HomeMy WebLinkAboutLANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION - FDP190002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentrw
February 22, 2019
Cathy Mathis
TBGROUP
444 Mountain Ave
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Landmark Apartments Expansion, FDP190002, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, you may contact
the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator,
Brandy Bethurem Harras, at 970.416.2744 or bbethuremharras@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-2216225-, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Notes and easements for cross-access and joint use of existing Landmark
amenities and outdoor spaces: The Minor Amendment to Landmark PUD is
intrinsic with this FDP and consistent notes and drawings are needed on the
Site Plan, Plat, and the Minor Amendment.
Final notes will be reviewed by the City Attorney but regarding joint use of
facilities the note should be this, subject to attorney review and adjustment if
needed depending on which plan it's on:
A shared joint access agreement is recorded to permit full and equal access to
all outdoor common areas, amenities, and vehicular and pedestrian facilities by
owners and tenants of Landmark Apartments Expansion City project
#FDP190002. The agreement shall be in perpetuity and not to be terminated
without approval by the City.
The MA should include a signature block, and show the new layout at the
2
access drive. (Comments really apply to that application but are intrinsic.)
RESPONSE: A signature block has been added as well as the above note.
Comment Number: 2
I believe Engineering comments will address vacation of existing Hobbit Street
right-of-way on this property as far as content and process. Likewise all off-site easements.
RESPONSE: Correct, we are working with Engineering
Comment Number: 3
Landscape Plan:
The east perimeter needs a major revision for more functional screening with
dense evergreens -- think spruces in crucial headlight screening locations. I followed
up with detailed explanation to Kristen from TBGroup. IF any more explanation is
helpful, please feel welcome to contact me. I strongly believe it will be better for everyone.
Evergreen trees for screening:
RESPONSE: The eastern perimeter has been revised per a meeting with Clark Mapes on 2.22.19
Comment Number: 4
Irrigation Plan: This is handled separately from the Final Plan submittal but as a
helpful observation it is helpful to be thinking about that as part of the landscape design.
Landscape Plan: How will the non-irrigated grassed be established, and please
confirm that trees and shrubs will have irrigation. This may warrant some follow-up discussion.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5
Site Plan: The east property line and fence do not seem to reflect the reality for
the southern portion where the sliver of easement is being granted. (I would
expect the fence to be shown inside of the property line by up to 5 feet or so at
the north end of the sliver). A 25' dimension is shown but is not apparent what it's measuring to.
It looks like maybe the fence is shown pretty much correctly, and the property
line is actually further to the east? Resulting in < 25 feet of buffer area width?
If a phone call is helpful, please feel welcome to call.
RESPONSE: The fence is shown 2’ inside the property line. The area of fence encroachment
Comment Number: 6
Site Plan, Fence: The plans need to clarify how the 8-foot and 6-foot heights will
work, particularly along the 400'+ sections at the northernmost lot (1601).
Revise the drawing of the fence to show the ground sloping where it slopes the
most along the north stretch.
I will follow up via email regarding final mutually understood findings with respect
to working with neighbors on an appropriate solution.
RESPONSE: The fence sections have been adjusted to reflect a slope and notes have
been added to maintain a constant height at the top rail.
Comment Number: 7
Dim lights sign: I think this should just say Please Dim Lights. Avoid bringing
up the subject of 'high beams'. The Councilmember mentioned it as dim lights.
Shift the sign east and north to where cars enter the site.
RESPONSE: Note on sign has been changed to “Please Dim Lights”.
Comment Number: 8
Site Plan: How scored is the scored concrete? The utility plans show pavers. It
should be a prominent contrasting pedestrian crossing. If it's just concrete that's
ok but it should be tinted for contrast.
3
Is the parking lot asphalt?
RESPONSE: Yes, the parking lot is asphalt. The area will be colored, stamped concrete in
a herringbone Pattern. Color will be Davis Taupe.
Comment Number: 9
Site Plan: Emergency access drive needs to be finalized with the material
decided and gates designed, shown and labeled.
RESPONSE: Emergency access drive to be asphalt with safe hit drive-over
delineator posts to restrict public access, and an Emergency Access Only sign at
the Prospect Rd entrance (similar to the recently approved Village Cooperative)
Comment Number: 10
Site Plan: where the 6' path on the south side of the channel bulges outward just
east of Building E, the bulge could be reduced for a more direct connection and
might help with grading. It is an unnecessary and inconvenient deflection as
shown - just a bit too much. Do you agree?
