HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHFIELD FILING 1, EXPANDED - PDP - PDP180011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1
January 4, 2018
Jason Sherrill
Landmark Real Estate Holdings, LLC
1170 Ash Street, Suite 100
Windsor, CO 80550
RE: Northfield Filing 1, PDP170041, 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:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2017
12/18/2017: The project did not include the acreage in the TDR Fee calculations. When including
the acreage in the fees an additional $9,637.50 more is due. There was an overpayment of the
ODP fees by $2,000. This overpayment can be applied to this project if desired or a refund check
can be issued. If applied to these fees then $7,637.50 remains due.
RESPONSE: Thank you. See E-mail. Fees amounts have been updated and
paid at time of second submittal
Contact: Spencer Smith, , ssmith@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Per Tom Knostman, Street Maintenance Program: Please make sure to use the
LCUASS Detail 801 for the end of the Suniga Medians
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The medians as presented are in reference to the LCUASS Detail
801
2
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please include all objects, linetypes and hatching used in the plans, in the legend on
the cover.
RESPONSE: Legend has been updated along with legends provided on street sheets.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: The 4-lane arterial typical section shown on the plans does not
exactly match city standard (see redlines). The connector local section is not a standard city
street section and will require an approved variance by the city. A connector local with parking
also needs to have a 28' width on each side of the median.
RESPONSE: The 4-lane arterial typical section has been updated. The connector local section
with the proposed median has 11 ft travel lanes and 8 ft parking, 1 ft wider than ½ of the typical
connector local street section. The roadway layout has been updated to provide 12 ft wide left &
right turn lanes at the connection to Suniga. An exhibit showing the fire truck turning
movements at the private drives is also provided for reference.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: At final: Need to provide all city general and construction notes.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: Existing utility easements are being called out to be vacated on
both sides of Suniga. The typical street section has 15' utility easements and they should be
provided.
RESPONSE: The existing easements are no longer proposed to be vacated with exception to
the southern 15 ft utility/slope easement along Suniga. This easement is proposed to be
vacated since it does not abut the Suniga right-of-way, leaving a narrow strip between the
easement edge and right-of-way. 15 ft easements along the north and south sides of Suniga
are being dedicated with the Northfield plat. To our knowledge, no existing utilities are located
within the existing 15 ft utility/slope easement along the south side of Suniga.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: Schlagel Street appears to exceed the 660' max. length for a
single point of access. A solution may be to include an additional length of Harvest Sun to the
east of Landmark Way, along with the private drive/alley to provide a connection to Snyder Drive.
The additional improvements would need to be included with these plans and the necessary
ROW and emergency access easements dedicated.
RESPONSE: The project is now proposing that Northfield be completed with a single filing.
There are interim/ultimate conditions being proposed with Lemay and the timing of the
completion of the Lemay realignment thought the right-of-way will be dedicated in the interim
condition. Emergency access is proposed at the connection to Lemay under the interim
condition. Please reference the street plan and profile sheets.
3
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: The proposed accesses to Suniga do not appear to meet spacing
requirements. If spacing less than the minimum is proposed, it will need to be approved by the
city through a variance request. Two full movement accesses from this property to Suniga will not
be allowed. Landmark Way would likely need to be restricted to right-in, right-out. No pedestrian
crossing Suniga would be approved at that intersection.
RESPONSE: Per LCUASS Table 7-3 the minimum and maximum distance between unsignalized
intersections of a 4-lane arterial is 460 ft and 660 ft. Intersections less than 460 ft would require
an approved administrative variance and beyond 660 ft require a LUC modification. The
proposed intersection spacing is approximately 840 ft. From our understanding, movements
along Suniga at the intersections of Jerome St and Blondel St, west of Northfield, are not being
restricted and are approximately 660’ apart. We assume that the movements at Northfield’s
proposed intersections with Suniga would not be restricted similarly.
Pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled intersections have been removed.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Show existing structures, utilities, improvements, etc. on adjacent properties.
RESPONSE: The existing structures and improvements are shown to the extent available. The
existing utilities are shown in reference the utility locates, provided survey, and record documents
available. Please let us know if there is something not shown. Aerial imagery can be provided to
show off site structures.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Include barricades at alley connections that are future phases.
RESPONSE: Future phases have been removed.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Identify the pipe material for the storm drain running trap. Also, we will probably need
to specify that the joints within ROW will need to be watertight for all of the running traps.
RESPONSE: ADS HP Storm pipe (https://www.ads-
pipe.com/sites/default/files/Specification_ADS_HP_STORM_12in_to_60in_PIPE_2017.pdf) is
being proposed for the running traps. Watertight joints are also proposed. Reference the
conceptual detail provided in the utility plans.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/03/2018: Update: Trail location to be determined at a later time. Parks will require this
applicant to just provide an adequate easement on their side of the ditch in the event that the trail
is located there.
RESPONSE: Regional trail access easements are being dedicated with the Northfield plat along
the trail alignments as coordinated with Park Planning
4
01/02/2018: Please show the location of the regional trail that is to be provided along the Lake
Canal. We will need to know how this is intended to cross Suniga, also. Please provide some
information on the plans.
RESPONSE: It was requested that Northfield doesn’t show the regional trail as the location will
be determined in the field. The regional trial crossing Suniga was discussed to occur on the
east side of Lake Canal.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018 01/02/2018: PRIOR TO
FINAL: Not sure if it is okay to vacate the existing utility easement along the north side of Suniga.
This needs to be confirmed by city water/wastewater.
RESPONSE: The existing easements are no longer proposed to be vacated. Please reference
the response from Comment Number 6.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Show the location of relocated waterline appurtenances in medians.
RESPONSE: The relocated waterline appurtenances in medians will be detailed with the
preparation of the Final Compliance Plans.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
Adjust median nose in Landmark Way to allow pedestrian crossing.
RESPONSE: The median noses have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Is there a delineation of the future FEMA floodplain associated with the NECCO
improvements? It would be nice to see this future delineation on these plans, if it is available.
RESPONSE: The FEMA floodplain shown does not reflect the NECCO improved floodplain. The
proposed floodplain limits were provided though the floodplain is reduced such that it doesn’t
show on the plan sheets.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Roadway profiles need to be provided for off-site extensions (per LCUASS).
