HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE RETREAT AT FORT COLLINS (FORMERLY REDWOOD STREET MULTI-FAMILY) - PDP180002 - CORRESPONDENCE - 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
July 10, 2018
Linda Ripley
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Retreat at Fort Collins (formerly Redwood Street Multi-Family), PDP180002,
Round Number 2
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.
Northern Engineering, Landmark Properties, W&A Engineering, Delich Associates,
Terracon, Ripley Design
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: The applicant has informed staff that the site plan and associated
utility plans will be changing significantly from this most recent submittal. It is
engineering staff’s understanding that this round of review is intended to enable
a discussion, rather than receive detailed engineering design review and that
new plans will be submitted shortly. Although this is the case, please see
PDP-level comments on what was submitted with round 2, below.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Buildings/units for phase 2 cannot be entitled with this project and
therefore lots cannot be platted with this project. As with any phased project,
please provide a construction phasing plan with FDP.
Response: The project is no longer phased as part of the entitlement process in anticipation of the APF ordinance being adopted. A
construction phasing will be provided with FDP.
2
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Public roads are required where cut through traffic is anticipated
(LUC 3.6.2(M)) – per code requirements, public streets should function to
connect the neighborhoods, whereas the street-like private drives will serve only
the residents of the development. Staff understands that public/private layout will
likely change with the next submittal.
Response: Public and private streets have been updated and labeled
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: If this project comes in for construction before Northfield Filing 1
builds Suniga Drive, the construction of Suniga Drive adjacent to the
development will be the obligation of The Retreat prior to issuance of any
building permit, in accordance with Section 24-95 of the City Code. Design of
Suniga in this location should be included in The Retreat’s FDP documents if
the project does not intend to wait for Northfield to construct the roadway prior to
pulling building permits for The Retreat.
Response: Both the design for Suniga and a temporary access are included in the current plan. The design for Suniga is included in
this submittal for reference purposes only.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: The majority of round 1 comments were based on connecting
streets being public – with this submittal, all streets are shown as private.
If/when the streets are shown as public with the next submittal, several round 1
comments may become applicable again and new comments may be given
based on what is shown.
Response: Acknowledged. We have reviewed and updated the applicable comments from round 1.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: No subsurface water evaluation was provided. 04/12/2018: From
Tom Knostman, pavement engineer: Designer needs to do a subsurface water
evaluation to assure that the separation from the water table is greater than
3-feet per LUCASS chapter 5.
Response: Subsurface water evaluation will be provided at a later date. All Internal street have been designed to provide 3 feet from
subgrade to existing groundwater elevations. An underdrain has also been provided and the proposed groundwater surface has
been displayed on the street plan and profile sheets.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Current site layout proposal appears to impact wetlands and
potentially those under federal regulation (along Lake Canal) thus a
jurisdictional letter from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
needs to be submitted. See LUC 3.4.1(O)(1): If a proposed development will
disturb an existing wetland, the developer shall provide to the city a written
statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan
fully complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations established in the
federal Clean Water Act.
Response: Repeat comment.
Previous response: Terracon, our environmental consultant re-visited the site May 20th
to gather additional information regarding
3
existing wetlands after vegetation was emerging on the site. Since establishing the boundaries of existing wetlands adjacent to the
project site, we have expanded our proposed Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (NHBZ) to exceed the minimum area required by the
City’s Land Use Code (LUC). (See sheet 17 for NHBZ delineation, and sheets 12 – 16 for detail planting plan) In addition we have
added native trees and shrubs within the NHBZ to create structural diversity for wildlife species to meet the City’s performance
standards.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Landscape plans, at least for the NHBZ in its entirety, will need to
be reviewed and agreed upon PRIOR TO DEVELOPER SCHEDULING a
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing for this proposed project, especially if the
qualitative performance standards are to be used for NHBZ design rather than
quantitative standards outlined in LUC 3.4.1(E) table.
Env Plan comment #4 July 26, 2017: Thank you! Current proposed site design
seems to accommodate setbacks and sensitivity to on-site natural habitats and
features including the 50 ft Canal Setback, setback of the northwest parking
area adjacent to wetland (beside property), and through inclusion of pocket
stormwater management area features. Environmental Planning will look to
detailed landscape plans further in the process to ensure project planting plans
meet 3.4.1 LUC standards and aligns with the Nature in the City Strategic Plan
and City Plan.
Response: A detailed landscape plan for NHBZ has been submitted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: City staff require more information including full extent and sizes
(acreage) of all wetlands in and adjacent to the site and staff need to
understand any and all encroachments into the 50 ft buffer setback from Lake
Canal (as measured from top-of-bank), in addition to impacts if any, to
jurisdictional wetlands.
Response: A detailed landscape plan for the wetlands and NHBZ has been submitted, that delineates the buffer zones, and
demonstrates mitigation strategies and buffer zone quantities.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Prior to scheduling a project Hearing: the Natural Habitat Buffer
Zone needs to be delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and
landscape plan and clearly shown as able to meet LUC 3.4.1 standards
(whether quantitative or qualitative). See LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i) for
comprehensive list of qualitative (performance) standards for buffers.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Environmental Planning needs another formal round of PDP
review, at a minimum. The following information is needed on the site plan:
A. The total acreage required by the standard quantitative buffers from the
wetlands on and adjacent to the property.
B. Total acreage required for a natural habitat buffer zone through application of
quantitative (buffer table) standards.
C. Total natural habitat buffer zone acreage proposed for the site including any
and all encroachment into standard quantitative buffer setbacks.
Response: NHBZ have been revised to meet and/or exceed all quantitative setbacks.
