HomeMy WebLinkAboutHANSEN FARM - PDP - PDP170036 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and Neighborhood
Services
281 North College Avenue PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
October 13, 2017
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Hansen Farm, PDP170036, 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, Pete Wray, at 970-221-6754 or pwray@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The project will need to design the roadway and bike/ped connections to adjacent developable
properties to the south and west. As part of the PDP, preliminary offsite design 500 feet from the property boundary
is required.
RESPONSE: Roadways designed 500’ past property boundary, trails designed to property boundary.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: There appears to be a different lineweight designation on the plans for the roadway network south of the
Street A/Street B intersection on the site and civil plans. Is this to imply that this portion of roadway network is not to
be constructed at the time of this PDP?
RESPONSE: The lineweight appears different at full zoom on PDF due to different curb type, however, all of road
network is to be constructed with this PDP.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The roundabout depicted on the plans City Transportation staff as a whole, has some general concerns
on the operational characteristic. Its close proximity to the Zephyr Road/Timberline Road intersection we believe will
not function very well. The first intersection from the Zephyr/Timberline intersection would need to be placed further
west/northwest.
RESPONSE: Roundabout removed and traditional intersection added after discussions with City staff and Traffic
Engineer.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The "Commercial Connection" street south of the roundabout appears to not be designed to a
commercial local standard width and additionally the centerline radius and awkward termination would not appear to
meet criteria. Its full design and right-of-way dedication to commercial local standards should occur and the
construction of the roadway to the property boundary with proper cul-termination or planned connection to another
street, occur with the development.
RESPONSE: Commercial Connection removed from plans
10/10/2017: As a heads-up, the Crowne on Timberline project established a reimbursement agreement with the City
for installing roadway infrastructure abutting the development. The reimbursement to Crowne for the abutting Rosen
Drive will be required prior to the first building permit.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: What are the implications on the infrastructure shown on Tracts C & D. There are detention ponds and
a sanitary main that would seem to cause restrictions on the amount of area that can be developed on these tracts.
The establishment of utility and/or drainage easements would be needed on the plat and it seem that the detention
ponds themselves should be on their own distinct tracts.
RESPONSE: Separated detention ponds into their own Tracts
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: In general there are additional access ramps that should be provided on street turns and consideration
for access ramps for the sidewalk/bike paths that extend from the public streets. There some instances where
depicted trails can better align with proposed paths without offsets.
RESPONSE: Updated access ramps to better align with trails
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The use of mid block crosspans appear to be problematic in several locations as these coincide with
the pedestrian paths that need access ramps, the plans appear to be directing bikes and peds from these paths to
the crosspans. The use of inlets and pipes offset from the access ramps would appear to be more appropriate. Note
that any use of culverts require the metal plate extended out to the flowline of the street.
RESPONSE: Relocated access ramps and pedestrian paths away from crosspans
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The design for Timberline Road should be including an ultimate design that establishes the flowline, curb
gutter and sidewalk on the east side of Timberline north of Bacon Elementary as evidence of the sufficient
establishment of right-of-way and road width. Coordination on this design information with the Timberline Road capital
improvement project would be important as well, as there may need to be additional offsite design to the north to
consider existing restrictions (existing trees, etc.) that would alter centerline roadways alignment and impact the ability
to implement ultimate improvements along Timberline. At time of final plan this would also require cross sections at
50 foot intervals to demonstrate that the additional widening on the west side is in the ultimate condition upon the
construction of the widening on the east side.
RESPONSE: Ultimate design included for Timberline Road, including east side.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The right turn lane from Timberline Road onto Street D falls short of taper requirements and would
need to be extended north in accordance with Figure 8-5 of LCUASS.
RESPONSE: Street D to be restricted to Emergency Access Only until Timberline Rd Capital Improvements are
complete
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: With the widening of Timberline Road frontage there is a general concern on the interim striping that
would be installed to allow the operation of the Timberline Road in the interim until the City capital project to widen
Timberline With the widening of Timberline Road frontage there is a general concern on the interim striping that
would be installed to allow the operation of the Timberline Road in the interim until the City capital project to widen
Timberline north and south of the development. This interim striping would need to be milled as it would not be in
the proper location in the ultimate condition after the City project. Coordination with Capital Projects and Traffic
Operations on the implications of the interim striping should ensue. A solution in this regard is that the project would
need to provide funds for the milling of Timberline Road for striping that is interim as reimbursement to the City for
the work that would ultimately need to occur to establish the final lane lines with the capital project.
