HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP190003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - 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
February 06, 2019
RE: Sanctuary West, PDR180008, Comment Responses
Please see the following summary of comment responses. If you have questions, please contact the following
individuals:
Comments in green contact Stephanie Hansen at Ripley Design 221-5828
Comments in blue contact Ryan Banning at Northern Engineering 568-5407
Comments in orange contact David Pretzler
Comments in Purple contact Jesse Dillon at 225-1553
Comments in red contact Steve Phua 303-567-7644
Comments in light blue contact Matt Delich 669-2061
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: In the L-M-N, with over 20 acres but less than 30 acres, three
housing types are required. The plan complies with (1) Two Family Dwellings,
(2) Single Family Attached Dwellings, and (3) Multi-Family containing more than
seven but less than 12 units per building. For clarification purposes, however,
please adjust the semantics on the plan set as the Land Use Code does not
use the following terms: “duplex, townhome, rowhouse and condo.” Also, be
sure to note the percentage of each of the three selected housing types such
that no one housing types is less than 5% or more than 80% of the total of 213.
Response: The project area is now 41.34 total acres resulting in four housing types. Those are listed on the cover sheet.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Regarding the Access to a Neighborhood Center, Section 4.5(D)
(3), please note that this requirement applies only to L-M-N projects that are
greater than 40 acres. At this time, staff is under the impression that only the
area west of the New Mercer Canal, 27 acres, will be in the L-M-N zone. The
area east of the Canal, 14 acres, is proposed to be annexed and zoned M-M-N
in order to accommodate the proposed land uses and residential densities.
Response: A neighborhood center is provided.
2
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: If the 14 acres east of the Canal are annexed and zoned L-M-N,
then the site exceeds 40 acres and the requirements for Access to a
Neighborhood Center will apply.
Response: A neighborhood center is provided.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Regarding Small Neighborhood Parks, Section 4.5(D)(6), it
appears that compliance would be achieved but only as long as residents west
of the Canal have unrestricted access to the Clubhouse/Community
Center/Outdoor Amenity Area as depicted on 3.1 acres located at the south
end of the 14-acre parcel east of the Canal. If such access is not allowed, then
a Request for Modification of Standard may be needed.
Response: A neighborhood park is provided. A direct sidewalk and bridge provides access for at least 90% of residents.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Section 4.5(E)(1)(a) requires an L-M-N project to be arranged in a
system of streets and blocks. The local street system must provide an
interconnected network of streets such that blocks do not exceed 12 acres.
Please label the blocks and their sizes.
Response: The site constraints are such that major walkway spines are utilized instead of local streets. An exhibit is included to
show three blocks, all under 12 acres in size.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: The L-M-N parcel contains eight buildings that are either 9-plexes
(2) or 12-plexes (6). As such, these buildings are subject to Design Standards
for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight Dwelling Units, Section
4.5(E)(4).
Response: Understood. There are now6 buildings total. One 9-plex and five 12-plexes. They will comply with the applicable
standards.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: The first of these standards is that for projects containing more
than seven multi-family buildings, there must be at least three (3) distinctly
different building designs. This is a very important standard and, for emphasis,
reads as follows: “For all developments, there shall be no more than two (2)
similar buildings placed next to each other along a street or major walkway
spine. 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: Reference exhibit with matrix explaining varying building designs.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: For the single family attached dwellings, Section 3.5.2(C)(2) –
Housing Model Variety and Variation Among Buildings – requires that for
projects that consist of more than five buildings, there must feature three
distinctly different building designs. As with the multi-family standard, buildings
are considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape.
Further, no similar buildings can be placed next to each other.
Response: Reference exhibit with matrix explaining varying building designs.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
3
06/13/2018: Section 4.5(E)(4)(e) is also an important standard that requires
entrances to the eight multi-family buildings be clearly identifiable and visible
from the streets and public areas by incorporating use of architectural elements
and landscaping. It appears from the site plan, however, that only three of these
buildings front on a public street while five front on a Street-Like Private Drive.
Response: The single family attached and multifamily buildings face streets when possible. The others face major walkway spines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: For the three arranged along the public street, the buildings are
placed in a reverse mode with the entrance facing the Canal resulting in
driveways and garages fronting on the public street. This is problematic and
does not comply with the standard.
Response: This area has been redesigned to accommodate entries facing the street.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: It appears that this layout favors the circulation and parking of
vehicles versus the providing an attractive streetscape and neighborhood
walkability. For example, the public street will require a six-foot-wide parkway,
street trees placed on no greater than 40-foot intervals and a 4.5-foot-wide
detached sidewalk. This design is specifically intended to link the entire
neighborhood with safe and walkable public space. As proposed, the
frequency and width of the multiple driveways defeat this network and
disconnects the neighborhood.
Response: Driveways have been removed.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Alternatively, the plan indicates that the proposed design would
incorporate a Major Walkway Spine. Section 3.5.2(D)(1), Relationship of
Dwellings to Streets and Parking, describes a hierarchy of how buildings are
expected to relate to streets. First, the standard states that “every front facade
with a primary entrance to a dwelling shall face the adjacent street to the extent
reasonably feasible.” Since these three buildings front on a public street, it is
obviously feasible that these buildings front on this street. Secondarily, it is only
in cases where fronting on a street is infeasible that options are provided that
allows entrances to be within 200 feet of a street by a connecting walkway or
350 feet in the case where a Major Walkway Spine is provided. These options
are provided in cases where there are limited opportunities for fronting on a
public street.
Response: Please see revised plans.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: As the site plan progresses, and for those buildings that do not
directly front on a public or private street, be sure to depict graphically and label
the distance of reach building entrance to the public sidewalk system and
whether or not this is by a connecting walkway (which cannot exceed 200 feet)
or a major walkway spine (which cannot exceed 350 feet).
Response: Please see modification request
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Wherever a dwelling unit is arranged in a reverse mode layout in
relation to either the public street, street-like private drive, or private alley, there
must be a person door and not just a garage door, facing this roadway. Further,
this person door must have a highly visible address for emergency responders.
4
Otherwise, such responders must go around the multi-plex single family
attached structure or the multi-family structure to gain access to the individual
unit.
