Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHORELL PARK SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY JOHNSTON ANNEXATION) - PDP - PDP160032 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 February 15, 2017 Mr. Pete Wray, AICP Senior City Planner C/O Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Thorell Park –PDP 2nd Submittal/Response to 1st submittal comments Mr. Wray; Please find listed below the comments received from the PDP 1st submittal and subsequent review in October/November 2016. Phelps Engineering responses are in RED. However, there are comments that we were provided via separate emails that may not be shown below. We will just have to discuss those as you get more familiar with the Thorell Park project. Phelps Engineering and our client, Mr. Stephen Laffey, are in negotiations with several builders at this time. Once that particular builder has been brought in with an LOI the additional, more detailed information regarding unit type, placement and style (i.e. elevations) will be provided. We are primarily making this submittal to present our revised Pond West location (moved further to the west for drainage outfall considerations, among other concerns) and to address some additional technical concerns including the proposed handling of storm drainage from the privately maintained alley access system. We are also concurrently submitting two variances requests to Mr. Virata that have significant importance with respect to our horizontal and vertical design as presented with this submittal. Thank you, Steven G. Smith Senior Project Engineer 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The property owner to the north should be provide a •1etter of intent" that acknowledges the proposed right-of-way, grading and utility aspects of the project being installed on their property, does not object to the project moving forward to a hearing with these items within their property, and intends to grant easements and the Rosen Drive right-of-way prior to final plan approval. LETTER TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: A letter of intent Is also required from the ditch owner prior to a hearing. NOTED. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The preliminary soils report indicates groundwater encountered at depths of around 3 feet from existing grade. When groundwater is encountered within 5 feet, LCUASS 5.6 requires that a subsurface groundwater investigation report be conducted in order to address how to mitigate high groundwater with City public streets. In addition, with the understanding that basements are being contemplated for the project, any subdrain system for the basements would need to have a suitable outfall that ensure the outfall point has a 100 year surface elevation that is below the lowest level of any basements in the subdivision. The ongoing maintenance of a subdrain system would be the HOA/property owners·and not the City. NOTED. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Red Willow Drive is a collector and requires the installation of a 5 foot wide detached sidewalk and an 8 foot wide parkway from the face of curb and the detached sidewalk. Right-of-way dedication to the back of walk is required, along with the 9 foot utility easement from behind this new right-of-way. SIDEWALK AND UTILITY EASEMENT ADDED. RIGH-OF-WAY PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED AND IS NOW REFLECTED ON PLANS AND PLAT Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: In general there are several instances of shallow storm lines crossing public streets that do not meet our minimum cover over the roadway section. In general, we require a minimum of 3 foot of clearance from the finished grade of the roadway to the top of pipe. In several instances, much less that 3 feet is indicated 3 and is problematic. (LCUASS section 12.2.2 specifies minimum depth, which indicates 2 feet below scarified subgrade, and we then presume the pavement section is 12 inches below finished grade, utilizing 3 feet as our guide in this standard). THERE EXISTING ONE CROSSING OF PUBLIC RAODWAY WITH SUB STANDARD COVER. A VARIANCE TO THE ,MINIMUM COVER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Irrigation crossings of public streets require an encroachment permit through Engineering Inspection. Additional criteria such as sleeving of the pipe with a steel casing in right-of- way is required (for ease of access/replacement without needing to cut the street). Note however that the irrigation line shown along the west side of Red Willow Drive may (with the required detaching of sidewalk along the street and its corresponding right-of-way and utility easement dedication) actually be under right-of-way which is not allowed for a private line to run parallel within right-of-way. This appears to be the case as well with the line at the north end of Red Willow Drive and heading west, this area is shown to be right-of-way and is problematic -- this area needs to be a tract that's not right- of-way. NOTED AND REVISED Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The storm sewer design appears to be under the street parkways where street trees are installed, is this in conflict with separation from trees? REVISED Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The McKusky Drive and Cranston Drive private drives have receiving access ramps on the north side of Rosen Drive, but technically no ramps on the south side of intersection that direct to these