RESPONSE: Roadway profiles extending offsite will be shown on the Final Compliance Plans
per LCUASS requirements.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Pavement section note refers to geotechnical study for preliminary pavement section
designs. The study does not include arterial sections.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The preliminary pavement sections shown in the East Vine
Relocation plans, prepared by Ayres Associates, dated February 2009, has been referenced for
cost estimating. The section shows 10” HBP, 6” ABC, 12” Fly Ash Stabilized Subgrade.
5
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please identify and call out proposed crosspans on plans. Midblock pans need to
meet standards for midblock plans per LCUASS.
RESPONSE: Crosspan widths are identified. Midblock crosspans are 12 ft wide per LCUASS.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: Lemay will remain an arterial in the interim condition. Unless the
future accesses to Lemay are going to be restricted until after Lemay is realigned, we will need to
design and evaluate as an arterial as well as the proposed local section.
RESPONSE: Lemay is being proposed with an interim and ultimate condition. The interim
condition does not have any roadway connections with exception to Suniga. The ultimate
condition is when the Lemay re-alignment is complete and the existing Lemay will be terminated
into Northfield with a widened 90° turn. The roadway is designed to the posted speed limit of 35
mph.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Need to be able to see entire sight distance triangle linework in order to measure
lengths and verify that they meet criteria. There are some that look like they are not per criteria.
Please double-check and adjust as necessary.
RESPONSE: Please reference the Sight Distance Exhibit included in the plan set.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Where you are ending phase 1 roads, short of ultimate condition, please show the
interim grading tie ins. Also, there are instances where you end the proposed grade at a tee
intersection or the property line and show proposed grade ending with no tie to existing or
proposed grade (see redlines).
RESPONSE: Roadway terminations are shown.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: The private drive/alley connections to Landmark Way look pretty
tight. Please provide turning movement exhibits to show that larger trucks and emergency
vehicles will be able to make the turns. This may not be an issue when the road section is
widened to 28' standard.
RESPONSE: Please reference the response to Comment Number 4.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please see redlines for additional comments and for clarification of these written
Comments.
RESPONSE: Redlines have been addressed.
6
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: There will need to be some additional
coordination between the applicant, their consultants and city staff regarding
accesses and the interim/ultimate configuration of Lemay, as well as timing of
the Lemay realignment. City staff also requests that the applicant attempt to
coordinate with land owner on the east side of Lemay regarding ultimate
access locations as much as possible.
RESPONSE: Please pass along any comments/concerns
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Include note regarding landscape responsibilities in public ROW.
RESPONSE: Landscape within ROW will be maintained by HOA
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: Need to provide regional trail easement along
Lake Canal.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and provided.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: Ditch company needs to sign for ditch
easement.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: Need to provide an access easement to lots
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The offsite access easement will be dedicated by separate
documents prior to FCP approval.
7
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: ROW will need to be dedicated along Lemay
as necessary to accommodate improvements.
RESPONSE: The existing Lemay right-of-way is 80 ft wide with 50’ of the right-of-way being
dedicated west of the section line towards Northfield. No additional right-of-way should be
needed.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: I believe Suniga should be "E. Suniga Road", rather than "Suniga
Drive". Please confirm and revise street label.
RESPONSE: The street name has been corrected.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please call out and dimension emergency access easement on
Sheet 4 (see redlines).
RESPONSE: Easements are dimensioned
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Need to confirm with all appropriate city departments regarding existing utility
easement vacations along Suniga. Also, there needs to be the standard 15' utility easement along
both sides. I don't believe the blanket easement proposed is adequate.
RESPONSE: 15 ft utility easements are proposed along the north and south
sides of Suniga. Reference the response to Comment Number 6.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: PRIOR TO FINAL: Please see redlines for additional comments and for clarification
of these written comments.
RESPONSE: Redlines are addressed.
Topic: Reports - Soils, Subdrain
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Groundwater depths are stated as being between 10 and 13' on p.12 and between 3
and 7' on p. 6 and 8, as well as the soil boring logs.
RESPONSE: This error has been noted and the correct GW depths are
between 3 and 7 ft.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: No preliminary pavement design was provided for arterial roadway sections.
8
RESPONSE: Please see the response to Comment Number 18
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Can the pedestrian ramps be aligned at the west side of the Harvest Sun/Landmark
Way intersection? See redlines.
RESPONSE: Roads and walks have been revised
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There is a discrepancy between an easement dimension and it's call out (see SP9).
RESPONSE: Dimensions / labels have been redone
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: See redlines for drafting, labeling, etc. comments.
RESPONSE: Notes and labels have been redone
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: ECS verified that no current active black-tailed prairie dogs or evidence of any prairie
dog mounds active or abandoned within proposed development project area.
RESPONSE: Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: ECS confirmed that highest ecological value at the site is at and along Lake Canal
with the remainder of the proposed development site dominated by non-native smooth brome and
alfalfa in addition to several noxious and non-noxious weedy vegetation species.
RESPONSE: Noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - Ensure ditch top of bank line is clearly and accurately labeled
(aligns with topo) on all sheets showing the natural habitat buffer zone. Per City LUC: Buffer zone
distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to topography; stream corridors,
lakes, reservoirs and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be measured from the top of bank toward
9
the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of land (3.4.1). LUC defines “top of bank” as “the
topographical break in slope between the bank and the surrounding terrain; when a break in slope
cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank.”
RESPONSE: Ditch top of bank has been labeled and delineated on all
corresponding sheets.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to be delineated in its
entirety and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plans. Use a distinct outline and/or
hatching.
RESPONSE: Natural Habitat Buffer Zone has been delineated on all
corresponding sheets.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - On site and landscape plans identify location of Lake Canal and
associated wetlands including sandbar willow cluster identified on ECS Figure 1
RESPONSE: Lake Canal has been identified on all associating plans.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - Add a table to the site plan that includes the following information:
A. Amount of buffer area that would be required by a 50' buffer from the ditch
top of bank.
B. Amount of buffer area provided on these plans.
C. Minimum buffer distance (if buffer varies at times less than or more than
50ft).
D. Maximum buffer distance (if buffer varies at times less than or more than
50ft).
E. Average buffer distance (if buffer varies at times less than or more than 50ft).
RESPONSE: There are no improvements within the 50’ buffer yard.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: By Final Plan - Add Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans showing the
natural habitat buffer zone.
RESPONSE: Understood. Will revise at that time
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - Please verify there is no encroachment of buildings into the 50ft
natural habitat buffer zone (ditch setback) as measured from the top of bank line of the ditch as it
looks rather close in some areas.
10
RESPONSE: Noted and verified.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: By Final Plan – Add more “shrub clusters” within the NHBZ. Shrub clusters of 4 to 6
native and wildlife enhancement shrubs for cover and nutritional resources. Suggested species:
rubber rabbitbrush (C. nauseosus), indigobush (A. fruticosa), common chokecherry (P.
virginiana), american plum (P. americana), Rocky Mountain juniper (S. scopulorum), smooth
sumac (R. glabra), wax currant (R. cereum). Or any plants included in Native Plants list created
by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department:
http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nativeplants2013.pdf.
RESPONSE: Shrub clusters have been added.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: By Final Plan - Note that many Arkansas Valley Seed “native mixes” are not actually
considered native mixes by City of Fort Collins nor would a mostly cool season “native turf grass”
mix be appropriate or approved for the natural habitat buffer zone area.
RESPONSE: A suggested native grass seed mix has been provided.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: By Final Plan - Currently unclear if the native grass mix you have proposed is
compatible with the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone as percent breakdown of each species has not
been provided. A list of recommended species will be provided at the review meeting. Otherwise,
acceptable mix examples for the purpose of the NHBZ include: Western Native Seed High Plains
Foothills Meadow Mix; Western Native Seed Shortgrass Prairie Meadow Mix; Pawnee Buttes
Seed Inc. Foothills Native Mix; Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc. Native Prairie Mix.
RESPONSE: A suggested native grass seed mix has been provided, as has
the breakdown of each grass within the mix.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: By Final Plan - The explicit native seed mix list will need to be
included on the Landscape Plans including scientific names, percent each
species contributes to the mix and category of native grass (warm or cool),
along with drill seed rate (or broadcast seed rate). Drill seed rate should be at
least 15lbs/acre.
RESPONSE: A suggested native grass seed mix has been provided, as has
the breakdown of each grass within the mix.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: By Final Plan - Add the following to Landscape Plan Notes:
NATIVE SEED MIX NOTES
11
1. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE
SEED MIX SPECIES THROUGH AERATION AND ADDITION OF
AMENDMENTS, THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED
EVENLY OVER ENTIRE AREA.
2. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.
3. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED
(STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT
SHALL NOT BE USED).
4. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED
APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN ½ INCH DEPTH. FOR
BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE
SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE
FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES.
5. TREAT NATIVE SEED MIX AREA PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SEED
WITH APPROPRIATE HERBICIDE TO PROACTIVELY MITIGATE
HERBACEOUS WEED SPECIES GROWTH DURING ESTABLISHMENT
PERIOD THEN AFTER APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD APPLY NATIVE SEED
AS CALLED FOR ON APPROVED PLANS.
6. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED
STRAW OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS AND PROVIDED
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER
IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS
NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER.
8. THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN
A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING
OCCURS IN NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS DO NOT MOW LOWER
THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT
GROWTH.
9. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN
SEVENTY PERCENT TOTAL COVER IS REACHED WITH NO LARGER
THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED
ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES.
RESPONSE: Notes have been added.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - Remove Note #17 on page LS10 as this is not the standard
approach or agreement. If I am unaware of a special agreement between this developer and City
12
Stormwater then let’s discuss in person during Staff Review meeting on January 3, 2018.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - Remove Note #18 on page LS10 and replace
exactly with this standard note: "The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to
be maintained in a native landscape."
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - Remove Note #19 on page LS10 and replace
exactly with this standard note: "See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for
allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This will help preserve
the intention behind the NHBZ into the future.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Prior to Hearing - Ensure the aforementioned Notes are also included on all sheets of
the site, landscape, photometric and utility plans that show the delineated natural habitat buffer
zone. (“The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape.” “See
Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.”)
RESPONSE: Notes have been added.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: By Final Plan - Currently it is not entirely clear to me that zero light spillage is
estimated to occur in natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ). Clearly delineate the NHBZ and ensure
zero foot candles in this area. 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."
RESPONSE: Understood. Please review updated plan
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Thank you for selecting 3000K or less LED for outdoor lighting in luminaire schedule
and thus supporting Resolution 2016-074 City Council Intent and General Policy Regarding Night
Sky Objectives.
RESPONSE: Thanks
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/21/2017
12/21/2017: Thank you in advance for attention to details as this cooperation makes the
13
development review process much smoother and more expedient for all diverse stakeholders
involved.
RESPONSE: You are welcome.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Please contact City Forestry to schedule an on-site meeting to obtain tree inventory and mitigation
information, which is to be included on the landscape plans.
RESPONSE: Site walk for tree inventory was conducted in June with Molly.
No existing trees were found on site
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Are the internal streets (Landmark Way, Schlagel St, Harvest Sun St, Pioneer Trail Rd, Meadow Spring
Dr, Snyder Dr) public or private streets?
RESPONSE: There are both internal public and private streets.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Please show location of any stop signs and street lights. Identify these fixtures with a distinct symbol in a
legend on the landscape plans. There appears to be some street lights shown on the plans with canopy
shade trees proposed closer than 40 feet. Adjust tree spacing as follows or swap out shade trees for
approved ornamental trees in these locations.
Stop Signs: 20 feet from sign
Street Light: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees
RESPONSE: Street signs and stop lights will be provided for final submittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Species Selection:
- Red Oak is not on the City of Fort Collins Street Tree List. Northern Red Oak does not
reliably survive or thrive in Fort Collins soils. Please incorporate tree species that are approved
on the Street Tree List, such as Texas Red Oak, Shumard Oak and Chinkapin Oak. Additionally,
replacing Red Oaks on private property with an adaptable species is recommended.
RESPONSE: Updated.
- 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
14
an opportune time to educate landscape architects to use fewer Honeylocust on plan proposals. On
this project, there are 51 Honeylocust proposed out of 320 canopy shade trees. Please significantly
decrease the number of Honeylocust and incorporate additional Hackberry, Kentucky Coffeetree,
Catalpa, and other oak species (Texas Red, Shumard, Chinkapin). In addition, Imperial Honeylocust do
not thrive that well in Fort Collins. If you chose to keep some Honeylocust on the plans, please use
Shademaster or Skyline.
RESPONSE: Honeylocust have been removed.
- Please incorporate additional ornamental trees. The plans show a high number of Royal
Raindrops Crabapple in comparison to the other ornamentals proposed. Other ornamental
trees to consider include, Red Barron Crabapple, Thunderchild Crabapple, ‘Rocky Mountain
Glow’ Bigtooth Maple, and Suckerpunch Chokecherry.
RESPONSE: More ornamentals and a varied quantity of each has been
incorporated.
- Royal Red Maples tend to have higher early mortality and decline problems. Forestry
recommends using an alternate species in place of these trees, such as Hackberry or Catalpa.
RESPONSE: This plant has been removed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Please show method of transplant (B&B) and caliper size of all trees in the plant list.
RESPONSE: Updated; these notes are shown on the first and last pages of
the landscape sheets.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Please adjust the spread of canopy shade trees. There appears to be too many Bur Oak (15.7%) and
close to too many Accolade Elm (14.8%). Since there are 413 trees proposed on-site, the maximum
percentage of any one species is 15%. Please refer to LUC 3.2.1 D (3) for more details.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
There does not appear to be any Austrian Columnar Pine or Norway Fastigiate Spruce shown on the
plans. They are listed in the plant list, however, they each have 0 quantity shown. Are there plans to
provide these two species on the landscape plans? If so, please update the list and plans.
RESPONSE: Updated.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Please adjust the locations of street tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation. There are
15
(3) trees on sheet LS5, (1) tree on LS6, (1) tree on LS8, and (2) trees on LS9 that are closer than 10 feet
to the storm sewer main line.
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: Updated.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Please explore incorporating additional plant material and trees around
proposed buildings. Also, City Forestry suggests incorporating some larger
evergreen trees on-site, such as Colorado Blue Spruce, Ponderosa Pine, and
Austrian Pine.
RESPONSE: Noted; foundation plantings will be added when final layout is
decided upon.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018:
Please show the City Street Tree Permit note on all landscape sheets to emphasize its importance.
RESPONSE: Street tree permit note has been added to all landscape sheets.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, , jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: The Community Recycling Ordinance (No. 109 2016) requires that
all new multifamily complexes subscribe to recycling service that is at minimum
1/3 of their overall service capacity (total bin capacity x number of weekly
pickups, include both trash and recycling when calculating overall service
capacity). In general recycling containers must be at least 50% the size of
proposed trash containers to meet this requirement. Please make sure
proposed containers meet this requirement and that adequate space is
provided in all enclosures. With 4 cubic yard dumpsters you are likely to need
trash serviced 5x/week and recycling serviced 3x/week. Adding an additional
enclosure could bring this down to 3x/week and 2x/week respectively.
RESPONSE: Understood. Will be further defined during the PDP / FP
Process
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Please provide drawings of the proposed trash/recycling enclosure
showing overall dimensions, widths of service gates and required pedestrian
entrance along with proposed containers and their capacity. Additionally, the
pedestrian entrances on the enclosures should provide unobstructed access to
16
the enclosure so residents can access both containers located in the enclosure.
The current design shows a dumpster immediately blocking their path. Consider
using a door-less pedestrian entrance which will provide safer and more
efficient access for users.
RESPONSE: Please see Elevations
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 3 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
Energy Code for: Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2015 IRC Chapter 11 or
2015 IECC.
Energy Code for: Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2015 IECC
residential chapter.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Be advised that City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2015 IRC require that
townhouses and duplexes be sprinkled.
RESPONSE: Understood
17
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2015 IBC require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler
system in multifamily units with an exception to allow NFPA 13R systems in buildings with no
more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12 dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2
hour fire barrier with no more than 6 dwelling units on each side).
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting with Building Services for this project. Pre-
Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new
projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below.
The proposed project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective.
Applicants of new projects should email scarter@fcgov.com to schedule a
pre-submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans,
floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy,
square footage, type of construction, and energy compliance method being
proposed.
RESPONSE: Understood
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, , akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Light and Power has 3-phase electric facilities at the Lemay and Vine
intersection that will need to be extended into the site to feed the development. Coordination
with the frontage improvements along Lemay will be needed and system modification
charges will apply. Light and Power also has 3-phase electric facilities north of the site that
may need to be extended into the site to complete a loop feed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: 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 development charges and fees:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
18
01/02/2018: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light &
Power. Transformers must be placed within 10ft 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.
Light and Power will need to extend primary lines into the site to feed
transformers. 10ft minimum horizontal separation is needed between all
electric, water, sewer, and storm water main lines. Transformer locations are
needed to determine the electric primary route and to ensure separation
requirements are being met.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The water & sewer services are shown to assist
in locating electrical equipment.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Electric meter locations for all units will need to be coordinated with Light and
Power Engineering to determine final transformer locations. Please show and label meter
locations on the site and utility plans for reference. Gas and electric meters shall be placed on
opposite sides of the buildings.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Gas & electric meters will be shown at final
design
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Streetlight placement will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Shaded trees
are required to maintain 40 feet of separation clearances and ornamental trees are required to
maintain 15 feet of separation clearances from street lights. A link to the City of Fort Collins street
lighting requirements can be found below:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf
RESPONSE: This will be coordinated through the PDP / FP process. See
Lighting plan for additional info
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Commercial service information forms (C-1 forms) and a one line diagram for each
building /meter bank will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for
review. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
19
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development
charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-
and-developers
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, thank you.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
Topic: Easements
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/28/2017
Park Planning & Development has co-located Public Access and Trail easements within other
50¿ ditch buffer setbacks on other projects, in coordination with Natural Areas concerns, and
requests that this easement be overlaid along the Lake Canal ditch buffer on the west property
boundary. We request that the Developer Identify and label a 50¿ wide ¿Public Access Trail
Easement¿ the length of the entire west property boundary to be available for the future trail.