Response: Addresses will be clearly visible. Connection walkways have been added in between all buildings
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Regarding the remaining five multi-family buildings that front on a
Street-Like Private Drive, please note that Section 3.6.2(N) states:
“(c) Street-Like Private Drives. A street-like private drive shall be allowed as
primary access to facing buildings or to parcels internal to a larger, cohesive
development plan, or for the purposes of meeting other requirements for streets.
Street-like private drives shall be designed to include travel lanes, on-street
parking, tree-lined border(s), detached sidewalk(s) and crosswalks. Other
features such as bikeways, landscaped medians, corner plazas and pedestrian
lighting may be provided to afford an appropriate alternative to a street in the
context of the development plan.
On-street parking for abutting buildings may be parallel or angled. Head-in
parking may only be used in isolated parking situations.
Such street-like private drives must be similar to public or private streets in
overall function and buildings shall front on and offer primary orientation to the
street-like private drive.
Neither a private drive nor a street-like private drive shall be permitted if it
prevents or diminishes compliance with any other provisions of this Code.
Response: Private streets have been removed.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Please note the underlined sections. As proposed, the
arrangement of buildings, and their relationship to the Street-Like Private Drive,
does not comply with this standard. The reverse mode orientation of these five
buildings precludes street-fronting buildings. If the design team elects to
submit a Request for Modification to this standard, then please note that there
must be a design offered that is equal to or better than a plan that would
otherwise comply. At this time, staff is not seeing a sufficient number of
attributes that mitigates the auto-dominated aspect of the plan (frequency and
width of driveways and garages) and compensate for the attractive streetscape
or safe walkability that would otherwise be provided if there was compliance
with the standard. If the reverse mode orientation for these five building is the
applicant’s preference, then effective mitigating features are needed. For
example, there appears to be a lack of amenities and features in the central
greens upon which these buildings front. Other design attributes may be
needed.
Response: The orientation of buildings has changed to face the public streets where possible.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Street-Like Private Drives will need to be named for addressing
for emergency responders. Per Section 3.6.2(N)(5), Private drives shall be
named, if necessary, to comply with the standards for Emergency Access as
contained in Section 3.6.6. Addressing of the property shall be assigned by the
City in conformance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.
5
Please note that street names must not duplicate any existing names within the
area served by the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority.
Response: Alleys will be named as well
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Please note that private streets must not exceed 660 feet from a
single point of access.
Response: The redesign limits alley length to under 660
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: The applicant is encouraged to separate driveways along the
private drives and alleys in order to create space for shade trees. Otherwise,
these roadways will appear stark.
Response: Noted. See landscape plan
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Section 3.6.3 requires streets that are stubbed to the property line
to continue to serve the larger neighborhood by being extended into the new
project. There are four streets that are eligible to be extended. Staff is aware
that there may be existing challenges related to stormwater conveyance and
floodplain issues that may preclude these connections. Documentation will
need to be provided that indicates compliance with street connectivity
standards is not feasible and that an alternative plan accomplishes the
purposes of the connectivity standards equally well or better than would a plan
and design which complies with the standards of this Division, and that any
reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle,
pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible.
Response: Please see alternative compliance request
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Please coordinate with Transfort regarding compliance for transit
stops per Section 3.6.5.
Response: Transfort has been contacted and no additional transit stops are required.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: For the six-plex single family attached structures and the
multi-family structures that are arranged in a reverse mode layout relative to the
private roadway, staff is concerned about lack of walkways to the front door of
the individual units. To provide for walkability, there must be walkways for
guests, visitor, delivery persons, tenants, residents, to safely access the front
door of the units without having to either go through the garage (via the required
person door) or around landscaping and parked cars. Staff recommends
walkways around at least three sides of these buildings. For safety and
walkability, these walkways must connect to either the public sidewalk along the
public street or the private sidewalk along the street-like private drive per
Section 3.5.2(D)(1).
Response: See revised plans
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Where walkways cross private alleys or street-like private drives,
Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a,b) – Walkways and Street Crossings – requires a break
in the continuity of the roadway and not in the pedestrian access way. Such
crossings must be well-marked using any or all of the following: pavement
treatments, signs, striping, lighting, and traffic calming techniques.
6
Response: Raised pedestrian crossings have been added
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: For the six-plexes adjoining the church property, there is no
setback from the south property line. And, there is no bump-out at the end of the
alley for vehicles to back out of the garage of the end units. It appears that
these buildings may have to be scaled back to 5-plex structures to provide
buffering and accommodate vehicle maneuvering.
Response: Duplexes are now located in this area and a bump-out is provided.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Also, the length of these alleys, 181 feet, may exceed the
maximum allowed length of 150 feet per the Poudre Fire Authority.
Response: The alleys are now under 150’ long or a turn-a-round is provided.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: There are two 5-plex structures on the west side of where the
public street runs north and south. These structures should directly face the
public street rather than be separated by what appears to be a row of surface
parking.
Response: See revised plans.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: In general, for the units served by the private alleys, Staff is
concerned about the lack of guest parking suitable areas for storing plowed
snow. Guest parking should be provided and evenly distributed throughout the
project.
Response: Guest parking has been added
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Staff will need to see Lot Typicals for each housing type. For
example, these schematics must be properly scaled and indicate all setbacks
whether facing the public street, street-like private drive, or a central green.
Buildings facing the public street must be setback a minimum of 15 feet.
Response: Lot typicals have been added
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Buildings facing a central green must also be setback in order to
create a front yard. Staff recommends staggering the setback for variety but the
front yard should be no less than 10 feet.
Response: Front yards are provided but owned by the HOA for maintenance purposes
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Two-family and single family attached dwellings must include a
front porch. In order to avoid monotonous repetition, front porches should vary
in size but be no less than six feet deep by eight feet wide to allow for
functionality. Please consider staggering front porches to allow for privacy. The
developer is encouraged to consider providing the end units with wrap around
front porch, separate side yard or patio to enhance outdoor gathering and
usable outdoor space.
Response: Understood
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: Staff is keenly interested in the extent to which the two-family and
single family attached dwellings provide private outdoor gathering space on a
7
per unit basis. Is there a patio between the unit and the garage? A functional
outdoor space should be no less than 12 feet by 14 feet for a total of 168
square feet. If not, then consider increasing the length of the lots to allow for
outdoor enjoyment. Such space can be in form of a front porch, side porch or
patio, or rear patio. If there is no opportunity on a per unit basis for outdoor
gathering, then common areas may need to be enhanced to provide for
amenities such as shade structures, picnic tables, movable furniture, grills, and
the like.