receiving ramps. In general, because these are not public streets, there is a requirement for ramps that direct north-south across Rosen Drive (only east-west across the driveway). I would suggest that the connecting walkways between the units be the locations in which access ramps be provided across Rosen Drive. NOTED Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The use of the concrete pan along the private drives is not allowed to direct concentrated flows across the intersecting public streets. The creation of concentrated flows would require the pan being directed to one side with a culvert and metal plate, bringing the flows under the intersecting sidewalk. An example of this is shown in the following street view link (driveway on the north side of Autumn Harvest Way, east of Old Mill Road). www.google.com/maps/@40.5147999,-105.0269518,3a,60y,335.23h,6 7.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfZdXzuUNj21md5T_KvpRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i665 6Note that our culvert detail now 4 requires the widening of the sidewalk 6 inches on both sides of the culvert. This detail was already included as D-1OB on sheet 40. STORM SEWER REVISED AND ADDITONAL SYSTEM ADDED FOR PRIVATE DRAINAGE Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The private drives intersecting public streets are required to be designed and built to LCUASS detail 707.1 or 707.2. Note that single family attached is considered multi-family for the purposes of LCUASS requirements, and would call for a 24 foot minimum width instead of 20 feet for the portion in right-of-way. A 15 foot radius is required per Table 8-1 for the driveways onto local streets (most cases). A 20 foot radius is required for the Junior Drive driveway out to Red Willow Drive with Red Willow Drive being a collector. NOTED AND REVISED Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Junior Drive's intersecting with Stephen Drive is not substantially at a right angle with the outside curve of Stephen Drive and would need to be re-worked to provide more of a deliberate tum off of Shaw Drive into Junior Drive. (LCUASS 9.4.5) NOTED AND REVISED Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: There's a general note on the street sheets indicating that transitions are not needed on crowned sections. Public street road designs are more thoroughly reviewed at time of final plan, but it should be noted that transitions are required for roadways at intersections per LCUASS details 7-27 and 7-28 (with and without crosspans). NOTED Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The indication with informational signage of the named private drives being privately maintained will be required Sheet 4 of the civil set appears to depict this, however this is reflected on three streets that are actually public (Rosen, Stephen, and Beachmont). Please have this updated. NOTED Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Sheet 4 depicts several striped crosswalks. I'll defer to Traffic Operations on whether any of these would be acceptable. 5 AS DISCUSSED ALL STRIPING HAS BEEN ELIMINATED Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: .The plat can indicate the use of street names on private drives that are intended to be named. NOTED Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Note that intersection details were not reviewed as it is not required with a PDP submittal and is required at time of a final plan review. Final plan review would also include additional roadway design information (left and right flowline plan and profile, curvenine table, etc.) INTERSECTION DETAILS PROVIDED ‘FOR INFORMATION ONLY’ Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Private drives will not be reviewed for their street design, being private. The information on the public streets at time of final will require left and right flowline profiles. It appears there may be issues with K values in some conditions meeting LCUASS requirements. NOTED Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The site distance easement triangles are not necessarily viewed as required by Engineering. If desired however, we have specfic sight distance easement language on the plat that should be added as follows: sight Distance Easement - The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade: (1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions: (a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of sight for motorists. (b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner.For 6 non-level areas these requirements shall be modHied to provide the same degree of visibility. · NOTED Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Lot 18 through 45 abut the existing Prairie Hill Drive. These lots in accordance with 24-42 of the City Municipal Code would now inherit responsibility of maintenance of the existing sidewalk as well as the existing parkway (unless some sort of agreement is worked out with the HOA for Linden Park to keep them maintaining the sidewalk and parkway). Discussion with the Linden Park HOA should be considered. The City will have language in the development agreement for this project providing notice to Lots 18-45 of their abutting maintenance responsibilities for Prairie Hill Drive's abutting sidewalk and parkway under 24-42. NOTED Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: I didn't see a building elevation plan to understand how the units would be designed to meet parking needs for the project. Are all the