RESPONSE: Easement has been provided and shown on plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2017
The Lake Canal Trail will continue to Lemay Avenue. The 50’ Public Access and Trail Easement
should continue from the west property boundary along the Canal to the east along the north
property boundary (identified on the PDP as Tract G) to intersect Lemay Avenue. The trail
easement north of Schlagel Street should not be located within or directly adjacent to street Right
of Way to avoid 2-way travel along a street alignment.
RESPONSE: Please see site plans
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/28/2017
The conceptual alignment of the Lake Canal Trail in the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master
Plan is not site specific. The final alignment of the Lake Canal Trail from Redwood to Lemay
Avenue has not been identified at this time, therefore Park Planning would like to leave both sides
of the Canal as options for the future trail. This would allow the trail to cross the Canal as
necessary, or desired.
RESPONSE: As discussed in meetings a 50’ Public Access Easement has
been provided and shown on plans
20
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2017
Park Planning & Development is available to meet with the project owners and consultants to
discuss these comments in more depth and to review preliminary documents and/or designs.
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your time
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: EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT
> In order to meet perimeter access requirements for this site, all alleys will require dedication as
an EAE. Currently, only 2 out of a total of 3 alley systems are so designated on the Plat and Site
Plans.
> All dedicated fire lanes shall be indicated with red curbing and/our signage. Signage shall comply
with IFC D103.6. Refer to LUCASS detail #1418 &
#1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing.
> Sign locations and/or red curbing to be labeled on the Site Plan, Horizontal Control Plan, or other
appropriate plan sheets.
RESPONSE: Signage and striping will be shown with final plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018
01/01/2018: TURNING RADII
> IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road
shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. The proposed alley network does not
meet minimum inside turning radii requirements in all areas.
RESPONSE: Please reference the included Emergency Access Turning Template exhibit
demonstrating the fire truck movements through typical private drives.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018
01/01/2018: DEAD-END ROADS EXCEEDING 660'
> The proposed internal Site Plan creates a dead-end exceeding 660' in length as measured
from the intersection of Schlagel St and Harvest Sun St.
> The design team indicated that a secondary connection will be proposed to connect Schlagel
St. to N Lemay Ave in order to satisfy this requirement. Such a connection will need to be
dedicated as an EAE, support 40 tons, and if gated, comply with gating standards of IFC D103.5.
21
> A gate detail will need to be included with final plans. Gate to include Knox Padlock and fire
access signage to be fixed to both sides of gate.
RESPONSE: The long dead end has been eliminated. The interim conditions
associated with Lemay Ave will provide an emergency access connection to
Lemay at the north end of Schlagel Street.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018
01/01/2018: BUILDING HEIGHT
Additional information will be required in order to confirm that the 5, 6, & 8 Unit Brownstones do
not exceed the 30' height limit which would trigger a 26' wide fire lane as previously defined
during the PDR process. This may not be problematic for some of the perimeter units that front
public streets; however, some internal units with no fire access to the front and only rear access
where the building is considerably taller may be at risk. Refer to IFC D105.1 for specific details.
RESPONSE: 26 ft wide fire lanes and emergency access easements are provided within units
exceeding the 30 ft height limit.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/01/2018
01/01/2018: HYDRANT PLACEMENT
> IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: REQUIREMENTS FOR R-2 COMMERCIAL - Hydrants to provide
1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-
foot centers thereafter. This distance is measured along an approved path of vehicle travel.
> The proposed Utility Plan does not currently provide minimum hydrant coverage, especially
as to the M-F products accessible from the private alley system.
> In addition to hydrants within the site, fire hydrants will be required along Suniga and North
Lemay Ave.
RESPONSE: Please review the hydrant placements on the utility plans.
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: On sheet SP 1, please use the housing type terminology in accordance with Section
4.5(D)(2) ¿ L-M-N Housing Types. For example, the Brownstone units are defined in the Land
Use Code as Single Family Attached and Condominiums are Multi-Family. Also, please note that
the P.D.P. shows five housing types, not four. Two-family dwellings (duplexes) are distinct from
Two-Family Attached dwellings. Please adjust the percentages accordingly. If the fifth housing
type is less than 5% of the total, that would not require a Modification.
RESPONSE: Labeling has been revised
22
Comment Number: 2 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,
especially the eight unit building on Block 22. 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.
RESPONSE: We believe we have the characteristics and diversity in housing
types the City is looking for
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: This concern is manifested in that for the Single Family Attached units, the only
available private open space for outdoor gathering within each lot is the front porch. It appears
that for most porches, the dimensions are six-feet in depth and eight-feet in length. With the
private alleys and driveways, there are no other opportunities for outdoor enjoyment such as
patios, decks and small yards. Based on this concern, compliance with Section 4.5(D)(6) “Small
Neighborhood Parks” takes on added importance. This standard requires that either a
neighborhood park (public) or a privately-owned park, that is at least one acre in size, must be
located within a maximum of one-third of a mile of at least 90% of the dwellings.
RESPONSE: Community Clubhouse and Pool is now provided
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please note that Section 4.5(D)(6) includes criteria related to location, accessibility,
facilities, ownership and maintenance and storm drainage.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: In order to compensate for this limited opportunity for outdoor gathering on an
individual lot basis, for the benefit of the Blocks north of Snyder Drive, please provide amenities
and features to the area designated as Park which is also designated as Pond B4 on the Grading
and Drainage Plan. Upgrades to be considered include connecting walkways, a patio area, grills,
movable furniture, picnic tables, pergola or other shade structures, and the like.
RESPONSE: Community Clubhouse and Pool is now provided
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Also, staff is concerned about the potential functionality of this park being depicted as
Pond B4. A detail may be needed that integrates the Grading and Drainage Plan, Site Plan and
Landscape Plan that shows how this park can be effective in providing outdoor gathering
opportunities for the Single Family Attached Residents north of Snyder Drive.Section 4.5(D)(6)(e)
23
requires that when private parks are integrated with storm drainage and detention functions, such
facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational or civic purposes
of the park.
RESPONSE: Ponds are no longer depicted as parks
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: For the benefit of the Single Family Attached units south of Snyder Drive, in the area
labeled Central Park, please add similar features. Please note that this area is also depicted as
Pond B3 on the Grading and Drainage Plan.