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 11
Site Plan: Drawing: Perhaps add sheets with enlarged drawings and labels?
There are a number of locations where the drawing needs to be completed and
labels are needed. -complete Building E. Complete Building D. Show clearly
the off-site trash recycling enclosure. Label the objects just south and west of
Building B. Label what's proposed at the south end of Building B in the
sidewalk. Likewise at the south end of Building A. Likewise the marks on the
sidewalk at south of Building E.
RESPONSE: Site Plan is now on two sheets at 20’ scale for better readability. Labels
have been added as requested.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The process to vacate the portions of right-of-way for Hobbit Street with it now
terminating into a cul-de-sac should start being coordinated. A separate
meeting with myself and Surveying (and others interested as well) should be set
up to define the area(s) to vacate and also potentially address/verify the "gap" in
the area that was cited on the plat. Please note that in addition the right-of-way
no longer needed within the Young's Creek P.U.D., I'm of the belief that the
excess triangular portion on the existing Landmark Subdivision should also be vacated.
RESPONSE: Meeting held 2/28/19. ROW vacation application included in submittal and
retains portion of ROW vacation as Utility Easement. Chain of title is being reviewed
regarding the “gap” to determine course of action prior to final plat.
Comment Number: 2
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The termination of Hobbit Street into a cul-de-sac requires a plan and profile of
the roadway in addition to the information depicted on the grading plan. Please
also ensure that the drawings on the civil set specify whether vertical curb and
gutter is proposed or rollover, and how this ties into the existing curb and gutter
system (rollover) on Hobbit.
4
RESPONSE: Added to Civil set
Comment Number: 3
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Based on the spot elevations provided on the grading plan (but would need
further review/affirmation with the providing of a plan and profile for the roadway
and also specifying the curb and gutter type) there would likely be concerns with
insufficient cross slope from the high point at the center of the cul-de-sac to the
south. Halfway between the spot elevations of 12.65 and 12.10, I'm seeing a
cross slope of about 1.1%.
RESPONSE: Cul-de-sac transitions from 2% crown to 2% slope towards drain.
Maintaining a 2% cross-slope throughout would require >3% slope from low point to center
of cul-de-sac, which is not allowed by LCUASS. 2% pavement gradient slope is
maintained throughout cul-de-sac.
Comment Number: 4
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The emergency access onto Prospect Road I'd like to recall the history in terms
of its intent and design. I was recalling that there's an intent to have this
gated/bollard, and I'm concerned that this is not being depicted on the plans.
RESPONSE: Emergency access drive to be asphalt with safe hit drive-over
delineator posts to restrict public access, and an Emergency Access Only sign at
the Prospect Rd entrance (similar to the recently approved Village Cooperative)
Comment Number: 5
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The reverse sidewalk chase shown on the plans should be using the concrete
sidewalk culvert for attached sidewalk.
RESPONSE: Updated plans and added attached sidewalk culvert detail
Comment Number: 6
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
A minor amendment to the property to the west was submitted. It appeared that
the only change on this minor amendment was a note authorizing this
development to utilize the property. I would want to coordinate this review
further, and would presume that the minor amendment would not be approved
unless this project was approved concurrently.
RESPONSE: That is correct, a Minor Amendment is being processed concurrently.
Comment Number: 7
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Can the site plan drawing package be compiled into a single PDF? It's difficult
to review opening multiple PDF's of the package.
RESPONSE: Yes, the next submittal will bundle the Site Plan package into one PDF.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-2216339-, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please expand Note 5 on the Utility Plan to include ALL utilities, trees,
light poles, monument signs, etc.
5
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 2
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please label clearance distances on all profiles and clearly label private
vs. public infrastructure. This applies to water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.
RESPONSE: Added to plans
Comment Number: 3
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The current plan shows Buildings C and D to be sharing fire services
and domestic services. Each building will be required to have its own
tap at the main for fire and domestic.
RESPONSE: Updated domestic services to not be combined. During a meeting
with Shane on 2/27/19, combined fire services would be acceptable.
Comment Number: 4
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The meter pit locations for Buildings A and B are a concern. It appears these
locations will make the meters hard to maintain in the future and generally don’t
meet separation requirements from other utilities and possibly the building.
Please work on finding a more appropriate location for these meter pits.
RESPONSE: Updated location based on meeting with Shane on 2/27/19
Comment Number: 5
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The fire hydrant tap on Waterline B will need to be located a minimum of 5’
away from the existing bend.
RESPONSE: Relocated hydrant tap
Comment Number: 6
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Will irrigation meters be needed as part of this project or is the plan to supply
irrigation from the domestic meters? If it is the latter, these meters will need to
be sized to accommodate the irrigation demand.
RESPONSE: Yes, it is anticipated that irrigation meters will be used. An Irrigation Plan
has not been completed yet to determine size.
Comment Number: 7
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Both water main tie-in locations have changed from what was in place when
this project was in the PDP process. A utility coordination meeting is requested
to ensure coordination with existing utilities as well as placement of dry utilities. Please
work with your Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras, to schedule a meeting.
RESPONSE: Updated tie-in locations based on meeting with Shane on 2/27/19
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 24
6
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Erosion Control Report has one minor comment. The erosion control plan has
some redlines that will need to be addressed in particular the culvert sections
that go into the ditch splitting the property and protecting the LIDs that are planned
for this site. These comments will change the escrow calculation. Please address
these issues for next submittal.
RESPONSE: Updated from redlines
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 16
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It doesn't appear that the floodplain and floodway boundaries are shown correctly.
Please double check them for accuracy.
RESPONSE: Floodplain and floodway boundaries have been updated
Comment Number: 17
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please add a note to the Grading Plan, indicating that storage of equipment
and materials is not allowed within the floodway.
RESPONSE: Added note to Grading Plan
Comment Number: 18
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Since no buildings will be located within the City or FEMA floodplains, notes
6, 7, and 8 on the Grading Plan are not necessary and can be deleted.
RESPONSE: Removed notes 6, 7, & 8
Comment Number: 19
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Note 4, on the Grading Plan, identifies the existence of the FEMA floodplain.
Please add a note identifying the City floodplain and floodway.
RESPONSE: Added City of Fort Collins floodplain and floodway reference to note.
Comment Number: 20
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Note 12, on the Grading Plan, indicates that the storm outfalls will not be located
within the floodway. All of the plans in this set indicate that three different outfall
pipes and/or turf reinforcement mats will be located within the floodway.
RESPONSE: Updated comment to reflect TRMs within floodway
Comment Number: 21
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please provide a construction detail that shows how the pedestrian bridge and
abutments will relate to the floodway boundaries and the high water level.
RESPONSE: Added to Grading Plan
Comment Number: 22
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please show the floodplain cross section locations on the Grading Plan, and
7
include the stationing and the elevations of each.
RESPONSE: Added
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 14
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Highlight the property location on the FEMA FIRMette, in Appendix E.
RESPONSE: Added to exhibit
Comment Number: 15
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
In the Floodplain discussion in Part 1.C, reference the City's Effective Canal
Importation Basin Hydraulic Report, the date of approval, the firm that prepared the report, etc.
RESPONSE: Added
Comment Number: 23
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It wasn't discussed in Part 1 of the Drainage Report, but based upon Appendix
G of the report and the Grading Plan, it appears that the developer is planning
to regrade the channel which bisects the property. This will probably result in changes
to the boundaries of both the City and FEMA floodplains. If they are changing, it
will be necessary to obtain an approved City CLOMR and a FEMA CLOMR prior
to plan approval. City and FEMA LOMR's will be required after construction is complete
and before issuing any Certificates of Occupancy for the surrounding buildings.
RESPONSE: In a phone discussion between Mark Taylor and Aaron Cvar from Northern
Engineering on 2/21/19, the consensus was that a CLOMR/LOMR was not required.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 13
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
In addition to the FEMA Floodplain boundary which is shown, the City Floodplain
and Floodway boundaries must be shown and labeled on the plat.
RESPONSE: Added
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Floodplain and Floodway boundaries do not appear to be shown correctly.
Please double check that they are accurate.
RESPONSE: Boundaries have been updated.
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-2216339-, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The calculations presented in the drainage report are generally ok,
but there needs to be significantly more detail and explanation presented in the
text of the report. I suggest a meeting prior to the next submittal to go over
8
suggestions and requirements related to the information in the report. Please work with
your Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras, to schedule a meeting.
RESPONSE: Updated drainage report based on meeting with Shane.
Comment Number: 2
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The LID treatment percentage needs to be based on total new and
disturbed impervious area, not net impervious area.