Response: Roof patios are provided on some of the units. Common amenity areas have been added.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: The multi-family units will require bicycle parking at a ratio of one
space per bedroom. Please note that balconies cannot count as bike parking
spaces.
Response: Bike parking has been added.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 06/13/2018
06/13/2018: If the project is to be developed in phases, then an Overall
Development Plan will be required.
Response: The project will be one phase
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Staff recommends that in order to comply with Section 3.6.3(F) -
Utilization and Provision of Sub-arterial street connections to and from Adjacent
Development and Developable Parcels, a public street be stubbed to the north
property in the northwest corner of the L-M-N parcel. The adjoining parcel,
known as the Wilson Parcel, is currently being leased by the City Stormwater
Utility for an interim detention pond. This pond is considered interim until the
larger, permanent regional pond is constructed east of Taft Hill Road referred to
as the Forney Pond. Upon the Forney Pond becoming operational, the interim
pond on the Wilson Parcel can be reduced allowing the parcel to become more
suitable for future development. A public street stub to the shared property line
with the Wilson Parcel will allow future inter-neighborhood connectivity to Cherry
Street at the time the Wilson Parcel comes in for development.
Response: Current floodways prevent any development of the Wilson parcel. Timing of the regional stormwater improvements is
unknown and the City may need that land for detention indefinitely. Therefore, alternative compliance has been requested to the
street connectivity standards. In addition, the neighbors were strongly opposed to extending a local street to the Wilson Parcel.
However, if in the future the regional improvements remove the required detention from that parcel this plan does not prevent a
street from being connected to our east/west local street. There is sufficient space for a small round-a-bout allowing a road to
connect to the north.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Please contact Spencer Smith (smsmith@fcgov.com or (970)
-221-6603) if you have further questions regarding these conceptual
engineering comments or requirements.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: There will be road right-of-way (ROW) dedications for N. Taft Hill
Rd. and Laporte Ave. required as part of this development. Per City Master
8
Street Plans, Laporte Ave. is a 2-Lane Arterial roadway with an ultimate ROW
of 84’. It appears that the property owner will need to dedicate an additional 12’
of ROW along the project’s Laporte Ave. frontage. Per the City Master Street
Plan, N. Taft Hill Rd. is a 4-Lane Arterial roadway with an ultimate ROW of 115’.
It appears that the property owner will need to dedicate at least an additional
27.5’ of ROW for N. Taft Hill Rd. It is likely that auxiliary lanes may be required
at the site accesses to Laporte Ave. and/or N. Taft Hill Rd., which will likely
require additional ROW dedication. The details of the auxiliary lane
requirements will be part of the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project.
Response: It is anticipated that the master street plan will be updated to show Taft Hill as a two lane arterial prior to this project
being recorded.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: It is being proposed to convert the existing ROW on the north side
of Laporte Ave., just west of Briarwood Rd., to an emergency access and
pedestrian/bike corridor, rather than use it for vehicular access to the site. If
City staff determines that this is an acceptable option, then the applicant will be
asked to vacate the ROW and dedicate the necessary easements for
emergency access and pedestrian/bike access. The emergency access road
will need to meet all Poudre Fire Authority design criteria.
Response: At this time we have two points of access and don’t need the connection however in order to maintain future flexibility we
would like to keep the off-site land as public ROW.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Refer to section 9.2.3.B of the LCUASS for conditions for private
access to a 4-lane arterial roadway. Refer to section 9.2.4.B for public direct
access requirements to a 2-lane arterial. Refer to Table 7-3 of LCUASS for
additional access spacing criteria. There may be some proposed spacing that
will require either a variance or a land use code modification for approval.
Response: See modification request for street spacing along Taft Hill.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: The proposed alleys will need to be private. The alley design will
need to take into account proposed utilities as well as emergency access
criteria as applicable.
Response: Alleys are shown as private tracts with adequate space for utilities and emergency access.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: The proposed public roadway that runs generally east/west
through the site should be a connector local. There are concerns that the street
alignment, along with the more narrow roadway width of the residential local
street section could pose some sight distance, safety and access issues.
Response: Public road transitions to connector local at elbow. Sight distance and conflicts addressed with alleys intersections with
public road.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Where multi-family units access directly to the proposed public
roadway, driveway cuts will need to meet City standards. Please refer to
9
Drawings number 706.1 through 707.2 for driveway approach design criteria as
well as minimum and maximum widths.
Response: Those units have been removed.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Transportation Expansion
Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Kyle Lambrecht at
(970)-221-6566 if you have any questions.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is
due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please
see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to
construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed,
damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or
restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to
the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps, existing or proposed,
adjacent or within the site, need to meet ADA standards. If they currently do not,
they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards
as a part of this project.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Any public improvements must be designed and built in
accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS).
They are available online at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and
easements that are necessary or required by the City for this project. Most
easements to be dedicated need to be public easements dedicated to the City.
This shall include the standard utility easements that are to be provided behind
the right-of-way (15 foot along an arterial, 8 foot along an alley, and 9 foot along
all other street classifications). Information on the dedication process can be
found at: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php
Response: ROW and utility easements dedicated along arterial and local roads.
10
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be
recorded once the project is finalized.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: As of January 1, 2015, all development plans are required to be
on the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please make your consultants aware of this,
prior to any surveying and/or design work.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be
obtained prior to starting any work on the site.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
A utility coordination meeting on this site is suggested. Utility coordination
meetings, if requested, are typically scheduled after the preliminary submittal of
the project, but can be scheduled prior to submittal upon request. Please
provide a site plan with a preliminary utility layout for routing with the meeting
notice. If you are interested in having a utility coordination meeting, please
contact the development review engineer for scheduling.
Response: Acknowledged. Coordination meeting was held with Heather McDowell. We will schedule additional meetings after the
first submittal.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to
be followed depending on parking design.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: All fences, barriers, posts or other encroachments within the public
right-of-way are only permitted upon approval of an encroachment permit.
Applications for encroachment permits shall be made to the Engineering
Department for review and approval prior to installation. Encroachment items
shall not be shown on the site plan as they may not be approved, need to be
modified or moved, or if the permit is revoked then the site/ landscape plan is in
non-compliance.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018:
The development/site cannot use the right-of-way for any Low Impact
Development to treat the site’s storm runoff. We can look at the use of some
LID methods to treat street flows – the design standards for these are still in
11
development.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Doors are not allowed to open out into the right-of-way.
Response: Acknowledged. Doors open facing the right of way but do not extend into the right of way or easement.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the
right-of-way and if placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that
when bikes are parked they do not extend into the right-of-way.
Response: Bike parking is located within garages and at surface spaces located near condo buildings on private land
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: With regards to construction of this site, the public right-of-way
shall not be used for staging or storage of materials or equipment associated
with the Development, nor shall it be used for parking by any contractors,
subcontractors, or other personnel working for or hired by the Developer to
construct the Development. The Developer will need to find a location(s) on
private property to accommodate any necessary staging and/or parking needs
associated with the completion of the Development. Information on the
location(s) of these areas will be required to be provided to the City as a part of
the Development Construction Permit application.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Tim Tuttle, 970-221-6820, TTUTTLE@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Based on the current proposal the estimated trip generation will
require a full Traffic Impact Study. Please have your Traffic Engineer contact
me to scope the study (970-221-6820).
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Work with Engineering on required frontage improvements and
any right-of-way and easement dedications.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: The anticipated trip generation will most likely trigger
improvements on Taft Hill and Laporte. For example the center turn lane would
be needed on both arterials and possibly right turn lanes into the site.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/05/2018
06/05/2018: Traffic Operations will work with you on the location of the access
points.
12
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/12/2018
06/12/2018: Please add a vehicular connection that would tie into Cherry that
would connect the development to the north.
Response: The ditch prevents this connection. See alternative compliance request.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: A heads up, given in case a different property owner and/or
developer is now involved, that this site has been through City development
review processes a few times over the past 10 to 13 years and staff comments
delivered over the years are part of public record. Major City Environmental
Planning comments here are the same as those delivered by City staff in both
2007 and 2011 related to this property and area.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: An Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is required by
Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site is within 500 feet of multiple known natural
habitats and features as defined by the Land Use Code (LUC). These include:
regional detention basin and channel, mature stands of trees, remnants of
Soldier Creek, wetlands, ACOE jurisdictional wetlands, New Mercer Canal,
unnamed City Natural Area public open space (to northeast across Taft Hill Rd).
Without an ECS, staff cannot estimate if the proposed site programming is
reasonable, however, at first glance it seems unlikely currently proposed design
can meet LUC 3.4.1 protection and mitigation requirements. Buffer zone
standards range from 50 to 100 feet for these features, as identified in Section
3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code. Impacts to any jurisdictional wetlands require
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permitting and mitigation through that
agency. This information may significantly affect the site layout that is currently
proposed.
Response: An ECS has been implemented, and wetlands onsite or on adjacent City Natural Areas have been delineated per ACOE
guidelines. Appropriate buffer distances associated with the delineated wetlands and wildlife corridor along New Mercer Ditch has
been applied to the site plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: For this site the ECS needs to be submitted 10 days prior to an
Overall Development Plan (ODP) and/or Project Development Plan (PDP).
Response: Understood
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: The ECS should include a delineation of all wetlands and detailed
recommendations for protecting and enhancing the features that are on or
adjacent to the site. Surveys, especially if any wetland mitigation is to occur,
need to be conducted May-October to adequately assess soils, vegetation and
13
hydrology. All wetland delineations assessing soils, hydrology and vegetation
should use the methodology of the ACOE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual
with Supplement. In addition, presence or absence of black-tailed prairie dogs
or burrows should be noted. Please contact me if you would like to discuss the
scope and requirements of the ECS further. The ECS is due a minimum of 10
days prior to an ODP and/or PDP submittal.
Response: The wetland delineation (using the ACOE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, with the Great Plains Supplement) is
included in the ECS. As indicated in the ECS, no black-tailed prairie dogs or borrows were observed.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: At least one wetland area on the site has previously been
determined by the ACOE to be a jurisdictional wetland, RE: Waters of the U. S.
Delineation for the Sanctuary West Project; Corps File No. 2007-3523-DEN.
This determination was made following a November 8, 2007 site visit, the
results of which were transmitted to Solitaire Homes, LLC (RMRI) via a letter
dated January 2, 2008.
Response: That wetland is referred to as the Laporte Wetland in the ECS and based on the history would still be considered
jurisdictional. A new jurisdictional letter of determination will be obtained prior to scheduling a Hearing, as appropriate.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: As current site layout proposal appears to impact wetlands and
potentially those under federal regulation, and a jurisdictional letter from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is only good for five (5) years
from the date of determination letter, a new jurisdictional letter of determination
will need to be submitted (copy) to the City prior to scheduling a Hearing.
Response: A new jurisdictional letter of determination will be obtained prior to scheduling a Hearing.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: City of Fort Collins Environmental Planner, Stephanie Blochowiak,
has scheduled a site walk with United States Army Corps of Engineers
representative, Brooke Davis, for Thursday, July 12 at 1:30pm.
Response: Understood
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Per LUC 3.4.1(O) “Proof of Compliance,” a written statement is
required from the Army Corps of Engineers indicating “the development fully
complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations as established in the
federal Clean Water Act.” The Army Corps of Engineers will require
documentation of hydrology (including the groundwater table), the selected plant
palette, how the site will allow for combined stormwater and wetland mitigation
objectives to be achieved and the submission of the appropriate nationwide
permit.
Due to the potential size of wetlands and jurisdictional wetlands at this site and
the anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands proposed (based upon current
site design), City staff need a copy of written proof of compliance statement
from the ACOE prior to scheduling an ODP and/or PDP Hearing for this project.
Copy of nationwide permit for impacts to any jurisdictional wetlands needs to be
14
provided to City prior to issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP).
