HomeMy WebLinkAboutZIEGLER TOWNHOMES (THE PARK TOWNHOMES AT FOSSIL RIDGE) - PDP/FDP - FDP160043 - CORRESPONDENCE - 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
November 18, 2016
Cathy Mathis
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Ziegler Townhomes, FDP160043, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal
of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual
commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Clay Frickey, at 970-224-6045 or
cfrickey@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The street design has three different tangents (a tangent between the existing curve on County Fair
Lane and the proposed curve, a tangent between the two proposed curves, and the tangent from the intersection)
that
are short of the required 100 feet specified in Table 7-3 of LCUASS (the three tangents are 56.81, 75, and 50.95
respectively). A variance request is needed for the minimum tangent lengths not being met. It is acknowledged that
a similar variance request was needed from the previous proposal on the property and was granted.
RESPONSE: A variance request will be provided.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Figure 7-16 in LCUASS would appear to demonstrate the need for a sight distance easement at the
northern drive approach onto County Fair Lane heading west.
RESPONSE: A sight distance easement is provided.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: There didn't appear to be a traffic study submitted with this development. The information from the
traffic study would be needed to verify assumptions and requirement regarding any threshold for auxiliary turn
lanes. In addition, LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) would need to be looked at with information regarding
ADT's from the driveways as well as County Fair Lane. It appears likely that the ADT on County Fair Lane are
above 100 ADT, and would require a minimum parking setback distance of 40 feet off of County Fair Lane, in all
cases the first garage/parking spot is 30 feet or less.
RESPONSE: Per our meeting with staff, the configuration of County Fair has been modified to provide a
continuous center lane, rather than a defined eastbound left turn onto Ziegler. Concerning the parking setbacks,
discussions with staff did not indicate with certainty if the LCUASS setback requirements applied to this situation.
However, it was determined that the current layout was acceptable regardless due to the center lane in County
Fair as well as the ability for a vehicle to cue in the “throat” of the drive entrance.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The previous project had widened out to 36 feet in road width for County Fair Lane further west than
this proposal, which allowed for the three lane cross section and protected left turn movements into both access
points of
the development. This proposal does not create this. A traffic study to look into the implications behind this is
needed, as having the third lane across the driveways I suspect would certainly be preferred.
RESPONSE: County Fair has been modified as agreed during the meeting with staff.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The plat's certificate of dedication statement does not call out the dedication of streets/right-of-way.
The certificate of dedication statement should utilize our full standard language.
RESPONSE: The language has been updated.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The sidewalk along Ziegler Road heading north of the property becomes further detached. Is it due to
an onsite constraint (such as a tree?)
RESPONSE: Yes, there is an existing tree that we were trying to preserve. The new sidewalk alignment and turn
lane have modified this layout though.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please verify the status of the existing overhead line along Ziegler Road abutting the property. It would
appear that this is no longer needed with the development and would then be undergrounded (or removed) with this
project and should be indicated as such on the plans.
RESPONSE: The existing overhead power lines are owned by Xcel, and they are active. We have contacted
Xcel, and they are open to burying the lines or leaving them in place. The project team plans to get an estimate
from Xcel for the work to make a determination on whether or not we will bury the line.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: What is the 5' curb transition shown on the plan and profile sheet pertaining to when tying the existing
to new County Fair Lane?
RESPONSE: The existing roadway isn’t exactly 30’ wide or centered, so we have a 5’ transition to our “typical”
roadway section.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please provide additional spot elevations and cross slopes along the access ramps/sidewalk at
County Fair Lane and Ziegler Road to verify that street standards/ADA compliance is being met. There is the
implication that at least the cross slope for the access ramp at the north leg exceeds 2% cross slope.
RESPONSE: The requested info has been added.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please confirm the ability to construct the work fully within the project's development boundary. The
grading plan is a little difficult to follow in some regards, and I'm aware that the previous submittal was doing offsite
work on the Harvest Park property.
