Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHFIELD FILING 1, EXPANDED - PDP - PDP180011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview September 14, 2018 RESPONSES: 10-17-18 Jason Sherrill Landmark Real Estate Holdings, LLC 6341 Fairgrounds Ave., Ste 100 Windsor, CO 80550 RE: Northfield Filing 1 Expanded, PDP180011, 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: Planning Services Contact: Clay Frickey, 970-224-6045, cfrickey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/14/2018 09/14/2018: Land Use Code section 4.5(E)(4) states that when you have more than 7 multi-family buildings that contain more than 8 units, you must have three distinctly different building designs. To meet this standard, you must provide three distinctly different designs of the proposed 12 unit buildings. Response: Variations have been provided. See elevation sheets and table on sheet 00 Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: In general, staff is concerned that the concept of dwelling units fronting not on public streets but private green belts, or green courts, or walkways, with private alleys serving the garages, is proving to be challenging as demonstrated by portions of this project. As depicted by this plan, this concept is diminished where the width of the green belts appears impractical as 2 usable open space. For example, Buildings 1 -5, west of Schlagel Street appear to lack sufficient green space along the fronts of the buildings. Note that the extent of this green space is difficult to measure as it is blocked by text on both the overall site plan and on sheets SP2 and SP4. If these buildings are intended to front on a feature other than a public street, then such feature must be usable, practical and able function as an outdoor gathering area. As depicted, these areas cannot be evaluated. Response: See typical building plans on sheets SP 13 and LS 24. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Buildings 3a, 5a, 9a, 11a, and 13a, are served by long alleys that will appear stark. Has the applicant considered upgrading these alleys to street-like private drives versus alleys? Are there more opportunities for landscaping? Can additional space be provided between driveways? Response: Additional trees have bene added where possible Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: For the single family attached that do not front on a public street, please provide a Lot Typical at a larger scale with dimensions. Be sure to include the area in front of each unit that may be the small privately-owned front yard. For these units, it will be important that the front porch and small front yard be properly sized to allow for outdoor gathering. Has the applicant considered widening these porches so that their length equals the width of the unit? Why provide a mere stoop if the entrance does not front on a street? Response: Lot typical ha sbeen provide don sheet SP 13 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: For the single family attached that do not front on a public street, has the applicant considered adding side or wrap-around porches for the end units? These features would increase the outdoor gathering area for the end units. Response: N/A Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Comment number 12 from the earlier review is not addressed. For the single family attached that do not front on public streets, will there be person doors to each individual unit along the alley? Adding illumination was intended to address way-finding. It was not intended to be considered an alternative to person doors. This topic needs more discussion, especially for the larger buildings. Response: Discussed further with City and PFA. Walks have been added where needed 3 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: For buildings that do not front on public streets, and where one side is the alley with garages, all three remaining sides must feature walkways. Response: Walks have been added Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: For buildings that do not front on public streets, be sure there is compliance with Section 3.5.2(D). This standard requires that all building entrances must be connected to a public street sidewalk by a walkway that is no less than 200 feet and does not cross a vehicular use area such as an alley. If this cannot be achieved, then a major walkway spine must be provided and cannot exceed 350 feet, also not cross an alley. Please note that Section 5.1.2 includes a specific definition for a major walkway spine. For the multi-family buildings, there must be variation among repeated buildings. For the multi-family buildings that are two-story, variation must comply with Section 3.8.30(F)(2). Three building designs are required. Please note the standard states: Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape. Response: Please see modifications as part of this submittal Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: For the multi-family buildings that are three-story, variation must comply with Section 4.5(E)(4). Please note that Section 4.5(E)(4) states that: Distinctly different building designs shall provide significant variation in footprint size and shape, architectural elevations and entrance features, within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. To meet this standard, such variation shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. Response: Variations have been provided. See elevation sheets and table on sheet 00 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Given the fact that building footprints for both the single family attached and multi-family buildings appear similar, Staff recommends a meeting the architect to review all aspects of the building types and designs to ensure compliance with the standards so that modifications are not needed. Response: Thank you for the meeting it was very beneficial. Variations have been provided. See elevation sheets and table on sheet 00 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Tract I must be upgraded so that it also performs as a buffer yard for the benefit of the Alta Vista neighborhood. Page 35 of the Northside Neighborhoods Plan contains a diagram showing a berm in this buffer area. Additional landscaping is needed. Since it is also a stormwater detention pond, please provide a cross-section so that we can see the depth of the pond 4 and the extent of the side slopes. Landscaping must be carefully placed so as to not be inundated by stormwater. Please coordinate with Planning and Capital Projects staff on how to best achieve the buffer envisiaged in the Northside Neighborhoods Plan along Suniga. Response: Additional landscaping has been provided, and Tract I has become a landscaped bufferyard with berms. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Is there an opportunity for a pocket park south of Suniga Road? The multi-family buildings south of Suniga are not in compliance with the open space requirement in Section 3.8.30(C) of the Land Use Code. You may not cross an arterial street to access the open space provided for the development. You will either need to apply for a modification to this standard or show open space for the multi-family buildings south of Suniga that complies with 3.8.30(C). Response: Per response to Comment Number 10, the bufferyard is acting as a small pocket park with berms and landscaping. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Also, please provide a cross-section for Tract F so we can evaluate the extent of the stormwater pond in this location. Response: provided on sheet SP 13 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: In addition to upgrading this pond, there must be connecting walkway(s) between Alta Vista and Suniga Road. These should tie into either Martinez Street or Alta Vista Street, or both. Please label these streets on the plan sheets. Response: Walkways have been added and roads labeled Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: The applicant is directed to begin discussions with Engineering and Traffic Operations regarding compliance with the recently adopted Ordinance 109, 2018 which allows for an Alternative Mitigation Strategy as a way to comply with Adequate Public Facilities per Section 3.7.3 Response: Thank you Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Please add a table to the cover sheet that indicates the four housing types, their number and their percentage of the total. Response: Table added on sheet 00 5 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: At some point, the applicants for Northfield and The Retreat will need to agree on the names of the two public streets that link the two projects. Response: Street names and names for private drives will be coordinated between now and FP Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018 09/09/2018: Be sure to coordinate with Park Planning and Development regarding the future Northeast Regional Trail. This trail will need an easement. Please be sure that this future trail will not be encumbered by any buildings or other improvements that may interfere with its alignment. Response: 50’ Public Access and Trail Easement is located on plans and Plat Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Dave Betley, 970-221-6573, dbetley@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2018 08/31/2018: Owes additional Transportation Development Review Fee of $2,375. $2,000.00 from an incorrect reduction by staff of the Project Fee in second calculation. $375.00 from additional Non-residential building square footage for Clubhouse. An exhibit of the calculation will be provided. Response: Determined to be only $375 Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Call out and dimension parkway on Connector Local custom section. Response: Dimension now shown. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Revise the ditch crossing alignments per the recent changes agreed upon with The Retreat development team. Response: The alignments have been updated. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: There are some instances of concentrated storm runoff being 6 conveyed across sidewalk within public ROW, which is not allowed. Please revise drainage design accordingly. Sheet flow up to 750 SF is allowed. Response: There are no instances where more than 750 SF drain over the sidewalk. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Private alley intersections need to be designed per City alley and drive approach standards. See LCUASS Figure 7-11F and Drawing 707.1. The private alley/public street intersections in the East Ridge development are a very similar example to use as a standard. City staff can look at what is being proposed in more detail when we review FDP. Response: These are considered shared private driveways or private drives and not public alleys. Detail 7-11F is in regard to public alleys with dedicated right-of-way. Detail 707.1 is in regard to high volume driveways which these are not considered high volume driveways. Detail 706.1 is being implemented with exception to the connections to Landmark Way were radial curb returns are used to accommodate fire truck access. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The offsite access easement to the north needs to be in place prior to final approval of this project. Please provide confirmation of easement recordation prior to then. Response: Acknowledged, prior to final approval. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Confirm that ADS pipe called out for running traps is allowed by Stormwater department. Response: We have reduced the potential number of running traps and will work through the final details with the detailed design. A couple running traps may still be needed and the pipe material can be substituted if ADS is not acceptable. (CDOT is allowing the ADS HP Storm Pipe in their right-of-way) Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: At Final - We will want to see spot elevations and slopes labeled on all pedestrian ramps in public ROW. Coordinate with Engineering on what is being requested prior to submitting final construction plans. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: A modification to the LUC will need to be requested for the proposed spacing of access points along Suniga Rd. Response: To our knowledge, this comment has been removed. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: At Final - Provide elevation and slope information for the proposed access road that connects off-site, to the north of the site. 7 Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: There are a few areas where the proposed drainage basin linework looks incorrect (see redlines). Response: The basins have been corrected. The detailed delineation of the basins and sub basins will occur during final design. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: At Final: Suniga road will be designed to the City's modified 4-lane arterial section (final typical section to be provided by City) Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Please confirm prior to proceeding to FDP, that there are no conflicts with existing utilities in areas of significant grading along Suniga and Lemay. Response: We have reviewed the as-built utility information for the utilities within Suniga and believe that there are no conflicts. Minimum of 4’ of cover is provided over the water lines based on the as built information. Potholing utilities will occur to confirm during final design. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: At Final: Off-site street profiles will need to be provided for Steeley (south of Suniga) and both ditch crossings Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: There are a few minor instances of street profile design not meeting LCUASS standards Response: The profile designs have been updated. Topic: General Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Please see Engineering redlines (Utility Plans, Site Plan and Plat) for additional comments. Response: The redlines have been addressed Topic: Plat Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Steeley Drive and Schlagel will be realigned to match The Retreat 8 ditch crossings (or vice versa). Please coordinate with engineering consultant to update linework and revise line and curve data, etc. Response: The alignments have been updated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Private alley intersections will need to have a 10' x 10' ROW flare (see LCUASS Figure 7-11F, Detail 2) Response: These are considered shared private driveways or private drives and not public alleys. Detail 7-11F is in regard to public alleys with dedicated right-of-way. Detail 707.1 is in regard to high volume driveways which these are not considered high volume driveways. Detail 706.1 is being implemented with exception to the connections to Landmark Way were radial curb returns are used to accommodate fire truck access. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Existing easements are not being shown/called out consistently between the plat, utility plans and site plan. Please coordinate with all consultants to ensure the all easements are being shown on all plans and correctly. Response: All easements are consistent through the plans. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: There are numerous examples of line over text and text over text issues. Please ensure that all text is legible. Response: Plans have been reviewed. We will continue reviewing as we progress through FP Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Does the retail building square footage need to be included in the "Land Use Characteristics" table on the cover page? Confirm with Planning review staff. Response: no, this is now a commercial / office pad. This area will go through it’s own review Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Show all Block and Tract linework. Response: Included Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The private alley easements that are called out as "UE, AE" are only being dedicated as emergency access easements on the plat (the proposed tracts are all dedicated as blanket access, drainage and utility easements, outside of the easement exclusion areas). For consistency, please 9 label/call out the easements as they appear on the plat. Response: Revised Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: N. Lemay Ave. is misspelled throughout the plans. Response: Typo has been corrected Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Distance labels and dimensions should indicate the unit of measurement (feet) with a " ' " symbol or "ft." Response: Revised Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: There are a lot of dimensions that don't align with objects, numbers that are called out with no reference, etc. that are confusing. (See redlines for examples) Response: Dims sometimes shift and trying to figure out why. I have reviewed and adjusted as best as we could. We will continue to monitor and review through the FP process. Thank you Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The linework for the widened trail section along Schlagel St. does not make sense (see redlines). Response: Linework has been revised. It is anticipated this walk will be 10’ to anticipate the regional trial connection in the future Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: There are examples of linework that does not terminate at another object. See redlines on sheet SP4 (Harvest Sun St.) for example. Response: Linework has been trimmed at sidewalk Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Private alley intersections need to be drawn per City alley typical detail (LCUASS Fig. 7-11F) Response: These are considered shared private driveways or private drives and not public alleys. Detail 7-11F is in regard to public alleys with dedicated right-of-way. Detail 707.1 is in regard to high volume driveways which these are not considered high volume driveways. Detail 706.1 is being implemented with exception to the connections to Landmark Way were radial curb returns are used to accommodate fire truck access. Department: Traffic Operation 10 Contact: Tim Tuttle, 970-221-6820, TTUTTLE@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: What traffic related variances are needed? Response: Modifciatons have bene include din this submittal Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: After the hearing mitigation for the Vine/Lemay intersection will need to be worked out to address the new Adequate Public Facilities language. Response: Understood Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Work with the engineering department to ensure the roadway connections across the canal to the Retreat line up. Response: Connections have bene coordinate and are current to The Retreat Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Environmental Planning is not ready for the project to schedule a Hearing as it is currently not clear that LUC 3.4.1 standards have been met. See comments provided here. Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) design approach has not been approved with Environmental Planning. Response: Thank you for your time on this matter Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: The 50ft buffer shown on plans for Lake Canal does not appear to follow the top-of-bank of Lake Canal. Response: NHBZ is either 50’ form top of bank or form edge of willows/wetlands Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: There are impacts within the 50ft buffer for Lake Canal via the three road crossings but it is not clear how the impacts are being mitigated for. Response: See colored hatching for better clarification Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Generally, a line is used to delineate top-of-bank and not hatching. 11 As hatching is shown for top-of-bank it appears there is significant encroachment into the 50ft buffer if the 50ft buffer is measured from the edge of the hatching shown on plans on LS1. Let's discuss at staff review meeting 9/12/18. Response: See colored hatching for better clarification Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Repeat comment from DEC 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 plan sheets showing the NHBZ. Response: See colored hatching for better clarification Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Repeat comment from DEC 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. I am not seeing where the sandbar willows have been identified on plans and mitigation for those as they appear to be impacted by proposed project design. Response: Noted; these items have been delineated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Repeat comment from 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 50ft 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: Please see legend and table on associated sheets Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Thank you for updating native seed mix and species selected are appropriate for use in the NHBZ. Thank you for adding City of Fort Collins Native Seed Mix notes as well. Response: You’re welcome. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Current site layout with road crossings appears to impact wetlands under federal regulation (along Lake Canal) thus a jurisdictional letter 12 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) needs to be submitted. See LUC 3.4.1(O)(1): “If a proposed development will disturb an existing wetland, the developer shall provide to the city a written statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan fully complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations established in the federal Clean Water Act.” Response: The wetland areas have been delineated and the application/report is in process. It was confirmed with Retreat that their application includes the (2) Local street crossings and Northfield will be responsible for the Suniga crossing. We anticipate submitting the application shortly after this PDP submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Critical path design items from Environmental Planning lens: A. The total acreage required by the standard 50 ft buffer from the Lake Canal measured from top-of-bank or fringe wetlands (sandbar willow etcetera). B. Total acreage required for a natural habitat buffer zone through application of quantitative (buffer table) standards. C. Total natural habitat buffer zone acreage proposed for the site including any and all encroachment into standard quantitative buffer setbacks (e.g. road crossings). Response: Please see legend and table on associated sheets Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Critical path process items from Environmental Planning lens: A. By project Hearing: confirmation USACE jurisdictional determination process has begun; essentially that USACE has been contacted and data submitted ensuring compliance with Clean Water Act. B. By Final Plan: documentation of jurisdictional determination letter from USACE and sign off that project meets Clean Water Act requirements. C. By Development Agreement: weed management and NHBZ annual monitoring plans. D. Prior to issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP): copy of Nationwide 404 permit documentation. E. Prior to issuance of DCP: 1) security based on 125% cost of itemized list of NHBZ installation costs (material and labor), 2) security based on 125% cost of weed management and annual monitoring report. Response: The wetland areas have been delineated and the application/report is in process. It was confirmed with Retreat that their application includes the (2) Local street crossings and Northfield will be responsible for the Suniga crossing. We anticipate submitting the application shortly after this PDP submittal. 13 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Please schedule a meeting with me so that we can clear up any confusion about the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) design and intent of that space prior to another round of PDP submittal. Thank you. Response: Thank you for your time and attention to this project. We appreciate it. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 9/10/2018: Continued: Please clarify private and public streets on the landscape plans. 1/3/2018: Are the internal streets (Landmark Way, Schlagel St, Harvest Sun St, Pioneer Trail Rd, Meadow Spring Dr, Snyder Dr) public or private streets? Response: Updated; private vs. public streets are delineated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 9/10/2018: Continued until FDP. 1/3/2018: 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: Noted—signs and lights will appear for FDP and landscaping will be placed accordingly. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 9/11/2018: Continued: Green Mountain Sugar Maple is a suitable species but can occasionally perform marginally. Currently, this is the most used species on the plans. Please decrease the number of Green Mountain Sugar Maple to 30 trees and incorporate additional species such as Shumard Oak and Chinkapin Oak. Other suggested shade tree species provided below. Please note that my comment was not intended to remove all Honeylocust from the landscape plans, rather just decrease the number of this species. 14 For such a large site, there appears to be an opportunity to incorporate additional shade and ornamental species. Other ornamental trees to consider include, Red Barron Crabapple, Thunderchild Crabapple, ‘Rocky Mountain Glow’ Bigtooth Maple, and Suckerpunch Chokecherry. Additional shade tree species that should be incorporated include Turkish Filbert, Horsechestnut ‘Brioti’ or ‘Fort McNair’, and London Planetree ‘Bloodgood’ or ‘Exclamation’. These three species should be used in lower numbers – maybe around 20 trees each? 1/3/2018: 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. - City of Fort Collins Forestry Division is close to reaching the maximum percentage of Honeylocust in Fort Collins’ urban forest. During the development review process, we see it as an opportune time to educate landscape architects to use fewer Honeylocust on plan proposals. On this project, there are 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. - 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. - 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: Please refer to plant palette; quantities of Green Mountain Sugar Maple have been diminished; Shumard Oak has been incorporated; two new ornamental tree species have been incorporated, and one shade tree has been incorporated. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 9/11/2018: Continued: There appear to be multiple locations where street trees are placed directly over or very close to water and gas lines. Please adjust locations of utilities or street trees to provide proper separation: 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines. 1/3/2018: Please adjust the locations of street tree locations to provide for proper 15 tree/utility separation. There are (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; distances have been double-checked and altered accordingly. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 9/11/2018: Continued: Other larger evergreen species to consider include Southwestern White Pine, Bristlecone Pine, Pinyon Pine. 1/3/2018: 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: No new evergreen species have been added; however, overall quantities of evergreens have increased. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: A larger scale, such as 1”=10’ or 1”=20’ would allow for easier review of the landscape plan. The 30’ scale is too small to review tree utility separation distances and fine details. Response: Plans are now at 1”=20’. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Due to the ever-changing nature of landscape plans at this stage, I will conduct a final plant count during FDP. Response: Thank you! Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Please include the City of Fort Collins General Landscape Notes and Street Tree Notes to the landscape plans. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: On Schlagel Street and Steeley Drive, the street trees appear to be spaced 16 greater than 40’ feet apart. Where possible, street trees should be spaced at minimum 30’ feet and maximum 40’ feet apart. It looks like there are utilities that might conflict with the 40’ placement of trees in the right-of-way along these streets. However, ornamental trees might be able to fit between shade trees and utilities to achieve maximum tree stocking in the right of way. Response: Trees are now spaced between 30’ and 40’ on these streets, based on utility distances. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: In regard to the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system, staff received an updated Technical Memorandum (TM) from Jacobs that addresses the questions and scenarios that were posed by the developers consulting engineer. This TM is being provided to you at the review meeting today. The TM does indicate that the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer line is exceeded with development but there are also capacity issues in some stretches of the line in the current condition. City staff is scheduled to meet in the next couple of weeks to determine if further analysis is warranted, discuss design approach and how costs to upgrade or reinstall the main can be allocated. Response: It is acknowledged and anticipated that segments of the existing sanitary sewer will need to be upsized due to existing and proposed capacity issues. It is also anticipated that there will be an over sizing cost share the City and will be negotiated with the City. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: The response to this comment seems to indicate that the dry utility design will follow approval of these plans, like it always does. For a site like this, we are going to require you to determine routing for dry utilities, at least at a preliminary level. We have had so many issues with dry utility companies putting their infrastructure on top of or right next to wet utilities and with up front design and coordination these issues can be alleviated. 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: A dry utility coordination meeting has occurred, and the utility plans have been updated accordingly. The dry utility layout will be coordinated with providers during final design. The providers present during the meeting did not express concerns that their requirements could not be met. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Page 6 of the Utility Plans show that the properties located north of the project site are to be switched over to City water. Did they also petition out of ELCO? 17 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: That was our misunderstanding. The services are labels as to be protected in place. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Regarding your response to this comment, I am going to suggest that the proposed inlet locations should be shifted (or eliminated), in lieu of moving the waterlines. (final) 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: We can work through the storm inlet detail during final design with consideration of constructing the north-south storm drain along the east side of Lemay. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Please ensure that there is 10’ of horizontal separation between water and sewer service lines. There are several shown on the plans that don’t meet this requirement. Response: Separations are provided. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Please remove sanitary sewer service connections into manholes where possible. The services should connect to the main line instead. Response: There are a couple instances where services are connected to manholes. Unnecessary manhole connections have been removed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Please note that a waterline cannot be tapped at the same horizontal location on both sides of the main. All service taps should be shown a minimum of 5’ separation. Response: Separations are provided. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: I’ve noted a location where a 6-inch waterline is running east-west between Pioneer Trail Road and Lemay and am requesting that this waterline be shifted to the alley to the north. 18 Response: The looping 6” waterlines have been removed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: The 6-inch waterline shown to be located along the “front” side of the single family attached buildings will not be allowed. You can, however, run the waterline in the alley and provide a single tap on the main and run a “common private water line” to service up to 6 units per line. I’ve provided an example layout in the redlines. Response: The looping 6” waterlines have been removed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Page 6 of the Utility Plans shows a storm mh in the curb line and a hydrant in the middle of a sidewalk. Please revise. Response: The manhole has been adjusted and all hydrants are either in the parkway or behind the back of walk. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Page 6 of the Utility Plans show a storm line running down the west side of Lemay. This line needs to be separated from the existing sanitary sewer main by a minimum of 10’ Response: 10’ separation is provided. This line may be eliminated with the inclusion of the storm drain along the east side of Lemay. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Page 7 of the Utility Plans looks to show very small meters for the multi-family buildings located south of Suniga. These should be at least preliminarily sized and shown correctly on the plans to ensure that you are planning enough space for a larger meter. Response: It has been confirmed that those units anticipate 1” water services and the according water meter pit. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Page 8 of the Utility Plans show a 6-inch waterline located along the “front” side of the single family attached buildings. The waterline will not be allowed to be placed here either. There is already a watermain running in the alley on the “back” side of the buildings which can provide tapping locations for the “common private water line” mentioned in a previous comment. Response: The looping 6” waterlines have been removed. 19 Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Utility Plans: Page 8 of the Utility Plans shows a hydrant located between the multi-family buildings located on the south side of Suniga. Please note that a hydrant lateral is considered a water main and is required to be separated from all other utilities, including other water services, by 10’ Response: Separations are provided. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: Utility Plans: There are two water main crossings at Suniga shown on the plans. Please verify that there is adequate space (vertically) to make this happen? (prelim) Response: It is anticipated that both lines will go over the existing utilities based on review of the asbuilt documents. Utility potholes will be completed for final design. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Landscape Plans: There are still several locations throughout the plans where separation requirements need to be met. This is will be required to be fixed prior to recommendation for P&Z. 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: Updated; distances have been altered to reflect utility locations. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Existing Conditions and Demo Plan: It looks like you are still calling out for vacating easements on the south side of Suniga and per your last response, this is fine. However, utility easements shown on the north side of Suniga are still shown to be vacated. These easements need to remain in place, as is. Please fix the text on the plat. (prelim) 12/29/2017: 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 easement notes have been corrected on the plat. 20 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Grading and Drainage Plan: Current plans show the infiltration galleries outfalling to a siphon with an open-bottomed manhole located in or adjacent to public or private roadways. The open-bottom siphon seems to negate the proposed water tight joints in the piping. To alleviate this situation, we have discussed internally that underdrain systems can be allowed to connect into the NECCO backbone to lower groundwater elevations nearby. With that, it seems that you can drop the stormwater infrastructure on the site and eliminate the stormwater siphons. If these continue to be proposed as part of the stormwater infrastructure for this site, you will need to show, during preliminary design, that you can meet drain time requirements and show how the hydraulics of this system work before these systems can be considered. 12/29/2017: 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. Response: The preliminary design functions without the use of underdrains. The detention pond outfall elevations are established with consideration of the 100-yr HGL in NECCO and the groundwater elevations. If the groundwater is lowered, the ponds could deepen though the ponds would need to be designed to accommodate NECCO surcharging into the ponds. Right now the retaining walls surrounding the ponds are about 4’ high. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Grading and Drainage Plan: There is a portion of basin A1 that looks to drain offsite to the north and to the northerly properties. Also, there are steep slopes shown in this area. Please show how this area is going to be captured and routed to a safe outfall. Response: There is a concrete drain pan along the north property line that directs runoff east towards Lemay. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Grading and Drainage Plan: It looks like you are showing a row of parking stalls within the downward slope of Pond B1. Please fix. Response: The grading has been corrected. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Drainage Report: Please note that the infiltration gallery sizing method is very oversimplified, and potentially undersized, for using Stormtech chambers. The City has a prescriptive calculation method that will be required to be followed if Stormtech chambers are used. Please contact me for this information. 12/29/2017: 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 21 standard WQ. Also, please provide LID calculations for Phase 1 and for the overall development. Response: The Stormtech calculator online has been used to size the chambers and are represented accordingly. The final design of the infiltration galleries will be coordinated with Stormtech. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Drainage Report: Other minor edits are provided in the redlined report. Response: The drainage report has been updated. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/2018 08/30/2018: Same comment since PDP170041. 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: Acknowledged. Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Please show and label the FEMA-regulatory Dry Creek 100-year flood fringe and the Poudre River 500-year floodplain on all utility plans (Sheets, 5, 6, 7, & 8). Response: The 500-yr is now shown. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Add a note to all utility plans (Sheets, 5, 6, 7, & 8) saying that a floodplain use permit must be approved prior to beginning any work within the Dry Creek 100-year flood fringe. Response: The note has been added. 22 Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The first note of the Floodplain Notes on Sheets 9, 10, & 11 indicates that the LOMR will be approved by FEMA by the end of 2018. It will actually, be closer to the end of 2019. Response: Acknowledged and corrected. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The second note of the Floodplain Notes on Sheets 9, 10, & 11 indicate the site has a BFE of approximately 4952. The BFE varies between 4952 and 4954 across this site. I am not sure that this note or the 3rd are necessary. Notes 1, 4, and 5 should be sufficient. Response: The notes have been updated. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Please include all of the FEMA cross sections between Redwood and Lemay, along with the stationing of each and the corresponding elevations, on all pages of the Grading & Drainage plans (Sheets 9, 10, & 11). Please note that the FEMA elevations shown on the FIRM Panels should be increased by 0.17 feet due to the conversion between NGVD29 & NAVD88. The BFE's shown on the FIRM Panels are no longer accurate and not necessary on these plans. Response: The sections and elevations are shown. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The BFE's shown on Sheet 11 of the Utility Plans are both labeled 4952. Due to the conversion between NGVD29 and NAVD88, all BFE lines shown on the FIRM Panel are now incorrect, so it is no longer necessary to include them on any of the Grading & Drainage plans. Response: BFEs have been removed. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: On page 1 of the Drainage Report, under Site Description and Location, please change the floodplain description to FEMA-regulatory Dry Creek 100-year floodplain. Response: Corrected Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Also, in the same paragraph, the sentence stating that all improvements are outside of the 100-yr. floodway but within the 100-yr floodplain is incorrect. There is only a portion of this development within the 23 floodplain. Response: Corrected Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: In the same paragraph, it is noted that the LOMR will be approved by the end of 2018. Unfortunately, that is not correct. The LOMR should be submitted to FEMA by the end of this year, but we do not anticipate FEMA approval until the end of 2019. Response: Corrected Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The same paragraph has a sentence about obtaining a floodplain development permit if the LOMR is not approved prior to construction. The City does not have a floodplain development permit. The description that was included in the floodplain notes on the grading & drainage plans of the Utility Plan set was a pretty good description of how to handle construction prior to LOMR approval and should be included in this report. Response: The text has changed to Floodplain Use Permit Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Reference is made to Chapter 10 of the LUC. Floodplain Requirements are in the Municipal Code, not the Land Use Code. Response: Corrected Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Appendix A includes the two FEMA FIRM Panels that cover this property. Please highlight the development boundaries on each of these panels, in red. Response: The boundaries are highlighted. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Please show and label the FEMA-regulatory Dry Creek 100-year floodplain boundary, and the Poudre River FEMA 500-year floodplain boundary on all appropriate pages of the Site Plan. Response: Included Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Please add notes that At-Risk Population Facilities (daycares, nurseries, schools, nursing homes, etc.) and Emergency Service Facilities 24 (urgent care, hospitals, fire, police, etc.) are prohibited in the Poudre River 500-year floodplain on all appropriate pages of the Site Plan. Response: Note has been included Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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: Understood Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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: Response: Thank you Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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. Response: Transformer locations have been included and are approximate and subject to change Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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: gas and elec meters are shown on plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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 25 requirements can be found below: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf Response: Street lights along private drives are shown on plans but not currently along the Public ROW’s Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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: Understood. Thank you. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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 the estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Response: Thank you Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018 09/12/2018: I recommend that a Utility Coordination meeting be held to discuss all wet and dry utility alignments. Response: Than you for your time. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/12/2018 09/12/2018: Lake Canal & Greeley Waterline Crossing Agreements may be necessary to serve the proposed development. The developer is responsible for obtaining all Crossing Agreements at their expense. Response: Understood Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: ACCESS >All the 24ft and 26ft wide alleys shown as Access Easements are required to be shown as Emergency Access Easements on the Plat or dedicated by separate legal document. For clarity they should be should on the Site Plan not Utility plan. >The Auto-turn shows significant overhang at the center entrance off Pioneer 26 Trail which shows this is out of compliance. >The required perimeter access for Buildings 8b and 12b will require an approved turnaround at since each accessway is 200ft long. Access less than 150ft is allowed. >The appropriate curb radii should be shown for the alleys. >PFA is requesting clarification that all street gates and barriers have been removed from the plans. Response: Understood and adjusted as needed. Thank you for your time to discuss Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: HYDRANTS >As noted in the previous round, hydrants will be required on Suniga Street and North Lemay Avenue that produce 1500gpm at 20psi residual pressure. These do not appear to be shown on the provided Utility plans dated 8-22-2018 >A hydrant is required within 400ft of the SFA residential units along an approved fire access route. Maintaining the appropriate hydrant spacing on Schlagel St will require a new hydrant located close to the intersection of N Lemay and Schlagel St. Response: Response: Hydrants have been coordinated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM Both the Multi Family and Single Family Attached buildings will require automatic fire sprinkler systems under separate permits. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. Response: Understood Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: ALLEY ACCESS There shall be a person door in addition to the garage door for access. Response: Walks have bene added Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING >To assist with prompt emergency response the address will be clearly visible from the street in numerals no less than 8" tall. >When the building is addressed from one street but accessed from another or an alley then the full address including street name shall be clearly visible. Response: Understood 27 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: PFA is requesting that a cement pathway be added between each of the Brownstone buildings 1a through 6a to connect the Alley at their front to the pathway at the back. This will assist with moving a stretcher to the Ambulance which may be located in the alley. Response: Walks have been added Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Project team states that signage for EAEs will be shown at FDP stage Response: EAE are shown on site plans and plat Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: PFA will have comments relating to the Retail/Restaurant building and potential commercial pad as they develop. Response: This area will be under separate review at a later time Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Design of the buildings that will directly abut Alta Vista should follow the standards in 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, to create compatibility between the new construction and the adjacent properties. For example, the use of stucco on the 12 unit flat and brownstone buildings is an appropriate reference to the historic stucco adobe buildings in Alta Vista, but it looks like the buildings shown as directly abutting the neighborhood are the 4 and 5-unit condominiums that do not use this material at all. In general, the building design for that area that is closest to Alta Vista should follow the standards in 3.4.7 to create greater architectural compatibility. Response: Please see attached photographs of existing neighborhood. We feel we have gone above and beyond trying to match the existing architecture and setbacks. Buildings have been removed and / or setback further than previous submittal. Park land has also been included to further buffer our neighborhood from the Alta Vista neighborhood. Topic: Site Plan 28 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: At the PDR stage, my comments noted that the proposed developing directly abuts the Alta Vista neighborhood, which has been determined a potential historic district, and that the project design south of Suniga would need to use the standards in section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code to create a site plan and building elevations that would minimize the impact on the adjacent neighborhood to the maximum extent feasible. In particular, I noted the need for careful attention to the use of site design south of Suniga, in the area shown as condo units, the potential commercial pad, and the size of the open space/setbacks to provide a reasonable buffer between the historic neighborhood and the new development. The current site plan shows five-unit condos tightly abutting lots 28 and 29 in the Alta Vista neighborhood. A more compatible site plan would show single-story structures or single-story building components transitioning to the west to the taller and larger buildings. Another option would be to reduce the density of the buildings south of Suniga and west of Alta Vista by eliminating or reducing the size of the easternmost condo building. To the east, the commercial pad will need buffering between the residential lots 40 and 41 in Alta Vista. In sum, it would be more protective of the historic rural character of Alta Vista to extend the buffer provided to the north by the Tract 1 drainage easement by wrapping it around to the south alongside Alta Vista lots 28, 29, 40, and 41. Response: Please see attached photographs of existing neighborhood. We feel we have gone above and beyond trying to match the existing architecture and setbacks. Buildings have been removed and / or setback further than previous submittal. Park land has also been included to further buffer our neighborhood from the Alta Vista neighborhood. Department: Park Planning Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: "Public Access and Trail Easements" should be labeled on the plat, and on the site plan and utility sheets. Response: Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: The identified regional trail easements must accommodate a future horizontal trail cross-section consisting of a minimum 24' wide level surface. No surface utilities should be placed within the minimum cross-section, including drainage basins or other surface drainage features. 29 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: A conceptual trail alignment (vertical and horizontal) should be identified to verify that future construction of an ADA acceptable trail is feasible and not in conflict with other utilities. Park Planning & Development must review and approve the conceptual alignment. Final plans are to show the conceptual alignment. Response: Conceptual trail alignment will be addressed at FP. It was discussed that only the easements are to be shown at this phase Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Please contact Park Planning & Development to obtain trail alignment design criteria to use in generating a conceptual design. Response: Understood. Conceptual trail alignment will be addressed at FP. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Please provide a cross-section detail of Schlagel Street in the vicinity of the trail and label the location of the future trail/co-located widened sidewalk in this area. Please label both the cross-section detail and the site plan with the location of the widened sidewalk. No other surface utilities should be located within the easement in this location. Response: Please see sections on sheet SP 13 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: Easement location: trail easements should extend along the entire west property boundary, except for the area between Steeley Drive and Harvest Sun Street, paralleling the Lake Canal ditch, at a minimum width of 50'. A trail easement in Tract A should be located to connect the trail parallel to the Lake Canal to a trail paralleling the north side of Schlagel Street, extending east to the Lemay Right of Way. Response: Per our coordination with you, the trail would be on the west side of the ditch between Steeley and Harvest and is shown per that discussion/coordination. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: In locations where the "Public Access & Trail Easement" overlays the Lake Canal Ditch Company prescriptive easement include the following language on the plat AND the site plan and utility plans: "Coordination of trail location with the ditch company is required prior to design and construction of the regional recreational trail." Response: Note has been added 30 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018 09/11/2018: In locations where the "Public Access & Trail Easement" overlays the Lake Canal Ditch Company prescriptive easement include the following language on the plat AND the site plan and utility plans: "Coordination of trail location with the ditch company is required prior to design and construction of the regional recreational trail." Response: Noted Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: A complete review of all other plans will be done at FDP. Response: Thank you Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018 09/10/2018: 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: Acknowledged