Response: At this time, the delineated wetlands located onsite or on adjacent properties will not be impacted by the development.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Prior to PDP Hearing, the applicant is required to submit a
mitigation and monitoring plan (these two plans can be combined) that includes,
at a minimum, the following components:
a. A brief description of the planning process, how impacts to wetlands were
minimized, the type(s) of wetlands being mitigated for and the values (wetland
functions) that will be preserved in the mitigation.
b. Evidence indicating the wetland mitigation site chosen is expected to be
successful.
c. Revegetation specifications.
d. Stabilization plans for the site including: 1) Soil salvage and stockpiling,
2) Seedbed preparation (note a flat seedbed is not wanted and that low, narrow
ridges and shallow potholes may be left to encourage microtopography), 3) any
plans for supplemental fertilization, seeding, etc. as needed.
e. Weed control summary.
f. Mitigation and revegetation schedules.
g. Management and maintenance plan, including a 3-year monitoring plan (note
that the Army Corps of Engineers requires 5 years of monitoring).
Response: At this time, the delineated wetlands located onsite or on adjacent properties will not be impacted by the development.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: At a project PDP Hearing, the applicant would be required to
provide documentation that shows the selected mitigation site has a
hydrological regime that will support a mitigated wetland, e.g., groundwater
levels or frequent flooding events that will saturate the upper 12 inches of the
soil profile for a sufficient period of time each year.
a. If mitigation will occur within existing wetland footprint, this evidence may not
need to be provided. In other words, if the existing wetland area is used as the
stormwater master plan (and these improvements are constructed in tandem
with the rest of the project), and it is used as a combined stormwater/wetland
area, hydrology evidence need not be provided as this site has existing,
physical evidence that it can support a wetland. However, it is not expected that
the entire wetland area needed to be mitigated via this plan will be addressed
within the stormwater footprint; thus regardless, some evidence of hydrology will
likely need to be provided.
b. Note it is City staff understanding that if the acres of jurisdictional wetlands
impacted is less than 0.10 acres, a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers
will not be required.
Response: At this time, the delineated wetlands located onsite or on adjacent properties will not be impacted by the development.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: The ECS and wetland delineation informs design of a “natural
habitat buffer zone,” or “NHBZ” including any and all mitigation (1:1 for wetlands)
requirements.
15
Response: The ECS has indicated Natural Buffers associated with delineated wetlands and the wildlife corridor along with New
Mercer Ditch. A Natural Buffer Mitigation Plan which aims to improve the ecological character of the Natural Buffers is included in
the ECS.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: It appears trees and tree groves will be impacted. Please note
LUC Section 3.2.1(C) requiring developments to submit a landscape and tree
protection plan, and if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan,
that: "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat, and (5)
enhances the pedestrian environment.” Note that a significant tree is defined as
a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any of
the trees within this site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the
trees shall be conducted with Ralph Zentz, Senior Urban Forester
(970-221-6302 or rzentz@fcgov.com) to determine the status of the existing
trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed
development. Tree groves mitigation should be included in NHBZ design.
Response: A tree inventory was conducted with Fort Collins Forestry Department, a tree mitigation plan has been developed.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: This proposed development project seems to be opting out of
using standard quantitative natural habitat buffer zone setback requirements
[see table LUC 3.4.1(E)]. Thus City staff require more information including full
extent and sizes (acreage) of all wetlands in and adjacent to the site. Specific
wetlands mitigation and monitoring plan and one that demonstrates how the
development project meets LUC 3.4.1 will be critical prior to scheduling a ODP
and/or PDP Hearing for the project.
Response: The ECS has indicated Natural Buffers associated with delineated wetlands and the wildlife corridor along with New
Mercer Ditch. A Natural Buffer Mitigation Plan which aims to improve the ecological character of the Natural Buffers is included in
the ECS.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Once an ECS is completed including all wetlands delineations,
and submittal of wetland data to ACOE, then, Environmental Planning staff
suggest the applicant schedule a meeting with City staff and ecological
consultants to discuss a feasible wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the
site. Staff suggest scheduling this well before any PDP submittal. If impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated, then, an ACOE representative may also
need to attend this meeting
Response: At this time, the delineated wetlands located onsite or on adjacent properties will not be impacted by the development.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Prior to scheduling a project Hearing: the Natural Habitat Buffer
Zone needs to be delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and
landscape plan and clearly shown as able to meet LUC 3.4.1 standards
(whether quantitative or qualitative). See LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i) for
comprehensive list of qualitative (performance) standards for buffers.
Response: See plans for NHBZ’s and exhibit for qualitative calculations.
16
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Note within a natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article
3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping
within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone.
Waiting until FDP to determine NHBZ plantings would not be appropriate for
this proposed development project, buffer zone size or size of proposed
development project. The NHBZ needs to be at least ninety percent designed
prior to scheduling a Hearing in order for City Environmental Planning staff to
provide a reputable recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board
(decision-maker) that this project meets LUC 3.4.1 standards.
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: City of Fort Collins Land Use Code [Section 3.2.1 (E)(3)], requires
that to the extent reasonably feasible, all plans be designed to incorporate water
conservation materials and techniques. This includes use of low-water-use
plants and grasses in landscaping or re-landscaping and reducing bluegrass
lawns as much as possible. Native plants and wildlife-friendly (ex: pollinators,
butterflies, songbirds) landscaping and maintenance are also encouraged.
Please refer to the Fort Collins Native Plants document available online and
published by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department for guidance on
native plants is: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nativeplants2013.pdf
Also see the City of Fort Collins Plant List :
https://www.fcgov.com/forestry/plant_list.pdf
Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Recommend consulting with staff associated with the Zero Waste
Plan and Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP) as they
are working directly with local waste services providers to ensure appropriate
and efficient waste and recycling management at multifamily sites such as the
one proposed.
http://fcgov.com/recycling/wrap.php , contact Jonathon Nagel at 970-416-2701
or jnagel@fcgov.com
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Please have the Developer contact me directly with any
questions or concerns related to environmental planning comments delivered
during this Preliminary Design Review (PDR). I am more than happy to
schedule a phone conversation or in-person meeting with the Developer or
Developer representative. Thank you.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/15/2018
06/15/2018: Our city has an established identity as a forward-thinking
community that cares about the quality of life it offers its citizens now and
generations from now. Thus, the City of Fort Collins has many sustainability
programs and goals that may benefit this project.