10/10/2017: The use of buffered bike lane striping on Zephyr, Timberline, and the Commercial Local street should
be depicted on the plans.
RESPONSE: Updated striping to coincide Ultimate striping with Interim striping as much as possible. Updated to
buffer bike lane striping
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: A subsurface water investigation report in accordance with 6.6.2 With the groundwater being found in
depths from existing grade at depth of 9 to 15 feet below ground surface, along with excavation in areas of depths of
in excess of 5 feet, combined with the borings having taken place outside of the wet/ditch running season, and the
report indicating consideration of an underdrain system, the report should be prepared for review. In general, is an
underdrain system being considered for the overall development?
RESPONSE: Underdrain outfall is not easily accessible from this development. From conversations with
Groundwater Engineer, houses will either be raised out of groundwater or shortened basement, or no basement.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/11/2017: Street D is shown as a full movement access which was viewed as a concern with the ODP. A
restricted limited access should be designed with the project, perhaps with the use of a porkchop for right-in, right-
out access, until such time as the likely median to restrict access on Timberline is implemented as part of the capital
project.
RESPONSE: Street D will be Emergency Access Only until Timberline Road Capital Improvements is complete.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/11/2017: Has there been any feedback from the Rennat property on the establishment of the roadway and
bike/ped network that would continue on their property?
RESPONSE: The connections to the Rennat property are congruent with their Conceptual Plan.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017
09/27/2017: the project owes an additional $9,390.13 for the TDRF PDP fees. The acerage was not included on the
form or in the calculation and once that is calculated in and the adjustment for the fee being over $30,000 the total
fee amount due is: $38,040.13 and with $28,650 paid $9,390.13 remains due.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The additional TDR fees have been paid.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Unfortunately, the majority of the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) document provided largely
contains outdated field data that is 5 years old and in some cases more than 10 years old. City Environmental
Planning Development Review Staff need updated field data documenting current existing conditions, collected at
the most appropriate time of year, and as soon as possible. Current, existing conditions or baseline field data is
needed in order for staff to make the most appropriate and accurate decisions in applying City of Fort Collins Land
Use Code standards outlined in Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features. The ECS submitted with this PDP first
round submittal is not detailed enough or up-to-date enough to be accepted.
RESPONSE: As indicated in the most recent ECS report, the environmental information for the Hansen project
area was updated with a field survey in May 2017 with the most recent ECS report dated June 1, 2017. Any
information in this report that was similar to the previous ECS report means that these site conditions have not
changed from previous the report, as confirmed by the May 2017 survey. According to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ guidelines the wetland report, previously submitted for the project in January 2013, is valid for 5 years.
10/13/2017: Because the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) submitted 10 days prior to this PDP submittal
cannot be accepted, this project has not complied with Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.1 (D)(1), as the site is
within five hundred feet (500 ft) of known natural features (wetlands; Mail Creek Ditch; riparian habitat; unnamed
lateral ditches; potential roosting site). Buffer standards range from fifty to one hundred feet (50 to 100 ft) for these
features [LUC 3.4.1(E)]. The ECS must meet all criteria outlined in LUC 3.4.1(D). Note for this project site:
A. As it is currently mid-October, meaning the growing season is ending, the fully updated wetland delineations
for the entire proposed project site must now be based upon 2018 growing season (May to October) data.
RESPONSE: There is no need to complete an updated wetland delineation since the May 2017 field survey
has already confirmed that the wetland boundaries had not changed since the wetland delineation report
completed in January 2013. According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ guidelines, the wetland report,
previously submitted for the project in January 2013 is valid for 5 years. Other onsite vegetation characteristics
have not changed since the 2014 ECS Report, as documented in the 2017 ECS Report. Composition of
vegetation in the small isolated wetland has changed slightly since the 2014 ECS Report and the 2017 ECS
Report documented these changes.
B. The fully updated ECS shall also include fully updated raptor and other bird of prey surveys to be completed
January through March 2018.