4
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Note 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 to the NHBZ areas and this must be clearly shown
on photometric plans submitted.
Response: Footcandle levels are indicated on the photometric plan to illustrate how proposed lighting does not spill over into NHBZ
areas.
Response: Landscape has been increased where there is potential for light spillage.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: If the Developer has not yet done so, City staff HIGHLY
recommend consulting with staff associated with the Zero Waste Plan and
Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP) as they are
working directly with local waste services providers to ensure appropriate and
efficient waste and recycling management at large multifamily sites such as the
one proposed at this site.
http://fcgov.com/recycling/wrap.php, contact Jonathon Nagel at 970-416-2701
or jnagel@fcgov.com
Response: We are interested in pursuing the above-mentioned program and look forward to further exploring ways to incorporate it
into our project to the extend feasible.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: Critical path items from Environmental Planning lens:
A. Updated ECS with full wetland delineation using ACOE methods needs to be
received by City staff.
B. Documentation that the jurisdictional wetland determination is in the process
with ACOE by project Hearing.
C. Documentation of jurisdictional determination letter from ACOE and ACOE
sign-off that project meets Clean Water Act requirements is needed by Final
Plan and prior to Final Plan approval.
D. Copy of Nationwide 404 permit documentation needed by City staff prior to
issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP).
E. Narrative explaining and demonstrating on plans how LUC 3.4.1 is being met
through NHBZ design, whether through quantitative or qualitative standards,
needs to be received by City staff prior to scheduling a project Hearing.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/27/2018
06/27/2018: As the Applicant has stated, generally speaking, yes it is accurate
that fewer vehicular ditch crossings is less impactful to wildlife and habitat value
of wetlands and other natural features located along Lake Canal and its role in
serving as a (small) wildlife corridor (e.g. birds and butterflies). Maintaining
wildlife corridors throughout the city aligns with the Nature in the City Strategic
Plan adopted by City Council in March 2015.
Response: Comment noted.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
5
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
6/26/2018:
Continued:
Thank you for adjusting the scale on the majority of the landscape plans. On
page 12, the scale is still set to 100 feet, which I believe should be 30 feet like
the rest of the pages? Please confirm.
4/10/2018:
The scale used (1” = 100’) on this landscape plan is quite large. Please
consider using a smaller scale in the range of 1” = 20-60’ to allow for a more
accurate review. This also significantly improves reading the plans in the field
during planting and permitting.
Response: Landscape sheet have been updated to show a more detailed view of the proposed plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
6/29/2018:
Continued:
There appears to be a discrepancy in species shown on the tree species
diversity table and tree schedule. Please see Forestry’s redlines for further
clarification.
04/10/2018:
Species Selection
Both Deborah Norway Maple and Newport Plum tend to have higher early
mortality and decline problems. Forestry recommends using an alternate
species in place of these two species, such as additional Hackberry and
Catalpa. Please also note that Maples are particularly sensitive to use in
parking lot islands and peninsulas.
Please incorporate Lanceleaf Cottonwood in addition to the already proposed
Plains Cottonwood.
City of Fort Collins Forestry Division is close to reaching the maximum
percentage of Honeylocust in Fort Collins¿ urban forest. During the
development review process, we see it as an opportune time to educate
landscape architects to use fewer Honeylocust on plan proposals. On this
project, there are 50 Shademaster Honeylocust proposed out of 403 total trees.
Please significantly decrease the number of Honeylocust and incorporate
additional Hackberry and Catalpa.
Please incorporate additional Oak species to balance out the number of
Chinkapin Oak. Texas Red Oak and Shumard Oak are good choices. You may
also want to consider increasing the number of Bur Oak on the plans to provide
more diversity.
Response: A revised landscape plan has been submitted. We considered a variety of alternate tree species, decreased the number
for Gleditsia on the landscape plan, and additional oak species have been selected.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
6/29/2018:
6
Continued:
Forestry will re-review this comment at the time of next submittal.
4/10/2018:
There are multiple discrepancies between the number of trees shown in the
schedule and what is shown on the landscape plan. Please update the following
numbers to remain consistent between the schedule and plans.
Deborah Norway Maple (should not use this species): 14 additional trees on
plans
Northern Catalpa: 10 additional trees on plans
Red Barron Crabapple: 3 additional trees on plans
Chinkapin Oak: 2 missing trees from plans
American Linden: 16 additional trees on plans
Greenspire Linden: 2 missing trees from plans
Response: A revised landscape plan has been submitted. All discrepancies should be corrected with this revision
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
6/29/2018:
There are a few locations where shrub bed is proposed in the right-of-way.
Typically, irrigated turf is specified in the city right-of-way as it is easier to
maintain.
4/10/2018:
The symbol for irrigated turf is difficult to decipher on the landscape plans.
Please darken the hatch or use a different symbol. Irrigated turf should be
shown in all City street rights-of-way and areas where trees are planted.
Response: Turf hatch has been adjusted to make it easier to decipher on the plans. Mostly tree lawn has been specified in the
right-of-way areas, shrubs been have been kept to a minimum, see plans for locations.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
6/29/2018:
Continued:
I do not see Bur Oak upsized in the plant list or shown with a “M” on the
landscape plans. Please provide these details.
4/10/2018:
Please update the following tree sizes in the plant schedule:
Canopy Shade Trees: 2.0" caliper ball and burlapped or equivalent.
Ornamental Trees: 1.5" caliper ball and burlapped or equivalent.
Evergreen Trees: 6' height ball and burlapped or equivalent.
In addition, please display upsized mitigation trees in the plant schedule (2
upsized Bur Oak at 3” caliper ball and burlapped).
