Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD FOURTH FILING - MAJOR AMENDMENT / PDP - PDP180009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview January 4, 2018 Jay Garcia Thrive Home Builders 1875 Lawrence St Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Waterfield Third Filing, MJA170002, 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Ripley Design, Northern Engineering, Owner, Lighting, Architect, Delich Associates, Wetland Consultant Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Spencer Smith, , ssmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/03/2018: 57' internal street ROW required because the proposal is not just single-family lots with driveways out to the streets. Without driveways, the 30' roadway width is not adequate to accommodate parking on both sides with 2-way traffic. The 57¿ ROW 2 is with vertical curb, if drive over curb is desired along the streets additional 1 foot of ROW on each side of the street is required. Curb type must be consistent along the block, changes from vertical to drive-over curb are only allowed to occur around a curb return. Response: The Project Development Plan (PDP) proposes 57-foot right-of-way for public streets with vertical curb. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: 16' alley widths are likely an issue for utility spacing, PFA requirements, vehicle movements, snow removal, address signage, etc. Response: The PDP proposes 20-foot wide alleys where they will be utilized as fire lanes. Other areas where PFA can access units from a public street,16-foot alleys are used with garages set back from the alley a minimum of 8 feet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Phase I Concept B appears to be proposing an alley connection to Suniga. This would not be allowed, unless for emergency access only. Response: An alley connection to Suniga is not being proposed. Comment Number: 4 01/02/2018: To accomplish the changes in ROW proposed, portions of the existing ROW already dedicated will need to be vacated. Vacation of ROW can only be done through an action by City Council, and we cannot take the request to vacate ROW to council until after the project has gone to hearing and the appeal period has passed. We will only want to vacate the portions of ROW that are changing and can start reviewing legals and schedules as soon as the project has been submitted. Additional information on the process can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/03/2018: Update: Applicant intends to line proposed access up with existing access. Conceptual exhibits just didn't show this. 01/02/2018: Phase I access to Merganser should line up with existing access to neighborhood to the east or meet separation criteria. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/03/2018: Update: Applicant aware. Conceptual exhibits did not provide the detail regarding proposed access movements. 01/02/2018: Phase II and III accesses to Timberline and Suniga do not match ODP. Garganey to Timberline should be a RI/RO as well as the center southern site access to Suniga. Response: Access matched ODP. 3 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/03/2018: Update: Applicant aware. Conceptual exhibits did not include this area, but official submittal to the City will include. 01/02/2018: Concept exhibit for Ph II and III should include Parcel C Response: The Amended ODP reflects changes to Parcel C. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The proposed parking area at the northwest corner of the site looks like a roundabout. The parking area should be separate from the roadway. Response: The proposed parking is now separated from the street. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: What is the proposed street section for Garganey? It does not look like a city standard section. Also, the circular area shown does not appear to meet any city standard for a roundabout or traffic circle. Need more detail as to what is proposed here. At one point, an inverted crown section was discussed for Garganey. Is this still the case? The drainage was going to be directed west and outlet to the wetland. How is drainage being handled? Response: Garganey has been redone (now known as Street G) matches the cross-section on sheet C0.02. Street G and Street H will both be using this layout. All the other streets throughout the site follow LCUASS standards. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Spencer Smith smsmith@fcgov.com will be the Engineer assigned to this project. Please contact him if you have further questions regarding the engineering comments or requirements. Response: Noted Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Transportation Expansion Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Kyle Lambrecht at 221-6566 if you have any questions. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 01/02/2018: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or 4 restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps, existing or proposed, adjacent or within the site, need to meet ADA standards. If they currently do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project. Response: Acknowledged. All ADA standards will be met once finalized grading design commences. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: https://www.larimer.org/engineering/streets Response: Noted. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary or required by the City for this project. Most easements to be dedicated need to be public easements dedicated to the City. This shall include the standard utility easements that are to be provided behind the right-of-way (15 foot along an arterial, 8 foot along an alley, and 9 foot along all other street classifications). Information on the dedication process can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php Response: Noted Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Utility plans will be required and an amendment to the Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Response: Noted Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: As of January 1, 2015 all development plans are required to be on the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please make your consultants aware of this, prior to any surveying and/or design work. Response: Noted Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Due to the small lots and many of the lots only access off of private drives a utility coordination meeting on this site is suggested. Utility coordination 5 meetings, if requested, are typically scheduled after the preliminary submittal of the project, but can be scheduled prior to submittal upon request. Please provide a site plan with a preliminary utility layout for routing with the meeting notice. If you are interested in having a utility coordination meeting, please contact the development review engineer for scheduling. Response: Noted Comment Number: 21 01/02/2018: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be followed depending on parking design. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: All fences, barriers, posts or other encroachments within the public right-of-way are only permitted upon approval of an encroachment permit. Applications for encroachment permits shall be made to the Engineering Department for review and approval prior to installation. Encroachment items shall not be shown on the site plan as they may not be approved, need to be modified or moved, or if the permit is revoked then the site/ landscape plan is in non-compliance. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The development/site cannot use the right-of-way for any Low Impact Development to treat the site’s storm runoff. We can look at the use of some LID methods to treat street flows – the design standards for these are still in development. Response: All LID amenities are located outside of the ROW. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In regards to construction of this site, the public right-of-way shall not be used for staging or storage of materials or equipment associated with the Development, nor shall it be used for parking by any contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel working for or hired by the Developer to construct the Development. The Developer will need to find a location(s) on private property to accommodate any necessary staging and/or parking needs associated with the completion of the Development. Information on the location(s) of these areas will be required to be provided to the City as a part of the Development Construction Permit application. Response: Acknowledged. 6 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 FOR PHASES 2 & 3: The 2013 Ecological Characterization Study completed for this site identified significant natural habitat features that should be protected, buffered, and/or mitigated as part of any future development: 1. Central wetland area 2. Larimer and Weld Canal 3. Potentially significant cottonwood trees 4. Relatively unobstructed views of the Front Range foothills An update to the Ecological Characterization Study is not necessary with this amendment. However, an updated wetland delineation to establish the current boundary is required prior to your first submittal. Response: Acknowledged. A new wetland delineation has been performed and is reflected in the proposed plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 FOR PHASES 2 & 3: A buffer of 100' will be required around the central wetland. A buffer of 50' will be required along the Larimer and Weld Canal. These buffers can be averaged (reduced in some areas and enlarged in others) as long as the resources are protected from development impacts and the amount of land protected by the buffer is comparable to what would be required by a strict 100' or 50' buffer. Response: Acknowledged. An average buffer of at least 100’ is provided around the wetland and 50’ along the canal. A portion of the buffer has been relocated along the detention ponds along Vine Dr. The previous Waterfield plans were approved with variable buffers in some areas. Given that the proposed site plan does not diverge significantly from the previously approved plans, a similar approach to the buffers would be appropriate for the current proposal. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 FOR PHASES 2 & 3: Environmental Planning staff has concerns about the proximity of the townhome lots and greater concentration of human impacts on the eastern edge of the wetland. Please consider locating the higher intensity uses to a less sensitive area of the site. Impacts related to noise, headlights, building lighting, and foot traffic will need to be mitigated near both the wetland and the canal buffer. Response: The site plan has been updated so that the alleys terminate at a row of single-family attached units, thus preventing headlight spillage into the wetlands. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 FOR PHASES 2 & 3: Note that within any Natural Habitat Buffer Zones that may be designated on this site, the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the zone is incompatible with the purposes and intent of the buffer 7 zone [Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g)]. If existing vegetation is determined to be insufficient, then restoration and mitigation measures may be required. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 FOR PHASES 2 & 3: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Section 3.2.4(D)(6), requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over into any natural features or natural habitat buffer areas. Response: Lighting shall located to prevent light spillage into these areas, see site photometric plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 LANDSCAPING: City of Fort Collins Land Use Code [Section 3.2.1 (E)(3)], requires that to the extent reasonably feasible, all plans be designed to incorporate water conservation materials and techniques. This includes use of low-water-use plants and grasses in landscaping or re-landscaping and reducing bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Native plants and wildlife-friendly (ex: pollinators, butterflies, songbirds) landscaping and maintenance are also encouraged. Please refer to the Fort Collins Native Plants document available online and published by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department for guidance on native plants is: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nativeplants2013.pdf. Also see the City of Fort Collins Plant List : https://www.fcgov.com/forestry/plant_list.pdf. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 LANDSCAPING: Please be aware that the creation or enforcement of covenants prohibiting or limiting xeriscape or drought-tolerant landscapes, or those requiring primarily turf-grass, are prohibited by both the State of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 TREE PROTECTION & MITIGATION: Please note LUC Section 3.2.1(C) requiring developments to submit a landscape and tree protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan, that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat, and (5) enhances the pedestrian environment.” Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any of the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (970-221-6361 or tbuchanan@fcgov.com) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed development. Response: Within the limits of our development, only scrub trees (Russian Olives) have been located. 8 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 TREE REMOVAL: If tree removal is necessary, please include the following note on the tree mitigation plan and/or landscape plan, as appropriate: "NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY." Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 EXTERIOR LIGHTING: In regard to lighting, especially LED light fixtures, cooler color temperatures are harsher at night and cause more disruption to circadian (biological) rhythms for both humans and wildlife. Warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or less) for any LED light fixtures is preferred. Please also consider fixtures with dimming capabilities so that light levels can be adjusted as needed. Site light sources shall be fully shielded and down-directional to minimize up-light, light spillage and glare [see LUC 3.2.4(D)(3)]. For further information regarding health effects please see: http://darksky.org/ama-report-affirms-human-health-impacts-from- leds/ Response: All lighting fixture are indicated with 3,000K color temperature, see lighting fixture schedule as part of site photometric set. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 PRAIRIE DOGS: If any prairie dogs are present on the site, additional mitigation and removal requirements may apply. Please confirm in your submittal the extent of any prairie dogs on the property. Response: A study is currently being conducted. We will follow up with you in regards to the presence of prairie dogs on site. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: If the Overall Development Plan will be updated, please ensure that the same standard notes regarding the identification and protection of natural features are included on the plans. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 GENERAL: 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 particular interest may be: 1) ClimateWise program: http://fcgov.com/climatewise, contact Heidi Wagner at 9 970-416-2230 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. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018 01/03/2018: Please schedule an on-site meeting with City Forestry to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information, which is to be included on the landscape plans. Response: No trees other than Russian Olives are located within the proposed development. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018 01/03/2018: Please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code and 3.2.1 requirements. Response: A landscape plan that meets LUC 3.2.1 has been submitted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018 01/03/2018: 10 Please include the City of Fort Collins General Landscape Notes, Street Tree notes, and Tree Protection Notes on the landscape plans. These notes are available from the Project Planner or City Forestry (mroche@fcgov.com). Response: Notes provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018 01/03/2018: 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: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018 01/03/2018: 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: Acknowledged. Department: Internal Services Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: 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 11 Energy Code for Single Family, Duplex, and Townhomes: 2015 IRC Chapter 11 or 2015 IECC. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Be advised that City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2015 I-codes require that townhouses and duplexes be sprinkled. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Be advised that Building code and State statute CRS 9-5 requires this project to provide accessible dwelling units. Response: Noted. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Please be aware that Light & Power only installs secondary services to single family dwellings. All other secondary services will need to be installed by the developer. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Light and Power prefers electric meters to be ganged on one side of duplexes to avoid conflict with other utilities. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: The developer will be responsible for Electric Capacity Fees, Building Site charges and system modification charges. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Please call Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018 01/01/2018: FIRE LANES The revised site plan to include alley loaded lots will require additional review and approval by the fire authority. Residential lots accessible by a private alley shall mandate the alley to be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement so as to meet 12 minimum fire access requirements. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > 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 red curb painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. Sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final plans. > Note: Additional fire lane widths are mandated for buildings greater than 30' in height. Refer to IFC D105.1 for further details. Response: Acknowledged. The preliminary site plan was sent to and reviewed by PFA June 1, 2018. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018 01/01/2018: STREET WIDTHS > All residential streets with 8' Drive Lanes will be required to demonstrate that parking on both sides of the street will allow large vehicles to pass against oncoming traffic as intended. This is best achieved with front loaded garages with driveway connections to the street. As an alternative for the alley loaded products, functional access may be achievable with no parking along one entire side of the street, or possibly approved with designated areas of no parking so as to create relief pockets for vehicles to pull to the side and out of the way of fire apparatus and other large vehicles. A comprehensive plan will be required to account for all products in all areas of the site. > No 16' wide alley serving as a fire lane will be approved unless proposed as a one way drive, and only then with fire marshal approval. All two-way trafficked alleys to be a minimum of 20' in width. > Private alleys required for fire access will be designated as EAE's and signed with No Parking - Fire Lane along their entire length. Refer to LUCASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. A detailed sign location plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to PDP/FDP approval. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018 01/01/2018: 13 ADDRESS POSTING & ALLEY LOADED LOTS Alley loaded homes may create a need for additional wayfinding signage or as an alternative, some of the private alleys would require naming to aid in navigation. > Address posting will be required on the front and rear of all alley loaded units. > In certain areas, posting of the full street name may be required. >An address posting plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to PDP/FDP approval. > Residential products to include man-doors fronting the alley are highly recommended. Otherwise all units will require a sidewalk system to provide access connecting the alley to the front door of every unit. Code language provided below. > IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. > IFC 505.1.8: LOCAL AMENDMENT - Buildings that are addressed on one street, but are accessible from other streets, shall have the address numbers AND STREET NAME on each side that is accessible form another street. Response: Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018 01/01/2018: RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM Local amendments require single family attached homes to be protected with a residential fire sprinkler system and fire separation between units. Contact the City of Fort Collins Building Department for details. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018 01/01/2018: HYDRANT COVERAGE > A fire hydrant is required within 400' of any residential home (300' in relation to M-F products). This distance is measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. The revised site plan will require re-evaluation of hydrant placement within the development. Additional fire hydrants will likely be required. > With regard to the existing hydrant plan, I would like to relocate two hydrants so as to also provide coverage along Timberline and old Vine Drive. 14 Response: Fire have been spaced at the above required distances for all internal hydrants. Please advise on where you would like the two new hydrants along Timberline to be placed and those will get updated in the next round. Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The site is located in two zone districts. While most of the area is zoned L-M-N, Tract H (Tract B on the approved Overall Development Plan) is zoned M-M-N. The maximum allowable density in the L-M-N zone is 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre and the minimum required density in the M-M-N zone is 7.00 dwelling units per gross acre. The plat indicates that Tract H is 13.32 acres which would require no less than 93 dwelling units. Response: There are currently 84 units shown in Tract H (MMN) which provides us with a density of 9.1 dwelling units per net acre per section 4.6(D)(1). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In the L-M-N zone, Section 4.5(D)(3) – Neighborhood Centers, requires that at least 90% of the dwellings in development projects greater than 40 acres must be located within three-quarters of one mile (3,960 feet) of a neighborhood center. Please review this section carefully which requires compliance with additional standards relating to location, land use, design and access and outdoor spaces. The governing O.D.P. indicates the neighborhood center to be located on Tract C in the northwest corner of the site along the future extension of Conifer Street (collector). Please consult with the Aaron Iverson of FC Moves, (970) 416-2643, as to possible amendments to the Master Street Plan and the status of this Conifer Street extension. Other changes to the Master Street Plan include the southerly extension of Turnberry Road to Suniga Road. As such, the alignment of Conifer may need to be adjusted as it is unlikely that there will be two crossings of Eaton Ditch so close to each other. If the location of the neighborhood center needs to be reconsidered, then this may require an Amendment to the O.D.P. Response: 100% of dwellings in the proposed site plan are within three-quarters of one mile of the neighborhood center. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In the L-M-N zone, projects greater than 30 acres are required to feature at least four housing types. No one housing type can be more than 80% or less than 5% of the total. Please refer to Section 4.5(D)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code for the list of allowable housing types. For definitions of these housing types, please refer to Section 5.1.2. For future reference, all the proposed housing types must be semantically matched with the Land Use Code for clarity. For example, the Code does not use terms such as “town homes” or “cottages.” Response: Four housing types are being proposed. 