RESPONSE: The only raptor information that has not been updated is the possible continued winter roosting
use of the Hansen property by bald eagles since this survey would need to be completed during the coldest
month of the year (typically January). Timing of required completion and submittal of the 2017 ECS Report
preceded this winter survey period time by several months. A once a week for four weeks survey in January
2018 would be sufficient to address this information need. The May 2017 survey has already documented a
lack of other raptor nesting use on the property. Any other occasional perching or short-term roosting use of
the project area by bald eagles outside of January would not constitute use of the property that is important to
the survival of local winter populations of bald eagles.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Regarding the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) that was submitted with this first round PDP
submittal and that is not acceptable for use to inform the design of the proposed project:
A. The ECS states ¿the grass/alfalfa and grass hayfields are non-native habitats that have been planted after
clearing native vegetation and woody species, and as a result, support no natural habitat features and have
minimal ecological and wildlife habitat value.¿ During an onsite visit by Environmental Planning staff on August
23, 2017, the hayfields and alfalfa were supporting several native pollinator species including bees and many
butterflies, including several of the Nature in the City bird and butterfly indicator species. For more information
about Nature in the City wildlife survey data see this online blog written by Liba Pejchar and Sarah Reed,
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology and principal investigators for Conservation
Development Global Challenges Research Team: http://blog.sustainability.colostate.edu/?q=conservation-
development
RESPONSE: Granted some native pollinator species would use alfalfa blossoms. However, non-native
grassland/alfalfa habitat is not a unique habitat in the Fort Collins area, and this habitat is not specified as
requiring special protection in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code.
B. A large stick-nest was observed along southern property boundary by staff on August 23, 2017, during an
onsite visit. Please have the ecological consultant reference this stick nest and report back on what species
might be utilizing this nest.
RESPONSE: This nest was observed during the May 2017 survey and was not documented in the June 2017
ECS report because it was an unoccupied black-billed magpie nest that was in disrepair.
C. Wetlands associated with all ditches must be delineated for soils, hydrology and vegetation especially as
there may be impacts to these areas due to regional trail connections and/or street crossings and bike and
pedestrian crossings of the ditches.
RESPONSE: There is no need to delineate all wetlands within project area ditches since the ditches will
remain in place. There is a need to delineate ditch wetlands at any specific sites where ditch crossings could
possibly impact wetlands. Once engineering has been finalized for these crossings, a wetland delineation will
be completed at these sites.
D. The small wetland must be delineated and the soils, hydrology and vegetation assessed. Data provided in
the ECS submitted is five years old AND that data reported the wetland as 0.29 acres, which, is near the
threshold to trigger a larger buffer (less than third acre is 50 feet whereas greater than a third acre is 100 feet).
RESPONSE: There is no need to complete an updated wetland delineation since the May 2017 field survey
has already confirmed that the wetland boundaries had not changed since the wetland delineation report
completed in January 2013. According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ guidelines the wetland report,
previously submitted for the project in January 2013 is valid for 5 years.
E. The ECS states the ¿Corps letter is incorrect and should be January 16, 2013 not January 16, 2012,¿
however, City staff need verification it was simply a mistake, human error or typo. Please have the ecological
consultant provide evidence to support the ECS statement regarding the Army Corps of Engineers letter date.
10/13/2017: The ECS informs the design of the natural habitat buffer zone(s) for a development site according
to quantitative standards and/or qualitative performance standards outlined in LUC 3.4.1(E). Since City staff
has not received an ECS document informed by acceptable data, staff cannot make necessary decisions
regarding this proposed development project at this time.
RESPONSE: Cedar Creek has already provided the wetland delineation report and Corps response letter to
the City documenting the fact that the report prepared by Cedar Creek was dated January 2013 while the Corps
response letter was dated January 2012, which would mean the Corps reviewed and accepted the report
before it was received. Data sheets in the Cedar Creek wetland report document the fact that the Cedar Creek
report date is correct and not the Corp letterhead date. Cedar Creek has not been informed by the
development of any enhancement plans for the buffer zone. Once these plans can be reviewed, suitable
performance standards can be developed, similar to other performance standards Cedar Creek has developed
for other development projects, to meet City needs. In the past these performance standard have not been
required in the ECS Report but required as commitments on the buffer zone landscape plan sheets submitted
as part of the overall development plan submitted to the City.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Prior to Hearing and once updated 2018 field data has been collected to inform an acceptable ECS is
received, please provide the following in a table on the site plan:
1. The total acreage required by a standard 50 ft (or 100 ft as appropriate) buffer zone for the Mail Creek Ditch,
all other ditches and associated wetlands and the small wetland in the middle of the property (e.g. the minimum
buffer square footage required).
RESPONSE: Please see sheet 7 which includes the NHBZ Statistics.
2. The total acreage or square footage of the proposed natural habitat buffer zone that will be provided by the
site design and layout.