RESPONSE: Updated LID exhibit
Comment Number: 3
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Based on the Grading Plan, it appears a significant portion of the
runoff from Basin OS4 will be conveyed through Rain Garden 3. This will need
to be revisited to ensure this runoff is directed to the channel instead of the rain
garden. Also, how is the runoff from Basin A6 being conveyed to the rain
garden? This runoff appears to be combined with the runoff from Basin OS4.
RESPONSE: Curb cut was discussed with Shane to direct OS4 to channel. Basin A6 is
directed by storm sewer, notes regarding roof drain connections were added.
Comment Number: 4
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
For Buildings A and B, what is the slope from the FG adjacent to the building and
the curb? Looking at the Grading Plan, this grade appears to be extremely flat.
As a general comment, please label slopes and cross slopes throughout the plan.
RESPONSE: Added to grading plan, 2% slope away for concrete
Comment Number: 5
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please include forebays or other appropriate energy dissipation at
the entrance into the rain gardens to prevent scour.
RESPONSE: Added forebay with details
Comment Number: 6
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The FG on many buildings is higher than the FFE. This is a
concern as many projects designed this way by the Civil do not get
appropriately accounted for in the Structural/Architectural plans. Significant
coordination will be needed on this so that issues don’t arise in the field.
RESPONSE: This is being coordinated with Architectural and Structural
Comment Number: 7
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Storm Drain 2-1 has multiple bends in between cleanouts, making
maintenance difficult. Is there a way to remove some of the bends and provide
a more direct route for this storm drain? Crossing water and sewer mains with
bends in the storm drain is not generally accepted.
RESPONSE: More direct routes do not provide adequate cover. Cleanouts provided at
every other bend. Potential for eliminating storm altogether and remain above 100%
treatment.
Comment Number: 8
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
9
Are roof drains planned to be connected directly into storm drains
or will they surface drain? The west side of Building B is a significant concern.
It appears there is little room or freeboard for drainage in this area from the
building and the adjacent offsite basin. This will need a much closer look and more detail.
RESPONSE: Notes added regarding roof drain connections. Provided swale calculation
along west side of building B. Finished grade to be 3” above 100-yr HWL and TOF to be
8” above that in worst location.
Comment Number: 9
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The relationship between Rain Garden 3 and Building C is a
concern, as is the grading design in the front of the building. There appears to
be only a few inches of freeboard from the water surface elevation in the rain
garden to the adjacent grade of the building. Additionally, the building is
designed such that there is a sump in front of the building with no safe overflow
that would keep water out of the building should the inlet or storm drain become
plugged. This area will need a much closer look. The design will need to
ensure the building will remain dry in case of clogging as well as provide the
minimum 1’ of freeboard from the adjacent rain garden.
RESPONSE: Removed storm sewer and provided drain pan and overflow by raising
building C by 0.45’. Provided 1’ freeboard from rain garden.
Comment Number: 10
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please find an appropriate way to clearly identify which portions of
the underdrains will be perforated and which portions will be solid, especially for Storm Drain 6-1.
RESPONSE: Added perforated vs solid notes on plan and profiles
Comment Number: 11
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please reach out to me or check the City’s website for updated LID details.
RESPONSE: Updated LID detail for bioretention
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Horizontal Control Plan: On HZ2 the NHBZ note is cutoff. Please make sure it
can be seen by extending the viewport or moving the note.
RESPONSE: Updated NHBZ label
Comment Number: 2
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Utility Plan: On U2 the NHBZ note is cutoff. Please make sure it can be seen by
extending the viewport or moving the note.
RESPONSE: Updated NHBZ label
Comment Number: 3
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Utility Plan: Please relocate the transformer box outside of the NHBZ. If the
transformer box cannot be relocated, provide vegetative screening through shrub plantings.
10
RESPONSE: Per discussion with Light and Power, the transformer has been removed.
Comment Number: 4
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Utility Plan: Because the pedestrian bridge abutment will impact jurisdictional
wetlands, the City requires a written statement from the US Army Corps of
Engineers that the development plan fully complies with all applicable federal
wetland regulations as established in the federal Clean Water Act. This letter
shall be provided prior to the City approving Final Development Plans.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged – this process has been started.
Comment Number: 5
02/18/2019: FOR BUILDING PERMIT:
Utility Plan: If a 404 permit is required, the City will require a copy of the permit
prior to issuance of a Development Construction Permit. Keep in mind the
wetland delineation report performed for the site expired in November 2017 and
the Corps may require an updated report to issue a permit.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Utility Plan: On Utility sheets, there is overlap on the Call 811 Logo and Note 11
which makes the note difficult to read.