15 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: A Modification of Standard was granted by the Planning and Zoning Board in conjunction with the Overall Development Plan on November 14, 2013 to allow three versus four housing types within the L-M-N zone in accordance with Section 2.3.2(H)(7) (O.D.P. Standards). The primary justification for this Modification was that the larger neighborhood governed by the O.D.P. will ultimately gain a fourth housing type, multi-family, by virtue of including future development of Tract H which is zoned M-M-N. This relieved the L-M-N portion from needing four housing types. The proposed Major Amendment now fully incorporates Tract H. As expected per the Modification of Standard, this inclusion of 13 additional acres triggers the neighborhood to feature four housing types. Staff is willing to take a flexible approach as to how this fourth housing type is distributed. Since the Major Amendment integrates Tract H as opposed to being a separate tract, the fourth housing type may be allocated across one or both zone districts. In fact, distributing housing types across the entire project and both zones is preferably versus creating individual pods of any one type. Response: The four housing types have been equally distributed across the entire project. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: On a City-wide basis, in the L-M-N zone, recent development and building trends have evolved since the adoption of the Land Use Code resulting some Single Family Attached Dwellings running the risk of becoming indistinguishable from low-rise Multi-Family Dwellings. This lack of distinction has the potential of diminishing the quality and characteristics of Single Family Attached housing as a unique housing type that is intended to enrich the diversity of housing within L-M-N neighborhoods. To address these issues, staff is concerned about the mass, bulk, and scale of the single family attached dwellings especially if placed in a sequenced or repetitive pattern. Such structures should be limited to no more than six or seven units per structure. Response: No more than five structures are being proposed within any single family attached building. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 It is preferable that single family attached dwelling units front on a public street, or a street-like private drive, but it is not required. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 With narrow lots and rear-loaded garages, the design team is encouraged to consider staggering the fronts of the buildings to avoid a monotonous streetscape. 16 Also, please consider varying the side yard separation between buildings to minimize repetition. Response: Townhouse units have been staggered in key areas throughout the site. Single family units may be staggered as well depending on the model of home that is ultimately built in each site (several different footprints exist for each housing type proposed.). Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Each individual unit within a multi-unit structure must have a front porch versus a mere stoop. As noted, this is intended to address the need to distinguish single family attached from multi-family. Staff recommends that the front porch consist of minimum dimensions of be six by eight feet but larger front porches, in a variety of sizes, are encouraged. Response: All proposed units will have a front porch with a minimum dimension of 7’ x 9’. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Each single family attached dwelling unit must have private outdoor space in the form of a small yard or patio. End units are encouraged to add variety to the streetscape and neighborhood by featuring wrap-around front porches, patios or yards. As noted, without an outdoor gathering space on a per unit basis, the Single Family Attached Dwellings start to take on the characteristics of low-rise Multi-Family Dwellings. Response: A small front yard is provide for each unit, and in some cases, a rear yard as well. In additional, several community open spaces and green courts are provided throughout the development. Comment Number: 10 01/02/2018: Excessively long alleys are strongly discouraged. Problems include unsafe walkability, difficult way-finding, lack of guest parking, snow management and handling stormwater runoff. At some point, the length of the alley, and number of units served, indicate that the alley cross-section is operationally deficient to serve the proposed density. Instead, these roadways should be upgraded to either Public Streets or Street-like Private Drives. Response: Acknowledged. In several instances, a pedestrian connection is placed to connect alleys to streets. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In addition, long alleys tend to become overly desolate and stark. With no opportunities for landscaping, the alley becomes a harsh environment. Where alleys are to be used, the applicant is encouraged to mitigate by establishing landscape areas between driveways or other suitable locations. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 17 01/02/2018: Dead-end alleys are discouraged. Response: Dead-end alleys throughout the site are limited, and in all cases, are under 150’ in length. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Street-like Private Drives are authorized per Section 3.6.2(N) of the Land Use Code. This roadway is specifically intended to offer flexibility where a public street may be not be warranted but where alleys or parking lot drive aisles are insufficient. These roadways offer sidewalks and landscaping which improves the overall quality of the neighborhood. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Garages must be setback eight feet from the flowline of the alley. And, when garages are located along a driveway (i.e. private alley) and are opposite other garages or buildings, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. These standards allow for ease of maneuvering. Response: Acknowledged. All garages are set back a minimum 8’ from the flowline of the alley. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Alleys should be accompanied by small, distributed guest parking spaces. (These areas also double as convenient locations for plowed snow.) Response: Guest parking has been provided throughout the site. See land use calculations for parking counts. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: As noted, it is preferable that dwellings face public streets. But, where there are dwellings that instead face a central green or common area (or, in this case arterial streets from which there is no access) and not a public street, then other considerations come into play and the following design attributes must be provided. The connecting walkways out to the nearest public sidewalk must be tree-lined and as direct as possible and not cross private alleys. A person door must be provided per unit along the private alley for emergency responders. Otherwise, responders would be required to gain access to the unit either by going through the garage or by going around the structure to the front door. All garages must be clearly addressed per the standards of the Poudre Fire Authority. In order for the private alleys to be properly illuminated, lighting must be placed on each garage that is capable of illuminating the address. (As an alternative, the developer may install a private street lighting system.) Response: Tree lined walkways have been provided to the fronts of all units. Along the alleys, we propose allowing access to emergency responders via a keypad to access the garage. Comment Number: 17 01/02/2018: The private alleys may require utility easements next to the travel lanes since not all utilities can be served solely from the front which is not a street. The front yard setback from the common area or central green must be at least ten to fifteen feet 18 otherwise the units crowd the common feature at the expense of the neighborhood as a whole. As with the buildings that face streets, buildings facing the central green or common area (or arterial street) are encouraged to be staggered to avoid monotony and allow for privacy on the front porches. Also, please be aware of the functional requirements and appearance of outdoor appurtenances such as condensing unit, gas valves, communication pedestals, egress windows and utility meters and their impact on the common areas. Response: Per LCUASS figure 7-12F all Alleys need an 8’ Utility Easement and those have all been included. Response: Setbacks for green court units vary, but average about 15’. In some cases the front yard setback is less to allow for tandem parking along the alley. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: For all dwelling units that adjoin either Timberline Road or Suniga Road, the design team is encouraged to provide additional buffering to mitigate the anticipated road noise associated with four-lane arterial streets. Buffering may include increased setbacks, dense landscaping, undulating earthen berms, low screen walls or other features and in any combination to achieve maximum effectiveness. Response: Additional landscape has been provided along both Timberline and Suniga Road. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Buffering will be required adjacent to the natural gas pressure regulating station located in the southwest corner. This buffering will be governed by Section 3.8.26 of the Land Use Code. Response: Buffering has been provided. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In the L-M-N zone, Section 4.5(E)(1)(a) – Streets and Blocks – Street System Block Size, this standard requires that the local street system provide an interconnected network of streets such that blocks do not exceed 12 acres. Response: Block do not exceed 12 acres. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In the L-M-N, Section 4.5(E)(1)(b) – Streets and Blocks – Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections, this standard requires that if any block face is over 700 feet long, then walkways connecting to other streets must be provided at approximately mid-block or at intervals of at least every 650 feet, whichever is less. Response: Mid-block walkways have been provided. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: For Phase One, staff prefers the alternative that takes advantage of the street system depicted on the currently approved plan. Other alternatives will be evaluated based on the standards and criteria of the L-M-N zone district. Response: Acknowledged. 19 Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In the northwest corner of Phases Two and Three, there is a long dead- end alley that would benefit by either being reduced in length or having an additional access point out to Merganser. Response: Site plan has been revised to eliminate long, dead-end alleys. Comment Number: 24 01/02/2018: In the northwest corner of Phases Two and Three, for the dwelling units that face west onto the land owned by the Poudre School District, please be aware that the District may intend to fence their property for security purposes. Fronting units onto a fenced school property may not be desirable unless the front yards are enlarged. Response: Site plan has been revised and now these units back to the school district. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: In Phases Two and three, the internal north-south trail terminates at the south end into an alley. This trail would be more useful if it continued south to Garganey Drive. Response: See revised site plan. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The street name “Cherryhurst” along the west side of the site may need to be changed to “Turnberry” in order to accommodate the future extension of Turnberry Road from the north as part of a potential amendment to the Master Street Plan. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The existing approved plan shows a path circumnavigating the wetland/open space area along with landscape improvements. The Major Amendment must not eliminate these features. Response: The proposed plan maintains the wetland trail. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: Both Suniga Road and North Timberline Road are designated by City Plan as Enhanced Travel Corridors. These Enhanced Travel Corridors are uniquely designed to incorporate high frequency transit, bicycling and walking. The design team will need to coordinate with Seth Lorson, Transfort, (970) 416-4320, as to the best locations and other requirements for bus stops. Be sure to allow for bus stops to be tied to the neighborhood with either public sidewalks, connecting walkways or any combination. If Transfort is not serving the area at the time of development, then the developer will be required to escrow funds in order to enable the City or its agents to construct transit facilities at the time transit service is provided. (Please see Section 3.6.5.) Response: We have coordinated with Seth Lorson and Type III bus stops are shown on the site plans. 