Response: A revised landscape plan has been submitted. See ‘M’ symbol on the plans that show the tree to be upsized.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
6/29/2018:
Continued:
Please provide a symbol for existing trees to remain on landscape sheets
11-16 and note this on the plans.
7
04/11/2018:
Please show existing trees to remain on the proposed landscape plan.
Response: Symbols for the trees that’s are scheduled to remain have an updated symbol that is also listed in the legend.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018:
TO COORDINATE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING (STEPHANIE
BLOCHOWIAK): please remove all trees in poor or worse condition as they
could pose a significant hazard to the adjacent property and tenants. Explore
the possibility of retaining trees in better than poor condition, however, cutting
them to 6 foot stumps for enhanced wildlife benefit.
Response: Trees in poor and worse condition along the canal are scheduled to be removed. We will continue discussions with the
ditch company and environmental planning to determine feasibility of keeping tree stumps. It should be noted that natural habitat
and additional planting along the Lake Canal and drainage ditch to the north have been strengthened and will provide additional
habitat features for wildlife.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/29/2018
6/29/2018:
Please show all street trees in the center of the right-of-way. Currently, some
trees are shown in the sidewalk.
Response: Trees are now all located within the tree lawn along all the public and private streets.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/29/2018
6/29/2018:
In the Tree Schedule, please use the following headings: evergreen,
ornamental, and canopy shade trees. In addition, please move Hackberry under
canopy shade tree as it is not a flowering tree.
Response: Landscape plan updated to reflect comment.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/29/2018
At staff review on 6/27/18, it was noted that the applicant will be re-submitting
their plans and significant modifications will be made. Forestry will review the
plans during the next submittal and provide an updated list of comments that
pertains to the newest plans.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, , jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/20/2018
04/20/2018: Please provide a wall behind the ADA accessible bins so that they
are sufficiently screened from view.
Response: Screening plan and detail for the ADA accessible bins has been added to plan sheet 40.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: The trash and recycling enclosure on the site plan does not match
the plan enlargement provided on page 40 in the elevations set. Please update
the site plan to reflect the modified enclosure design.
8
Response: The site plan foot print and detail now matches the details and information provided in the elevations.
Response: The walls and platform for the enclosure have been coordinated on the plan and detail sheets.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: What measures are in place to prevent rain and snow from falling
into the proposed trash and recycling containers via the "chutes"?
Response: The platform and “chutes” will be covered. See Sheet 40 for details of this cover.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Is the proposed recycling container intended to be a compactor as
well? If so, please update the label to reflect this as is done for trash.
Additionally, compactors come in a variety of sizes, if a compactor has not
already been selected (and tested to work in the proposed dimensions) please
look at available options and make sure the proposed dimensions will work and
that adequate power can be supplied.
Response: We have been informed by the Internal Services Department that comingled recycling cannot be compacted. The plan
and detail have been updated to show 2-8 cubic yard containers for recycling collection. The 8 cy container closest to the gate will
be loaded through the side and accessed only by the valet service. The rear 8 cy container will be open for top loading from the
platform and accessed either by residents or the valet service. The rear container will be located under the cover proposed to
address comment #9.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: On the same page as the plan enlargement and elevations for the
trash and recycle enclosure please provide a plan view of the proposed "trash
room" in the clubhouse. This should show overall dimensions, adequate
pedestrian access, and all proposed bins for trash and recycling labeling the
capacity of each.
Response: Plan sheet 40 focuses on the exterior trash/recycling enclosure. Please see plan sheet 32 for information on the
clubhouse residential trash room including overall dimensions, ADA access, and proposed bin capacities and locations.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: On the same page as the plan enlargement and elevations for the
trash and recycle enclosure please provide a sample plan view of where
residential units will be placing their trash and recycling for collection. This
cannot interfere with any emergency exit or pedestrian pathway. This location
and the types of bins used will need to be approved by Poudre Fire Authority.
Response: The sample plan view is provided on plan sheet 40. The concrete pad will be located adjacent to sidewalks and out of
the main path of egress. We will coordinate with PFA for approval of the bin manufacturer closer to the time of purchase.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: On the same page as the plan enlargement and elevations for the
trash and recycle enclosure please provide narrative explaining the valet
collection service, indicating what staff will be responsible for and how often this
service will be provided.
Response: The requested narrative has been added to plan sheet 40.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Currently the proposed ADA accessible bins at the back of the
9
enclosure are labeled as "ADA trash receptacles". Recycling must be provided
in this location as well, please either add additional bins for recycling or update
the label to reflect that both will be provided.
Response: The label has been updated. One trash and one recycling bin will be provided at this location. On-site management will
monitor the bins and move refuse to the large trash/recycling containers as required.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: On the trash and recycling enclosure "Short Side Dumpster
Elevation" I see a label for "19". No material is listed for "19" and from the
drawing it appears to be the same as material "4". Please update the label or
add the material type for "19"
Response: The label has been updated to reflect the correct material type.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Light and Power has single phase electric facilities stubbed to the
north edge of the property from Mullen Dr. We also have conduit stubbed at the
proposed Suniga/Redwood intersection that will extend down Suniga. This stub
will have 3phase electric that can be extended into the site.
Response: Proposed location of electric lines show connection to Mullein Dr and the 3 phase electric at the Suniga/Redwood
intersection.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges
and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this
development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate
of charges and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light &
Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for
installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front
clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. Please show
proposed transformer locations on the utility plans
Response: Transformer location will be coordinated with final design.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and
Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. If
electric meters are to be ganged, please gang the meters on one side of the
10
building, opposite of the gas meters. All buildings larger than a duplex and/or
200 amps is considered a commercial service, therefore the owner is
responsible to provide and maintain the electrical service from the transformer
to the meter bank. Please show proposed electric meter locations on the plans.