units one car garage based on the 11' x 24' indication for the garage) along with a carport, to provide two parking spaces per unit/lot? Will these units also have a rear door access off of the garage/carport area to meet PFA addressing and access needs? BUILDING ELEVATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER AND WILL BE ADDED TO THE SITE PLAN SET AT THAT TIME Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: The parking tabulation table indicates 80 on street (public) parking spaces. It should be noted that public streets parking spaces cannot be used to meet parking requirements. NOTED. ANY CREDIT FOR PUBLIC ON-STREET PARKING HAS BEEN ELIMINATED/DELETED. Comment Number: 24Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Additional comments may be made upon any further refinement of the site design and engineering components. Topic: Variance Request Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016 11/04/2016: Stephen Drive and Junior Drive's access onto Red Willow Drive along with the private drive on Crown on Timberline across the street aren't meeting our 175 foot separation requirement between driveways and would require a variance request for 7 review and evaluation. Note that at staff review It was discussed that the Junior Drive access to Red Willow Drive would be emergency access only which would negate the need for a variance for Junior Drive. In some regards, Engineering would rather consider the variance for Junior Drive and have it open for access vs. the operational management and design of Junior Drive as emergency access only (we suspect that residents would look to have this opened to full access) and PFA has indicated that they do not need this to be emergency access only. If the applicant's engineer is comfortable with making an argument that the separation requirements are not a safety issue, then the opening of Junior Drive should be considered. VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DRIVEWAY SEPERATION AHS BEEN MADE ALONG WITH THIS PDP 2nd SUBMITTAL. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: The project owes an additional $4,968.75 for the acreage fee that was not included in the TDRF PDP calculation. FEE PROVIDED Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Thank you for providing a thorough Ecological Characterization Study for this project. The study satisfies the requirement in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. However, it does not appear that any efforts have been made to protect, enhance, buffer or mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat features on the site, as required by the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project will impact approximately 0.5 ac of aquatic area, 0.2 ac of wetland, wet meadow areas, and significant tree groves. As noted during conceptual review, the development plan must be "designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features." As proposed, the project neither 8 protects nor adequately mitigates for the loss of any of the natural features identified by Ecological Characterization Study. Please contact me to arrange a separate meeting to discuss how the standards in section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code will be met with this project. The Ecological Characterization Study proposes a number of mitigation options, some of which may be acceptable to staff if they adequately compensate for the habitat value proposed to be eliminated on the site. WE ARE PROPOSING MITIGATION MEASURE INCLUDING CASH IN LIEU Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Light and Power has single phase and 3phase electric facilities East of the site that can be extended to feed this development. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Multifamily units are now billed kVA fees. Once power requirements are known please contact me or visit thefollowing website for an estimate of the electrical charges and fees: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fee s Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Due to recent code changes, multifamily buildings are billed and treated as commercial services; therefore commercial service forms (C-1 forms) and one line diagrams must be submitted to Light & Power for each building. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer to install and maintain from the transformer to the meter bank. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development- forms-guidelines-re gulations Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power and shown on the plans. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. Transformers must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. 9 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. If you wish to gang the meters on one side of the building please place on the opposite side of the gas meters Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Streetl lght placement will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Shaded trees are required to maintain 40 feet of separation clearances and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of separation clearances from street lights. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found below: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approved site plan, utility plans, and landscape drawings before design of the electric facilities will begin. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers :A POWER PLAN IS NOT REQUIRED WITH THE PDP. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: WATER SUPPLY Hydrants are required on 800ft centers in residential areas and within 400ft of any individual residential building. The current proposal places Lots 4 through 10 and 80 through 86 out of compliance and another hydrant will be needed on the west end. Code language provided below. > 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. 10 ACTION: REVIEW AND ADD ONE HYDRANT NEAR LOTS 5/6 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: FIRE ACCESS As previously noted, Fire Access is required to within 150ft of all exterior portions of every structure. As many building are positioned so as to be out of access from the perimeter public road, every private drive will be required to be a fire lane in order to satisfy perimeter access requirements. These private drives will need to be dedicated as Emergency Access Easements (EAE) and labeled as such on the plat and future plans. Even with every private drive dedicated as an EAE, portions of the site's west end (along Shaw Drive) appear not to meet perimeter access and further discussion will be needed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: FIRE LANES The named private drives, Jessie, McKusky, Cranston, Peter and Junior will be required to be built to Fire Lane specifications as previously noted and labeled as Emergency Access Easements on the plans. Parking is not permitted at any time within the limits of a fire lane. No Parking Fire Lane signage will be required. See Larimer County Urban Streets Standard Diagram 1418. Fire lane sign locations shall be indicated on future plans. Code language provided below. > 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. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/27/2016: TURNING RADII The street connection at Junior Drive and Red Willow Drive does not meet standard fire lane specifications as it pertains to turning radii. Code language provided below. > IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. PAVEMENT RETURNS ON JUNIOR DRIVE AT RED WILLOW SHOUD BE 25” RADIUS DONE. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016 10/31/2016: GATING OF FIRE LANES If Junior Drive is required to be access controlled by the traffic department, it will need to be 11 supplied with an approved gate design. Code language provided below. > IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. > IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or chain and padlock, unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the key(s) to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official prior to installation. 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. GATES WILL NOT BE SHOWN. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: ADDRESSING AND WAYFINDING There is some concern regarding a lack of efficient wayfinding to portions of this site. When 12 Emergency Services are requested it is very important to be able find the correct residence quickly and efficiently as possible. In an alley loaded design, the address number will be required to be posted on both the front and rear of the building. In cases where alley access is the most effective (or only) means of finding a particular residence, a man-door (backdoor) may be the most effective way to facilitate effective access in these instances. Further discussion will be needed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: SITE PLAN SCALE The site plan appears to be designed at a 1"=50' scale but I could not find ascale printed on this page. A PAVEMENT RETURNS OUT TO RED WILLOW (25 FEET RADIUS) Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: Lots 1 – 17 appear to arranged such that fronts of units will face west, along the railroad tracks with the garages fronting on Shaw Drive. Staff is wondering if this orientation will be accepted by the marketplace. Has any thought been given to having these lots front onto Shaw Drive instead? THIS IS NOT A PDP UTILITY PLAN ISSUE Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 If Lots 1 – 17 end up fronting on Shaw Drive, please be aware that garages Must be recessed four feet behind either the front façade of the ground floor living area portion of the dwelling or a covered porch (measuring at least 6 x 8 feet). Also garage doors must not comprise more than 50% of the ground floor street facing linear building frontage. [Section 3.5.2(F)]. THIS IS NOT A PDP PLAN ISSUE Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: The south property lines of Lots 16 and 17 adjoin the north (side yard) property line of 6227 Golden Willow Drive. Please note that this property line will need some form of treatment in order to establish compatibility. THIS IS NOT A PDP PLAN ISSUE 13 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: For Building 4 (Lots 14 – 17), there is no separation from Buildings 3 and 5. : 2 UNITS MOVED FROM THE CORNER Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: Per staff’s conceptual review comment number 16, two north-south walkways need to be provided on the east and west sides of Tract 17 that connect to the public sidewalks along the two public streets. ADDED TAPERS OR FILLET TO ‘T” PATH INTERSECTIONS Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: The two east-west connecting walkways out to the north-south trail should be no less than six feet. Anything less and it feels uncomfortable for either two people to walk side by side or for two people to pass going in opposite directions. 