Loading...
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.