Response: Electric Meter location will be coordinated with final design.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
Commercial service information forms (C-1 form) and a one line diagrams will
need to be completed for all commercial meters and each multifamily building
and submitted to Light & Power Engineering. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: The final alignment of the trail through the Retreat and Northfield
projects has yet to be determined. Park Planning & Development proposes to
work with the developers to determine the best alignment along the Lake Canal,
including the location of crossings of the canal, and of the proposed Suniga. At
grade street crossings are to be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Response: Comment noted, coordination with Northfield and Park Planning will continue during Final Review..
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: The final alignment of the trail may be modified to incorporate
future consideration of a grade separated crossing of Suniga. This may require
additional easement on both the north and south sides of the future Suniga to
accommodate access ramps to the crossing. The location and extent of those
access easements are yet to be determined. The location of the grade
separated crossing may potentially be either east or west of the ditch.
Response: Coordination with Northfield and Park Planning will continue.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: The trail alignment is required to cross to the east side of the Lake
Canal at some location yet to be determined. The trail alignment will not
continue north to Conifer, but should be designed to intersect Lemay Avenue
at the north boundary of the planned Northfield project.
Response: Coordination with Northfield and Park Planning will continue.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/04/2018
Due to the fact that a preliminary trail alignment for the regional Lake Canal trail
11
is not available at this time, the dedicated “Public Access and Trail Easement”
on this site should allow the greatest flexibility in final trail alignment. A 50-foot
wide easement would allow for potential alignment meanders or bridge
crossings of the Lake Canal. The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan
recommended right-of-way (easement) width is 50 feet. The minimum
right-of-way or easement width is 30 feet, preferably only for short distances.
Response: A 50’ wide easement is provided.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: Parking Garage
> Parking garage does not meet minimum perimeter access requirements and
will require dry standpipes in the stairwells as an offsetting measure for the lack
. of access.
Response: Dry standpipes will be provided in the parking garage. This will be coordinated with PFA during the building permit plan
review process > A hydrant is required within 100' of the fire department connection (FDC).
Noted. The Utility plan currently shows an FDC for the parking garage near the south entrance and a fire hydrant located within 100’
of this location.
> PFA would like the project team to consider moving the stairwells from the
NW & SE corners, to the NE & SW corners so as to align with the access
drives.
Response: The parking garage layout has been modified per this comment.
> A fire sprinkler system is required if the parking garage meets the definition of
a "closed" structure. An open S-2 group occupancy does not require a sprinkler
system.
Response: The parking garage is an “open” structure per 2015 IBC.
> Should the building's height exceed 30', aerial apparatus requirements shall
apply.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS
> Based upon available information, it appears that several buildings exceed
29' in height. Should any building exceed 30' in height as defined by code,
aerial apparatus access requirements shall apply. Refer to IFC D105 for further
details and confirm.
Response: Understood. The grading plan design intent is that all buildings will be less than 30’ in height as measured from the
lowest level of fire apparatus access to the highest roof surface (the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall).
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: HYDRANTS
Two additional hydrants are required.
12
1. The project is responsible for the infill of hydrants along Suniga and
Redwood. Hydrant spacing along Redwood is satisfactory at this time; however,
an additional hydrant will be required at the intersection of Suniga with Street E.
2. A hydrant will be required on the SW corner of Building KK.
Response: A hydrant has been added to the intersection of Suniga and Morris Street (Street E). There is an existing fire hydrant on
the corner of Building KK on the property line with Redwood Meadows Subdivision.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: PROPOSED GATING OF LUPINE
> PFA would prefer that Lupine Road not be gated.
> If gating is to be allowed, all gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall
be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have
an approved means of emergency operation, complying with the following
criteria:
1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet.
2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type.
3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one
person.
4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times
and replaced or repaired when defective.
5. Gates must be equipped with a Knox padlock that fits the Knox Key system
for Poudre Fire Authority.
6. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for
approval by the fire code official prior to FDP approval.
7. A gate detail shall be added to the construction plans.
Response: A gate with Knox padlock that fits the Knox Key system for Poudre Fire Authority will be provided at the connection to
Lupine. The minimum gate width exceeds 20’. A gate detail with approved locking devices shall be coordinated with PFA at FDP.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: AUTOTURN EXHIBIT
> An exhibit verifying turning movements within the site is required. This is
especially important at bulb-out intersections where the road narrows.
> Minimum 25' inside turning radius to be maintained at all times.
> Minimum 50' outside turning radius to be maintained at all times.
Response: An Autoturn Exhibit has been provided.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: ADDRESS POSTING PLAN
> Street naming to be approved by LETA and city GIS.
> Approval of an address posting plan is required prior to FDP approval.
> Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have
emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall
have the address numbers and street name posted on each side that fronts a
fire lane.
Response: Acknowledged
Response: Comment Acknowledged. Our Team will continue working with PFA to ensure adequate and appropriate addressing is
provided on site.
13
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE PLAN
> The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should
be indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for
sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on
all signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of
fire inspection.
> Sign detail #1418 to be added to plans.
Response: Fire lane and signs will be provided with final design.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: The number and location of bicycle / pedestrian connections to the
future trail will need to be adjusted based on our comments regarding
neighborhood interconnectivity. Keep in mind that bikeways work best when
aligned with streets that have parallel versus diagonal parking.
04/11/2018: Bicycle/pedestrian spurs are needed to connect the project to the
City’s regional trail. It appears that in addition to the public sidewalks along the
two streets that will connect to Northfield, there are four other logical locations
that would serve the overall site. Please provide bike/ped spurs from the ends
of the four parking lots that are adjacent to the regional trail. If development of
The Retreat precedes construction of the regional trail, then a sufficient financial
security must be provided to the City to ensure that these connections are made
at the appropriate time.
Response: The neighborhood trail has been revised to accommodate neighborhood interconnectivity. There are multiple
connections throughout the site that allow bikes and pedestrians to connect to the neighborhood trail in an efficient and safe
manner.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: The applicant response to this comment simply acknowledges the
comment. Staff was rather hoping that comparable project in another
community would be offered so we could attempt to gage the extent of recycling
given the proposed system. Our goal is to encourage recycling especially given
that discarding cardboard is not permitted in Fort Collins.
04/11/2018: We have not seen the singular, centralized trash and recycling
depot, accompanied by a valet type of service, employed in multi-family projects
at this scale. One of our primary concerns is that the recycling opportunities for
multi-family residents is equal to that of single family residents with curb-side
service. Please provide a reference, with contact information, where this
system is up and running in a comparable project in a community similar to Fort
Collins (i.e. student-oriented, cottage-style, in a community with a major
university). The City’s environmental compliance inspector will be consulted to
assist with the evaluation of the proposed system.
14
Response: Applicant conducted conference call with Jonathon Nagle, Andrew Costas (Development Manager), and Becky
Holmquist (Director of Operations) on 4/20/18 to discuss current valet trash system at Retreat at Orlando and Retreat at College
Station as well as the proposed waste management plan for the development. Valet trash operations will support both trash and
recycling pick up. Applicant will consult with Zero Waste Plan and Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program to
incorporate efficient waste and recycling management at the property, to the extent feasible.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: Based on the phase line, 24 of the 46 residential buildings are
included in Phase One and yet only 49 trips are estimated to be distributed to
the Vine and Lemay intersection. Planning staff defers to our Traffic Operations
Department to evaluate this approach.
04/11/2018: The Transportation Impact Study indicates that the Adequate
Public Facilities issue is unresolved. Resolving this issue in a manner that
allows this project to proceed appears to be the critical path from a project
management perspective. At this time, Staff has not received a phasing plan
that indicates how The Retreat complies with current regulations.
Response: Comment no longer applicable. Phasing will not be required in anticipation of the APF ordinance being adopted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: Since the buffer yard is a drainage swale, and undulating earthen
berms would be impractical; a key component of buffering is lost. The
Landscape Plan must include the contour lines as depicted on the Grading
Plan. Additional trees and shrubs may be needed to compensate for the swale.
Trees and shrubs will need to be carefully located so they are on the side slopes
and not on the bottom of the channel. Any plant material located on a 3-to1
slope must be carefully selected.
04/11/2018: Staff is concerned about the lack of detail associated with the
buffer yard. Please identify which buildings along the buffer are three-stories.
Between the fence and any three-story buildings, please install earthen berms to
enhance the effectiveness of the buffer. Also, it appears that the proposed
number of trees is sparse. A denser screen is needed to mitigate the
difference in size and scale between the existing neighborhood and the
proposed project.
Response: Clarification regarding building heights has been added to the site plan in the land use chart. The number of trees has
been increased. Grading for detention and the alignment of a City storm drain prohibit the use of berms in this area, however,
attractive, sustainable fencing and generous landscaping (both deciduous and evergreen trees, and large shrubs) enhance the
buffer zone which averages approximately 60’ feet in width. Note that 25 feet is required by the LUC. The steeper slopes have been
seeded with a native seed that is more appropriate for that kind of landscape.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: Please make sure that the grade depicted in the cross-section
views match the slopes indicated on the Grading Plan.
04/11/2018: Please provide multiple cross-section views so we can evaluate
the effectiveness of the buffer yard and the relationship between the back of the
existing houses and the multi-family buildings.
Response: Sections through the buffer yard have been submitted illustrating existing and proposed buildings, proposed plantings.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: In general, after reviewing the rear and side elevations of the
15
various models, Staff is concerned about the lack of detail, materials and
interest of the buildings that would face the neighborhood. If these elevations
are not improved and upgraded, then there is a greater burden on the buffer
yard to mitigate the impacts of this project.
Response: The side and rear elevations of the various building types were revised per the 5/2/18 meeting between Ted Shepard,
Roger Burgess (Landmark), Mack Furlow (Landmark), and Linda Ripley that was held in order to identify and specify how these
areas were to be modified. Please specify any additional areas that need to be addressed or let us know if this comment has been
satisfied.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: Thank you for providing this detail. Is it the developer's intent to
work with the adjoining property owners to remove any existing rear yard
fencing given that the new fence will provide the same benefit? Also, be sure to
call out the fence on the Landscape Plan.
04/11/2018: Please provide a detail of the fence along the buffer yard. With its
length, staff is concerned about this fence becoming overly repetitive and
monotonous. The graphic indicates that there will be columns but this can only
be assumed at this time lacking a design schematic. Staff recommends that
masonry columns be provided and that they be placed at the property corners of
the abutting lots. Please consider varying the design, height, materials, color of
the course of the fence. Finally, for vinyl fencing, please do not select white as a
color as the vinyl fence industry has not solved the problem with white fencing
causing an unnatural amount of glare.
Response: The fence is now called out on the landscape plans.
Response: Applicant has an open line of communication and has had extensive conversations with Redwood Meadows residents.
Applicant will continue to work with Redwood Meadows residents to come to consensus about removing existing fencing or leaving
in place.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: The second round plan set does not include the Birchmore.
