Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP190003 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSPage 1 of 17 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 May 31, 2019 Stephanie Hansen Ripley Design Inc 419 Canyon Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Sanctuary on the Green, PDP190003, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, please contact your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan, at 970-221-6695 or tsullivan@fcgov.com . Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: The following comments 37 - 50 need to be addressed prior to hearing. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: The buildings along the Bellweather Farm Open space are close together in some areas, just meeting min. building separations. Overall the building mass seems packed in along the 10’ walkway spine, with minimal residual space and most of the buildings in this area being a full three stories of floor plate. The resulting effect along this edge is a plan that is dominated by three story building footprints and the resulting overall mass lacks effective transition space around the buildings to break up the overall mass of the perimeter. A design that provides more transition would appear to be the intent conveyed in Policy LU-1.4 in the Northwest Subarea Plan. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Recommend making SFA #30 (AKA Building Type B; AKA Page 2 of 17 Modern Farmhouse) two stories along Taft. Recommend making the Modern Farmhouse two stories on both ends or adding a plan set for this model that allows flipping the prototype. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Many areas of the site are too tight along walkways. More landscape transition space is recommended. Recommend additional walkway connections and providing more space between buildings for walkways. See redlines. Entrance stairs into each unit – unclear how big of an impact this will be to the overall design. Many of the walkways are right on the building footprint edges. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: The design layout provided around the ditch seems unnatural and forced, with grading and density projections that reinforce the site layout such as the building pad, lots and alley. This seems counter to the goals and objectives of the code and NSP. See redlines. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: It’s not clear which walkways are intended to be private vs. publicly accessible. It’s also not clear how these areas on private lots will be maintained, access ensured. Another issue is how common area landscaping can be provided and maintained along the common walkways. Some level of consistently themed landscaping and consistent maintenance seems necessary. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Many areas of the site would benefit from common fencing types to provide transition, form maintenance boundaries and control private encroachment into common areas and off-site open space. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Recommend modifying portions of the site plan arrangement so that there are 18’ min. driveway depths for the use of visitors and owners where feasible. This might be possible in some areas by shifting footprints or alleys. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Parking for the MF building has a rounding error. One additional space is required for each 12 and 9 plex. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Formatting requirements: The submittal sheets don’t meet city requirements. Please do a print to PDF and not a “save as” for all sheets so that there is no regen time for all of the hatching provided on the plans. This is making the review difficult. The regen time is a major problem. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Please reconsider the white paint trend on the larger buildings. The contrast and glare don't work well with large MF and SFA buildings. Does not seem like a good response to the area context. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: (6) Small Neighborhood Parks. Either a neighborhood park or a Page 3 of 17 privately owned park, that is at least one (1) acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of one-third (1/3) mile of at least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in any development project of ten (10) acres or larger as measured along street frontage. Such parks shall meet the following criteria: (a) Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. (b) Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public. (c) Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple-use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to enjoy. (d) Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in the discretion of the city, be acquired by the city (through dedication or purchase), or be privately owned and maintained by the developer or property owner’s association. (e) Storm Drainage. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: The landscaping plans provided trees, but no shrub bed areas. Only sod and rock mulch appear to be proposed. Some areas show turf coverage on lots, and in other areas no landscaping is shown on the lots. Too much turf and rock mulch areas are proposed; most landscape areas of the site lack visual interest. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Tree stocking requirements are not met in some areas of the site per LUC 3.2.1, due to the tightness of the site layout and lack of landscape depth around the buildings. This includes some of the SFA alleys and MF areas. These areas would seem to be both high use and highly visible. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FINAL: All the project information is split into too many sheets. Many of the plan sheets have little or no labeling or dimensions. Overall the project was difficult to review, with too much cross referencing and confusion due to the format and lot diagrams. The format can stay the same at this point, but be aware that final plans must draw what is intended to be built, and this must be drawn and labeled directly on site and landscape sheets at 1:20 or 1:30. Lot Typicals and lack of labeling on 1:20 format sheets make review difficult. Information should be provided on the site plan sheets where there is more context and where information about the project can be consolidated. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: The minimum front yard setback along a public street is 15 feet. Two of the Lot Typicals indicate that there are buildings that are would be between nine and 15 feet. Please note that any front setback less than 15 feet is only allowed per Alternative Compliance under 3.5.2(E)(2) which calls for a Page 4 of 17 number of urban design features as mitigation. For buildings with less than15 feet front yard setback, please provide a narrative, site notes and a Lot Typical that includes these features. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 05/23/2019: FOR FINAL There is one pedestrian connection toward the westerly site access that does not tie into any pedestrian facilities along Laporte Ave. We may need this connection to be deferred until there are adequate pedestrian facilities in this location. Another option is to provide an interim connection to the crossing at Impala Drive to the east. 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL There is no pedestrian connection from the "sidewalk connection" on the north side of Laporte Ave. to Impala Dr. as discussed prior to submittal. With no pedestrian improvements on the north side of Laporte Ave., the City would not support pedestrian routes being terminated on the unimproved north side of Laporte Ave. The last meeting, I attended where this was discussed, the applicant's consultants agreed to pursue a connection that would get pedestrians from a future crossing (potentially built by the City) of Laporte Ave., west of Impala to the project's internal walkway/trail system. The City is starting design of a Laporte Ave. improvements project that will be installing pedestrian and bike facilities along Laporte Ave. This project will need to coordinate with City Engineering staff regarding the City design. I believe that an interim connection to a crossing at Impala should still be shown and designed by the applicant because the City project could lag behind this development. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 05/23/2019: FOR APPROVAL After further discussion with CIP staff, we will only require payment-in-lieu for all of the Laporte Ave. frontage improvements. We will ask for the existing trees to be removed to the east of the Laporte Ave. access (see redlines). This does not apply to the interim pedestrian connection that is proposed to connect to the Impala St. crossing. That improvement will still be required. 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL This project will be required to install adjacent roadway improvements along Taft Hill and Laporte. The portion of the site adjacent to Laporte, near the site access will need to install curb and gutter and sidewalk. The other portion of the site located between the proposed site access and Taft Hill would likely just be required to have payment-in-lieu provided, rather than construct walk at this time. These details will be coordinated and worked out as the project approval process continues. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL See Construction Plan redlines for comments on typical street sections. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/08/2019 Page 5 of 17 03/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Please refer to Engineering redlines on the Plat, Site Plan and Utility Plans for additional comments. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: BY HEARING We need to have further discussion regarding the proposed street section for Taft Hill Rd. We initially were okay with dedicating the necessary ROW for the 2-Lane Arterial street section, in anticipation of that portion of Taft Hill Rd. being downgraded with the upcoming Master Street Plan update. We did ask however, that your site layout be able to incorporate the wider ROW (for a 4-Lane Arterial) just in case the downgrade was not approved. Your first PDP submittal did not address this, and you pointed to the upcoming Master Plan update as the reason you assumed the 2-Lane Arterial section. I have learned that the Master Street Plan update will not be finalized until later this year, rather than earlier, as anticipated. We cannot allow this project to proceed past hearing without being comfortable that it can accommodate the wider street section and ROW on the chance that the downgrade is not approved. We do not want to require dedication of the full 4-Lane Arterial ROW width necessarily, but we need to ensure that if it is needed, it is available. We will have the final approval conditioned on the correct Taft Hill Rd. ROW being dedicated. I would recommend coming up with an alternative site layout that accommodates the wider ROW to avoid having to do a major site redesign if the downgrade does not get approved. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: FOR FINAL We will need to have more detailed designs of the interim pedestrian connection to Impala Dr. See redlines for more details on what should be provided. Also, I like the format and how the Emergency Access Enlargement is shown on sheet 10 of 10 of the site plan. The detail for the interim ped connection should look similar. The more detailed design can be done during final, but I would like to have a typical section included in the PDP set for reference. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: FOR APPROVAL There is a gap in the utility easement for the Tract E. The linework for this area will need to be adjusted or the owner will need to obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner to ensure continuity of the easement. As mentioned in the staff review meeting, we can discuss further at the upcoming utility coordination meeting. The most critical utilities affected would likely be gas and maybe cable/internet. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: FOR APPROVAL See redlines for comments regarding inadequate cover over proposed box culverts. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: FOR FINAL Page 6 of 17 Please detail the interim condition of the intersection of Street C and Street A Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Please ensure that you are evaluating all sight distance vertically as well as horizontally. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/30/2019 05/30/2019: During the staff review meeting, there was discussion about some of the private walks that meander in and out of HOA tracts and property lines. The walks and/or lot/tract lines should be adjusted to keep the walks out of private property. The City would not want to dedicated access easements for these walks, so they should be contained in tracts. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR FINAL: We'll need to figure out what to do with the pedestrian connection to LaPorte on the west side as it does not connect to any facilities. Is there any options to make an interim connection to the proposed crossing at Impala? Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR HEARING: Work with the Engineering Department on required frontage improvements along LaPorte. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR HEARING: Please remove the notes that indicates that the City or Safe Routes to School will construct the pedestrian crossing on LaPorte. We'll need to figure out who is responsible for funding for that as none is currently appropriated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR FINAL: Is the crossing location of Soldier Creek Trail at Taft Hill moving? There is a current County project that is constructing an enhanced crossing there, and this should be coordinated to ensure the location is consistent. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR FINAL: I'm concerned about the two ped crossings shown less than 200 ft apart along the main internal road. That is not ideal, and lessens compliance. Is there any way to combine them into one crossing? Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR FINAL: We'll need to work with you on final signing and striping plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR HEARING: Please see included redlines. Many items in notes above are detailed on the redlines. Page 7 of 17 Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/21/2019 05/21/2019: Please provide a future pedestrian stub (when the property to the south redevelops) to the south of the ped/bike access coming from Impala Street. Your current site plan will need to provide ped/bike access where Tract M is currently located. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Light and Power has facilities on the west side of Taft Hill and on the south side of Laporte. We would need to loop electric facilities through the site. The project would be responsible for obtaining a ditch crossing agreement from the Mercer ditch. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR FINAL: Multi-family buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a(C 1) form must be filled out and submitted to Light & Power Engineering. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer and their electrical consultant or contractor. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Transformer locations shall be within 10' of a paved surface and must have a minimum of an 8' clearance from the front side and a 3' clearance around the sides and rear. (1000 kVA up to 2500 kVA requires 4' around the sides and rear.) Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at Page 8 of 17 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: BEFORE HEARING: Thank you for attempting to place some of the electric vaults into your plans. I was expecting to see something that looked quite a bit different after the last utility coordination meeting, but this appears to be a step in the right direction. I still see multiple conflicts with fire lines, water pits, gas lines, and other utilities on your plans. We will need to have all these conflicts resolved before you go to hearing. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: Information Only: A portion of this property is located in the City regulated, 100-year West Vine floodplain and floodway. Any development within the floodplain must obtain a floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please show the revised floodplain/floodway boundaries on the floodplain exhibit along with the current regulatory boundaries. Per previous conversations with the applicant’s engineer, the revised floodplain modeling and mapping is available and should be utilized for the design of the development. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: The drainage report states that the applicant is planning to go through the CLOMR/LOMR process to remap the floodplain. Please note that the CLOMR would need to be completed prior to site grading and an approved LOMR is required prior to the release of any building permits for structures that would not meet the current regulatory requirements. Please expand the discussion in the drainage report to explain how flood flows will be routed through the site without impacting neighboring properties and address which Master Plan improvements will be constructed, per previous discussions with City staff. Please add a table with elevation information for any structures that will remain within the floodplain per the floodplain development review checklist. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please provide information about how each of the structures will comply with the City’s floodplain regulations (elevation, floodproofing, removed with the CLOMR/LOMR, etc.). Residential uses must be elevated while non-residential uses can incorporate floodproofing to reach the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Page 9 of 17 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please expand the floodplain discussion in the drainage report so that it is clear what the plan is for dealing with flood flows without negatively impacting neighboring properties. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please show the proposed floodplain site improvements and CLOMR linework on the plans so that it is clear what portions of the site and buildings will be located outside of the floodplain. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: For any structures that will remain within the floodplain, please clearly call out the Base Flood Elevation, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (Base Flood Elevation + 18 inches), and Lowest Finished Floor Elevation along with any Floodproofing Elevations as planned. Residential structures must be elevated and cannot be floodproofed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: If the project will continue moving forward in the planning process prior to CLOMR approval please add a note stating that the applicant is aware that the current plan does not meet regulatory requirements and is continuing through the planning process at the applicant’s own risk. Building permits for structures not meeting floodplain requirements based on the current regulatory floodplain may be held up if the LOMR is not finished and regulatory. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Add and label the floodplain/floodway boundaries on the site plan. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: Information Only: Development review checklists and permit 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, especially the checklist for what is required in the drainage report. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: Information Only: Any development within the floodplain boundary including, site work, structures, utilities, and landscaping must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code. The permit for can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR HEARING - Staff must be comfortable that the proposed design for the floodplain is reasonable prior to hearing. Please submit the preliminary floodplain modeling and mapping for review. The HEC-RAS output text is not necessary or useful in the drainage report appendix and can be removed. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 10 of 17 Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 05/29/2019: Repeat Comment. Also, please inform the City what the storm drain is for in the future regional channel. 03/05/2019: FOR HEARING - The temporary detention ponds that will become the regional channel in the future needs to be graded at the correct elevations per the City's Drainage Master Plan. Please coordinate with the City on these elevations. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/06/2019 05/29/2019: REPEAT COMMENT FOR HEARING - A meeting is needed to clarify requirements for the study. 03/06/2019: The integration of the storm water master plan improvements with the development has not been reviewed due to the need of additional information. Please coordinate with the City on what is needed for review. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR HEARING - Water quality can be provided in Pond 1 as long as it is shown that the 100-year flows can still pass through without negatively affecting any properties. Please provide an analysis documenting the proposed 100-year flow condition. Also, please provide an outlet works detail on how the water quality will be provided and how the 100-year flows will pass through. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 05/29/2019: BEFORE HEARING - FOLLOW UP - We see that access has been provided to the SSMH on the southeast corner of the site VIA a "ditch access road." Please add a utility easement for sanitary sewer access. Please document the surface type of the access road. 03/04/2019: BEFORE HEARING - The existing 15-inch sewer main and any proposed sewer mains not located within a drivable surface need to have maintenance access provided per City requirements. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 05/29/2019: BEFORE HEARING - Repeat Comment. Please see the northeast corner of the site. 03/04/2019: BEFORE HEARING - Sanitary sewer mains need to be 15 from an easement line. 10 feet is proposed in a few locations. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: BEFORE HEARING - At the southeast corner of the site, a combo water service is proposed that serves 10 units. The maximum number of services is 6 for a combo service. Please revise to incorporate two combination services with each serving 5 units. Page 11 of 17 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR FINAL - There are some minor water and sewer utility layouts that the City would like revised. Please see redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: BEFORE HEARING: - At the northwest corner of the site, there are spacing conflicts between some of the water and sewer services and the proposed ornamental trees along with some conflicts with the dry utilities. Also, the site plan appears to be different than during our utility coordination meeting held a few weeks ago. The City suggest another utility coordination meeting with all needed parties to best layout the utilities for this specific site plan and building layout. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/31/2019 05/31/2019: BEFORE HEARING - There are some locations where the water and sewer mains are less than the required 15 foot spacing to a building. Please revise. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/31/2019 05/31/2019: Please revise the sanitary sewer public lines to private combo services where the main is serving just one building. Please see redlines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/31/2019 05/31/2019: FOR FINAL - Due to some of the shifting of the utilities, tree placement will be important to ensure proper spacing. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR HEARING: While disturbance is occurring north of the property, it is not considered part of the NHBZ. Please exclude areas outside the property boundary from the NHBZ. Overall however, the NHBZ boundary better reflects the intent of environmental protection standards in 3.4.1 in the LUC. Please however provide additional space for plant screening material as you rework the layout of the development. Thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR HEARING: Please ensure trees are not placed on top of underground utilities. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR INFORMATION: Thank you for the additional detail on the Landscape Plan. The design and quantity of material is compatible with the character of the NHBZ. There are additional mitigation trees/shrubs required for the tree removal on LaPorte. 4 trees and 12 shrubs will be required for mitigation. Please place them in the NHBZ. If mitigation cannot be achieved let the Environmental Planner know to work out a different method. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 Page 12 of 17 FOR HEARING: Please ensure no light spillage occurs within the NHBZ. The photometric plan indicates spillage is occurring north of the multi-family residences into the NHBZ. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR DCP: With the bridge and pedestrian crossings of New Mercer Ditch, City staff requires a copy of written proof of compliance statement from the ACOE prior to issuance of DCP. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR DCP: A dust control plan is required for all development projects or construction sites with greater than five (5) acres in size. If the project is required to obtain a development construction permit, then the dust control plan shall be submitted with the development review application or the development construction permit application. A copy of the dust control plan shall be available onsite at all times for compliance and inspection purposes. For more information, see https://www.fcgov.com/airquality/fugitive-dust.php Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR DCP: City of Fort Collins Land Use Code requires all new construction over 2,500 sf recycle the following materials: asphalt, concrete, masonry, metal, wood, cardboard. You will also be required to create a Waste Management Plan at the time of permit application. For more information see: https://www.fcgov.com/recycling/constructiondebris.php Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR DCP: The following items must be submitted prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit: 1. A cost estimate for landscaping in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (including plant material, labor and irrigation) 2. A cost estimate for three years of monitoring and annual reporting of landscape establishment in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone 3. A bond, letter of credit, or escrow warranting the landscape installation, establishment, monitoring, and reporting for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (125% of cost estimates) 4. A weed management plan 5. An annual monitoring and reporting plan Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 FOR HEARING Forestry has revisited the western section along Laporte. Given the condition of the Siberian elms and boxelders along that stretch, forestry would approve these removals with mitigation. Please update the tree mitigation table to reflect these Page 13 of 17 additional trees. *Environmental planning may have additional mitigation based on habitat and wildlife value. An updated mitigation will be provided, if that’s the case. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING Since ROW improvements are proposed along the western section of Laporte, including the installation of a sidewalk, forestry would like to see the addition of a parkway with appropriately spaced street trees. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING There are overhead cable lines along Laporte. Are there any plans to ground them? Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING Are there any additional tree removals required for the temporary asphalt walkway that is proposed west of Briarwood? Based on the proximity of some of the Siberian elms and cottonwood trees, an eight-feet-wide walk would likely have impacts on adjacent trees. Please indicate that existing trees will be retained and/or update plans to show any additional removals along with their mitigation. Forestry is happy to meet on site for additional inventory, if needed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING The cottonwood near the proposed crosswalk is a significant tree. Is it possible to pinch the walk around the tree? Additionally, the condition and the structural integrity of the cottonwood needs to be assessed. Forestry is planning to have an aerial inspection of the tree completed to evaluate potential defects. Until the assessment is complete, Forestry has some concerns about pedestrian traffic being directed to the crosswalk directly underneath the tree. Please add the following note to the plan at this time: “Forestry to evaluate cottonwood tree on Laporte Ave. Developer will be responsible for performing any action or mitigation identified by Forestry.” Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING The number of Junipers proposed for this project exceeds minimum species diversity requirements. The two cultivars comprise approximately 20 percent of all trees proposed. Please incorporate another conifer species. Southwestern white pine, bristlecone pine, pinyon pines etc. would be acceptable alternatives. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING The total counts in the Tree Diversity Table do not match the plant schedule. Please include Pinus mugo ‘snowmound’ in the Tree Diversity table. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FDP There are trees shown in the middle of some walkways. Please see redlines for examples (L15) and adjust accordingly. Page 14 of 17 Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FDP There are various tree/utility separation conflicts. See redlines for examples (L24) and adjust accordingly. Sewer and water lines should be approximately 10’ from shade trees. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FDP A final species and tree count verification (including mitigation trees) as well as tree/utility separation review will be done in the next round. Forestry would like to see the approximately locations of the streetlights as soon as those can be coordinated with Light and Power, as proposed streetlights often necessitate changing the species and location of trees. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING Please consult with Engineering on easement requirements for Taft Hill Rd and make any necessary adjustments to proposed tree locations. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING Trees should be approximately 7 feet from walkways. There are several instances of proposed trees being too close to walkways. Please see redlines and adjust accordingly. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING There are street trees proposed close to alley intersections that may be in the site triangle. Please consult with traffic operations and shift tree locations (see redlines). Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL >The Fire Access to Impala Drive shall be shown on the Plat as an Emergency Access Easement or dedicated by separate legal document >Please extend the walkway from Tract B to connect with Tract A >PFA may require Alley access verification by Autoturn when the design has been finalized. >The project team confirmed at the staff review meeting, 5-29-2019, that the Alley shown as Tract T will be designed to support 40T across the entire 26ft width. 03/06/2019: >The project team stated that the alleys will be 26ft where required for the Page 15 of 17 residences over 30ft in height. >Tract T in the north-east area will change layout including two possible gates the design of which will be discussed further. >The project team will verify the height to the eaves of the two-story Farmhouse Units 02/28/2019: FOR APPROVAL GENERAL ACCESS >It is noted in the provided documents that the project will be built as one phase. Please note that approved access will be required before the any vertical build takes place. Please coordinate with PFA. 02/27/2019: ACCESS >The Alleys notated on the Site Plan dated 2-13-2019 enable the required perimeter access to each residence. >However, any Alley that is required to enable Aerial apparatus access shall be 26 feet wide. The Alleys shown in the northeast section of the project adjacent to the 3-story residences are shown as 20 feet wide and are therefore out of compliance. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 05/28/2019: >The project team states that 13R sprinkler systems will be used for the Multi-family Units. >Please note that with a maximum of 12 residential units in a building, a 13R system will be approved with 2hr firewall separation both vertically and horizontally. 02/27/2019: FOR APPROVAL RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM >The single-family detached units will not require sprinkler systems >The Duplexes and single family attached will require a sprinkler system and fire separation approved by the Building Department. >The Multi-family units will require NFPA 13 sprinkler systems approved by PFA. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. >The Clubhouse will require a sprinkler system or an approved method of fire containment if it is greater than 5,000 square feet. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING To assist with prompt emergency response the address shall be clearly visible from the street in no less than 8" numerals on a contrasting background. Wayfinding signage will be provided to indicate the most appropriate access to each unit. An overall addressing and wayfinding plan will be required for FDP approval by PFA. Page 16 of 17 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/29/2019: The project team will re-design the circle drive or adjoining maintenance access to achieve compliance for perimeter access. 05/28/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL CLUBHOUSE The Clubhouse is approximately 50ft out of compliance for perimeter access therefore, the driveway should be extended to achieve this access or the Clubhouse located closer to the circle. Department: Environmental Services Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, jnagel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: FOR FINAL: The trash and recycling enclosure locations are not conducive to efficient servicing. All the enclosures are located at the end of dead end alley ways which will require the hauler to either back in or back out of them. This increases chance of property damage and injury, additionally service vehicles are required to have a backup alarm which can annoy residents. Per Land Use Code standard 3.2.5 please label the route that service vehicles will take in order to service the location. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR APPROVAL: If carts are desired for club house use trash and recycling please make sure interior storage areas are provided or an enclosure will be required. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please evaluate replacing the bollards with angle iron, curbing, metal framing or other method to protect the rear trash and recycling enclosure walls so the dumpsters may be slid farther back allowing for a more comfortable pedestrian access in front of them. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Consider using door less pedestrian entrances for the trash and recycling enclosures which allow for more efficient access for residents and staff who are often carrying heavy items to the enclosure. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make sure all pedestrian entrances on all trash and recycling enclosures have sidewalk connections. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Consider spacing the enclosures farther back from the drive isle and using narrower gates (10ft openings are required) so that when they are open they do not take up as much of the drive isle. Page 17 of 17 Department: Erosion Control Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Final: Please resubmit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: Development Agreement: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Information: 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. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 05/24/2019: INFORMATION ONLY-UPDATED: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 05/24/2019: FOR APPROVAL-UPDATED: 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. 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter.