HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHFIELD FILING 1 EXPANDED - PDP180011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity 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
November 09, 2018
Jason Sherrill
Landmark Real Estate Holdings, LLC
6341 Fairgrounds Ave., Ste 100
Windsor, CO 80550
RE: Northfield Filing 1 Expanded, PDP180011, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of
the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual
commenter or direct your questions through the Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan, at 970-221-6695
or tsullivan@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
• Most all comments need to be resolved prior to hearing or discussed and found to be in compliance
with the applicable standards without further revisions.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018
11/05/2018: On an overall basis, Staff is concerned about lengths of the alleys, especially between
the three buildings that front on Lemay and the three buildings that front on Pioneer Trail. All
alleys are characterized by adjoining driveways, or driveway aprons, arranged in a continuous
series resulting on large expanses of concrete. In order to mitigate the harshness of these alleys,
please explore the feasibility of adding end-cap landscape islands at the ends of these driveways
so long concrete areas are at least flanked by landscaping. Islands should be sized to include one
shade tree or two ornamental trees along with shrubs to cover. (Note: these areas should not be
used for electrical transformers.)
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: Landscape areas with ornamental trees have been added where feasible
2
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018
11/05/2018: Carried Over. See comments 53 - 60.
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: Please see updated Building Type tables. All ‘Brownstones’ are now S.F.A.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018
11/05/2018: Carried Over. See comment 37 C.
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 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: TBG – Landscape has been adjusted. A form of monument signage will be located
at each pedestrian connection entering the Alta-Vista Neighborhood
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/09/2018
11/05/2018: Carried Over. Housing Type categories must match Section 4.5(D)(2).
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: Please see updated Building Type tables. All ‘Brownstones’ are now S.F.A. A
Residential Mixed-Use Building has also been added
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
10/09/2018: Regarding addressing and wayfinding for emergency providers, there are four
private alleys that will need street names in order to properly address the 17 buildings that do not
front on a public street.
RESPONSE: Drives are currently labeled with a letter designation. Names will be selected and
provided at final.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
10/09/2018: The October 17, 2018 plan set provided four cross-sections. For cross-section D in
Tract G, the Drainage and Grading Plan shows a swale in this area. Please add the topography
shown on the D & GP to this cross-section. As noted previously, Staff is concerned that the front
yard open space for Buildings 3a and 5a doubles as a stormwater conveyance channel which
minimizes its effectiveness. Landscaping in these areas must be carefully placed so that plant
material is located where it won't be inundated.
RESPONSE: A note has been added stating that the vertical of all cross-sections is exaggerated.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
10/09/2018: Please add a note to the Site Plan that there will be no vehicular access from the
current alignment of Lemay Avenue to site except for public streets.
RESPONSE: Note added
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
3
10/09/2018: Comment Numbers Five and Six ¿ Emphasis: Where buildings do not front on streets,
and since there are no person doors along the private alleys, only garages, the remaining three
sides of these buildings must include walkways for emergency responders to gain access around
the building to the front door. (Note P.F.A. will not stage from Suniga Road.) Walkways around
buildings have been added per the plan set dated October 17, 2018. Based on these plans, the
following additional connecting walkways are needed:
South of Suniga Road:
• West side of 12a
• East side of 13a
North of Suniga Road:
• South side of Bldg 10 or extend the flare to the alley.
RESPONSE: Walks have been added
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
11/05/2018: Staff has since received a Request for Alternative Compliance (dated October 17,
2018). Under the request, please emphasize that the proposal includes two connections across
the Lake Canal instead of three. Also, along the south, please emphasize that there will be one
connection to the south instead of two.
10/09/2018: The site has two edges which, per 3.6.3(F), need additional street connections to the
adjoining property (one local street connection every 660 feet). Along the Lake Canal, the site
has 2,002 linear feet which requires three street connections and only two are shown. Along the
south edge, west of Tract I, the site has 1,478 linear feet which requires two street connections
and only one is shown. Along Tract I and Block 23, the site has 906 linear feet which requires
one street connection, and none is shown. Please refer to Section 3.6.3(H) which allows for
Alternative Compliance to this standard and submit a Request for Alternative Compliance that
addresses review criteria found in Section 3.6.3(H)(2).
RESPONSE: Alternative Compliance request has been modified as suggested.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
10/09/2018: Revised Comment: Transfort will not be requiring any public improvements at this
time. In the future, as Suniga Road is extended in the future, and the surrounding area further
develops in a manner that needs bus service, Transfort will establish the frequency and location of
bus stops accordingly. Please contact Seth Lorson, 416-4320, if you have any questions.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
10/09/2018: Comment Number 11 – Emphasis: Based on our recent meeting, it appears that
Tract I will become a private park in order to comply with Section 4.5(D)(3) - L-M-N Access to
Park. That way a Modification will not be needed (due to crossing an arterial street to gain access
to the clubhouse). Be sure to indicate the size and include features such as a meandering path,
pet station, stone seat benches, etc. in compliance with the standard.
RESPONSE: Noted; features have been added to the park.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
11/05/2018: Staff has received a Request for Modification (dated October 17, 2018). Staff is willing
to support this Modification.
4
10/09/2018: Please submit a Request for Modification regarding Access to Neighborhood Center
in the L-M-N zone due to the dwelling units south of Suniga Road needing to cross an arterial
street. Section 4.5(D)(3) is the applicable standard. You may want to consider that the
designation of Suniga Road as a replacement for East Vine Drive as the east-west arterial within
this square mile section could be considered a hardship which divided the Schlagel Farm, at no
fault of the applicant. Also, as potential mitigation, please verify with Suzanne Bassinger of Park
Planning as to the feasibility of the Northeast Regional Trail crossing Suniga with an overpass.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
10/09/2018: On sheets SP3,5,8 and 9, please move the text outside building envelopes. Since
these units are Single Family Attached, each individual lot needs to be fully depicted and
distinguished from the common open space. Please add the width dimension of each unit and the
length and width of the building. Also, the full extent of the front porch needs to be indicated.