RESPONSE: Please see sheet 7 which includes the NHBZ Statistics.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: The “top of bank” for each ditch needs to be clearly delineated and labeled on site, grading, utility and
landscape plans. Top of bank refers to the topographical break in slope between the bank and the surrounding
terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits of vegetation shall demark the top of bank. Currently
it is not clear on the site plan where the line labeled “natural area 50’ buffer offset” is being measured from;
clarification is needed.
RESPONSE: The plans have been revised. The labels read ‘Irrigation Ditch Lateral Top of Bank’ and ‘50’ ditch
buffer from top of bank’.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone will need to be delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and
landscape plan. Please add an Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans that show the buffer zone.
RESPONSE: The buffer zone line has been added to the landscape plan legend.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Add the following note on all sheets of the site, landscape, photometric and utility plans that show the
Habitat Buffer: “The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see
Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.” This will help
preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future.
RESPONSE: This note has been added to all landscape and site plans.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: There shall be no encroachment into the 50 ft natural habitat buffer zone please remove the following
lots from the buffer zone by shortening/lessening their size:
a. Sheet 8 LP – lot 18
b. Sheet 9 LP – Lots 25, 26
c. Sheet 10 LP – Lots 12, 11, 9, 8, 7, 6
d. Sheet 17 LP – Lots 3, 2, 1
RESPONSE: The applicant is requesting that these plans are evaluated based on performance standards with area
and/or enhancements that are equal to or better than the area within the buffer zones provided within a natural
habitat buffer zone. These lots have not been adjusted based on the assumption that the area of encroachment can
be offset elsewhere within the NHBZ.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Please clarify what is meant by “tree by owner” note on Sheet 10 LP
RESPONSE: This symbol has been removed from all sheets.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: This project will require an entirely separate landscape sheet showing only natural habitat buffer zone
design and specs including cross-sections.
RESPONSE: Sheet 7 in the landscape set includes an overall landscape/natural habitat buffer zone sheet that
includes the buffer zone notes and statistics.
10/13/2017: Much more plantings and enhancements will be needed in the natural habitat buffer zone design than is
currently proposed.
RESPONSE: Noted; vegetation has increased in the natural habitat buffer zone.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Clarify in Tract F where the wetland is, its size and delineation and standard buffer drawn from its
edges.
RESPONSE: The buffer has been added to the plan and details on size have been added to the NHBZ statics on
sheet 7.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: A separate in-person design meeting for the natural habitat buffer zone is necessary prior to another
round of submittal and review. In addition, this meeting should be informed by a fully updated ECS reporting on
current and existing onsite natural resource conditions.
RESPONSE: Per a conversation with Stephanie on 10.23.17 it was decided that a site meeting was no longer
necessary.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking community that cares about the quality of life
it offers its citizens now and generations from now. Thus the City of Fort Collins has many sustainability programs
and goals that may benefit this project. Of interest may be:
1. ClimateWise program: http://fcgov.com/climatewise, contact Heidi Wagner at970-416-2230 or
climatewise@fcgov.com
2. Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP):
http://fcgov.com/recycling/wrap.php, contact Jonathon Nagel at 970-416-2701 or jnagel@fcgov.com
3. Green Building Program: http://fcgov.com/greenbuilding contact Tony Raeker at 970-416-4238 or
traeker@fcgov.com
4. Solar Energy: www.fcgov.com/solar, contact Rhonda Gatzke at 970-416-2312 or rgatzke@fcgov.com
5. Integrated Design Assistance Program: http://fcgov.com/idap, contact Gary Schroeder at 970-224-6003 or
gschroeder@fcgov.com
6. Nature in the City Program: http://fcgov.com/natureinthecity, contact Justin Scharton at 970-221-6213 or
jscharton@fcgov.com
7. Bike Share Program: http://fcgov.com/bikeshare, contact Stacy Sebeczek at Bike Fort Collins at
stacy@bikefortcollins.org or 970-481-5577
8. Urban Agriculture: http://fcgov.com/urbanagriculture, contact Spencer Branson at 970-224-6086 or
sbranson@fcgov.com. In addition, the Northern Colorado Food Cluster is sponsored and supported by the City
of Fort Collins. The executive Director, Brad Christensen, can be reached at director@nocofoodcluster.org.