Of particular interest may be:
17
1) ClimateWise program: http://fcgov.com/climatewise , contact Heidi Wagner at
970-416-2230 or climatewise@fcgov.com
2) Zero Waste Plan and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance
Program (WRAP): http://fcgov.com/recycling/wrap.php contact Jonathon Nagel
at 970-416-2701 or jnagel@fcgov.com
3) Green Building Program: http://fcgov.com/greenbuilding contact Tony Raeker
at 970-416-4238 or traeker@fcgov.com
4) Solar Energy: www.fcgov.com/solar , contact Rhonda Gatzke at
970-416-2312 or rgatzke@fcgov.com
5) Integrated Design Assistance Program: http://fcgov.com/idap , contact Gary
Schroeder at 970-224-6003 or gschroeder@fcgov.com
6) Nature in the City Program: http://fcgov.com/natureinthecity , contact Justin
Scharton at 970-221-6213 or jscharton@fcgov.com
7) Bike Share Program: http://fcgov.com/bikeshare , contact Stacy Sebeczek at
Bike Fort Collins at stacy@bikefortcollins.org or 970-481-5577
Response: Noted
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
6/11/2018:
There appears to be existing trees on-site. Please schedule an on-site meeting
with City Forestry to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information. Existing
significant trees should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. This
meeting should occur prior to first-round PDP.
Response: Tree walk has been completed
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
6/11/2018:
Please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code and 3.2.1
requirements. This should include, but is not limited to, including the City of Fort
Collins General Landscape Notes, Tree Protection Notes, and Street Tree
Permit Note, providing a detailed Plant List – species, quantity, size, method of
transplant, and species percentage, and including current and proposed utility
lines as well as proper tree separation requirements. Please contact Molly
Roche (mroche@fcgov.com) if you have any questions.
Required tree sizes and method of transplant:
Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Evergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlapped
Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlapped
If any mitigation is required, trees must be upsized to the following dimensions:
Canopy Shade Trees: 3.0" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent.
Ornamental Trees: 2.5" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
18
6/11/2018:
Include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please
adjust street tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility 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
Response: Noted
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: The proposed development abuts two parcels that meet the basic
criteria for historic review as potential properties in an "area of adjacency,"
against which the development would be reviewed to meet section 3.4.7 of the
land use code. They are at least 50 years old and exhibit enough retention of
their original architectural character and materials and potential architectural
significance to warrant additional survey, based on the initial staff assessment.
We have eliminated any abutting properties from further review and survey that
do not meet this basic threshold.
At this PDR stage, the applicant is responsible for ordering (through historic
preservation staff) third-party surveys by an independent contractor of those
parcels to determine whether or not either of them are eligible for Fort Collins
Landmark status. This step will provide your team with accurate, predictable,
and official information regarding which abutting parcels, if any, will need to be
considered in terms of the site plan and architecture of new construction.
The two parcels that require survey include: 2540 Laporte Ave and 2318
Laporte Avenue.
The applicant is responsible for the fees associated with those surveys and
should contact Historic Preservation staff before submitting a PDP application
to begin the survey process and remit payment. We anticipate this will take 2-3
weeks to complete.
NOTE: completed determinations of eligibility for these properties, which are
based on the third-party surveys, are now required as part of the presubmittal
process for development proposals. Historic Preservation staff cannot sign off
on our presubmittal requirements for the ODP and/or Phase 1 development
plan until these survey results are complete and fees are paid.
Response: The historic surveys have been completed. Neither property is eligible for historic designation.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: For the greatest amount of predictability, please review and
become familiar with Section 3.4.7 of the code in order to anticipate how it
might affect the current proposal. Because there are no remaining historic
resources ON the development parcel, the application of this section would be
limited to Section 3.4.7(F) - New Construction, IF it applies all (dependent on
19
the results of the survey noted in comment #1).
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/14/2018
06/14/2018: Any development that will require federal involvement for
permitting re: the New Mercer Ditch will also trigger Section 106 compliance
through the State Historic Preservation Office (History Colorado). An area of
potential effect (APE) would define the geographic area or areas within which
an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic resources
and require documentation forms and potential mitigation of any determined
adverse effects. While that requirement is separate from local historic review
and compliance, the City of Fort Collins would be a consulting party for that
review process.
Response: The state Historic Preservation Office conducted a data search and found no State or Federal historical significance for
the New Mercer Canal.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/07/2018
Light and Power will need utility easements alongside the alleys and private
drives. I recommend that a utility coordination meeting be held as this project
progresses.
Response: Utility easements provided alongside private drive. A coordination meeting will be scheduled in the future.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/07/2018
Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any necessary system
modification charges will apply at the owner’s expense. Please see the Electric
Estimating Calculator and Electric Construction Policies, Practices &
Procedures at the following link:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/07/2018
06/07/2018: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 221-6700.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/29/2018
06-13-2018 UPDATE
>After discussion at the City meeting today, PFA is requesting clarification on
the traffic flow onto Taft Hill Rd, if any, at the north east corner of the project. If
there is no access to Taft Hill Rd then an Emergency Access Easement will be
required to the Street or an approved turnaround.
20
>Emergency Access will be required to Laporte Avenue at the access point
shown as Pedestrian/Emergency Access.
Response: There are two points of access and that includes onto Taft Hill Road.
05/29/2018:
>PFA is expecting to adopt the 2018 IFC in January 2019.
>PFA does not have any comments regarding the annexation but the following
comments are provided to assist the project team with planning.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/29/2018
05/29/2018:
ACCESS
>Fire access is required to within 150ft of all exterior portions of each building. If
this criteria cannot be met, a Fire Lane will be established to achieve this
access and shown on the Plat or dedicated by a separate legal document.
>The construction phasing plan should be provided to PFA for approval to
maintain appropriate fire code requirements.
>Should an alley be required to achieve fire access, then it will be designed to
the fire lane specifications in comment 3.
>Any dead end road greater than 660ft in length will require a second point of
access unless all residences past 660ft are designed with an approved fire
sprinkler system.
>Any dead end road greater than 1320ft will require a third point of access.
>Any residence that faces the greenspace is required to be accessible by
means of a cement pathway at least 4ft wide.
Response: Noted. See revised plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/29/2018
05/29/2018:
FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to
the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any
new fire lane must meet the following general requirements:
> Shall be dedicated by plat or separate document as an Emergency Access
Easement.
> Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum
overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20¿ in width, the full width shall
be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting
40 tons.
> Dead-end roads shall not exceed 660' in length without providing for a second
point of access.
>Dead-end access roads in excess of 1320ft in length require a third point of
access.
> Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
> The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum
of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on
submitted plans.