04/11/2018: Birchmore and Fairview - sheets 7 - 12 - it is unacceptable that
the upper floors of the side elevations feature either no fenestration or faux
elements. The Fairview needs a larger front porch. Replace faux elements with
real building components.
Response: The Birchmore elevations were revised per the 5/2/18 meeting between Ted Shepard, Roger Burgess (Landmark), Mack
Furlow (Landmark), and Linda Ripley, but inadvertently left out of the previous submittal package. They are included with this
submittal.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: I'm not seeing any differentiation in the entrances.
Tillman - such a large building needs to feature more variety in the entrances.
Six identical entryways appear monotonous. The lack of fenestration on the
side elevations is unacceptable. Faux elements must be replaced.
Response: A variety of building materials and column types are used at the ground level to help differentiate the entrances. In
addition, the door types have been modified to help provide additional differentiation at the entrances. The fenestration on side
elevations was modified per the 5/2/18 meeting and faux elements have been removed. Please specify any additional areas that
need to be addressed or let us know if this comment has been satisfied.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: There are two #6 - Milledge models next to each other. The
16
differences between A and B appear to be slight.
04/11/2018: There are four instances where two identical models are next door
to each other. These models should be further separated to avoid
repetitiveness.
Response: See site plan for revised building locations.
Response: The buildings were mislabeled on the previous submittal. Building Z is to be a #6 type (Milledge) and Building AA is to be
a #7 type (Lumpkin)
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
06/22/2018: Staff remains concerned about the parking structure. Please
include horizontal reveals, not less than 4-inches wide, on the two upper bands
of pre-cast concrete for additional relief.
04/11/2018: The parking structure will need some further use of other materials
to break up both the horizontal and vertical impacts of the overall mass. Please
consider the use of the cultured stone as the base treatment. The stairwells can
be enhanced as accent features. Other horizontal bands can be differentiated
by use of various materials, colors and textures. Recent parking structures
constructed for student-oriented housing offer other examples of acceptable
design.
Response: It was determined during the 5/2/18 meeting that the upper concrete wall bands should be colored with two different
tones for the two bands. This revision was inadvertently left off of the previous submittal and has been incorporated in the current
parking garage elevations. It is preferred by the development team to implement this option to address Staff’s concerns about
overall mass rather than utilizing horizontal reveals in the precast structure.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Staff is aware that the revised plans submitted on June 6, 2018 for
the second round, may, for connectivity purposes, be considered for further
revisions based on Staff’s letter to the design team also dated June 6, 2018.
Staff intends for this overlap to be addressed with the June 27, 2018 comment
letter.
Response: Thank you for reviewing the request for alternative compliance, and for the letter in response to the request. A revised
site plan has been submitted that addresses the comments received from City Staff.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: As staff noted in our June 6th letter, we acknowledge and support
the significant effort on the part of the applicant and the design team to obtain
the ability to construct a street-like private drive that connects to Conifer Street.
This connection improves overall connectivity to the site in compliance with City
Plan Principles and Policies and the Land Use Code Section 3.6.
Response: The connection to Conifer will be a public, local-connector street as determined through additional coordination with City
Planning and Engineering staff.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Staff continues to support the street access to Redwood Street at
the south edge of the site (formerly called Bellflower on the expired plat). We
will need to resolve the extent to which this street is public, if at all, or where it
transitions to a street-like private drive.
Response: As discussed with the City Toomey, Morris and Hughes Drive will be public streets and Forbes and Hyde Street will be
private streets.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Staff continues to support the public street connection to Suniga
17
Road and we understand that this intersection will be limited to right-in/right-out
only. Please designate this limited movement on the site plan.
Response: Acknowledged
Response: Movement now delineated on the site plan.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
07/10/2018: This comment is superseded by a revised comment as described
in a separate letter dated July 10, 2017. The revised comment will allow for
Lupine Drive to be downgraded to a bicycle and pedestrian access only,
subject to conditions.
06/22/2018: Staff will require Lupine Drive to be extended easterly to serve The
Retreat. We anticipate that the estimated trips on this street will fall within the
range of tolerance for a public local street that features 54 feet of public
right-of-way. The 30.17-acre site is practically land-locked with extremely
limited frontage on the surrounding public street system.
There are City Plan Principles and Policies that call for separate developments
to form a cohesive, integrated community and that neighborhoods are to be
interconnected. Established streets are to be extended. Streets form the
fundamental framework of public space as a critical component of urban design
in addition to moving traffic. These Principles and Policies form the underlying
basis Land Use Code Section 3.6.2(C) and 3.6.3(B, E, and F) all of which
require this extension. Eliminating this connection is not supported be either the
criteria for a Request for Modification under 2.8.2(H) or a Request for
Alternative Compliance under 3.6.3(H).
Response: Please see revised site plan that is included in this submittal. Two Alternative Compliance Requests have been
submitted. One for eliminating automobile connection to Lupine and Mullein and one for providing two local street connections
across the Lake Canal instead of three as the LUC would require.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Staff is open to exploring various options for traffic calming
measures or other urban design treatments that would have the effect of
reducing traffic speeds as Lupine Drive transitions to serve The Retreat.
Response: Since the City staff is now supporting Alternative Compliance for eliminating automobile connectivity at Lupine and
Mullein, the proposed traffic calming measures have been eliminated. Please see revised site plan that is included in this submittal.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Staff supports the reduction in the scope of a full street connection
to the Replat of the Meadows at Redwood P.U.D. Phase One via Mullein Drive
to a bicycle and pedestrian facility only. This is because unlike Lupine Drive,
Mullein Drive was constructed with a narrower cross-section of only 40 feet of
public right-of-way. This width is an obsolete standard that is no longer allowed
resulting in an existing physical hardship. Limiting Mullein Drive to only bicycles
and pedestrians is eligible for a Request for Modification based on Section
2.8.2(H)(3) and, as noted, would be supported by staff.