RESPONSE: All proposed work will occur on this property. No work is planned on the Harvest Park property.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: A repay for the local street portion of asphalt for Ziegler Road is required and will be referenced in the
development agreement.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: We are currently recommending a new seed mix for native grass areas, which has been prepared by
the City's botanist along with planting recommendations. This mix has been vetted to ensure that the species can
be
easily sourced and is likely to establish quickly in seeded areas.
RESPONSE: The seed mix has been revised based on the new recommendation.3
I will follow up in an email with more information. Please use this mix for any disturbed areas in the Natural Habitat
Buffer Zone, and preferably anywhere else on-site where the native seed mix is proposed.
RESPONSE: The seed mix has been revised based on the new recommendation.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: On the Landscape Notes sheet, please add the following calculations to the Natural Habitat Buffer
Zone information:
- minimum width of buffer from wetlands
- maximum width of buffer from wetlands
- average width of buffer from wetlands
RESPONSE: This information has been added to the Landscape Notes sheet.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: It appears that many of the street trees are being used to account for mitigation, but they do not
appear to have been upsized (3" caliber for canopy shade trees, 2.5"caliper for ornamental trees, 8' height B&B for
evergreen trees), per LUC Section 3.2.1(F).
RESPONSE: The plant list has been updated to reflect the upsized trees.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The label for the wetland offset on the landscape plan should be updated to 100' (currently labeled as
50').
RESPONSE: The label has been revised to 100’.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: It appears that one or more of the trees in the buffer zone conflict with underground utilities. Please
double check and correct if needed.
RESPONSE: The tree locations have been revised.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Tree Inventory/Mitigation Plan
It appears that there is an adequate number of new trees on the site to account for 35 mitigation trees. Off-site
mitigation is not necessary. Please review placing 35 upsized mitigation trees on site.
RESPONSE: The additional trees have been noted as mitigation trees.
Tree #58 is listed as to be protected, but should be removed based on its size and condition. Proper mitigation will
need to be discussed.
RESPONSE: Due to the redesign, this tree has been changed to ‘To Be Removed’. The mitigation chart has
been updated accordingly.
Please set up a site visit to discuss construction impact of trees #59 (Cottonwood) and #47 (Green Ash –
multi-stemmed). These existing trees seem appear to be pretty close to proposed foundations.
RESPONSE: Due to the redesign, tree # 47 has been changed to ‘To Be Removed’. The mitigation chart has
been updated accordingly. Tree #59 is approximately 22 feet away from the foundation.
In regards to tree #43 (Hackberry), please explore placing the proposed sidewalk at a further distance away to
reduce the impact to the roots.
RESPONSE: Due to the redesign, this tree has been changed to ‘To Be Removed’. The mitigation chart has
been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Street Trees
If there are street lights, please show their locations and proper tree separation:
forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights; fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees and streetlights.
RESPONSE: We are working with Light and Power to determine where the street lights should be located.
Please show locations of stop signs and proper tree separation: twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental
trees and traffic control signs and devices.
RESPONSE: There is one stop sign on this property. The nearest trees have been adjusted to ensure a
minimum of 20’ spacing.
The first tree north of County Fair Ln on Ziegler appears to impact sight line visibility. Please evaluate eliminating
this street tree for improved visibility.
RESPONSE: This tree does not fall within a sight distance triangle so we have not removed it. It has been
shifted farther west to improve visibility
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Plant List:
Three shrubs are undersized at 1 gallon (Arctic Fire Dogwood, Tall Green Rabbitbrush, and Three Leaf Sumac. The
minimum size for shrubs is 5 gallons. Please correct these sizes in the Plant List.
RESPONSE: Rebecca Everitt has requested that we provide a variety of shrub sizes within the Natural Habitat
Zone and that 1 gallon plants are acceptable. The plant list has been revised to show the quantities at the
various sizes.
Please provide percentages for Minimum Species Diversity. Check for minimum tree species diversity and adjust
quantity as necessary. Refer to Land Use Code.