Also, please label or graphically depict the area which appears to the be the driveway apron
located between the back of the lot and the easement for the private alley. Since this apron is not
a part of the lot and not a part of the alley easement, please add a note that clearly calls out the
legal status of this area.
RESPONSE: TBG – labels have been adjusted, concrete hatching has been added and typicals on
Sheet LS 12 have typical porch dimensions and labels
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
10/09/2018: There are nine Tracts shown on the Plat. Please add these Tract designations to the
Site Plan sheets 2 – 11.
RESPONSE: Labels have been added to all sheets indicating Tracts
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 10/09/2018
11/06/2018: Please provide a schematic that indicates compliance.
10/09/2018: Comment Number Seven - Emphasis: For Section 3.5.2(D) - connecting walkways or
major walkway spine - if there are walkways that cross an alley to gain access to nearest public
sidewalk, then such crosswalks must comply with Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) which states: "Street
Crossings. Where it is necessary for the primary pedestrian access to cross drive aisles or internal
roadways, the pedestrian crossing shall emphasize and place priority on pedestrian access and
safety. The material and layout of the pedestrian access shall be continuous as it crosses the
driveway, with a break in continuity of the driveway paving and not in the pedestrian access way.
The pedestrian crossings must be well-marked using pavement treatments, signs, striping,
signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques, median refuge areas and landscaping." Please
provide a schematic that indicates compliance.
RESPONSE: Pedestrian spines have been designated and are connected to ROW. Crossings
across private alleys drives also been added to assist in circulation. See civil plans.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: For three buildings between the Lake Canal and Schlagel Street, the distance to the
nearest public street sidewalk exceeds 200 feet. Therefore, these three buildings need a Major
Walkway Spine to comply with Section 3.5.2(D)(1). As we discussed, the walkway must be
tree-lined but clustering in a naturalistic fashion is acceptable due to the proximity to the Lake
Canal. Be sure to label the extent of the Major Walkway Spine.
RESPONSE: Noted; the pedestrian spine has been labeled and trees fronting along the spine are
clustering in a natural fashion.
5
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Revised Comment: Staff is aware that there is an intervening property, 1121 N.
Lemay Avenue, between Northfield and the convenience center. Please note the following
standard:
Section 3.2.2(C)(7)
"Off-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. Off-site pedestrian or bicycle facility
improvements may be required in order to comply with the requirements of Section(E)(1) (Parking
Lot Layout), Section 3.6.4 (Transportation Level of Service Requirements), or as necessary to
provide for safety, efficiency and convenience for bicycles and pedestrians both within the
development and to and from surrounding areas."
This standard requires a temporary, asphalt, pedestrian and bicycle connection to the convenience
center. It appears that there is sufficient right-of-way in N. Lemay Avenue for these improvements
and that the distance is approximately 237 feet. Staff is aware that the long-term plan is for N.
Lemay to turn 90-degrees west into Schlagel Street in order to not interfere with proposed
re-aligned N. Lemay. Staff is also aware that the Parks Department is planning for the Northeast
Regional Trail. A temporary pedestrian and bicycle connection, however, is still needed in the
short term for access even though the existing N. Lemay will not extend past Schlagel Street.
Staff acknowledges that the City's Capital Projects Group will construct permanent improvements
estimated to be in 2022.
RESPONSE: 10’ asphalt connection has been proposed and shown on site plans.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: The following comments are based on the Lot Typicals on Sheet SP 13:
A. Regarding the Typical for the Single Family Attached (Brownstones), please note that the
front yards are bisected by a line that parallels the street and aligns with the bottom of the
stairs. While it is clear that in front of this line is the front yard, it is not clear what is
between this line the unit. What is the purpose of this line or does the front yard simply
consist of the entire area between the unit and the back-of-walk? Please clarify. Also,
please clarify that the area between the fence and the public sidewalk is considered part
of the front yard.
RESPONSE: The line cutting through the front yards are the fence lines; please see labels. On ‘Lot
Typicals’, the front yard is depicted. The front yard consists of everything between the unit and the
back-of-walk.
B. Regarding the Typical for Multi-Family with Fenced Yards (Residences and Rowhouses),
for the Residences, please note that the drive aisle width could be reduced from 24 to 20
feet. This would enlarge the yards and lengthen the driveways.
RESPONSE: Noted; this has been updated per the comment.
C. Also, please note that the fence and gate must be two feet behind the public sidewalk.
For the Rowhouses, be sure to clarify that the area between the fence and the public
sidewalk is considered part of the front yard.
RESPONSE: Noted; fences and gates have been moved per this comment, and a
comment has been made on the typicals explaining the front yard.
D. It would be helpful to add to both Typicals a label and dimension for the parkway (tree
lawn).
6
RESPONSE: Noted and provided.
E. Regarding the width of the parkways, they scale at 5.5 feet. Please note that LCUASS
Figure 7-8F, on a Connector Local Street (57-foot right-of-way), the parkway width must
be six feet wide. Please adjust the parkways accordingly.
RESPONSE: Noted.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: The following comments are based on the Cross-Sections on sheet SP 13:
A. Regarding cross-sections A and B, please add that these are Connector Local Streets with
57 feet of right-of-way and 36 feet flow line to flow line. And, please indicate that the
fence is two feet behind the sidewalk.
RESPONSE: Cross-sections have been updated.
B. Regarding cross-section B, the sidewalk is bordered by a steep drop-off. If this is the
case, then this sidewalk will need a railing.
RESPONSE: Noted; however, please note that the vertical of all cross-sections is
exaggerated.
C. Regarding cross-section C, the drainage swale includes a side slope to the north that
measures 2.27-to-1 and the six-foot walk is benched-in at the direct edge of the swale.
The problem is that the walkway is too close to a slope that is too steep. Generally, for
walkways to be safe and functional next to drainage swales, slopes are a maximum
steepness of 4-to-1. Staff recommends that the design be reconsidered and that various
options be explored such as: move the walk further away from the swale, or decrease the
steepness of the slope, or provide a measure of protection such as a decorative railing or
retaining wall. Or another option would be a design that decreases the height of the berm
to allow the walkway to move away from the swale. An average berm height of four feet,
when combined with dense landscaping, would be an appropriate buffer between Suniga
Road and Alta Vista. Please look for opportunities for the berm to be undulating so it
looks more natural.
RESPONSE: Noted; however, please note that the vertical of all cross-sections is
exaggerated.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Regarding the commercial area at the northwest corner of Suniga Road and Steely
Drive, the P.D.P. needs to establish a level of expectation as to the extent of the potential future
land uses. Please advise if you anticipate this parcel developing in conjunction with the overall
project or at a future phase. If in concert with the overall plan, then at the time of Final Plan, the
design details associated with the end-user can be identified indicated on the Final Plan so that
after entitlement, the end-user may proceed directly to Building Permit. If this parcel is to be
developed post Final Plan, then Staff advises that it may be advantageous to set the stage at the
P.D.P. level so that when an end-user is identified, it can be processed as a Minor Amendment to
the Final Plan instead of a new Final Plan.
Staff is aware that the developer envisions a small coffee shop. Please note that such a use is
permitted in L-M-N but only if (1.) as part of a Neighborhood Center which requires at least two
uses per Section 4.5(D)(3), or (2.) as part of a mixed-use dwelling (units on the second floor). A
single use in a Neighborhood Center would require a Modification.
7
In any event, the P.D.P. is the best instrument to establish the future land use on this parcel. Staff
recommends that we discuss this more fully so the P.D.P. is a fully formed as possible and all
options are considered.
RESPONSE: The Residential Mixed-Use building and associated site work is included in this PDP
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Please add a Site Plan Note on Sheet 00 that explains trash and recycling will be
handled at the level of the individual units and there will be no communal system on a project-wide
basis.
RESPONSE: Note added
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Please add at the end of Site Plan Note Number 9: "...and not interfere with
walkways and landscaping."
RESPONSE: Note revised
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: The Block designations on the Site Plan do not match the Plat. Generally, the Plat
designations should prevail.
RESPONSE: All Block, Tract and lot text has been copied directly form the Plat files and should
correlate correctly.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: On SP1, don't uses ghosted text for the street names.
RESPONSE: Corrected
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: 6.On SP1, please label the 100-year Floodplain as “Dry Creek” and the 500-year
floodplain as “Poudre River.”
RESPONSE: Revised as described
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Please label the underground storm-tech systems on all sheets.
RESPONSE: Labeled.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: On SP1, please label the Lake Canal.
RESPONSE: Labeled
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: On SP3, please label the 7.5-foot wide Regional Trail as it adjoins the 4.5-foot wide
public sidewalk on north side of the east-west leg of Schlagel Street.
RESPONSE: Labeled
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: On SP3, regarding extending the sidewalk to the north along Lemay so that it
connects the project to convenience center, please add a note that an off-site sidewalk and bike
lane will be constructed within the existing Lemay right-of-way. And please add a label indicating
that the sidewalk along Lemay extends to the north property line as it gets lost in the linework or
make the sidewalk more graphically clear.
RESPONSE: Plans revised as described, notes added to appropriate sheets
8
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Please add a walkway that connects Pioneer Trail to Lemay between Buildings 14
and 12 (fronting on Pioneer Trail) and Buildings 15 and 13 (fronting on Lemay).
RESPONSE: Walk has been added
Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: On LS12, staff recommends that additional landscaping be added along the north
side of Harvest Sun at the point of the tee intersection with Landmark Way, to create a more
interesting and fully formed entry feature for the entire project. The applicant may also want to
consider adding hardscape features or a sculpture to create an urban design focal point at this
highly visible location.
RESPONSE: Noted; additional landscaping has been added and signage/sculptures are being
discussed.
Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: In the Building Variation Table, under the category of Multi-Family (8 – 12), there is a
housing model listed as “(5) 8-unit Stacked.” Please add a reference that these are distinct from
being considered “Flats.” Are these still considered by the applicant to be referred to as
“Residences”? If these are indeed referred to as “Residences,” please note in the table and add a
label on sheet A1.8.
RESPONSE: Tables have been revised for correct cross reference of building types and
nomenclature
Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: In the Building Variation Table, please indicate building height and please call out
that the Brownstones are 2/3 stories. This is because the height of the Brownstones, being partial
3-stories, determines the architectural review standard per Section 4.5(E)(4) as opposed to the
Multi-Family buildings that are two stories and reviewed by Section 3.8.30(F)(2). [Note that
Brownstones that are Single Family Attached are reviewed by Section 3.5.2(C)].
RESPONSE: Building heights are included in first table
Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: In the Building Variation Table, please indicate the quantity of each model variety for
each housing type. For example, for the 12-unit Flats, there are a total of 15 buildings with three
options. Does that mean each option includes five buildings? Similarly, for the 8-Unit Stacked
(Residences), please indicate the distribution between the two model options.
RESPONSE: See tables. Tables have been revised for correct cross reference of building types
and nomenclature
Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: On sheet SP1, please bring back the larger and heavier font that describes the
Housing Type within each envelope as was depicted on the plan of the second submittal. The
text on the third round plans (October 17, 2018) is difficult to read and I need to see clearly how
the various Housing Types and Housing Models are distributed and that for the Rowhouse,
Residences and Single Family Attached, there are no similar models next to each other.
RESPONSE: Revised as requested
Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Staff is concerned that on an overall basis, the ¿Brownstone¿ is a Housing Model
distributed over three Housing Types:
9
*Multi-Family (8 - 12), quantity – 5
*Multi-Family (5 - 7), quantity – 6
*Single Family Attached, quantity - 9.
As a result, 20 of the 57 buildings are Brownstones. Since there are three Multi-Family Housing
Types, and four Multi-Family Housing Models, repeated Multi-Family buildings are minimized and
in accordance with the standard. For the Single Family Attached, however, the ¿Brownstone
represents the only Housing Model, and it duplicates a Multi-Family Model. Using the same
Housing Model (Brownstone) across three Housing Types does not contribute to overall variety
across the entire project and minimizes the overall intent of mitigating the impact of repeated
buildings and runs the risk of making Northfield visually repetitive.