Response: Comment acknowledged. See site plan for the treatment at the closing of Mullein Drive.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: As noted at Preliminary Design Review, with regard to the spacing
of sub-arterial streets not to exceed 660 feet, Section 3.6.3(F), staff continues to
18
support reducing the number of street crossings of the Lake Canal from three to
two. This is justified under the Alternative Compliance section.
Response: Comment acknowledged. See Alternative Compliance submitted.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Staff will require that Snyder Drive be constructed over the Lake
Canal to connect to the Northfield project and instead down-sizing this to bicycle
and pedestrian only. As mentioned under the comment requiring the extension
of Lupine Drive, City Plan Principles and Policies and Land Use Code
standards include multiple references to individual development projects
providing interconnectivity to form a cohesive, integrated neighborhood and
distributing traffic to multiple points within a square mile section.
Response: See revised site plan that shows two local street connections to Northfield.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Similarly, Staff will require that Meadow Spring Drive also be
constructed over the Lake Canal to connect to the Northfield project but its
alignment may shift to the southwest in conjunction with the street layout within
Northfield.
Response: See revised site plan that shows two local street connections to Northfield.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: On the Plat, be sure to add a key map on sheets 3 – 6.
Response: Key map added to Plat
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: On Landscape Plan sheet 15, Buildings T and S have double
street frontage with the rear of the buildings facing Suniga Road. Staff is
concerned about this appearance in this and other projects. For example, in
both Old Town North 3rd Filing and Aspen Heights / Outpost, buildings along
Suniga front on to the roadway. In order to mitigate this double frontage, the
landscaping between the building and the back of the sidewalk must consist a
denser screen of plant material.
Response: Denser landscape is proposed on the plans, particular attention will be given to the foundations planting and shrubs bed
in this areas at FDP.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 06/22/2018
06/22/2018: Where connecting walkways tie into the trail, please provide a flare
at both the internal (project side) and the external (trail side) so bikes do not
have to make 90-degree turns.
Response: Revisions made to connecting walkways to include flares where appropriate.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: The A.P.F. issue causes the site plan to be divided into two
phases with Phase One showing compliance with Section 3.7.3(F) but with
Phase Two in non-compliance. Staff is concerned that by showing Phase Two
on the P.D.P., and if and when such a P.D.P. is approved, there would be an
implication or expectation that Phase Two has an equal entitlement as that of
Phase One. In order to avoid this confusion, Staff recommends that Phase Two
be removed from the P.D.P. and simply labeled as a Future Phase - Separate
P.D.P. Required. Section 2.1.3 states that if the applicant desires to develop in
two or more separate project development plan submittals, an Overall
Development Plan will also be required prior to or concurrently with the Project
Development Plan. Staff would consider an O.D.P. that is submitted prior to
19
July 18, 2018 to be concurrent with the P.D.P. as revised for Phase One only.
Response: The project is no longer phased. Comment not applicable.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: Utility Plan, C3.00 - Please label private vs public storm pipes.
Response: Private Storm pipe and structures have been Labeled with a ‘*’ on the Utility Plans
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: Utility Plan, C3.02 – The southernmost segment of the NECCO
pipe that goes north to the Redwood Pond is located outside of the adjacent
roadway. This portion of the NECCO pipe also needs to be accessible. Please
consider realigning the pipeline to the roadway for this stretch.
Response: The NECCO pipe has been realigned and runs down Morris Drive and the proposed parking lot north of the intersection
to improve accessibility.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: Utility Plan, C3.02 - Construction easements will be needed for
any improvements that are located directly on or adjacent to the property lines.
Response: Construction Easements will be provided.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: Grading Plan- Please provide updated geotechnical report
information in regards to updated info on groundwater depths.
Response: An updated geotechnical report will be provided at a later date. A underdrain has been provided and the proposed
groundwater elevation displayed on the road plan and profile sheets
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: Grading Plan - There are 5 surface detention basins and 8 different
underground detention or LID chambers located throughout the project. I would
suggest trying to combine some of the underground chambers together so that
you don’t have so many. This is going to be a lot of inspection, maintenance and
documentation for the property owner in the future.
Response: 1 detention pond and 3 LID stormtech chamber areas have been removed to try and simplify maintenance and
inspection.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/27/2018
06/27/2018: We have discussed the potential for an underdrain connection to
the NECCO system for the purposes of groundwater conveyance. There are still
discussions that need to happen internally about the specifics of allowing
underdrain connections to NECCO system, however, because there don't
appear to be other options for underdrain outfall, staff is open to this concept.
Response: Thank You. An underdrain connection has been added to the current plans
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: It looks like your storage curves for the detention ponds need to be
updated.
Response: Storage Curves updated on current plan
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
20
06/25/2018: The surface detention pond located adjacent to building M doesn’t
appear to be included in the drainage report or SWMM analysis anywhere.
Please update.
Response: Building M has been included in Drainage report and SWMM analysis
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
04/11/2018: No ESC Plans or Report were submitted as a part of the PDP.
The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and Sediment
Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan,
an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need
clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions
please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: Erosion and Sediment Control Materials will be provided with FDP
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
06/21/2018: Please reference the FEMA FIRMette you've included in Appendix
E.
04/09/2018: In 'Section C. Floodplain', on the 3rd page of the report, in
paragraph 1, please describe the FEMA regulatory floodplain as being the
FEMA-regulatory Dry Creek 100-year floodplain. Also, please reference the
FEMA FIRMette in Appendix E.