RESPONSE: The minimum species diversity has been checked and updated.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Please look at placing additional trees along the west of edge of the project north of County Fair Rd to
increase the buffer for adjacent homes.
RESPONSE: Additional trees have been added along the west edge of the property.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, CAlthoff@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Light & Power will need to extend electric facilities to this area by installing primary conduit and cable
along the west side of Ziegler Rd. and also along the north side of County Fair Ln. (as it will become a through road
to
Ziegler Rd.)
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification
charges necessary will apply to this development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Multi family buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a(C 1) form must be filled out and
submitted to Light & Power Engineering. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the
developer and their electrical consultant or contractor.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Transformer locations shall be within 10' of a paved surface and must have a minimum of an 8'
clearance from the front side and a 3' clearance around the sides and rear.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations,
please show the locations on the utility plans.
RESPONSE: Preliminary locations are now provided on the plans. We expect some refinement to these
locations as final electric loads are identified and designs are completed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Please provide a one line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and Power Engineering. The C-1 form can
be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf
RESPONSE: This will be provided once final electric design has been completed.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700.
You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar
ds_FINAL_17June2016.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
RESPONSE: Thanks!
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/07/2016
11/07/2016: Comment from the County Assessor: There is an additional 'call' that has been added. Immediately
following the verbiage, 'POINT OF BEGINNING;' the following call is not needed;
'thence continuing along said East line, South 01 45' 51" East, 701.48 ft;'
RESPONSE: The requested info has been added.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
Single family attached buildings will require an automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please
contact the city building department or Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe Jaramillo (970-416-2868) with any fire sprinkler
related questions.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: DEAD-END FIRE LANES
The dead-end fire lane to the north is approximately 270' in length without a turnaround. The dead-end fire lane to
the south is approximately 240' in length without a turnaround. Code language provided below.
> IFC 503.2.5, Appendix D, and FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006: Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to provide a turn around at the north end of the project. The site
has also been revised to shift the southern turn-around so that it is within 150’ of the end of the drive aisle.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: TURNING RADII
Curve Table - C12 & C13 need to be increased from 20' to 25' turning radii which is the minimum turning radii for a
20' wide fire lane. Code language provided below.
RESPONSE: The radii have been adjusted.
> IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fireapparatus access road shall be a
minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside.
RESPONSE: The radii have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
Information provided for planning purposes: 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.
RESPONSE: An emergency access is provided on the plat.
> Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance.
RESPONSE: Minimum width provided.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons.
RESPONSE: Requirement met.
> Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning
around fire apparatus.
RESPONSE: Turn arounds provided.
> 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.
RESPONSE: Radii requirements met.
> Be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. Sign locations or red curbing
should be labeled and detailed on final plans.
RESPONSE: Signs have been added to plans.
> Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height.
RESPONSE: No buildings in excess of 30’ height with this project.
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.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets
however the applicant should also be advised that additional on-site signage may be required at time of field
inspection and final CO. Code language provided below.
RESPONSE: Fire lane signs are now provided.
> 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowldged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. A hydrant is required
within 400' of any Residential Building as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. The proposed site
plan
places units in Buildings D & E out of compliance and another hydrant will be required. Code language provided
below.
RESPONSE: The fire hydrant location has been updated to meet this requirement.
> IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: FIRE LANES
Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of any building, or facility as measured by an approved
route around the perimeter. For the purposes of this section, fire access cannot be measured from an arterial road
(Ziegler Rd). All buildings (except Bldg. C) are out of access by definition. Bldg. has the greatest deficiency at 130'
out of access, however as all buildings will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system, the out of access conditions are
considered acceptable. Code language and fire lane specifications provided below.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
> IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter
constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the
requirements
of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of
the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When
any
portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet
from fire apparatus access, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension if the building is equipped
throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: The 7-plex elevations only show 5 front doors. Where are the entrances to the other two units? Each
unit should have a clearly defined front entry feature to meet Land Use Code section 4.5(E)(4)(e).