RESPONSE: Please see updated Building Type tables. All ‘Brownstones’ are now S.F.A.
Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: Also, Staff is concerned that Multi-Family Brownstones are arranged in the same
manner as the Single Family Attached Brownstones:
•Multi-Family (8 – 12): quantity – 5;
•Multi-Family (5 – 7): quantity – 6;
These are arranged in 8,6 and 5-plexes.
•Single Family Attached; quantity 9; also arranged in 8,6 and 5-plexes.
RESPONSE: Please see updated Building Type tables. All ‘Brownstones’ are now S.F.A.
Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: As noted, the Brownstone Housing Model is distributed across three Housing Types.
Staff is concerned that if the Brownstone is to be credited as a Housing Model for three Housing
Types, then it needs more architectural variety. While the Brownstones are arranged in three
building envelopes (8,6 and 5-plexes) the architectural distinctions among these envelopes are
subtle.
Compliance relies too much on the difference in the sizes of the building envelopes and not
enough on unique architectural characteristics. Consequently, there is too much similarity among
the three Brownstone models. Except for the changes in the accent roofs and other minor
features, the models are not sufficiently differentiated. In addition, the exterior finish materials list
for all three options are identical.
RESPONSE: Please see updated Building Type tables. All ‘Brownstones’ are now S.F.A.
Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: The Single Family Attached Brownstone must be designed to be visibly distinctive
from the Multi-Family Brownstone. The difference in ownership between Single Family Attached
(fee simple lots) and Multi-Family (condominiums) is not, by itself, sufficient to mitigate repeated
buildings. The three different sized building envelopes must be supplemented and enriched by
differentiating articulation and exterior materials. Please explore options to enrich the variety
among repeated buildings in the Single Family Attached category.
RESPONSE: Please see updated Building Type tables. All ‘Brownstones’ are now S.F.A.
Comment Number: 61 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: Section 3.6.3(D) – Spacing of Limited Movement Collector or Local Street
10
Intersections with Arterial Streets – requires a local street to intersect with an arterial street
(unsignalized) every 660 feet. For the north side of Suniga, two, instead of three, local street
intersections are provided. For the south side of Suniga, one, instead of three, local street
intersections are provided. Section 3.6.3(H) allows for the proposed plan to be considered under
Alternative Compliance without having to provide three more local street intersections. Please
submit an Alternative Compliance request based on the available criteria under Section
3.6.3(H)(2).
RESPONSE: An Alternative request for street spacing has been submitted with this roubnd.
Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: For the three buildings that front on N. Lemay Avenue (Bldgs. 9,13,15), they will be
addressed off N. Lemay versus the private drive (alley). As such, emergency responders will
need to stage on N. Lemay, which, until Lemay is realigned, will function as an arterial street.
Please investigate adding two interim pull-outs for emergency equipment. Each pull-out needs to
measure 10’ x 60’. When Lemay is realigned, existing Lemay will be down-classified to a local
street and these pull-outs can be removed.
RESPONSE: Walk have been provided from the private drive (via EAE) to the front of the units.
We do not believe the pull-outs are necessary or required
Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: For buildings that do not front on streets and rely on the private drive (alley) for
utilities, please be aware that for the narrower alleys, there may spacing issues for all the utilities.
For example, south of Suniga Road, the alley measures 40 feet in width. For proper separation,
this likely means that either electric or natural gas will have to serve the buildings not from the alley
but from the common green space in front of the buildings. We are hearing that this is not
desirable. Please coordinate with Fort Collins Utilities (water, sewer, electric, broadband) and
outside utility providers (gas and telecommunications) as how to design a layout that meets proper
separation requirements.
RESPONSE: Preliminary utility coordination meetings have been held on 9/24/18, 11/19/18, and
12/14/18. I believe that major layout concerns have been addressed and are ready to move
towards final design after hearing.
Comment Number: 64 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: Be sure to adjust the street trees in the parkway on the north side of Suniga to
account for the NECCO storm line. This line does not exactly align with the sidewalk. Towards
the east, there may be room for shade trees. Towards the west, trees may have to ornamentals.
RESPONSE: Trees along Suniga have been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 65 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: As noted, wherever buildings do not front on streets, and rely on the private drives
(alleys) for emergency response, these alleys will need to be named. For the P.D.P., names do
not have to be selected. Instead, simply use letter designations so the plan can be easily
referenced.
RESPONSE: Letter designations have been added to the private drives
Comment Number: 66 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: Please note that the street name Landmark Way Road should be shortened to
simply Landmark Way. This is because “Way” is already a commonly accepted suffix and to add
“Road” would be redundant.
RESPONSE: Revised as directed
11
Comment Number: 67 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: Repeated for emphasis - staff supports the request by the Poudre Fire Authority to
extend walkways from the private drives serving the buildings west of Schlagel Street so they
connect to the walkway that runs parallel to the Lake Canal.
RESPONSE: Walks have been added and extended as requested
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR HEARING:
There are still discrepancies between how and which easements are called out and shown
between the plans. This needs to be corrected so that all easements are shown and labeled
correctly on all plans.
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: Easement descriptions have been coordinated and should be consistent between
plans and the plat.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
09/10/2018: There are quite a few line over text and text over text issues. Please ensure that all
text is legible.
RESPONSE: All line over text issues will be resolved during the preparation of the Final
Compliance Plans (FCP).
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
The linework for the walk and trail along Schlagel St. is still unclear. Also, the linework does not
match the utility plans.
09/10/2018: The linework for the widened trail section along Schlagel St. does not make sense
(see redlines).
RESPONSE: The proposed and future trail linework is now shown on the utility plans to be
consistent with site plan. The trail alignments will be coordinated further furing the preparation of
the FCP plans.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
There are a few locations where there is less than 750 sf of area draining across a public walk, but
it is still being concentrated into a drain pan. If the drainage area is <750 sf, it is okay, but can't
be concentrated into a pan.