Please consider City sustainability goals and ways this development can engage with these efforts. Let me
know if I can help connect you to these programs.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Thank you for this information.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: City staff recognize the information delivered during Staff Review on October 11, 2017, is most likely
not ideal for the Applicant. However, staff cannot in good faith make appropriate decisions regarding this project and
appropriately apply natural resource protections standards outlined in the Land Use Code until a fully updated ECS
with current data and existing conditions is received. Please contact me directly for any further question or concerns
regarding scope and requirements necessary for the ECS. Stephanie Blochowiak, Environmental Planner,
sblochowiak@fcgov.com, 970-416-4290
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Cedar Creeks Associates (Mike Phallen) and Stephanie were able to connect
and work through, resolve or provide additional information for the comments listed above.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Continued: Please interpret what ‘XXX’ stands for in the Existing Tree Schedule. If trees are to be
removed, state YES. If trees are to be retained, state NO under the TO BE REMOVED column. Provide the total
mitigation required. In addition, please clarify what ‘xxx’ stands for under quantity in the plant list. 8/23/2017:
A site visit with Kristin Turner occurred on 8/23/2017 to complete the on-site tree inventory and mitigation meeting.
Please include the tree inventory and mitigation information to the landscape plans.
RESPONSE: Tree inventory and mitigation information was included on sheets 6 & 7 with our initial submittal. The
landscape sheet numbers have changed so you’ll now find that information on sheets 10 & 11.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: There appears to be some discrepancies on Sheet 6 in regards to Tree Inventory details. Trees L5, L7,
L22 should be shown as TO BE REMOVED on the enlargement. It would be helpful to see trees to be removed
marked with an “X” on the enlargement.
RESPONSE: Noted; these tree labels have been changed, and all trees being removed now display an ‘X’.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Species Selection: City Forestry does not recommend using Red Sunset Maple because they do not
reliably survive or thrive in Fort Collins soils. In addition, English Oak suffered some freeze damage during the 2014
freeze. Forestry would prefer not to use them on this project. Please incorporate other tree species such as
Kentucky Coffeetree, Catalpa, Shumard Oak, and Texas Red Oak.
RESPONSE: Noted; the aforementioned tree species have been removed and replaced by suggested species.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Please use the most recent version of the City of Fort Collins General Landscape notes which are
available from City Forestry (Molly Roche – mroche@fcgov.com).
RESPONSE: Noted and updated.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please adjust street tree locations
to provide for proper tree/utility separation. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main
lines 6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines
RESPONSE: Noted; trees have been moved away from water/sewer lines per code.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Show location of any stop signs and street lights. Identify these fixtures with a distinct symbol. Space
trees if needed as follows.
Stop Signs: 20 feet from sign
Street Light: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees
RESPONSE: Noted and updated.
10/10/2017: The majority of the lots are 60 feet or less. The LUC states that only one street tree per lot is required
on lots that are 60 feet or less. The current plan does not incorporate this comment.
If two (2) or more consecutive residential lots along a street each measure between forty (40) and sixty (60) feet in
street frontage width, one (1) tree per lot may be substituted for the thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing requirement.
Such street trees shall be placed at least eight (8) feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys,
and forty (40) feet away from any streetlight and to the extent reasonably feasible, be positioned at evenly spaced
intervals.
RESPONSE: Noted; one street tree per lot has been incorporated.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Please provide a typical lot detail including driveways, street lights, sidewalks, and street trees. Street
trees should be spaced at least 8 feet from curb cuts or driveways.
RESPONSE: This detail was provided on Sheet 1 (site plan) with our first submittal. It is now located on Sheet 6
(site plan) with the other details.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Will the interior streets be public or private? Please label all streets on the landscape plans.
RESPONSE: Interior streets will be public with the exception of the alley between the townhomes. The alley has
been labeled as a private EAE. Street names have been provided on all sheets.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: The symbol for irrigated turf is a little hard to interpret on the landscape plans. Please darken the
symbol and be sure to show irrigated turf within the right-of-ways throughout the development.
RESPONSE: Noted and changed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/10/2017: Please clarify what the TREE BY OWNER symbol stands for.
RESPONSE: This symbol has been removed.