RESPONSE: Relocated 811 logo
Comment Number: 7
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Planting Plan: Please double check the planting plan on LS3 near the parking
lot and soft trail. A halfmoon area filled with turf grass intersects a planting bed
and may be from a previous version.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 8
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Planting Plan: Please change the leader for 50’ offset from the wetlands so that
it is correctly pointing to the right line.
RESPONSE: It appears to be pointing at the correct line.
Comment Number: 9
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Planting Plan: There is one black line (presumably a property boundary) that is
not set to print like the other property boundary lines. Can you please change to
make them consistent?
RESPONSE: Per email, this comment resolved.
Comment Number: 10
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Planting Plan: The Plant Table is difficult to read. Please revise to make the
table more legible.
RESPONSE: The plant list has been revised. It is scaled to match the plans so the
symbols are consistent.
Comment Number: 11
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Grading Plan: On G2 the NHBZ note is cutoff. Please make sure it can be seen
11
by extending the viewport or moving the note.
RESPONSE: Updated NHBZ label
Comment Number: 12
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
General: Thank you for providing the narrative related to the performance
standards for the natural habitat buffer zone. A few specific comments:
Section (a): please also note that a native seed mix and other native plantings
will be used in other places throughout the site to support the ecological
character of the site overall.
Section (c): please also note that the existing vegetation in the wetland channel
will be preserved and undisturbed by the project.
Section (d): see note 9 under Tree Protection on sheet 2 of the landscape plan.
The timing of tree removal will be restricted if nests for migratory birds or other
protected species are found on the site prior to construction.
Section (e): please specifically address how the project mitigates the impacts
of each of these items on the wetland area: use, density, traffic generation,
quality of water runoff, noise, and lighting. This explanation needs to be more thorough.
Section (g): please also note that additional native trees, shrubs, perennials and
grasses will be planted throughout the buffer zone to enhance the ecological
character of the wetland channel.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 13
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
General: Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural
Habitat Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this
project. A security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a
Development Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and
establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to DCP, please provide
an estimate of the landscaping costs for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone,
including materials, labor and irrigation. We will then use the approved estimate
to collect a security (bond or escrow) at 125% of the total amount.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 14
02/18/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
General: Because the NHBZ will be largely disturbed through clearing, grubbing
and grading the City will require a Weed Control Plan for the NHBZ. The Plan
will be an appendix to the Development Agreement and outline a weed
mitigation strategy to aid in plant establishment.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 15
02/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Landscape Plan: Relocate or remove Chokecherry in the detention basin west
of Building C due to utility conflict and undesirable growing conditions.
RESPONSE: Removed.
Comment Number: 16
02/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Schedule an on-site meeting with City Forestry and Environmental Planning for
tree and habitat mitigation.
12
RESPONSE: Tree mitigation meetings occurred during PDP. An additional meeting with
Forestry to identify 3 missing trees was held on 3.4.19.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-6161992-, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please include the City of Fort Collins tree protection Notes to sheets EX1 and
EX2 of the utility plans.
RESPONSE: Added
Comment Number: 15
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
There are two trees on the Utility Plans (sheet EX2) that are shown to be
removed, but are not included on the Existing Tree Inventory and mitigation
table. Please contact Forestry to obtain tree inventory and mitigation
information for these two trees and update the landscape plans to include a
sufficient number of mitigation trees.
RESPONSE: Meeting held with Forestry and are to be removed. The tree inventory has
been updated. No additional mitigation is required.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6
2/19/19: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Continued: Did this meeting occur?
PREVIOUS COMMENT ORIGINATING 08/12/2016:
Continued: Thank you for providing the grading exhibit. Please set an onsite meeting with
Ralph Zentz, Senior Urban Forester to review the grading impact to this tree.
Attendance by the landscape architect and representative from Northern
Engineering is requested.
PREVIOUS COMMENT ORIGINATING 07/08/2016:
Please confirm that there will not be any significant grading or cuts and fills
around the 19 inch diameter honeylocust to be retained. What is the feature
shown just to the east of the tree, is it a fence? If significant root impact will
occur to the tree contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to evaluate.
RESPONSE: There is a fence located just east of the tree. No cutting/filling to occur
within 10’ of tree trunk
Comment Number: 7
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Continued: This comment was not resolved from PDP.