09/10/2018: There are some instances of concentrated storm runoff being conveyed across
sidewalk within public ROW, which is not allowed. Please revise drainage design accordingly.
Sheet flow up to 750 SF is allowed.
RESPONSE: The grading design has been updated to not allow more that 750 sqft draining across
the public sidewalk. During final design, the minor drainage basins and detailed grading will further
12
describe the areas drainage over sidewalks.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
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.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
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
11/05/2018: FOR HEARING:
A response was provided that stated this comment went away, but as far as I know, the
modification is still required. Refer to footnote #5 on Table 7-3 of LCUASS. This needs to be
confirmed/coordinated with the case planner, Ted Shepard.
09/11/2018: A modification to the LUC will need to be requested for the proposed spacing of
access points along Suniga Rd.
RESPONSE: The Alternative Compliance request is included in this submittal]
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, additional grading detail will be provided during FCP.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/05/2018: FOR HEARING:
Please add a note to all Suniga typical sections in the utility plans (cover sheet and P&P sheets).
See utility plan redlines for language to use.
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: A note has been added to the typical Suniga Street sections that the street section
will include a raised protected bike lane per the City’s capital improvement engineer.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/05/2018: FOR HEARING:
Please add notes where applicable that state that offsite grading/design of streets will be provided
at final.
09/11/2018: At Final: Off-site street profiles will need to be provided for Steely (south of Suniga)
and both ditch crossings
RESPONSE: A note has been added to the street plan & profile sheets.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/05/2018: FOR INFORMATION:
09/11/2018: Please see Engineering redlines (Utility Plans, Site Plan and Plat) for additional
comments.
13
RESPONSE: As of 12/31/18, we have not received engineering redlines. All redlines will be
coordinated and/or addressed during the completion of the FCPs.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: There is a reimbursement due the City for easements purchased on the south side
of Suniga, that are being vacated as part of this project. The amount due is $24,689.00. This
amount will be due prior to vacation of the easements. Please coordinate with City Engineering
staff to schedule a meeting if you wish to discuss in further detail.
RESPONSE: The easement description has been adjusted to include ‘slope’ so that the public
guarantees of the original easement are not altered.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
The ditch crossing of Suniga will need to be included with the final design plans. The consulting
engineer will need to coordinate with City CIP Engineering (Tim Kemp and/or Jin Wang) regarding
the design.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and will be coordinated with the appropriate City engineer.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
All plans that reference the engineering consultant need to be updated with the correct/current
engineer information. The owner information is listed differently between the plat and site plan.
The plans need to reference the correct owner.
RESPONSE: The correct owner name has been coordinated between plans.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Please include a reference to ADA standards in the Site Plan Notes, as the project will need to
meet these standards in addition to City walk/ramp standards.
RESPONSE: Notes have been added
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
There may be a conflict with the proposed drainage facilities within the proposed 50-foot public
access and trail easement along the ditch. Please work with Park Planning to ensure that the
drainage design and future trail and easement will be acceptable.
RESPONSE: The grading/drainage/utility design has been updated to accommodate the future
regional trail. Cross sections have been provided for areas requested by Park Planning.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
I'm not sure what is proposed at the very west end of the site, south of Suniga (see utility plan
redlines sheet 5). There is some wide section of sidewalk that ties into the curb and gutter of
Suniga and straddles the ROW line. Please clarify the intent of this.
RESPONSE: The future trail is now shown on the utility plans for clarification.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
All of the proposed walk and drainage pan or swale crossings will need to be detailed/designed at
final.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
14
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
The reconfigured trickle pan in the private alley on the north side of the Schlagel and Pioneer Trail
intersection needs to be redesigned. I don't think that the current configuration will work.
RESPONSE: The current configuration directs runoff under the public sidewalk. Due to the shallow
sanitary sewer pipe, storm drain is limited due to vertical conflicts. This will be further investigated
during preparation of the FCPs.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Please identify the emergency access only connection to Suniga on the south side of the street.
The design will need to ensure that public access is restricted and that it meets PFA design
standards/criteria.
RESPONSE: A note has been added to the utility plan and Suniga P&P sheets. Controlled access
will be coordinated with PFA during preparation of the FCPs.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
The proposed crosswalk striping at the intersection of Suniga and Lemay should align with the
pedestrian ramps.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Striping adjustments will be coordinated during preparation of FCPs.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Lot 6, Block 8 building envelope should be outside of the sight distance easement.
RESPONSE: The easement is proposed to be dedicated crossing this lot. No building is proposed
within the easement.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
Please coordinate with surveying consultant to get all necessary sight distance easements
identified on sight distance exhibit, dedicated on the plat.
RESPONSE: The sight distance easements will be coordinated accordingly.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
Engineering is okay proceeding to hearing, as long as the comments noted "FOR HEARING" are
addressed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and thank you.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: BY HEARING:
The current plans appear to now show two “running traps” (please verify the number of these) and
based on the response to the last comment about utilizing the NECCO system to help drop the
groundwater elevations on the site and that this approach was not going to be pursued for this site,
15
you will still need to show, during preliminary design, that you can meet drain time requirements
and show how the hydraulics of the running trap systems actually work before this approach can
be considered.
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: We have gone through and further detailed the vertical design of the storm and
sanitary sewer mains and the lowest manhole or structure invert is shown. At this time we were
able to eliminate the running traps by lowering the storm drain and utilizing the lower inverts of
NECCO. This requires the storm drainage design to surcharge the structures in the detention
ponds since pipes are not able to daylight into the ponds.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: BY HEARING:
What are the groundwater elevations relative to the bottom of the infiltration gallery elevations?
You will need to show that the infiltration galleries are above groundwater so that they can infiltrate
and function properly.
RESPONSE: While lowering the storm drain, the site will need to be dewatered to maintain
groundwater elevations below the infiltration galleries.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: BY HEARING:
For the infiltration galleries, are you proposing that a portion of these function as detention and a
portion function as water quality (through the isolator row), or are these only for water quality/LID?
