also responsible for the maintenance of these parkways, the snow removal from these sidewalks and the maintenance of the improvements as identified by the City Code. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Continuation of Osiander as a narrow residential street is dependent on the adjacent lots being detached single family. If the adjacent use is not detached single family with access taken off of a rear driveway/alley Osiander will need to be widened. R Acknowledged. Osiander Street will be constructed as a narrow residential street with detached single family lots on both sides. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Aspen Heights constructed Blondel Street adjacent to the side and they have the ability to file a reimbursement agreement against this property for the portion of Blondel Street they constructed adjacent to this parcel. R Acknowledged. We have been coordinating with Larry Owen on the amount. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Aspen Heights also constructed Suniga and Redwood Street adjacent to this parcel and have the ability to file a reimbursement agreement for this parcels ‘local street portion’ of the improvements. This repay would not be the responsibility of this parcel since the City has been and continues to collect funds for Old Town Norths local street portion of Suniga and Redwood Street as the existing lots in Old Town North obtain building permits. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 7 03/01/2016: Any street cuts (whether for utilities, driveways, or other needs) proposed or done by this development are subject to current street cut requirements, standards, and fees. R Acknowledged. Based on our interpretation of the NECCO study, an additional pipe may be required to go under the new Suniga Road. Aspen Heights did not accommodate or coordinate and additional pipe under Suniga Road to accommodate Old Town North developed flows. Nor did Aspen Heights attempt to coordinate this item with Old Town North. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be followed depending on parking design. This would apply to the parking lot shown off of the private drive/ alley. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Any rain gardens within the right-of-way cannot be used to treat the development/ site storm runoff. We can look at the use of rain gardens to treat street flows – the design standards for these are still in development. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: In regards to construction of this site. The public right-of-way shall not be used for staging or storage of materials or equipment associated with the Development, nor shall it be used for parking by any contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel working for or hired by the Developer to construct the Development. The Developer will need to find a location(s) on private property to accommodate any necessary Staging and/or parking needs associated with the completion of the Development. Information on the location(s) of these areas will be required to be provided to the City as a part of the Development Construction Permit application. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The Developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City in accordance with Section 3.3.2(F)(2) of the Land Use Code for the “local street portion” of streets being built to city standards adjacent to 8 undeveloped or re-developable property. R Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, 970-416-2401, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: An Ecological Characterization Study is required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site is within 500 feet of a known natural habitat or feature (Dry Creek and Riparian Forest). Please note the buffer zone standard of 50’ for ditches that are identified as wildlife corridors, as outlined in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code, as you proceed with your site design process. As an ECS was completed for this site in 2000 by Cedar Creek, a memo-based ECS can be submitted that addresses (a) what wildlife utilize Dry Creek and the broader area, (b) based on your ecologist’s professional opinion, whether or not the ditch in this area qualifies as a wildlife corridor, and (C) the extent of the wetlands along the ditch. Once I have this information, staff will be able to better evaluate whether the buffer zone standards should be applied and the implications to your project as a result. Please note that the Ecological Characterization Study is due a minimum of 10 days prior to the PDP submittal. Resoponse: Acknowledged. ECS has been submitted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Black-tailed prairie dogs are currently present on-site. City Code and the Land Use Code require that any prairie dogs inhabiting a site must be humanely eradicated (see Section 3.4.1(N)(6) of the Land Use Code). Additionally, should this project gain approval and proceed to construction, a burrowing owl survey, in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards, shall be conducted prior to construction by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens and has many sustainability programs and goals that may benefit your project. Of particular interest may be the: 1. Green Building Program: http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php, contact Tony Raeker at 970-416-4238 or traeker@fcgov.com 2. Solar Energy: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/renewables/solar-contractors-resource s, contact Norm Weaver at 970-416-2312 or nweaver@fcgov.com 3. Urban Agriculture: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/urbanagriculture.php Please consider the City’s sustainability goals and ways for your development to engage with these efforts. Resoponse: Acknowledged 9 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit a landscape and tree protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan, that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat, and (5) enhances the pedestrian environment". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any of the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (970-221-6361 or tbuchanan@fcgov.com) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. Resoponse: There a no existing trees on site Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(3), requires that you use low-water-use plants and grasses in your landscaping or re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Native and wildlife-friendly landscaping is encouraged as well. Resoponse: Acknowledged Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Single phase electric facilities exist along the north side of Osiander St and also dead-ended at the end of Blondel St. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Multi-Family secondary electric services will be the responsibility of the developer and electrical contractor. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. Meter locations for single family attached units will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Resoponse: Acknowledged 10 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The location of the water and electric services will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: WATER SUPPLY A hydrant is required within 400' on any residential building as measured along the path of vehicle travel. Code language provided below. R Acknowledged. > IFC 508.1 and Appendix B: RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: Within the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: ALLEY The alley must be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement and designed to fire lane specifications. No parking will be allowed along the length of the 20' wide alley and No Parking - Fire Lane signage will be required. See code language and fire lane specifications below. R Acknowledged. Alleys will be public right-of-way. No parking signs provided. FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. > Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. > The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans. 11 > Be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. > Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height. Refer to Appendix D of the 2012 IFC or contact PFA for details. International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments. > IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. SIGN PLACEMENT IFC D103.6.1; ROADS 20 TO 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: SUNIGA ROAD Will Suniga be constructed in conjunction with this development? Also be aware that access cannot be taken off an arterial road and therefore a plan for wayfinding and addressing will need to be included in future plan sets. R Suniga Road exists. Alleys will be public right-of-way. A street name is being considered for the public alley. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS The attached 2-family dwelling units will require a residential sprinkler system. Contact the building department for further details. Resoponse: Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/02/2016 03/02/2016: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION All dwelling units shall be addressed separately with numerals posted on the building as required. The attached 2-family dwelling units will require additional consideration to determine how they will be addressed and posted. 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. Resoponse: Acknowledged, see project narrative for clarification 12 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: A drainage report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage report must be prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Dry Creek Master Drainage Plan. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: This site is located within the Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) project area, within basin 810. Per the NECCO basin map, basin 810 is 8.2 acres, so it is assumed that 8.2 acres of your parcel can be accounted for in the regional NECCO pond that is to be located just on the north side of Suniga Road. For basin 810, NECCO allows for full stormwater discharge into the regional pond without needing to provide detention or water quality on your site. The NECCO fees for this basin are $27,853/acre. R Acknowledged. Refer to Drainage, Sediment/Erosion Control, and Stormwater Quality Report. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Stormwater outfall/tie-in options for this site appear to be the following: a.There is an existing 36” RCP under Suniga that will eventually tie directly into the NECCO regional detention basin. b.The drainage basin map for Old Town North shows a basin line that lies within your parcel (north of Osiander Street), so it is assumed that storm drainage located on the south side of this basin line has already been accounted for in the Old Town North detention basin. You will need to verify that you’re not exceeding the assumed imperviousness for this basin with your development. R Acknowledged. Refer to Drainage, Sediment/Erosion Control, and Stormwater Quality Report. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are required on all new or redeveloping property which includes sites required to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment with one of the two following options: a. 50% of the newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. 13 b. 75% of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities (including LID systems) will be included as part of the Development Agreement. More information and links can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-im pact-development Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Per Colorado Revised Statute §37-92-602 (8) effective August 5, 2015, criteria regarding detention drain time will apply to this project. As part of the drainage design, the engineer will be required to show compliance with this statute using a standard spreadsheet (available on request) that will need to be included in the drainage report. Upon completion of the project, the engineer will also be required to upload the approved spreadsheet onto the Statewide Compliance Portal. This will apply to any volume based stormwater storage, including extended detention basins and bio-retention cells. R Due to interim nature of the detention volumes being provided with Old Town North Third Filing, this requirement does not apply. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: There is a final site inspection required when the project construction is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The 2016 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $8,217/acre for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre 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 at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221-6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. R Acknowledged. Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: A portion of this property is located in the FEMA regulated, 100-year Dry Creek floodway. Any development within the floodway must obtain 14 a floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. The permit form can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents R Acknowledged. We would request a copy of the same permit for the recent construction of the interim channel associated with Aspen Heights on the Old Town North property south of Suniga Street. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The area in the PDR documents labeled as “100-year floodplain” should be labeled “100-year floodway”. R Acknowledged. Done. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Any work proposed in the floodway including: grading, hard surfaces, landscaping, etc. must show that they will cause no-rise in the Base Flood Elevation. A floodplain use permit is required before construction. Floodway projects must be preceded by a no-rise certification and followed by a no-rise recertification after completion of the project. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The boundaries of the floodway should be included on any plans so that it is readily evident whether the proposed work is located inside or outside of the floodway. Contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at banderson@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Development review checklists for floodplain requirements can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents . Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The North East College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) Backbone and Regional Ponds project will likely alter the floodplain in this location in the future. The proposed floodplain will not be effective for regulatory purposes until after the project is constructed and the Letter of Map Revision is approved by FEMA. Floodway regulations for development will remain in effect on this property until that time. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Please contact Heidi Hansen with any questions about these comments or to schedule a meeting to discuss any requirements for development in the floodplain. hhansen@fcgov.com 970-221-6854. R Acknowledged. 15 Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/23/2016 02/23/2016: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com R Acknowledged. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The anticipated traffic volume from this development meets the threshold for needing a Traffic Impact Study. Likely just a memo. Please have your traffic engineer contact me to scope the study. Resoponse: TIS has been scoped and provided with this submittal Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: These units do not have any reserved capacity at Vine/Lemay and will need to prove that APF is not triggered. The applicant did turn in a memo regarding APF at Vine/Lemay, and this information will need to be incorporated into the actual TIS memo (with updated count information now available at Vine/Lemay). Resoponse: TIS is provided with this submittal Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Is off - street parking adequate? Resoponse: Off street parking exceeds code requirements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Is the alley width adequate? Resoponse: Alley width is from Fort Collins standard alley street section. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: There is an existing 8-inch water main in Osiander and Blondel Streets. According to the Old Town North Utility Plans, Phase 3 (which is where this project site is located) includes the extension of the 8-inch waterline in Osiander and connection to the existing 12-inch waterline in Redwood. There is 16 also an existing 12-inch waterline in Suniga on the south side of the ROW. You may tap into this line if needed for this development. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Phase 1 of the Old Town North Utility Plans shows several water services extending into the Phase 3 parcel from the main in Osiander. However, City mapping doesn’t show these, so you will need to verify if these services exist or not. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line in the alley south of Osiander Street with an extension north from that alley where the sewer terminates in a manhole in Osiander Street. There is a single sanitary sewer service from that manhole into your project site. The depth at that manhole is approximately 6.67’. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line located in the alignment of the Osiander Street extension. The depth of the western manhole is approximately 9.9’. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. R Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: For new water services for the proposed project: a. For each “2-family dwelling unit” or each “fee-simple lot” – (our understanding is that these units are similar to a duplex in that both units are technically within the same property and under the same ownership) - a single tap at the main is allowed for each 2-family dwelling unit and each unit may have its own meter but doesn’t have to. However, water rights and fees will be due for each dwelling unit. b. Even for residential units that require a fire sprinkler system, 1” taps for the units will not be allowed unless you want to pay the 1” meter and water rights fees. R Acknowledged. Department: Zoning 17 Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2016 03/02/2016: Will all these lots be constructed with two dwelling units? Or is the intent to give the builder the option to build either one or two units, similar to Old Town North? Resoponse: See project narrative for clarification Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2016 03/02/2016: How will the attached units handle trash? A common trash area in the attached garages? Trash enclosures in the parking area? Resoponse: Trash will be picked up in the alley, as typical in Old Town North Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2016 03/02/2016: You will need to provide 2 handicap parking spaces, one will need to be van accessible. Resoponse: Handicap spaces have been included.