RESPONSE: The two front doors that are not seen on the front elevation are actually on the ‘side’ of the front
porch. The elevation clearly has a ‘defined’ front entry feature, per the land use code as seen with the columns
and independent roof over each front porch.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: The 5-plex elevations only show 4 front doors. Show the fifth entrance and clearly define the
entrance.
RESPONSE: The front door that is not seen on the front elevation is actually on the ‘side’ of the front porch. The
elevation clearly has a ‘defined’ front entry feature, per the land use code as seen with the columns and
independent roof over each front porch
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: The 4-plex elevations only show 2 front doors. Show the other two entrances and clearly define both
of them.
RESPONSE: The two front doors that are not seen on the front elevation are actually on the ‘side’ of the front
porch. The elevation clearly has a ‘defined’ front entry feature, per the land use code as seen with the columns
and independent roof over each front porch.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: None of the side entrances have clear definition. Please add an awning or some other feature over
the building entrances on the sides to improve their presence along the street.
RESPONSE: All side entrances have been removed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: It looks like there is a dormer on the garage side of the 7-plex building. Is this accurate? It looks
random and out of place. Remove this dormer if it is not necessary.
RESPONSE: What is seen on the back elevation is the ‘completion’ of the main/ large gable shown on the front
elevation, since this large gable stands higher than the main ridge of the building. This is also the case the 4 and
6-plexes. Thus is consistent throughout the project.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: What is the scale shown on the elevations? Include a scale and clearly indicate how tall each
structure is on the elevations. Staff needs to ensure compliance with the maximum building height.
RESPONSE: Completed as requested.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: This submittal did not include elevations of the trash and recycling enclosure. Include these elevations
with your subsequent submittal.
RESPONSE: Completed as requested.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: How far does each building module recess and project? Include a diagram showing the projections
and recesses so staff can ensure compliance with sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code.
RESPONSE: Completed as requested.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: Thank you for your modification requests for Land Use Code sections 3.5.2(E)(2) and 3.5.2(D)(1)(b).
Staff did not receive a modification request for Land Use Code section 4.5(D)(1)(b). Staff will look for this
modification request for the second round of review.
RESPONSE: Due to the loss of one unit, the density is now 8.93 d.u./acre.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: Individually, staff would normally support all of the modifications requested. Staff is concerned,
however, that when taken as a whole, the development is not performing as well as a compliant development.
Would it be possible to dedicate four of the units as affordable to households earning 80% of Area Median Income?
This would boost the allowed density to 12 dwelling units per acre and would help fulfill a City-wide goal identified in
City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Alternatively, you could remove the unit furthest south in
Building E and no longer need a modification to 3.5.2(D)(1)(b) or 4.5(D)(1)(b). Losing that unit would also allow
buildings F and E to move further south and thus coming into compliance with 3.5.2(E)(2).
RESPONSE: See revised plans, we lost one unit so the density modification will not be needed. Since the
building layout was re-configured for fire access, we have revised the setback modification request for 3.5.2 (E)(2)
for only the two buildings on the south side of County Fair Lane. We will still have the request for 3.5.2(D)(1)(b)
for the primary building entrances for two buildings being farther than 200 feet from the street sidewalk.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: What will the fence look like? Please provide details.
RESPONSE: A detail of the fence has been provided on the Landscape Plan sheets.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: Street trees can only be counted as mitigation trees if they are upsized to 3" caliper. None of the
street trees shown on the site plan are shown as being upsized. If this was an affordable housing project, 2" caliper
trees would count as mitigation since they would be considered to be upsized.
RESPONSE: Mitigation trees are shown on the landscape plans rather than the site plan. Please refer to Sheets
4 & 5 for mitigation tree locations.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: The scale indicated on the site plan is incorrect. The scale used is 1" = 30'. Please update the scale
to reflect the correct scale.
RESPONSE: The scale has been corrected.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: Is there an opportunity to provide more guest parking for bicyclists? Staff would prefer if there were
more bike racks provided outside for visitors.