20 Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: For the Single Family Detached Dwellings and Single Family Attached Dwellings in groups of two (duplexes), per Section 3.5.2(C)(1), any development 100 or more units must demonstrate that there are at least four different types of Housing Models. The enforcement procedure for this standard shall be in accordance with Section 3.8.15. Response: A minimum of four housing models will be provided for both single family detached and single family attached dwellings in groups of two. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: For Single Family Attached containing more than two dwelling units, per Section 3.5.2(C)(2), any development containing more than five buildings (excluding clubhouse/leasing offices) must include at least three distinctly different building designs. Further, no similar buildings can be placed next to each other along a street or street-like private drive. Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape. Response: Two different building models are being provided for Single Family Attached (2-story and 3-story buildings). Additional variation is provided through different groupings of both the 2 and 3-story units (groupings range from 3-5 units). Townhouse units are similar in two locations on the proposed site (around the medians), which is intended to provide a cohesive look to this space. We feel that variation in these locations would detract from the aesthetics and end up looking overly complicated. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/04/2018 01/04/2018: If the applicant is considering a fifth housing type (Section 4.5(D) (2)(a-d), this would be found to enrich the housing diversity across the neighborhood above and beyond the minimum required. By itself, the fifth housing type would not have to be provided at a minimum of 5% of the total, however, when combined with the fourth housing type, the two must comply with (or exceed) the 5% required minimum. Response: A fifth housing type is not being proposed at this time. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Master plan and criteria compliance (site specific comment): The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Dry Creek Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. This site was previously designed and approved as the Waterfield Third Filing, with the approved drainage report dated August 1, 2014. Response: The same drainage patterns that were proposed for Waterfield Third Filing are still being maintained. The drainage design does follow the Dry Creek Master Drainage Plan as well as the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 21 12/29/2017: Documentation requirements (site specific comment): An updated drainage report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMP Response: An updated drainage report and construction plans were submitted with this package. The drainage report does address the four-step process for selection structural BMP within the narrative. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Stormwater outfall (site specific comment): The stormwater outfall for this site is through the Waterfield PUD First Filing detention pond and siphon outfall below Lake Canal. Please note that your proposed site plan for Phase 1 Concept B appears to overlap with the existing detention pond that is located on the north side of Vine Drive and west of Merganser. The detention pond configurations may be modified as long as required capacities and release rates are maintained. Also please note that the existing detention pond may need to be brought up to current standards using current rainfall data. Response: The ponds have been reconfigured but they still meet the required capacities at the historic release rates. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Detention requirements (site specific comment): Onsite detention is required for the runoff volume difference between the 100-year developed flow rate and the 2-year historic release rate. In the Dry Creek basin the two year historic release rate is 0.2 cfs/acre. Response: Onsite detention is provided and is releasing at the Dry Creek 2-year historic release rate of 0.2 cfs/acre Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Detention drain times (standard comment): Per Colorado Revised Statute §37-92-602 (8) that became effective August 5, 2015, criteria regarding detention drain time will apply to this project. As part of the drainage design, the engineer will be required to show compliance with this statute using a standard spreadsheet (available on request) that will need to be included in the drainage report. Upon completion of the project, the engineer will also be required to upload the approved spreadsheet onto the Statewide Compliance Portal. This will apply to any volume based stormwater storage, including extended detention basins. Response: This spreadsheet will be included with first round FDP. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Standard water quality requirements (standard comment): Fifty percent of the site runoff is required to be treated using the standard water quality treatment as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3-Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms- guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method 22 selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. Response: 54% of the site is being treated using LID features and the remaining 46% through traditional water quality features. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: LID requirements (standard comment): Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are required on all new or redeveloping property which includes sites required to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment with one of the two following options: 1. 50% of the newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. 2. 75% of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques. Response: The above criteria has been met and is explained in detail with the Preliminary Drainage report. Thrive is treating 54% of new impervious area via Rain Gardens and Bio-Swale. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Inspection and maintenance (standard comment): There will be a final site inspection of the stormwater facilities when the project is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for on-going maintenance of all onsite drainage facilities will be included as part of the Development Agreement. More information and links can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we- do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-impact-development Response: Noted Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Fees (standard comment): The 2017 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $8,217/acre for new impervious area over 350 square feet and there is a $1,045/acre of site review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment- development-fees or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970) 416-4252 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Response: 23 Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017 12/21/2017: Erosion Control has no issue with the proposed changes in either option. Erosion Control Materials (Report, Plan, and Escrow) will need to be updated and accepted to reflect these proposed changes along with the Development Agreement will need to be amended to reflect the Escrow amount changes once accepted. If issues arise when pulling applicable building permits please email erosion@fcgov.com to ease getting these signed off. 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: Erosion Control Plan will be submitted with the first round FDP as well as a SWMP Report. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: As of January 1, 2015 all development plans are required to be on the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please make your consultants aware of this, prior to any surveying and/or design work. Response: NAVD88 is now being used. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: When submitting a replat for this property/project, addresses are not acceptable in the Subdivision Plat title/name. Response: Noted Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Tim Tuttle, , TTUTTLE@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: With the significant increase in dwelling units a new traffic impact study will be required. Please have your traffic engineer contact me to scope the study. Response: A revised base assumptions form was sent to the city and we discussed the revised scope of the traffic study. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The intersection at Timberline and Vine is expected to be signalized and recent developments in the area are being asked to provide a proportional amount of funding. Response: Mitigation for the signal will be determined through discussions with City staff. Response: Acknowledged. 24 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The approved ODP shows the intersection of Garganey Drvie and Timberline as a right-in-right-out. The new proposed design appears to show a full movement intersection, further discussions about this intersection will be needed. Response: The intersection of Garganey Drive and Timberline is currently being shown as a right-in right-out intersection. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: It appears that guest parking is limited and it would be a long walk for some lots to available parking. Response: The guest parking has been increased throughout the site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: The design of north end of Merganser will need further evaluation for how the "roundabout" would function. Response: The site plan has been revised to eliminate the roundabout. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Other service district (site specific comment): This project site is located within the East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District and the Boxelder Sanitation District for water and sewer service. Please contact them for development requirements. Response: Noted. Both ELCO and Boxelder’s development notes can be found on sheet C0.02 Department: Zoning Contact: Missy Nelson, , mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: LUC 3.2.2(5)(a) Please design for directness and continuity with walkways. They should continuously connect areas from origin to destination. How will all the neighborhoods be accessing the parks, school and neighborhood center? Response: Walks have been provided throughout the site to connect features through the boundaries of the entire ODP. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Please provide typical setback detail for each housing type (single family detached, attached and duplexes). Response: A typical setback detail has been provided for all housing types. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Please submit a building phasing plan for the development. Response: A building phasing plan will be provided in a future submittal. 25 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: The renderings do not match up with the other plans. For example, Suniga is called New Vine on the site plan and plats, rendering shows a clubhouse and lot configurations do not match. Response: See site plan included in this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Site plan will need to be submitted with the MJA Response: A site plan has been submitted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Landscape plan will need to be submitted with the MJA Response: A landscape plan has been submitted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: Elevations will need to be provided for all buildings except for the single family detached, attached and duplexes. Response: Elevations have been provided for all single family units. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: LUC 3.5.3(C)(2) Streetfront buildings in the Neighborhood Center and School should be oriented to the street with no vehicular use between building faces and the street. Response: Acknowledged. A note has been added to the ODP indicating this. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017 12/29/2017: The signature block should say “Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Approval.” Response: Signature block has been included.