If so, all rows are “isolator rows”. Also, if these are only for water quality, how do you propose to
route the major storm around or keep it out of the infiltration galleries? This needs to be shown to
work, at least on a concept level, at preliminary design and prior to hearing.
RESPONSE: The infiltration galleries were sized per the 12-hr WQCV. Since the last submittal we
further reviewed the StormTech sizing calculations provided. With lowering the storm drain, the
gallery footprints are anticipated to reduce with larger chambers. The infiltration galleries will be
designed to treat the full WQCV during final design and are not anticipated to provide below grade
detention.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: BY HEARING:
Please verify that the outlet pipe from the infiltration gallery north of Harvest Sun Street is not also
a “running trap”.
RESPONSE: The infiltration galleries do not anticipate running traps along the outfall pipes.
Topic: Drainage Report
16
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
I will email the stormtech chamber sizing spreadsheet for your use. You will need to utilize this
sizing method in lieu of the stormtech chamber sizing method for approval through Fort Collins.
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 standard WQ. Also, please provide
LID calculations for Phase 1 and for the overall development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and we anticipate further discussion on the appropriate sizing means.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
I’ve noted some questions and clarifying text on pages 1 and 2 of the drainage report redlines.
09/10/2018: Drainage Report:
Other minor edits are provided in the redlined report.
RESPONSE: Thank you and we will update the report during FCP.
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
11/06/2018: BY FINAL
The floodplain boundaries requested in this note have not been shown on Sheets 6 and 8.
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: Due to the amount of information shown on sheets 6 & 8 and the need for clarity, the
boundaries are only shown on sheet 5, 9-11 and include applicable floodplain notes. Please let us
know if this is acceptable.
17
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/06/2018: BY FINAL
The cross sections all look fine. The BFE lines are still shown on Sheets 9 and 11. Please remove
them.
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: BFE lines are no longer shown.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: BY FINAL
On page 1 of the Drainage Report, under Site Description and Location, it is stated that Critical
Facilities are not allowed within the Poudre River 500-year floodplain. They are not allowed in any
100-year floodplain.
RESPONSE: The drainage report has been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: BY FINAL
On page 1 of the Drainage Report, under Site Description and Location, the last sentence in the
last paragraph is not a complete sentence, and doesn't make sense as written.
RESPONSE: Thank you and the drainage report has been updated accordingly.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: BY FINAL
The floodplain boundaries are shown, but they are mislabeled. Please call out the boundaries out
as Dry Creek 100-year floodplain and Poudre River 500-year floodplain
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: Labels have been revised accordingly
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: BY FINAL
The note was added to Page SP 1, but is incorrect as shown. 'On All Appropriate Pages of the Site
Plan' was an instruction, not part of the note. In addition, the note should either be on the first
page, or on every page of the site plan that has the floodplain boundaries shown.
09/10/2018: Please add notes that At-Risk Population Facilities (daycares, nurseries, schools,
nursing homes, etc.) and Emergency Service Facilities (urgent care, hospitals, fire, police, etc.) are
prohibited in the Poudre River 500-year floodplain on all appropriate pages of the Site Plan.
RESPONSE: Our mistake. Note has been revised
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
18
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
09/11/2018: FOR HEARING: Provide copy to City Environmental Planner of request sent to Army
Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination and permitting. Current site layout with road
crossings appears to impact wetlands under federal regulation (along Lake Canal) thus a
jurisdictional letter 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: Documents have been provided
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/6/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
A. By project Hearing: confirmation via copy of letter submitted to USACE for jurisdictional
determination process; 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: Documents have been provided
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: INFORMATION ONLY: Thank you for submitting the comprehensive and
professional Landscape Qualifications document from Western States Reclamation Inc.
RESPONSE: You’re welcome.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please verify WSR Inc is the anticipated entity hired to complete
the Northfield Expanded Filing general landscape and natural habitat buffer zone landscape
elements.
RESPONSE: We will coordinate as needed
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR HEARING: It is staff understanding per electronic communication with applicant
on 10/15/2018 that the applicant team has submitted necessary documentation to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers to begin jurisdictional wetland determination and permitting
associated with the three proposed road crossings over Lake Canal. Please verify. WHEN
VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION (e.g. A COPY) IS RECEIVED BY STAFF THEN
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING IS READY FOR HEARING.
RESPONSE: Documents have been provided
Department: Forestry
19
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/7/18: Continued until FDP.
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: Understood; thank you.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/7/2018: Thank you. Final tree separation from utilities will be confirmed by Forestry during
FDP.
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 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: Understood; thank you.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/7/2018: Continued: Please incorporate Southwestern White Pine to the landscape plans. It is
an underutilized species that City Forestry would like to see specified more often on landscape
plans.
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: This tree has been incorporated and so has the Colorado Blue Spruce, as was
requested prior.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/7/2018: Continued until FDP.
09/11/2018: Due to the ever-changing nature of landscape plans at this stage, I will conduct a final
plant count during FDP.
20
RESPONSE: Understood; thank you.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/7/2018: Thank you. Final street tree separation will be confirmed by Forestry during FDP.
09/11/2018: On Schlagel Street and Steeley Drive, the street trees appear to be spaced 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: Understood; thank you.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/7/2018: City Forestry is ready for hearing and will submit final comments for this PDP round by
Friday 11/9/2018. Please contact Molly Roche if you have any questions.
RESPONSE: Understood; thank you.
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: Acknowledged and will continue to coordinate through FCP approval.
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: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Before final;
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: The current site design files have been provided to reference for preliminary layout of
electric facilities. Please let us know if there are any space issues that need to be addressed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Before final;
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: Proposed meter locations are shown on the preliminary utility plans. Please let us
21
know if there are spacing issues that need to be addressed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Before final;
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 tomaintain 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: Acknowledged and the utility services, street trees, and streetlight placements will be
further coordinated through the preparation of the FCPs.
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: Preliminary C-1 forms should have been provided and any updates, if needed, will be
provided during FCPs.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Please contact Luke Unruh at Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions
at 970.416.2724. 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: 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: Preliminary utility coordination meetings have been held on 9/24/18, 11/19/18, and
12/14/18. I believe that major layout concerns have been addressed and are ready to move
towards final design after hearing. As utility designs are updated during FCP, additional utility
coordination meetings will be held.