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/03/2017
10/03/2017: Regarding future development plans for the NC portion of the Hansen Farm, the historic review of
eligibility of the brick residence at 6029 S Timberline on September 7, 2017 concluded that the property is eligible
for local landmark designation under Fort Collins Standards B (association with significant historic persons) and C
(architecture). No appeals of the decision were received during the two-week public posting. This recent review
updates that determination and underscores that Land Use Code section 3.4.7, which guides how developments
must treat identified historic resources, will come into play for any future NC district development proposals for that
parcel. Staff can provide resources and consultation for adaptive reuse options when the timing for that discussion
is right.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
10/11/2017: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:
2015 International Building Code (IBC) 2015 International Residential Code (IRC)
2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC)
as amended by the State of Colorado Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the
fcgov.com/building web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30
PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 129vult or 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2015 IRC Chapter 11 or 2015 IECC.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/11/2017: Colorado State statute CRS 9-5 requires this project provide accessible units. This project has 62
applicable units (townhomes) and will need to achieve at least 30 points.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, , akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017
09/27/2017: Light and Power can serve this development with either single phase or three phase electric
distribution. Power can be tied in from the north west corner of the future development as well as further south on
Timberline. (If three phase is going to be needed, notify light and power ASAP)
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017
09/27/2017: 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: 09/27/2017
09/27/2017: As your project begins to move forward please contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the
streetlight, transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017
09/27/2017: Multi family buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a (C) 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: 09/27/2017
09/27/2017: 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: Added
09/27/2017: 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/ElectricServiceStandards_F
INAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Terry Ferrill,
Topic: General
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017:
The Fort Collins – Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above
mentioned project and submit the following comments.
The submittal did not meet minimum district requirements for review. The Districts are working with the engineer to
revise references, notes, standard construction requirements, etc.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 104, if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Respectfully,
Mr. Terry W. Farrill, P.E. District Engineer
RESPONSE: Updated references and notes. Details to be provided at final
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/11/2017:
1. Identify and label a 50’ wide “Public Access Trail Easement” for the future extension of the Fossil Creek Paved
Recreational Trail located on the north property boundary. The access easement can overlay the Habitat Buffer.
The easement shall be identified on the plat and the utility plans as “Public Access Trail Easement”. A preliminary
alignment of the 10’ wide paved trail surface shall be shown within the easement and must be approved by Park
Planning & Development.
RESPONSE: Preliminary alignment added and Tract dedicated as Public Access Trail Easement
2. The Fossil Creek Recreational Trail alignment will continue south to the intersection of Timberline and Zephyr
Roads, and shall be located on the west side of Timberline Road, as shown on the PDP. The word “interim” can be
removed from the identifying label. Construction of a future underpass will allow trail users to continue east across
Timberline; the schedule (and funding) for construction has not been identified. The ADA ramp at the northwest
corner of Timberline and Zephyr should be constructed to allow a full-size pickup with snow plow to access the trail.
RESPONSE: Trail added to west side of Timberline to Zephyr. ADA ramps on Timberline along trail route are
shown as 96” wide.
3. Neighborhood parks are ideally 10-aces; they can be reduced in size if it is determined all required elements can
be located within the site. Tract B represents approximately one-half of the area required for the proposed Fossil
Lake Neighborhood Park located in this area. The presence of the existing irrigation lateral on Tract B precludes the
ability to locate a playing field on the tract as currently sized. The site needs to be configured to accommodate, at a
minimum, a 280’x160’ playing field. In addition a 50’ buffer is required between any adjacent road ROW and the
edge of the field.
RESPONSE: The applicant has been working with Parks throughout this process to try to assist with providing a
portion of the 10-acre park to be developed in conjunction with the Rennat property in the future. Due to the
required intersection connection at Timberline, the park space can not be reconfiguration to allow for the requested
playing fields but this area could be used for many of the other park amenities the City provides while locating the
fields on the Rennat property. If a larger tract is required without the encumbrances of the irrigation lateral, the
applicant requests that the City locates the entire 10-acre park on the Rennat property as discussed in previous
meetings as a potential option.
4. Sheet U4: An 18” diameter sleeve must be placed along with the construction of Street A, just north of the
intersection with Zephyr Road, and must be shown on the Utility Plans. The sleeve will extend from Tract B to the
utility easement located on the north side of Zephyr Road. The sleeve will be used for installation of a future
irrigation raw-water line from a raw water storage pond on Tract B (or a future enlarged neighborhood park site on
the adjacent property) to an off-site neighborhood park north of Bacon Elementary School.
RESPONSE: Sleeve added to plans
5. Sheet U5: To accommodate the construction of the future irrigation delivery line from Tract B to the offsite
location the utility easement shown as 9’ on the south side of Tract D (north side of Zephyr Road) must be
increased to 15’ wide. The easement language (on both the plat and utility plans) should include the following: “To
include construction of future irrigation delivery line by City”.