RESPONSE: Community Clubhouse and Pool is now provided and graded
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: For the Single Family Attached, please add labeling and dimensions and indicate
legal status (Tract designation) for the areas outside the individual lots. For example, behind the
units, there is what appears to be a 20-foot long driveway but this area is also not labeled or
dimensioned and is located outside the individual lot and is part of a larger common area tract.
RESPONSE: This will be further defined through the PDP / FP Process
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: It appears that all the areas outside the individual lots are dedicated as Drainage,
Utility and Access Easements. Staff recommends that this designation be expanded to include
Common Open Space, or Recreational Area. Otherwise there may be a legal implication that no
other outdoor functions are permitted in these areas.
RESPONSE: This will be further defined through the PDP / FP Process
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: In general, it appears that the outdoor gathering and enjoyment opportunities for the
Single Family Attached residents need to be reconciled with the stormwater drainage system. All
areas labeled as Park are also stormwater detention ponds. Staff will need to further discuss with
the applicant and design team as to what extent the outdoor activities impacted by the stormwater
system. For example, we will need to know the area of the flat surface, the extent of the side
slopes, and the turf treatment.
RESPONSE: Community Clubhouse and Pool is now provided. Irrigated turf
grass is provided in the pond areas.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: With what may be limited potential for these pocket parks, and with the need to
provide outdoor space for the Single Family Attached residents, staff recommends that the front
24
porches, decks and or rear balconies be enlarged to the maximum extent feasible. Please explore
options to increase the dimensions of these areas to allow more options for residents to enjoy the
outdoors on an individual lot basis.
RESPONSE: N/A
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Single Family Attached Blocks 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, and 26, are side-loaded to the
public street, as opposed to facing the public street which requires other design attributes to be
provided. The connecting walkways out to the nearest public sidewalk must be tree-lined. 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: Understood. See landscape plan and lighting plan
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: For these blocks, please be aware that the private alleys may require utility
easements next to the travel lane since not all utilities can be served solely from the front which is
not a street. Staff recommends a Utility Coordination meeting to ensure that there is proper
separation among utilities. For example, Light and Power prefers to be on the opposite side of the
building as Xcel gas.
RESPONSE: Thank you. Utilities will be divided between the front and back
of buildings
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Also, please be aware of the functional requirements and appearance of outdoor
appurtenances such as condensing unit, gas valves, communication pedestals and utility meters
and egress windows and their impact on the common areas. For example, it’s not clear whether
these components will be located on the individual lots or in the common areas.
RESPONSE: These will be coordinated through the PDP / FP process
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: What is the landscape treatment for the front and side yards? And parkways? Will
these areas be irrigated turf? The graphic on the Landscape is not clearly visible.
RESPONSE: Graphics were shown on PDF’s but did not print. We apologize
for the confusion. This error has been resolved
25
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018:
Are there any opportunities to provide landscaping between driveways? This would mitigate the
otherwise stark appearance of the alleys. Such landscaping must not interfere with the width needed for
the Emergency Access Easement.
RESPONSE: Because of the easements this is difficult to provide
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Building setbacks for all dwellings except the Multi-Family are governed by Section
3.5.2(E). The minimum required building setbacks from non-arterial streets are 15 feet for both
the front yard and side yard. There are several buildings that do not comply. For example, Block
13 is less than 15 feet front setback from public street and Block 8 and 20 do not have 15-foot
side yard setbacks.
RESPONSE: Revised. All buildings are setback 15’ as described above
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: The design team may seek Alternative Compliance per Section 3.5.2(E)(2)(a). In
order to evaluate Alternative Compliance, please provide documentation that addresses the
design criteria.
RESPONSE: N/A
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: For the Single Family Attached, please provide a Lot Typical at a larger scale that
provides labeling, dimensions and calls out the legal status of the area outside the lot (the Tract
designation). The ownership model of fee simple per individual lot is clear but the front yards and
driveways are in common areas. This arrangement needs to be graphically depicted.
RESPONSE: This will be further coordinated through the PDP/FP process
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: The Clubhouse needs to be connected to the multi-family buildings with a connecting
walkway. Also, bike parking needs to be accommodated. Are there any off-street parking spaces
associated with the Clubhouse? Since these facilities are often used for events, off-street parking
and loading should be provided.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please label all Ponds on the Site and Landscape Plans with the same designations
as on the Grading and Drainage Plan.
RESPONSE: Tracts have been labeled
26
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Exterior fixed bike parking needs to be provided near the main entrances to the Multi-
Family buildings to accommodate daily activities and guests.
RESPONSE: Please see tables on Coversheet
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: The common walkways between the Multi-Family buildings should be widened to six
feet wide to accommodate a higher number of users than the other housing types.
RESPONSE: Pedestrian spines have been widened to 6’
Comment Number: 24 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. Please verify the size of the block bounded by
Suniga, Schlagel, Landmark and Harvest Sun.
RESPONSE: Blocks do not exceed 12 acres
Comment Number: 25 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. It appears that the block on the east side of Schlagel Street
may exceed 700 feet.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: In the L-M-N zone, Section 4.5(E)(4), includes standards for multi-family buildings
containing more than eight dwelling units. For projects that include up to seven multi-family
buildings that contain more than eight units per building, there must be at least two distinctly
different building designs. The architectural elevation set depicts only one.
RESPONSE: Understood. Please see elevations
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Regarding distinctly different building designs, please refer to Section 4.5(E)(4)(e-h)
which address criteria related to entrances, roofs, facades and walls and colors and materials.
RESPONSE: Understood. Please see elevations
27
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please provide information as to the size of the multi-family buildings. It appears that
these buildings exceed the allowable maximum of 14,000 square feet [Section 4.5(E)(4)(i)]. If so,
please provide a Request for Modification and be sure to address the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H).
RESPONSE: Buildings are under 14,000 SF when garages and common
space are accounted for.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There is a graphic depiction of what appears to be a connecting walkway from
Schlagel Street north to the area of the three properties addressed as 1131, 1123 and 1121 N.
Lemay Avenue. Please further describe this possible connection and what it is intended to
connect to offsite (width, surface treatment, ownership, long-term maintenance).
RESPONSE: Please see site plans and Civil plans for more info
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Regarding the Transfort bus stop, be sure to allow for the bus stop 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.
RESPONSE: The Transfort bus stop requirements will be coordinated and detailed during the
development of the Final Compliance Plans. It is acknowledged as a requirement for final
approval.
Comment Number: 31 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: Building layout has been revised
28
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Existing Conditions and Demo Plan:
There are existing utility and drainage easements that are shown along the north side of the Suniga
ROW that are called out to be vacated. Please note that these are not to be vacated, but that they need
to remain in place.
RESPONSE: The existing easements are no longer proposed to be vacated with exception to
the southern 15 ft utility/slope easement along Suniga. This easement is proposed to be
vacated since it does not abut the Suniga right-of-way, leaving a narrow strip between the
easement edge and right-of-way. 15 ft easements along the north and south sides of Suniga
are being dedicated with the Northfield plat. To our knowledge, no existing utilities are located
within the existing 15 ft utility/slope easement along the south side of Suniga.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Grading and Drainage Plan:
- It is unclear if the infiltration galleries outfall by gravity. These will be required to
at least drain to an underdrain system that daylights by gravity somewhere.
- Some of the detention ponds (i.e. Pond B2, C2) show slopes into the pond
that are located directly adjacent to the building footprints. Is this realistic?
- The retaining wall shown along the north side of Pond B1 will need to be fully
detailed with footer, wall dimension details and safety measures included during
the final design.
RESPONSE: The infiltration galleries are designed to have a gravity outfall and will be integrated
into the storm drain system, daylighting into the detention ponds. The final limits of the pond
grading will be coordinated with the final site plan and will provide reasonable setbacks from
buildings, walks, and other site elements. All retaining walls will be detailed with the final design.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Drainage Report:
- Page 3 ¿ Please use the City of Fort Collins Ti equation instead of the UD Equation 6-5.
RESPONSE: The Ti equation has been corrected.
- Page 3 ¿ Please note that street capacity during the major storm must not
exceed 12¿ depth or extend beyond the ROW or adjacent utility easements.
Please refer to Vol 1, Chapter 6, Section 2.2, Table ST-3.
RESPONSE: The street capacity exhibits and calculations have been updated.
29
- Page 6 ¿ You note that sub-basin A4 is released undetained, but you must
plan to run this basin through the detention pond and release at a detained rate,
just like all the other basins. The narrative on Page 9 notes that existing Lemay
is not required to be detained per discussions with staff. Please note that
existing public roadways are required to be captured and detained where
physically possible. In the case of this sub-basin that also includes much of your
site and includes some building footprints, this sub-basin will need to be
detained.
RESPONSE: All developed basins are being directed to the detention ponds.
- Page 8 – You note that EPA SWMM will be utilized during final design to size
and design the detention ponds. Please note that we recommend EPA
SWMMto be utilized during preliminary to size the detention ponds as EPA SWMM
may result in different required volumes for the detention ponds. If you choose to
wait until final design to utilize EPA SWMM to size the detention ponds, the
ponds will be required to be sized at final according to the SWMM results, not
the FAA results.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and the site will be modeled with SWMM for the
final design
- Page 10 – The LID narrative discusses the use of “below grade infiltration
galleries”. Is this a proprietary system like the Stormtech chambers or
something different? Please note that we do accept Stormtech chambers for
detention and LID treatment, but do not typically accept non-proprietary
systems. This topic may require further discussion.
RESPONSE: We anticipate utilizing a proprietary system such as Stormtech. We
have begun discussions with ADS on assisting the design/specifications of these
systems.
- Impervious Area Calculations ¿ Please reference the CoFC Amendments to
the UD Manual. Also, please note that the City of Fort Collins has not adopted
the January 2016 version of the UD Manual. There are sections of this manual
that can be utilized, but generally speaking, all of your references should be to
the CoFC Amendments to the UD manual as adopted in 2011.
RESPONSE: For preliminary, general % impervious values are assumed in reference
to the CoFC Admendments. Detailed % impervious values will be determined in final
design.
- Time of Concentration Calculations ¿ Please be sure to utilize the CoFC Ti
equation to calculate the initial T.
RESPONSE: The Ti equation has been corrected.
30
-WQCV Calculations ¿ Please be sure that the required quantity detention
volume is added to the WQCV and that the capacity in each of the EDBs is
adequate.
RESPONSE: WQCV is in addition to the detention volume. Please see the
pond summary table within the preliminary drainage report.
- LID Calculations ¿ Please include an exhibit of the site that shows which
basins are being treated with LID and which ones are being treated with
standard WQ. Also, please provide LID calculations for Phase 1 and for the
overall development.
RESPONSE: The LID treatment areas are delineated by the drainage basin
limits and described in the LID tabulation summary table.
Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please revise the floodplain callouts on the Plat to: FEMA 100-Year Floodplain (Zone
AE) and FEMA 500-Year Floodplain (shaded Zone X)
RESPONSE: The callouts have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Show and label the floodplain boundaries on the Site Plan.
RESPONSE: Flood plain info will be shown and coordinated through the
PDP/FP process
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: The 500-year (shaded Zone X) floodplain is due to Poudre River flooding, not Dry
Creek, so will not be modified with the NECCO LOMR. Please add a note to the floodplain notes
that two types of Critical Facilities are prohibited within the 500-year floodplain, facilities for at-risk
populations (daycares, schools, nursing homes, etc.) and emergency services facilities (e.g.
urgent care, hospitals, fire, police).
RESPONSE: The note has been added to the grading & drainage sheets.
31
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/19/2017
12/19/2017: Repeat from PDR also saw note to expect the materials at FDP. 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. With how large of a site this is, it should
be broken up into phases. Also, based upon the area of disturbance State permits for
stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the
erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-
2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: The Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control Report, and an
Escrow / Security Calculation will be provided with the Final Compliance Plan
(FCP) submittal.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Leave space between the text & lines. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018: Please revise the title & sub-title as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The title has been revised.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018: Please change the Benchmark note to the following:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
RESPONSE: The note has been added.
32
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018: Please change the "FILING" references to "PHASE". All of the
property is being platted by Northfield Filing 1.
RESPONSE: There are no longer future phases proposed.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
01/03/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Line over text issues should be resolved.
Comment Number: 23
01/03/2018: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Text over text issues should be resolved.
Comment Originated: 01/03/2018
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: All reference to Suniga Drive must change to Suniga Road.
RESPONSE: The street name has been corrected.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please note this property is within the City, and should be
referenced when a legal description is shown on any plans.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and corrected.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
33
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Number: 13
01/02/2018: There are matchline issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There are spelling issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: 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: All redlines should be addressed.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please revise the legal description as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet
titles on the noted sheets, and sheets missing from the sheet index. See
redlines.
34
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Number: 7
01/02/2018: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: There is bold text that needs to be toned back. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Understood.
Comment Number: 9
01/02/2018: There are matchline issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised
Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
RESPONSE: This will be further revised during the PDP/FP Process
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Tim Tuttle, , TTUTTLE@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please remove the uncontrolled crosswalks on Suniga.
RESPONSE: Uncontrolled crosswalks on Suniga have been removed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please provide a signing and striping plan (can be done at final), including end of
road markers.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Signage and Striping plans will be submitted with the Final
Compliance Plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Review landscaping plan to make sure trees do not block signs.
35
RESPONSE: Striping and Signage plan has not yet been provided
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Traffic Study notes LOS at Vine and Lemay is not met, what type of mitigation is
proposed?
RESPONSE: Mitigation will be determined with the City
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: In the TIS please add the number of seconds of delay to LOS F in operation table.
RESPONSE: Revised in the updated TIS
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please add the Vine and Lemay intersection to Figure 9.
RESPONSE: Revised in the updated TIS
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Please update Figure 5 with the correct site location.
RESPONSE: Revised in the updated TIS
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: Are auxiliary lane storage lengths and taper lengths shown in the TIS or somewhere
in the plans?
RESPONSE: The decal/taper/storage lengths are shown of the street plan & profiles.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: How will interim and ultimate access be provided to the 3 single family homes to the
north? Will current access from Lemay be removed?
RESPONSE: Please reference plan sheets for proposed access.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2018
01/02/2018: TRANSFORT
36
Suniga Road is designated by City Plan as an Enhanced Travel Corridor. An
Enhanced Travel Corridor is uniquely designed to incorporate high frequency
transit, bicycling and walking. East-bound (east of Schlagel) and west-bound
(west of Landmark) type III bus stops will be required. Please see Transfort Bus
Stop Design Standards and Guidelines:
http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard
s.pdf. Please see LUC Section 3.6.5.
RESPONSE: The Transfort bus stop requirements will be coordinated and detailed during the
development of the Final Compliance Plans. It is acknowledged as a requirement for final
approval.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Note 4 on the Utility Plan indicates the use of DR-14 piping for water mains. We
typically use DR-18. Is there a specific reason you’re calling out for DR-14?
RESPONSE: The waterline pipe rating has been corrected.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Note 12 on the Utility Plan indicates plastic storm pipes but the plan itself doesn’t
show where PVC storm piping is proposed. Please note that Engineering typically does not allow
for PVC storm pipes within public ROW.
RESPONSE: The note has been adjusted to specify ADS HP Storm pipe. We will confirm with
engineering if this is acceptable in ROW.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: It looks like there are a few single family attached buildings that are planned or
intended to be serviced with a common private water service line. These should be drawn in on
the preliminary plans so that you can ensure that there will be enough room and separation from
other utilities and/or landscaping.
RESPONSE: Please review the proposed service layout and private 6” waterlines being
proposed to service the single family attached dwellings that have not public street frontage.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Where are you planning to route dry utilities? For a site like this, dry utilities will need
to be indicated on the utility plans, even if the locations are just your proposed locations and have
not been vetted through the dry utility providers yet.
RESPONSE: The proposed water/sewer utility mains and services are shown
to assist in the dry utility layout.
37
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Meters must have a 4’ clear space around them.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: All water services (including fire lines) must be separated by a minimum of 5 feet.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: It looks like there is an existing water service and an existing sewer service in the
northeast corner of the site. The water service stems from the ELCO waterline. What is the plan
for these services?
RESPONSE: the existing water service is proposed to be switched from ELCO to FC utilities. The
sewer service is to remain in place.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: There are a couple of different water mains proposed to cross Suniga Road ROW
that may need to be adjusted in location. Please see redlines.
RESPONSE: The water main alignments have been adjusted.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: The proposed storm line crossing Lemay Avenue looks to conflict with the two
existing water mains along Lemay. This design will need to be reconfigured to meet separation
requirements.
RESPONSE: This still needs to be resolved. It is likely that both of the waterlines will need to be
relocated in the vicinity of the proposed inlets.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: There are 6 “running traps” (or siphons) proposed for this project
site. Generally, siphons are not allowed because they do not meet the gravity
outfall requirement stipulated in the CoFC Stormwater Criteria Manual, and
because of concerns about their functionality and draining properly over time,
and standing water and maintenance. There are also concerns about how to
38
show that these systems meet CRS detention drain time requirements. Please
look into other options such as lowering the sanitary sewer mains, like we had
discussed in previous meetings.
RESPONSE: The site adjustments has reduced the number of potential
running traps. Additional detail has been provided regarding pipe material and
watertight joints. The running trap is proposed to have a perforated manhole
at the downstream end to allow some relief of stored water in the running trap.
The volume of water held within the running traps will be confirmed with final
design but expect it to be nominal.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Meters: Please note that meters 1-inch size and larger are
required to be located exterior to the buildings. Residential buildings that have
the P2904 residential fire suppression system integrated into the water service
are allowed to have 1-inch size meters but these are still required to be placed
exterior to the buildings.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: There are several locations throughout the plans where trees and utilities don’t
meet separation requirements. Please see redlined landscape plans.
RESPONSE: Will review and coordinate further during the PDP / FP Process
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: How will the trash disposal be handled for the development. The 2
trash enclosures near the multi-family "flats" show pedestrian access which
seems to not be functional and accessible once trash and recycling facilities are
included. Please provide an elevation and detail for the trash enclosures.
RESPONSE: See elevations
39
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: Can the driveways for the "brownstones and "flats" be shown on the site plans along
with any landscaped areas interspersed between the driveways.
RESPONSE: N/A
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2017
12/29/2017: The community center is lacking on details. How will this building
be used? The center shows no sidewalk connectivity, no parking area (for handicap and/or loading
areas), no amenities(exterior gathering area, patio areas, fireplaces, bike racks), and I have no
elevations providing more detail.
RESPONSE: Please see site plans.