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: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
Informational;
The proposed storm water line on the north side of Suniga Rd is placed where L&P electric is
usually placed (in the parkway). A variance to the separation requirements will need to be granted
in this location. L&P electric facilities will also be placed in the south side Suniga Rd in the
parkway.
RESPONSE: The storm and water lines noted are existing and not proposed with these utility
plans.
22
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: L&P’s electric facilities must be placed on the utility plan with proper separation from
other utilities before final. Please place all water meter pits and curb stop locations outside of
L&P’s electric route.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and we will work with all utility providers to provide the required
separations.
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 also on the
site plan and utility sheets.
RESPONSE: The easement description is updated and labeled accordingly
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 (10' paved w/4' crusher fines with
level shoulders preferred) except on the north side of Schlagel using the widened walk. No
surface utilities should be placed within the minimum cross-section, including drainage basins or
other surface drainage features.
RESPONSE: Preliminary cross sections are shown on sheet 10 of 25 of the Utility Plan set. Please
note that these are preliminary and additional detail will be provided during final design and we can
address any additional comments then.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: By Hearing: For Section A, Sheet SP13: verify that the 10' future paved trail will
not encroach to the south into the tree lawn, and specifically whether the future trail can be located
so close to the trees. We require a minimum 3' horizontal clearance between edge of trail
pavement and trees, fences, etc. Is this available on the north side of Schlagel Street. Please
work with Forestry to determine an acceptable distance from trees (if greater than 3')for the paved
surface.
RESPONSE: The future paved trail will not encroach to the south into the tree lawn.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: By Hearing: In Section A, Sheet SP13, please label the 10' width as "Future Paved
Recreational Trail Pavement Width".
RESPONSE: Noted and labeled.
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/07/2018:
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: By Hearing: Identify the "Public Access and Trail Easement" wherever it is existing
on utility or site plans.
RESPONSE: TBG The ‘Public Access and Trail Easement’ is shown throughout the plat and utility
plans.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
23
11/06/2018: By Hearing: The Public Access and Trail Easements cannot encompass drainage
features, such as detention pond volumes or surface swales, that would be impacted by future
construction of a full trail cross section. To indicate that drainage facilities are not in conflict with
constructing a future trail, please provide 1 cross-section of the final grading in the trail easement
south of Suniga; 2 cross-sections of the final grading of the trail easement north of Suniga and
south of Steely.
RESPONSE: Preliminary cross sections are shown on sheet 10 of 25 of the Utility Plan set. Please
note that these are preliminary and additional detail will be provided during final design and we can
address any additional comments then.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: By Hearing: Sheet SP 7 shows a "50' Public Access and Trail Easement". This is
not consistent with the 70' Public Access and Trail Easement" shown on Sht 6 of the Plat.
RESPONSE: The plat has been updated to show the 50’ width of the Public Access and Trail
Easement’.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: By Hearing: Sheet SP 10 indicates a "50' Public Access and Trail Easement" both
north and south of Suniga. Sheet 7 of the Plat shows a 68' "Public Access and Trail Easement"
south of Suniga. Again - consistency throughout the Site Plan and Utility Plans with the plat is
requested.
RESPONSE: Discrepancies between all plans have been coordinated and revised
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018:
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
09/10/2018: Please identify and label all easements for the Lake Canal Paved Recreational Trail
on the plat as "Public Access and Trail Easement".
RESPONSE: The plat has updated the easement descriptions accordingly.
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: This note has been added to the plat and will be added to the FCP horizontal control
and grading plans.
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11-7-2018 UPDATE AFTER CITY MEETING
>Further discussion can be continued offline at PFA regarding:
Project Phasing
24
Addressing/Wayfinding/Alley naming
Schlagel to Lemay temporary access.
Sprinkler and alarm system requirements
FDC Locations
EAE signage
Pull-out areas for emergency responders on Lemay 60ft X 10ft in two places
The project team agreed to add the requested walkways between Buildings 12 and 14 and
Buildings 13 and 15. Thank you
11/02/2018: UPDATE
>Further discussion is required relating to the proposed access to Schlagel St from Lemay
Avenue. Should any internal streets or alleys be greater than 660ft in length, a second approved
point of access is required.
>It is understood that the new Lemay Avenue may not be constructed for some years. Buildings 9,
13 and 15 face Lemay Avenue which is classified as an Arterial Street. To try keep parked
emergency vehicles out of arterial traffic lanes while at an incident at these Buildings, it is
requested that two Fire Lane areas be established along Lemay Avenue until the new Lemay
Avenue is constructed.
>The walkways are noted to the front of buildings and PFA is requesting walkways be added
between Buildings 12 and 14 and Buildings 13 and 15 to improve access.
>Connecting cement pathways are requested between the access ways from Schlagel St and the
cement path that is located along the ditch.
>The Alley between Buildings 2b and 3b is shown as 26ft wide AE on the overall Site Plan dated
10-17-2018. This is a required aerial emergency Access Easement therefore it should be shown
as an EAE on the Site Plan.
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 Autoturn shows significant overhang at the center entrance off Pioneer 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: Acknowledged and will continue coordination throughout preparation of FCPs.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/07/2018:
25
The added Hydrant shown on Schlagel will be moved to the Alley location as requested.
11/02/2018: UPDATE
>The hydrant between buildings 9 and 13 close to Lemay Avenue is not flagged as such on the
Utility plan. Please confirm its location.
>The hydrant added to this Plan set between Buildings 2b and 4b was to provide coverage along
the Alley. Please move it to the Alley side of Buildings 2b and 4b.
>The added hydrants on Suniga and Lemay are in appropriate locations.
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: Hydrants have been updated though slightly adjust since our discussion due to utility
congestion. The hydrant coverage should be adequate but please let us know if there are any
concerns.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/07/2018: FOR HEARING:
This comment remains. Is access spacing met everywhere? Are any variances needed for ped
LOS, or vehicular LOS beyond Lemay/Vine?