2 EAST-WEST PATH CONNECTIONS, ONE ON THE SOUTH AND ONE ON THE NORTH SIDES OF THAT ARE 6 FEET IN WIDTH HAVE BEEN ADDED. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: On the Landscape Plan, please include the required street trees to be planted on the north side of Prairie Hill Drive at no less than 40-foot intervals. NONE. THIS AREA HAS TREES AND SIDEWALKS ALREADY Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: Wherever a dwelling unit front on a public street, there must be connecting walkway that links the building entrance to the public sidewalk. These can be provided as one per unit or in any combination or consolidation or any variety that may add interest. Perhaps introducing a curvilinear form would be beneficial. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE SHOWN ONCE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS AND CORRESPONDING ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR INGRESS/EGRESS. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: Wherever north-south connecting walkways intersect with the public sidewalks on either Rosen or Stephen Drives, a flare should be provided. 14 ACTION: SEE COMMENT RESPONSE TO 5. PROVIDE FILLETS OR FLARES AT PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTIONS. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016 11/02/2016: Section 3.5.2(C)(2) requires that single family attached buildings containing more than two units, and where there are more than five buildings, there must be at least three distinctly different building designs. And, there must be no two similar buildings placed next to each other along a public street. Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary in significantly in footprint size and shape. THIS IS NOT A PDP PLAN ISSUE Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2016 10/11/2016: 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 S Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre. 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 ACTION; PROVIDE SEPEARTE E&S PLAN (AS SHOWN IN THE PLAN SET) AND THE COST ESTIMATE FOR BONDING (SEE CROWN’S REPORT FOR BONDING COSTS) Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Off-site drainage easements are required for the outfall of the north-western detention pond. Before the public hearing, a letter of intent is required from the off-site property owner to the north. ACTION; NONE, NEED TO OBTAIN. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: The detention ponds need to meet the City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards. 15 ACTION: REVIEW AND FOLLOW GUIDELINES PER THE REGULATIONS (THIS WILL NOT BE DIFFICULT). MORE IMPORTATNLY WE NEED TO DECIDE HOW WE AND/OR BUILDER WANT TO LANDSCAPE AND/OR PROVIDE AMENTITIES FOR THIS AREA. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: The development is required to meet the City's LID standards. Currently, the design does not meet these requirements. WE HAVE PROVIDED POROUS PAVEMENT IN ALLEYS TO ADDRESS LID REQUIREMENT Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: The current design has 5 basins that free release the site and do not enter a detention pond. These flows will need to be analyzed to see if they can exit the site without causing a negative impact to adjoining properties. In either case, these flows needs to be subtracting from the detention pond release rate so the overall site release rate meets the 2-year historic flows. ACTION; WE NEED TO BRING ROOF TOP DRAIN BACK TO THE ALLEYS AND GET THIS DRAIANGE INTO THE PONDS. OUR POND VOLUME WILL INCREASE AND WE WILL NEED TO ADD SMALL, STAGGERED WALLS TO INCREASE VOLUME AND ADD CHARACTER. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: Coordination needs to take place with the property to the east regarding the inlet in Red Willow Drive and it's associated piping at the southeast corner of this site. The storm sewer is planned to pass through the site's detention area. THE EXISITNG STORM PIPE FROM ITHIS NELT TO POND EAST HAS BEEN ADDED AND THE POND HAS BEEN INCREASEE IN VOLUME TO ACCOUNT FOR DRAINAGE. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016 11/01/2016: This development is required to detain the western half of Red Willow Drive. ACTION: RESPONSE SAME AS COMMENT 6. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016 10/31/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation 16 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 ACTION; NONE AT THIS TIME. THIS IS NOT A PDP PLAN ISSUE Department: Zoning Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016 10/31/2016: If you are providing guest parking, one of these spaces should be a van-accessible handicap space. ACTION: NONE Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016 10/31/2016: How will the trash and recycling work? ACTION: TRASH AND RECYCLIGN WILL BE PRIVATE. CONTAINER STORED IN GARAGES. THIS IS NOT A PDP PLAN ISSUE Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016 10/31/2016: The parking numbers are unclear. Please clarify where the spaces are located. PUBLIC PARKING SPACES DELETED FROM SITE PLAN Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016 10/31/2016: Do you intend on providing bicycle parking? ACTION: NONE. NO BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED NONE PROVIDED Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016 10/31/2016: There seems to be some inconsistencies on the Landscape plan. Please provide a more detailed landscape plan. LANDCAPE PLAN REVISED