Response: Updated paragraph in Drainage Report
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
06/21/2018: The notes I requested were not added. In addition, the notes
should be added to sheet C3.01
04/09/2018: On C3.00 of the Utility Plans, please add standard notes that
floodplain use permits and no-rise certifications will be required. Please add the
notes on this page and all other applicable pages.
Response: Floodplain permits and No-rise certification notes added to utility plans
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
06/21/2018: This comment was not addressed.
04/09/2018: On C4.01 of the Utility Plans, please add a standard note that
storage of equipment and materials is not allowed within the floodway. Please
add this note on this page and all other applicable pages.
Response: Floodplain permits and No-rise certification notes added to grading plans
21
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
06/21/2018: The elevations at the cross sections are incorrect. Please change
them as show on the red-lined drawings. Also, please adjust the notes as shown
on the red-lined drawings.
04/09/2018: On C6.00 of the Utility Plans, please include floodplain cross
sections, along with stationing and BFE's within the 100-year floodplain.
Response: Updated Notes based on redlines. Removed BFE’s and removed incorrect NAVD 88 elevations
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/21/2018: Sheet C5.07 still has incorrectly labeled Floodplain and Floodway
boundaries.
Response: Fixed Floodplain and Floodway labels
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
06/21/2018: This comment was not adequately addressed. The lines are
shown correctly, but they are either not labeled, or are labeled incorrectly. FEMA
100-year should be used to describe every floodplain or flood fringe boundary.
04/09/2018: The FEMA 100-year Floodplain and Floodway boundaries are
either incorrectly labeled or not labeled at all. Please correct this. Also, there is
a random line that doesn't correspond with any floodplain or floodway
boundaries.
Response: Labels corrected on site plan.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
06/25/2018: A complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
04/06/2018: All plans will be reviewed at the next round of review.
Response: Comment noted.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
06/25/2018: 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.
04/06/2018: 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: Plat has been updated based on redlines provided
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Tim Tuttle, , TTUTTLE@fcgov.com
22
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: The neighborhood to the west has expressed concern about the
additional traffic volumes, discussions may be needed for potential mitigation.
Response: The proposed site plan closes both the Lupine and Mullein connection – mitigating for the need for traffic calming as no
through - traffic will occur.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: It is Traffic Operations understanding that the Phase 1 project
must be a stand alone PDP that does not show traffic volumes and impacts for
Phase 2. Please work with our Planning Department and revise the TIS to
reflect the project that will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Response: Comment no longer applicable. Phasing will not be required in anticipation of the APF ordinance being adopted. A
revised TIS is submitted with this round.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: The Traffic Study has been reviewed and the threshold for
Adequate Public Facilities (APF) has been exceeded for the Vine & Lemay
Intersection. Per the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.7.3, the project
cannot move forward until one of the following occur:
1. The proposed development fully funds the Vine and Lemay Overpass
Project.
2. The Vine and Lemay Overpass Project is funded through other means (City
or Developer)
3. Reduce the size of the development to meet the Transportation APF
Exception.
4. Wait and see if the City of Fort Collins Council revises the code pertaining to
Adequate Public Facilities.
Response: Repeat comment
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: The TIS assumes Suniga Road extends east and connects to
Lemay Ave and that a portion of the site traffic uses the future Northfield access
"A". If the Northfield development is delayed or does not move forward, please
explain in a memo how the distribution and volumes would change.
Response: Repeat comment. A revised TIS has been submitted with this round.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: The TIS shows a phase 1 configuration with 49 trips at Vine and
Lemay which would not trigger APF. However the LOS standards in LCUASS
are not met and discussions will be needed on mitigation and a variance
request will also be need to be submitted for approval.
Response: Comment no longer applicable. Phasing will not be required in anticipation of the APF ordinance being adopted. A
revised TIS is submitted with this round.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/03/2018
04/03/2018: TRANSFORT
23
Thank you for the bus stop pad on Redwood. As we do not know when we will
start service to this stop, please provide a fee-in-lieu for the shelter and
amenities associated. Please contact Melina Dempsey for price and payment:
mdempsey@fcgov.com
Response: Comment noted.
. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/26/2018
06/26/2018: TRANSFORT
The bus pad needs to be accompanied by a bus landing pad in the parkway to
allow for boarding and alighting. Please see Figure 12 and 13 in Transfort Bus
Stop Design Standards:
http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard
s.pdf
Response: The sidewalk along Redwood Street becomes attached at the Redwood Meadows neighborhood. As a result, the tree
lawn in front of the bus pads tapers down to the north. The 5’ connecting walk is now shown on the plans, although it is very short.
See site plan for updated connecting walk.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: C3.01 - Please note, water meters should be located behind the
9-foot utility easement throughout the site and not within the easement so that
they don’t conflict with other dry utilities that will be using these easements. The
curb stop should be within the easement. Repeat comment
Response: water meters have been adjusted to be behind 9-ft easement and curb stops 1-ft within easement
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: Utility Plan, C3.03 – The proposed sand/oil interceptor can be
located within the parking garage if needed.
Response: Sidewalk has been realigned. Sand/oil interceptor can stay outside of parking garage
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: Utility Plan, C3.03 – Please be sure to provide 10’ horizontal
separation between all utility mains. This includes hydrant laterals and private
storm lines.
Response: Fixed 10’ separation between utilities.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/25/2018
06/25/2018: There are several areas throughout the landscape plans that show
trees positioned such that they don’t meet separation requirements from utility
services or mains. Please update accordingly.
Response: Landscape plans now updated to meet separation requirements. All conflicts will be resolved by final.