09/10/2018: What traffic related variances are needed?
RESPONSE: Access spacing is not met everywhere a variance will be requested. Based on
additional sidewalks/paths no ped LOS variances are needed. A variance for the westbound right-
turn lane will be requested.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/07/2018: FOR FINAL
APF regulations have been changed. Mitigation requirements for Lemay/Vine should be available
mid-December.
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: Acknowledged and we anticipate negotiating mitigation during FCP and DA.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: FOR HEARING:
It is noted in the TIS that ped LOS is not met. You'll need to provide a variance request and
provide discussion on effort to improve ped LOS. For instance, can an interim connection be
26
made along Lemay to Conifer?
RESPONSE: A sidewalk is anticipated to be extended to the existing walk along Lemay to connect
the convenience center and Conifer.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: FOR HEARING:
The TIS indicates that a westbound right turn lane is needed at the east site access. I don't
believe this is shown in the plans.
RESPONSE: A variance will be requested for this right turn lane
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: FOR HEARING:
Where is the commercial property located? If along an arterial (Suniga?), please provide
information on access location, type, and turning volumes.
RESPONSE: The previous commercial lot at the SW corner of Suniga and Lemay has been
removed. A multi-use lot is located along the north side of Suniga at the west end of the site. A
revised short range and long range traffic figure will be included into a memo.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: FOR INFORMATION
It would be very helpful if the geometry figures in the TIS includes assumed control.
RESPONSE: Revised geometry figures will be included into a memo.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: FOR FINAL
A signing and striping plan will be needed. A comment from back in January was to please
remove uncontrolled crosswalk striping along Suniga.
RESPONSE: Detailed signage & striping plans will be provided with FCP. Uncontrolled crosswalk
striping was previously removed.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: FOR FINAL
Please compare the landscape plan with the sight distance information (sheet 25) and other code
requirements for visibility of stop signs to ensure that sight distance and visibility is adequate.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and will confirm obstructions during final design.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/07/2018
11/07/2018: FOR HEARING
Can you verify the calculations for re-direct taper of through lanes on Lemay at the Suniga
intersection approach? Does the 125 ft meet standards?
RESPONSE: Lemay is currently posted 35 mph and was referenced for the taper and the vertical
design of Lemay. This was previously coordinated and appeared to be acceptable. (Ta=WS^2/60
=> 6’ lane shift * 35 mph^2/60=122.5’, rounded up to 125’)
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
27
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: Acknowledged and we anticipated further discussion on the benefits and timing of
either party completing the upsizing. Please provide any updates as they are available.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
For the “Preliminary Private Drive Utility Layout” cross-sections shown on the Overall Utility Plan,
please indicate where the A-A and B-B cross-sections are on the plan view. Please indicate where
the utility easement extents are for these cross-sections and note that the easements should
extend to a minimum of 10’ beyond the water mains and 15’ beyond the sewer mains. Why are
you showing cable tv and electric in separate locations? Can’t these be shown together in the
same trench? The location shown for the electric appears to be in the same location as the water
meters – this won’t work. We will need to closely coordinate all of these items at final.
RESPONSE: The location of the cross-sections should be clearer now but please let us know if
they are difficult to locate. The section have been updated to provide additional space for the dry
utilities.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
Existing Conditions & Demo Plan: please update the text for the existing water services to the lots
north of this development. The text should read for the services to be “protected in place” instead
of “switched to CoFC…”.
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?
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 notes have been added to simply say ‘PROTECT IN PLACE’.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
There are 4 Type R storm inlets shown on Lemay that are located within a few feet of the existing
waterlines on either side of the roadway. The design team will need to figure out how and where
these inlets can be built to allow for adequate separation between the inlets and the water mains.
Proposing horizontal bends or shifts in the waterlines is not the solution we are looking for.
09/10/2018: Utility Plans:
In regard to 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
28
requirements.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and we will continue coordinating the storm design with consideration
of the regional goals and the waterlines.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/11/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
The response to this comment indicated that the proposed water main crossings would be located
above the other water mains in the area. This will need to be shown to work at a depth that is not
sub-standard.
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: Acknowledged and we anticipate profiling the waterlines for final and confirm the
crossing design.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
Please consider labeling the buildings on the Utility Plans so that locations can be more easily
referenced.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and Agreed.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
The water service meter and curb stop location for the Flats Building 10 will likely need to be
modified to show the curb stop and meter closer to the water main since this is such a long service
RESPONSE: We can coordinate this further during FCP and determine the best location with
consideration of utility separations.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
The hydrant and sanitary sewer service to the club house appear to be separated by less than 10’.
Please fix.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and will be adjusted accordingly.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/05/2018
11/05/2018: FOR FINAL:
The proposed box culvert for the Lake Canal at Suniga Road crossing seems like it may be in
conflict with the various waterlines that are existing in this vicinity, in particular the CoFC 12-inch
main on the north side of the road. Please verify that there are no conflicts with your proposed
design.
RESPONSE: As far as I can tell from the waterline and storm drain designs, they anticipated the
culvert and achieved the separations from the existing invert of the ditch. The culvert size will be
confirmed during final design.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
I’ve made some water main suggested changes on the redlined plans. Please review and update
your plans accordingly.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/06/2018
29
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL: I’ve made some sanitary sewer main suggested changes on the
redlined plans. These changes help eliminate several stretches of main and several manholes.
Please review and update accordingly
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/06/2018: FOR FINAL:
There are trees shown in the tree lawn along the north side of Suniga that are separated by only a
few feet from the NECCO pipe. Any location where the tree is located 8’ or less from the edge of
the NECCO pipe will need to be an ornamental tree instead of a shade tree.
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: Trees along Suniga have now been updated per these comments.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/06/2018: INFORMATION ONLY:
A complete review of all other plans will be done at FDP.
09/10/2018: A complete review of all other plans will be done at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/10/2018
11/07/2018: FOR APPROVAL:
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.
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: Updated per PLS comments