> Be visible by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all
times. Sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final
21
plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and
spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs.
Response: Private alleys designed to meet the listed fire lane specifications.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/29/2018
05/29/2018:
AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS
>Buildings over 30' in height trigger additional fire lane requirements in order to
accommodate the logistical needs of aerial apparatus (ladder trucks). The
intent of the code is to provide for rescue operations and roof access via ladder
trucks when ground ladders cannot reach upper floors. Aerial access should
therefore be available on at least one long side of the building, or as otherwise
approved by the fire marshal. Code language follows:
> IFC Appendix D; Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5: In order to
accommodate the access requirements for aerial fire apparatus (ladder trucks),
required fire lanes shall be 26 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of
the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition
shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the
building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building.
Response: Alleys are wide enough to provide aerial access to all buildings that are over 30’-0” tall.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/29/2018
05/29/2018:
FIRE SPRINKLER
>Each of the proposed residential structures will require an appropriate fire
sprinkler system.
>The Senior Care facility will be designed with an approved fire sprinkler
system.
>The Clubhouse will require a sprinkler system or an approved system of fire
containment if it is greater than 5,000sqft. Please contact Assistant Fire
Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/29/2018
06/08/2018:
FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS (Group I)
> IFC 907.2.6; IBC 407.2: A manual fire alarm system shall be installed in
Group I occupancies. An electrically supervised, automatic smoke detection
system shall be provided in accordance with Section 907.2.6.2, with
exceptions.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/29/2018
05/29/2018:
HYDRANTS
>The Duplex residential units will require a hydrant producing a minimum of
1,000gpm at 20psi residual within 400ft of each building and on 800ft centers
thereafter along approved fire apparatus access ways.
A hydrant producing a minimum of 1500gpm at 20psi residual pressure is
22
required within 300ft of each of the other styles of buildings in this development
and on 600ft centers thereafter along an approved emergency vehicle access
route.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/07/2018
05/29/2018:
ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING
>Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise
needed to aid in wayfinding.
>Any residence that is addressed off one street but accessed from another will
have the full address, with street name, on both elevations.
>A comprehensive addressing/wayfinding plan shall be provided to PFA for
approval prior to FDP. Code language provided below:
> IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted
with a minimum of eight-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where
access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from
the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure.
>IFC 505.1.8: Buildings that are addressed on one street, but are accessible
from other streets or alleys, shall have the address numbers AND STREET
NAME on each side that is accessible from another street.
>IFC 505.1.7: Buildings, either individually or part of a multi-building complex,
that have fire lanes on sides other than the addressed street side, shall have the
address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/08/2018
06/07/2018:
ERRC
Any building such as the Continuing Care Campus that is larger than 10,000sqft
will require a ERRC evaluation. Code language follows:
>IFC 510 & 1103.2: New & existing buildings require a fire department,
emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to
final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to
define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be
established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be
designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre
Fire Authority.
LOCAL EXCEPTION: PFA will waive the testing requirement and system
installation in all buildings less than 10,000 sq. ft. and any Type V construction
building less than 15,000 sq. ft. PFA policy P15-510.1
Response: Continuing care has been removed.
23
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Existing Water Infrastructure (site specific comment):
There is an existing 8-inch/12-inch water main in Taft Hill Road with an existing
3/4-inch water service to the site at the address 325 N. Taft Hill Road.
Additionally, there is an existing 27-inch water main in Laporte and an existing
6-inch main in Pennsylvania and in Webb Avenue and in Irish Drive. Please see
the map provided for illustration.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Existing Sewer Infrastructure (site specific comment):
There is an existing 15-inch sanitary sewer main crossing the southeast corner
of the property from southwest to northeast and a 10-inch sewer main along the
northerly property boundary. The existing house at 325 N. Taft Hill Road does
not connect into the municipal sanitary sewer system.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Service separation (standard comment):
Separate water and sewer services will be required to service the residential
use and commercial uses.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Water conservation (standard comment):
The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply.
Information on these requirements can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/standards
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Fees (standard comment):
Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. These fees
are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees
can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970)
416-4252 for questions on fees.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: General
24
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Master plan and criteria compliance (site specific comment):
The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the West
Vine Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual.
There are large master plan improvements required for this area of the West
Vine Basin including a major conveyance channel through the site and all the
way to Vine Drive downstream and regional detention (Forney) pond east of
Taft Hill Road.
The master plan channel conveyance improvements through this site will need
to be incorporated into the site design. These include the channel from Laporte
to Cherry and the channel along the northerly boundary of the site. As
discussed previously with the site applicant, for the ultimate condition when the
downstream improvements are in place, if analysis can show that this site can
beat the peak of the master planned improvements peak, then the site would
not have to provide stormwater detention in the ultimate condition. If analysis
can support a “no detention” scenario for the ultimate condition, the master
planned channels located within and through this site development may be
utilized as “interim” detention ponds that would need to be pumped out and
proper agreements with the New Mercer and/or Larimer No. 2 Ditch companies
would need to be in place in order to accommodate the interim pumped
releases from the site.
Response: Acknowledged. Drainage facilities are designed to comply with previous discussions concerning the West Vine basin.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Documentation requirements (site specific comment):
A drainage report and construction plans are required and they must be
prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The
drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural
BMPs.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Stormwater outfall (site specific comment):
In the interim, prior to the installation of the downstream master planned
improvements discussed above, the stormwater outfall options for this site
appear to be into the New Mercer ditch and/or the Larimer No. 2 ditch via the
existing culverts across Taft Hill Road. Agreements with both ditch companies
would need to be in place for these outfall scenarios.
Response: Acknowledged. We have held preliminary discussion with Larimer No.2 and Mercer ditch and design detention
accordingly.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Detention requirements (site specific comment):
For the interim condition, onsite detention is required for the runoff volume
difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the 2-year historic
release rate. In the West Vine drainage basin the 2-year historic release rate is
0.35 cfs/acre for water quantity detention.
25
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Detention drain times (standard comment):
Per Colorado Revised Statute §37-92-602 (8) that became effective August 5,
2015, criteria regarding detention drain time will apply to this project. As part of
the drainage design, the engineer will be required to show compliance with this
statute using a standard spreadsheet (available on request) that will need to be
included in the drainage report. Upon completion of the project, the engineer
will also be required to upload the approved spreadsheet onto the Statewide
Compliance Portal. This will apply to any volume based stormwater storage,
including extended detention basins.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Standard water quality requirements (standard comment):
Fifty percent of the site runoff is required to be treated using the standard water
quality treatment as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume
3-Best Management Practices (BMPs).
(http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f
orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the
usual method selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the
BMPs is encouraged.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: LID requirements (standard comment):
Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are required on all new or
redeveloping property which includes sites required to be brought into
compliance with the Land Use Code. These require a higher degree of water
quality treatment with one of the two following options:
1. 50% of the newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID
techniques and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious.
2. 75% of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID
techniques.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
06/04/2018: Inspection and maintenance (standard comment):
There will be a final site inspection of the stormwater facilities when the project
is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another
maintenance organization. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for on-going
maintenance of all onsite drainage facilities will be included as part of the
Development Agreement. More information and links can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-im
pact-development
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/04/2018
26
06/04/2018: Fees (standard comment):
Stormwater Development Fees include two components: Plant Investment Fees
(PIFs) and Review Fees.
1. PIFs (2017) are $8,217/acre of new impervious area over 350 square feet
($8,217 x % imperviousness x site acreage)
2. Review Fees are $1,045/acre of new impervious area and based on the
impervious area rate factor (i.e. $1,045 x rate factor (based on %
imperviousness) x site acreage)
Fees are to be paid at the time of the issuance of the first building permit. There
are no fees charged for existing impervious areas. Stormwater Development
Fees for parking lots or other projects that do not require a building permit are
due prior to project approval. The fees are calculated the same as for project
sites with buildings. More information on stormwater fees can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970)
416-4252 for questions on fees.
Response: Acknowledged
Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: A portion of this property is located within the City regulatory, West
Vine 100-year Floodplain and Floodway. Any improvements planned for within
the floodplain and floodway boundaries must comply with Chapter 10 of City
Code. A Flood Risk Map is attached.
Response: Acknowledged. The grading has been designed to pass 100 year floodway and floodplain through the site to match
existing conditions at the boundaries of the site.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: The materials submitted for conceptual review show structures
and site improvements to be located in the floodplain and/or floodway. Please
add the floodplain and floodway boundaries to all applicable drawings so that it
is clear what flood zone the improvements will be impacting. In order to
construct the desired project, the site layout will need to be adjusted to comply
with floodplain regulations or the floodplain/floodway will need to be rerouted
and remapped through a CLOMR/LOMR process.
Response: Floodplain/Floodway boundaries have been added to all applicable drawings
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: Per Section 10-102 of the City Municipal Code, new residential
structures are prohibited in the floodway. Per Section 10-108, residential
construction is allowed within the floodplain, provided that the lowest floor of all
structures (along with all duct work, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
systems, hot water heaters, boilers, electrical, etc.) are elevated a minimum of
18-inches above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This elevation is known as
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). Basements are not allowed
in any residential structure located in the floodplain.
27
Response: Residential structures are located in the floodplain and designed to the requirements listed above
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: Nonstructural development (fill, utilities, driveways, sidewalks,
vegetation, etc.) can be completed within the floodway as long it can be proven
that the work will not cause a change in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or a
change to the boundaries of the floodway or floodplain through a No-Rise
Certification with supporting documentation and applicable floodplain modeling
prepared by a licensed engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: Nonstructural development (fill, utilities, driveways, sidewalks,
vegetation, etc.) is allowed in the floodplain with an approved Floodplain Use
Permit.
Response: Acknowledged. Note added to applicable sheets
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: Critical facilities including facilities for “at-risk populations” are
prohibited in the 100-year floodplain. The nursing home/continued care facility
would fall into this category. If part of a structure is within the floodplain/floodway,
the entire structure is considered to be within the floodplain/floodway.
Response: Critical facilities have been removed.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: Any and all construction activities in the floodplain/floodway must
be preceded by an approved Floodplain Use Permit, the appropriate permit
application fees, and approved plans. An approved FEMA Elevation Certificate
is required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any structures
built in the 100-year floodplain.
Response: Acknowledged. Note added to applicable sheets
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: This floodplain is currently being re-modeled with updated
hydrology and topographic information. A copy of the preliminary map is
attached. Depending on funding, the mapping may become regulatory in 2020.
The timing of the project will determine which mapping will apply. This project
would be required to meet the above regulations based on which floodplain and
floodway boundary is in effect at the time of building permit. These mapping
changes could affect final layout of the site. Please plan for this change so that
the site will be compatible with the applicable floodplain regulations.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: Development review checklists and application forms for
floodplain requirements can be obtained at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents
. Please utilize these documents when preparing your plans for submittal.
28
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: The floodplain and floodway boundaries must be shown and called
out on all plans so that it is clear whether improvements are within the
boundaries. Please contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at
banderson@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work as required per the
floodplain development review checklist.
Response: Floodplain/Floodway boundaries added to plans
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/11/2018
06/11/2018: Please contact Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854,
hhansen@fcgov.com with questions concerning development in the floodplain.
Response: Acknowledged
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/30/2018
05/30/2018: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and therefore Erosion
and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control
requirements can be located in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the
Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. a copy of the erosion
control requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/eroison. The Erosion
Control Materials will need to be submitted at time of the first round of FDP.
Based upon the area of disturbance, State permits for stormwater will be
required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before Construction
Activities begin. Significant thought should be taken into a project this large to
break it up into phases as this much exposed soil at any one time will cause
difficult control of erosion and fugitive dust. If you need clarification concerning
the Erosion Control Material Requirements or Comments presented above
please contact myself. Jesse Schlam (970) 224-6015 jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: Erosion Control plan has been submitted with PDP and remaining Erosion control materials will be submitted with FDP
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/01/2018
06/01/2018: As of January 1, 2015 all development plans are required to be on
the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please make your consultants aware of this, prior
to any surveying and/or design work.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/01/2018
06/01/2018: Some of this property is outside of the City limits, and will require
an Annexation Plat. Addresses are not acceptable in the Annexation Plat
title/name.
29
Response: Annexation has been completed
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/01/2018
06/01/2018: This property is not platted. If submitting a Subdivision Plat for this
property/project, addresses are not acceptable in the Plat title/name.
Response: Acknowledged