PREVIOUS COMMENT ORIGINATING 08/12/2016:
Some shrubs are listed as 1 gallon? The standard for shrubs is 5 gallon. If
needed discuss with City Planner Clark Mapes.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 8
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
By the next round of review, please submit an “Existing Tree Removal
Feasibility Letter” should be submitted to City Forestry and the Project Planner for review.
Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter
13
detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all development
projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the
project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the
project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed
significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the
project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall
be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts
shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees.
(Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances,
reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the
costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would
unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been
undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from
noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain
significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the
applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements.
RESPONSE: This was provided with the last submittal.
Comment Number: 10
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
There appears to be some discrepancies between the number of trees shown
in the plant list versus what is shown on the landscape plan.
Catalpa: 1 additional tree shown on the plans (6 total)
Lanceleaf Cottonwood: 1 additional tree shown on the plans (9 total)
Plains Cottonwood: 1 less tree shown on the plans (5 total)
Bur Oak: 1 additional tree shown on the plans (10 total)
Southwestern White Pine: 4 additional trees shown on the plans (9 total)
RESPONSE: The plant list has been revised.
Comment Number: 11
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
On Sheet LS3 of the landscape plans, there appear to be two Southwestern
White Pines that are less than 6 feet from a Catalpa and Bur Oak along the
eastern edge of the property line. Forestry recommends spacing these trees at
least 25-30 apart so as to allow sufficient growing space.
RESPONSE: Corrected.
Comment Number: 12
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Forestry recommends planting Black Hills Spruce, Fat Albert Spruce, or Rocky
Mountain Juniper to assist in the parking lot screening from adjacent property
owners. These trees will act as a solid buffer between car headlights and
adjacent homes.
RESPONSE: These tree species have been added.
Comment Number: 13
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Forestry does not recommend planting Lindens in parking lot islands or
medians due to longevity issues. Please consider planting a hardier tree, such
as an Elm or Chinkapin Oak in these locations.
RESPONSE: The Linden has been replaced with a Chinkapin Oak.
14
Comment Number: 14
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
The symbol for Existing Tree and Southwestern White Pine are very similar and
a bit confusing at a quick glance. Please consider changing the symbol for
Southwestern White Pine to one that is more unique.
RESPONSE:The existing tree symbol has been revised.
Comment Number: 16
2/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Continued from PDP comment #3:
There appear to be several trees too close to a service line. It is not clear what
type of service line this is. All utility lines should be labeled on the landscape
plan. Please confirm that all tree separation guidelines from utilities are met:
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: Adequate tree separation has been confirmed.
Department: Environmental Services
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The existing off-site enclosure located to the
west of proposed Building E is not adequate and if it is intended to be used by
this development will need to be replaced and built to current Land Use Code
standard 3.2.5 specifications.
RESPONSE: It was decided that enclosure would need to be re-built anyway with the
construction of the additional parking spaces and sidewalk. It now matches the other
enclosures.
Comment Number: 2
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide an enlargement for the trash
and recycling enclosures is plan view for each enclosure unless they will be
identical. Plan view should include labeling of overall dimensions, service gates
and required pedestrian entrance. Additionally, all proposed containers should
be labeled with their intended use, i.e. "trash" or "recycle" and included the
capacity of each. The plan enlargement should also show and label the concrete
pad and service pad.
RESPONSE: Enlargement added.
Comment Number: 3
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Between building A and B there is a label for an
off-site trash and recycling enclosure. I believe this label is a mistake as there
does not appear to be any existing enclosures in this area. Please clarify or
remove label.
RESPONSE: That label was a mistake.
Comment Number: 4
02/20/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The Community Recycling Ordinance (No.
109 2016) requires that all new business and multifamily complexes subscribe
to recycling service that is at minimum 1/3 of their overall service capacity (total
15
bin capacity x number of weekly pickups, include both trash and recycling when
calculating overall service capacity). In general recycling containers must be at
least 50% the size of proposed trash containers to meet this requirement.
Please make sure proposed containers meet this requirement and that
adequate space is provided in all enclosures.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide elevations for all trash and
recycling enclosures as they are different. Currently elevations are only provided
for one of the proposed enclosures.
RESPONSE: Elevations for each trash enclosure have been provided. We changed the trash
enclosures to all be the same design and added a walk to the person entry in the enclosure
between Buildings A and B.
Comment Number: 6
02/20/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Door-less pedestrian entrances are
encouraged on all trash and recycling enclosures as they provided much more
efficient access for residents and staff who will often be carrying heavy items in
both hands to the enclosure. Additionally it help reduce how often these gates
will be left open blocking sidewalks/drive isles and how often residents will
attempt to throw their trash and recycling over the enclosure walls to avoid
opening gates.
RESPONSE: The pedestrian entrances are openings with no doors.
Comment Number: 7
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please be aware this development will be very
challenging to service for trash and recycling haulers because it does not
provide in easy flow path and will require multiple reverse operations. This
increases risk for property damage, injury and also state mandated back up
alarms will be an annoyance for residents. It is encouraged to provided as large
of containers as possible to reduce these risks and annoyances and the
reduced pick up frequency will save money on service. Please contact me for a
calculator that can help determine these pick up frequencies based on your
proposed number of units. I can be reached at 970-416-2701
RESPONSE: We can have this conversation and will plan on calling you during Final Plan review.
Comment Number: 8
02/22/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Please note because your proposed trash
and recycling enclosures are over 6ft tall they will require a separate building permit.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The enclosures are shown on the Building Elevation sheets
and are dimensioned at 6’-4” tall.
Comment Number: 9
02/22/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Trash and recycling enclosures are required to
be constructed of masonry, metal or other durable material. Wood is not
normally considered a durable material as it will often degrade quite quickly on
enclosures. Interior walls are required to be protected with either metal framing,
bollards, angle iron secured to the pad or curbing that will prevent dumpsters
from being able to hit the interior walls.
RESPONSE: The enclosures have been revised to be constructed of masonry (CMU Split
Face Block).
16
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Light and Power has existing conduit stubbed to the southwest corner of the
property that can be extended into the site to provide power to the development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2
02/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
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 charges
and fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3
02/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Modification fees will apply to this project to bring power to the site. Light and
Power anticipates a bore will be needed to bring power down the existing paved
drive on the property to the west. Conduit will also need to be bored under the
ditch to reach the site. Please contact me if you would like to discuss modification
fees for this project.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4
02/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please show primary power route on the utility plans to ensure proper utility
installation and to meet minimum utility spacing requirements. 10ft minimum
separation is needed between all electric, water, sewer, storm water, and
irrigation main lines. See redlines of the preliminary power route.
RESPONSE: Waiting for confirmation that electric will cross ditch to the east.
Comment Number: 5
02/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Light and Power is evaluating if the utility easement along the private drive on
the property to the west is adequate to bring power to the site. Can the utility/access
easement by separate document extend to the property line and not neck down to
20ft at the ditch crossing?
RESPONSE: In meeting with City Electric, discussed crossing ditch to east such that UE
will not need to be updated.
Comment Number: 6
02/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Multifamily buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore commercial
service forms (C-1 forms) and one line diagrams need to be submitted to Light & Power
17
for each building. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer
to install and maintain from the transformer to the meter bank.
Please follow the link below for our Commercial Service Form:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7
02/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power
Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. Please gang
the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters.
The owner/developer is responsible to provide and maintain the electrical service
from the transformer to the meter bank.
RESPONSE: Meters will be shown on the building elevations.
Comment Number: 8
02/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the site plan, utility plans, and landscape
drawings once approved.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9
02/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A utility coordination meeting is advised on this
site. The drive between buildings C and D is congested with wet utilities. It will
be difficult to bring dry utilities through this portion of the development and still
meet minimum clearance requirements. Please work with your Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem
Harras,
to set up a utility coordination meeting with Engineering Department.
RESPONSE: Utility coordination meeting held and some utilities relocated to allow for more space.
Comment Number: 10
02/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Please contact Tyler Siegmund with Light & Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 970.416.2772 Please reference our policies, construction practices,
development charge processes, electric service standards, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-4162599-, arosen@poudrefire-.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
2018 IFC CODE ADOPTION
Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins (Town of Timnath, Larimer
County) are in the process of adopting the 2018 International Fire Code. Code
adoption is anticipated in early 2019. Building plan reviews shall be subject to
the adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of plan review submittal
and permit application.
18
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2
02/05/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
GENERAL PROJECT ACCESS
>The maximum slope allowed for any fire lane is 10%.
>After a conversation with Danny Weber with Northern Engineering, it is
understood that the new grading plan shown on Sheet G1, dated 1-25-2019, is
now showing the EAE from Prospect Road at a maximum of 10% slope for a
short distance from the street.
>The entrance to this EAE from Prospect Road will be verified by a Grade
Change Analysis provided by Northern Engineering.
RESPONSE: Sent to Andrew and Marc on 2/26/19
Comment Number: 3
02/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
PERIMETER ACCESS
>Perimeter access is required to within 150ft of all portions of the exterior
perimeter of each of these buildings.
>The 24ft wide EAE that extends along the north side of buildings C and D is
the appropriate width and location because C and D are less than 30ft in height.
No further action required on this.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4
02/14/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS
The 26ft wide Emergency Access Easements, as shown on the provided site
plan dated 1-29-2019, are appropriately located to access Buildings A, B and
E which are greater than 30ft in height. No further action required on this.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5
02/14/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
HYDRANTS
A hydrant producing 1500gpm at 20psi residual pressure is required within
300ft of each of these buildings. However, it is the Applicant's responsibility to
verify the output of these hydrants. Please contact Fort Collins Utilities for assistance.
>Please move the Hydrant which is located on the traffic island north of building
C to the west side of the 26ft EAE as discussed with Mr Weber with Northern Engineering.
RESPONSE: This was discussed with design team and we do not prefer it to be located
along pedestrian traffic corridor to the west. In discussion with Andrew, it was OK where it
was at.
Comment Number: 6
02/14/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
Recent local amendments will require that these buildings are designed with a
full NFPA 13 automatic fire sprinkler system under a separate permit. Please
contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related
questions at 970-416-2868.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
19
Comment Number: 7
02/14/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC)
To assist with best current fire attack practices, please locate the FDCs as
follows: Building A southeast corner, Building B northeast corner, Building C
northeast corner, Building D northwest corner, Building E Southeast corner.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 8
02/14/2019: INFORMATION OINLY
EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COMMUNICATION - AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST
> 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. The installation of required ERRC systems shall be reviewed and
approved under a separate permit process through PFA.
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: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9
02/14/2019: FOR FINALY APPROVAL
ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING
>To assist with prompt emergency response the address will be clearly visible
from the street in no less than 8" tall numerals on a contrasting background.
>Because Building A is visible and accessible from Prospect Road, its full
address including street name, will be visible on the elevation facing Prospect Rd.
>It is understood from prior project comments that the project team's intent is to
continue the addressing system from the existing project and add wayfinding
signage at Hobbit Street and Prospect Road. Further discussion is invited to
finalize addressing for FDP approval.
RESPONSE: This project will have a different name and street address than the Landmark
Apartments to the west. 8” tall numerals will be a part of the building signage package that
identifies breezeway signs, etc.
Comment Number: 10
02/15/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
GATING
It is unclear from the provided documents how the EAE will be gated. The final
design will be provided to PFA for FDP approval. The following code
information is provided to assist with planning:
> IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access
road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they
shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and
the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times.
> IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all
20
of the following criteria:
1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet.
2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type.
3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person.
4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times
and replaced or repaired when defective.
5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire
department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall
be approved by the fire code official. Gates must have a Knox Gate Key Switch
that fits the Knox Key system for Poudre Fire Authority.
6. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for
approval by the fire code official prior to installation.
7. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with
UL 325 and have a means of emergency, manual operation during power loss.
8. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and
installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200.
RESPONSE: Added “Emergency Access Only”
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 8
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and revised.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Benchmark Statement has been revised. The City has moved to the
NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January 1, 2015, all projects are required to
be on NAVD88 datum. Please provide the following information for the
Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
21
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 - X.XX’.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 10
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please revise the Basis Of Bearings as marked. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 11
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Some of the sheet titles & numbers in the sheet index do not match the sheet
titles & numbers on the noted sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 12
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are spelling issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 13
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are Subdivision Plats referenced with incorrect names. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 14
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are text over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Comment Number: 15
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
Topic: Easements
Comment Number: 16
02/20/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
We will be reviewing the legal descriptions once we get the okay from Marc Virata.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 6
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are matchline issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 7
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
22
RESPONSE: Revised.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL 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.
RESPONSE: Plat updated based on redlines
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: These labels are now masked.
Comment Number: 3
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PLAN: There is text that needs to be masked.
Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: These labels are now masked.
Comment Number: 4
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PLAN: There is text that needs to be masked.
Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines.
RESPONSE: These labels are now masked.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/20/2019: No comments.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/08/2019: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Acknowledged