RESPONSE: Easement widened and notes added to plat and utility plans
6. All easements must be identified and labeled on both the plat and utility plans.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
7. Park Planning & Development is available to meet with the project owners and consultants to discuss these
comments in more depth and to review preliminary documents and/or designs. Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-
416-4340.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
10/08/2017: HYDRANT SPACING
> Hydrant spacing within the residential portions of this proposed plan are satisfactory. No further changes are
required.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
> Hydrant spacing within the commercial portions of the plan do not meet the 600' maximum separation distances.
Hydrants to be relocated and/or added so as to meet minimum standards.
RESPONSE: Added hydrants to meet 600’ spacing.
> Hydrant separation along Timberline exceeds maximum allowable distances. The existing separation is nearly
1,700' between hydrants. An additional hydrant will need to be added unless otherwise approved by the fire
marshal.
RESPONSE: We request a variance from the 600’ along Timberline Rd as it is a 16-inch transmission main
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/08/2017
10/08/2017: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
> All single-family attached homes will require a residential fire sprinkler system. Contact the Building Dept. for
further details.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
> Single-family detached homes may require a sprinkler system based upon Site Plan non-compliance relative to
separation distance between accessible roads. See comment #5 below.
RESPONSE: Emergency Access Easement provided to meet separation between accessible roads
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/08/2017
10/08/2017: 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
> This requirement cannot be met for all portions of the development without the alley (Tract H) becoming a fire
lane.
RESPONSE: Tract H to be dedicated as a fire lane
> Any private alley serving as a fire lane shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement (EAE) and be
designed to standard fire lane specifications.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/08/2017
10/08/2017: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
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.
> 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.
> Dead-end roads shall not exceed 660' in length without providing for a second point of access.
10/08/2017: DEAD-END FIRE LANES (see also #7 below)
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
The conceptual plan creates a dead-end condition that is non-compliant with minimum standards as it pertains to
separation distances between access points to this developement. Where compliance with the code is not feasible,
the fire marshal may approve the existing condition as is, or he may approve it with the expectation that every
residence be equipped with a residential fire sprinkler system.
RESPONSE: Dead-end condition removed from plan
> IFC 503.2.5, Appendix D, and FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads cannot exceed 660
feet in length.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
> IFC D107.2: Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to
not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served,
measured in a straight line between accesses.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/08/2017
10/08/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets.
Refer to LUCASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and 75' spacing. Appropriate directional arrows
required on all signs.
Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire inspection. Code language provided below.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, to be provided with final > 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: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: FOLLOW-UP TO CITY STAFF MEETING ON 10/11/2017:
I spoke with Fire Marshal, Bob Poncelow today regarding minimal separation distance between access points into
and out of the proposed Hansen Farm development. In brief, he believes the two, currently proposed points of
access onto Timberline do not meet minimum code requirements as defined by IFC D107.2.
In order to resolve this non-compliance issue, he would either require Single-Family homes on the western portion
of the site to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system OR approve a temporary fire lane connection to Rosen Dr. to
effectively increase the separation distance between access points. This would be the same solution which the
project team and I briefly discussed at the end of the city staff meeting on 10/11/17. Please contact me with any
questions.
RESPONSE: Temporary fire lane connection to Rosen added to plans
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
For the SF attached buildings, need to have at least three different building model designs. Building elevations will
show all four sides and identify distinct design features such as architectural design articulation, materials, colors,
roof forms, massing and other characteristics per LUC Section 3.5.2 (C) (2).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Topic: General
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/13/2017
10/13/2017: Another formal round of review is needed. Contact me prior to submittal for routing information.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Cover sheet should have overall landscape plan. Move sheet 5 to last in set.
RESPONSE: The sheet set-up for the landscape set has been revised.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: All sheets - street trees and parkway landscaping is the responsibility of the developer, see landscape
notes to use on plans and remove reference to individual homeowners.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: For the upper lots that are adjacent to existing lots in Willow Springs subdivision, add additional trees
along buffer area.
RESPONSE: Noted; additional trees have been added along the buffer area.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: For SF attached buildings, need more detail for shrub and ground cover foundation planting, including
material type, quantities and sizes on plan and in legend. This can be
RESPONSE: Per a conversation with Pete Wray on 4.2.18. hatching designating the shrub, turf and native areas
has been provided with this submittal. A plant list has also been provided as well as tree species and location.