RESPONSE: We added 7 more bike spaces to the plans.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: None of the side entrances have walkways that connect to the sidewalk network. Add sidewalks that
connect each of the side building entrances to the pedestrian network.
RESPONSE: As indicated, side entrances have been removed.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: The northern most unit in Building C is only 18' wide and shows a two car garage. How will two cars fit
side by side with such a narrow unit? Is it possible to convert the southern most unit in Building C to 24' so that the
northern most unit could be 20' wide like the other narrower units?
RESPONSE: Since we shifted buildings around for fire access, the only 18’ wide unit is now in Building D. Due
to the setbacks and natural area buffer, we have to have an 18’ unit somewhere. The unit does have one garage
but we still meet parking minimums on the site.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: Please note that no erosion control report or calculations were submitted with this first submittal.
Since this is a combined PDP and FDP a report is required. Please provide one for review with next round.
RESPONSE: An erosion control report has been provided with this submittal.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/14/2016
11/14/2016: Please provide erosion control protection for the inlet along Ziegler Road and please address any
other redlined comments on the plans.
RESPONSE: The requested protection is now provided.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Any interior impervious area within the site's boundaries needs to be included in the LID calculation.
This would include any new public streets.
RESPONSE: The LID exhibit/calcs have been updated.
Please include basins B1 and B2 in the LID sizing calculations.
RESPONSE: The basins have been added.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: It is unclear how the chamber system will operate with the major flows entering the chambers and no
bypass system.
RESPONSE: The current plan calls for a weir to be constructed in the most downstream area inlet that will back
flows up into the chambers. The weir height will be set to provide the WQ volume, at which point flows will overtop
the weir and continue downstream.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Basins D1 and D2 are flip flopped in the Drainage Report.
RESPONSE: Basins have been corrected in the report – thanks for catching that!
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please provide drainage easements for all 100-year conveyance systems and for the LID vaults.
RESPONSE: Blanket easements are provided on the plat that encompass all 100-yr conveyances.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: There are some locations where trees are not 10 feet away from storm sewers. Please revise.
RESPONSE: All tree locations are now 10’ from storm sewers.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Please change the Basis Of Bearings statement to match the revised Subdivision Plat Basis Of
Bearings statement.
RESPONSE: The basis of bearing has been changed.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: All Basis Of Bearings statements must match on all sheets.
RESPONSE: All have been coordinated.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are sheet title & numbering issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Redlines addressed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Redlines addressed.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Redlines addressed.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Redlines addressed.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are match line issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Match line issues addressed.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are match line issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Addressed.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Addressed
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: No comments.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Please make changes to the Basis Of Bearings statements as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Requested changes made.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Please make changes to the Owners & Lienholders signature blocks as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Redlines addressed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Please make changes to sheet 2 as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with
comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on
redlined sheets
and/or in response letter.
RESPONSE: The changes have been made.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. These should be
emailed directly to Jeff at jcounty@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Monument records have been provided.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/17/2016
11/17/2016: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Legal changed.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: The traffic study was received and reviewed. The study does not define the methodology used to
redistribute traffic through the new connection of County Fair. In the absence of this methodology, we calculated
several scenarios trying to recreate the numbers used in the study. In the least conservative (most favorable to the
development) scenario the south bound right turn lane warrant was met.
RESPONSE: A revised TIS was submitted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/18/2016
11/18/2016: Due to the proximity of the access locations to the intersection of Ziegler and County Fair, the center
left turn lane needs to be extended to allow for left turns into the development. We are happy to work with you on
lane widths, and striping.
RESPONSE: The center lane has been extended.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2016
11/15/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must
comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The scale appears to be wrong on the site plan.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: The 30 foot setback required along Ziegler Rd should be to the patio covers, I believe you are just
under 30 on a few of the southernmost units.
RESPONSE: Dimensions have been updated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/16/2016
11/16/2016: Please add a note referencing the modification request for the County Fair Lane setback on the site
plan.
RESPONSE: Since the building layout was re-configured for fire access, we have revised the Modification request
for only the two buildings on the south side of County Fair Lane.