Foundation planting for the SFA buildings will be provided once the final configuration of buildings has been
determined.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Enlargement sheets need match lines and index diagram on each sheet. Why not use this same
number of enlargement sheets (7) for the site and landscape plans as well? These enlargements are better to read
than smaller sections in other sets.
RESPONSE: Updated
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Site Plan cover sheet should have overall plan on 1st page with index of enlargement areas, signature
blocks, legal description and land use summary table showing land and building data, gross and net densities etc.
The more detailed table can be on other sheet. The details can be on last sheet with notes.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017 See
updated site plan notes I have included with this review.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: SF attached units - front entry walks and how they connect to street needs more thought. Walks need
to be further separated from front courtyards to maximize entry landscaping and foundation planting. Circle
templates are forced in small space. Angles of walk intersections needs more work.
RESPONSE: At the most narrow point, walks are approximately 10’-13’ away from the building allowing a generous
area for shrub planting. The curved walks also allow of turf areas for residents rather than creating many cuts
through the landscape area with walks.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Sheets 2-5 that show enlargement plan areas all need index diagram.
RESPONSE: A sheet key has been added to pages 2-5.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Page 1 - Between lots 12 and 13, add soft surface walk to connect to perimeter open area, similar to
other cut-through paths.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Sheet 4: See redlines. Label tract B as MMN and 3 ac park. Remove future drive in NC area.
RESPONSE: Redlines have been addressed.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/27/2017
09/27/2017: Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do not meet requirements. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. a
copy of the erosion control requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/eroison. The Erosion Control Materials will
need to be submitted at time of the first round of FDP. Please submit an Erosion Control Plans as none were
included in the recently received materials and are required to be submitted to meet City Criteria. Please submit an
Erosion Control Report as none was included in the recently received materials and is required to be submitted to
meet City Criteria. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation as none was included in the
recently received materials and is required to be submitted to meet City Criteria. The site disturbs more than 10,000
sq. ft. and therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. Based upon the area of
disturbance, State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before
Construction Activities begin. Erosion Control Materials will need to be produced, reviewed, and accepted to meet
City Erosion Control Criteria before Development Agreement Language can be drafted. If you need clarification
concerning the Erosion Control Material Requirements or Comments presented above please contact myself. Jesse
Schlam (970) 224-6015 jschlam@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Please include the LID summary table in the text of the Drainage Report.
RESPONSE: The LID summary table was added to the text in the drainage report.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: More discussion is needed on how the site is meeting the LID and water quality requirements. The
grass buffers proposed are not meeting the LID criteria. The development may have to provide another LID method
or propose to include standard water quality treatment.
RESPONSE: Additional clarification was added to the drainage report describing how the proposed LID structures
are providing water quality for the site.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/11/2017: All plans will be reviewed at the next round of review.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/11/2017: Please make changes 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: Updates made, and responses provided
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The plans still show 2 full movement accesses. See comments from the ODP submittal.
RESPONSE: Street D now limited to Emergency Access Only until Timberline Rd Capital Improvements are
complete and center median is installed, restricting movements.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The plans show a roundabout less than 300 ft from Timberline. This should be evaluated in the TIS for
feasibility and queuing.
RESPONSE: Roundabout removed and traditional intersection added after discussion with City staff and Traffic
Engineer
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: You'll need to work with parks on trail requirements
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: Work with engineering and planning on the connections (vehicular and bike/ped) to the south.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The submitted TIS was the same TIS as submitted for the ODP. Our standards require a full TIS for a
PDP, not the master study. It needs to be scoped with our staff. Please contact me to scope the study. No further
review of the TIS will be provided until a study that meets our requirements is submitted.
RESPONSE: New TIS provided for PDP
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/10/2017
10/10/2017: The timing and phasing of road improvements along Timberline (and signalization at Zephyr) is a
critical piece to figure out. The TIS will need to address this, and internal conversations at the City regarding timing
of the capital project will also need to be a part.
RESPONSE: Per discussion with City staff, Timberline and Zephyr traffic signal is fully and immediately
reimbursable. Due to this, the client has agreed to install the traffic signal with Phase 1. We are showing the signal
poles on our plans with the intent that City of FC will provide traffic signal design.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/09/2017
10/09/2017: 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: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/11/2017: Please paint all conduit, meters, vents and all other equipment attached to the building or protruding
from the roof to match the surrounding building surfaces.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2017
10/11/2017: Street facing garage doors must be recessed behind the front façade of the ground floor or a covered
porch (measuring at least 4¿ x 6¿) by 4 feet as per 3.5.2(F)(1).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged