HomeMy WebLinkAboutLANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION - FDP190002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - 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/developmentreview
April 05, 2019
Cathy Mathis
TBGROUP
444 Mountain Ave
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Landmark Apartments Expansion, FDP190002, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Final Development Plan, Landmark Apartments Expansion.
If you have questions about any comments, please contact your Development Review
Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras at 970.416.2744 or bbethuremharras@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-2216567- mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/31/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
The submitted legal description for the right-of-way vacation will be confirmed
with Surveying/Technical Services. The routing to the utility providers for their
acceptance has occurred and formal written contact to the affected property
owners (existing Landmark and the applicant) has been initiated. I'll be working
on getting the ordinance to City Council.
RESPONSE: ROW vacation exhibit accepted by Surveying and Technical Services, is on the
Council hearing agenda
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.
2
Comment Number: 4
03/31/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED:
I'm understanding in discussion with PFA that the vertical design for the
emergency access may have some concern coming off of Prospect in terms of
anticipated clearance. We should coordinate what I believe would be a quick
discussion offline between Engineering and PFA to finalize the approach for this.
RESPONSE: Provided revised driveway approach to PFA and Engineering and was
accepted. Detail included on plans.
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.
Comment Number: 5
03/31/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED:
The revision is fine, though I'm perhaps a little concerned with the label
indication of "4' attached sidewalk culvert" that will be construed to imply that the
width of the culvert is a foot narrower than the surrounding sidewalk. Can a width
of the culvert be specified (which should be I believe 6 feet to account for the
half a foot widening on either side of the sidewalk.)
RESPONSE: Removed width label and added detail reference instead for clarity
02/19/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The reverse sidewalk chase shown on the plans should be using the concrete
sidewalk culvert for attached sidewalk.
Comment Number: 8
03/31/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please confirm whether the Temporary Construction Easement legal
description is intended to be a private easement between the two properties or
dedicated to the City. I do not believe it needs to be dedicated to the City and
would not necessarily need to be checked by Technical Services as a result.
The civil plans have the area identified on the plans but are not called out as a
temporary construction easement. Please have this labelled and if not
dedicated to the City, indicate dedication from/to.
RESPONSE: Added “private” and conveyed from/to info
Comment Number: 9
03/31/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please add the standard note on the civil demo sheet EX 1 next to the street cut
shown in Prospect Road: "Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are
to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be
in accordance with City street repair standards."
RESPONSE: Added
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-4162494-, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 22
03/29/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
On the Grading Plan, the cross sections are shown with squiggly lines. That line
type is used for BFE lines, not cross sections. Please change them.
3
RESPONSE: Updated
02/15/2019: Please show the floodplain cross section locations on the Grading
Plan, and include the stationing and the elevations of each.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 25
03/21/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Section III.F.6 contains discussion about a hydraulic model, a table, and
references the HEC-RAS output in Appendix G. Since regrading within the
floodplain will be now be limited to the flood fringe, I don't believe there is any
reason for a hydraulic model. Note 6, Table 1, and Appendix G should all be able to go away.
RESPONSE: Removed HEC-RAS info and Appendix G
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-2216339-, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
04/02/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
I don't see where this has been addressed in the plan set.
RESPONSE: Shane is OK with design after reviewing detail during meeting on 4/12
02/11/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please include forebays or other appropriate energy dissipation at the entrance
into the rain gardens to prevent scour.
Comment Number: 7
04/02/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
Needs further discussion.
RESPONSE: At meeting on 4/12, decision was to keep as-is
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.
Comment Number: 10
04/02/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
This has mostly been addressed but needs some refinement. Let's discuss.
RESPONSE: Updated based on meeting with Shane on 4/12
02/11/2019: 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.
Comment Number: 26
04/02/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
For the most part, previous comments were addressed and the site design
looks to be in good shape. There are several locations where construction is
going to be imperative in order to meet the intent of the design, such as the
west side of Building B and around Building C, among others. Please add
blow-up grading details and cross sections of these areas to ensure the
contractor has the information needed to construct this properly.
RESPONSE: Added
4
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-2216339-, sboyle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
04/02/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
This has been addressed, however the profiles for the fire service lines call
these out as Public. All fire services are private; please adjust the labeling on
the profile accordingly.
RESPONSE: Updated
02/11/2019: 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.
Comment Number: 6
04/02/2019: Carried over for reference.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
02/11/2019: 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.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/30/2019: FOR BUILDING PERMIT:
Language for the Natural Resources section of the Development Agreement
has been provided to Engineering. The following items must be submitted prior
to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit (but ideally prior to the
recording of the Development Agreement):
1. A cost estimate for landscaping in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (including
plant material, labor and irrigation)
RESPONSE: Provided.
2. A cost estimate for three years of monitoring and annual reporting of
landscape establishment in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone
RESPONSE: Provided.
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)
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. To be provided prior to issuance of the DCP and/or DA.
4. A weed management plan
RESPONSE: Weed control notes have been added to LS1.
5. An annual monitoring and reporting plan
RESPONSE: A plan will be provided prior to DCP being issued. Do you have an example of a plan that
you can share?
I can provide examples and additional detail for any of these items if needed.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Comment Number: 2
5
03/30/2019: FOR BUILDING PERMIT
Utility Plan: Because the pedestrian bridge abutment may 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 City issuance of a building permit.
RESPONSE: Michael Phelan, Wildlife and Wetlands Consultant completed an updated survey of
the Landmark Apartment wetlands on April 15, 2019. Wetland and open water boundaries were
flagged in the field and were surveyed by Northern Engineering. The wetland and open water
boundaries are displayed on Sheet D-11 of the project submittal package. Sheet D-11 also
displays the proposed pedestrian bridge over the wetland drainage. Based this exhibit, the bridge
will span the entire drainage and abutments constructed for the bridge will be well outside of the
delineated wetland and open water boundaries. Therefore, there will be no fill impacts to possible
jurisdictional wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. The U. S. Army Corp of Engineers will not
review or comment on projects that would have no impacts to wetlands and Other Waters of the
U.S and would not require a request for a Section 404 Permit.
Comment Number: 3
03/30/2019: 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: Please refer to the previous comment response
Comment Number: 4
03/30/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to be delineated on landscape plans.
The label is there but the linework may be frozen.
RESPONSE: It was frozen! The linework has been turned back on.
Comment Number: 5
03/30/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Landscape Table is cut off. Please extend viewport.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 6
03/30/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Native seed establishment takes time and
may require 3 or more years. Planting plans indicate only drip irrigation will be
used to establish native seed areas. For quicker establishment, the City
recommends using temporary spray irrigation and weening irrigation once seed
germinates to prevent grasses from becoming dependent on the temporary water source.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Irrigation Plans reflect this.
Comment Number: 7
03/30/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The city also recommends mowing at the
end of the growing season, and not mowing more than twice per year or during
hot and dry conditions.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 8
03/30/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The time of year native seeding is to occur
is critical and should be reflected on the construction drawings or in
specifications. Late October through early May is the time to seed.
6
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-6161992-, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6
3/27/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
The existing Honeylocust tree is less than 1 ft from the proposed fenceline, so I
am not quite sure I understand how the fence will be installed without impacting
the tree. Overtime, the trunk will grow and touch the fence. We must come up
with a creative solution to retain the tree – whether that be extending the fence
around the tree to the east to allow more room OR bringing the fence to the west
of the tree. The latter option would likely have the tree off site. I am open to
suggestions to retain this significant tree.
RESPONSE: Per our last Staff meeting, the location of the tree/fence will remain as shown. As a
reminder, the fence is shown just inside the property boundary for graphical purposes.
2/19/19: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Did this meeting occur?
RESPONSE: We believe that this meeting did occur. The grading was specifically designed to
avoid the tree.
PREVIOUS COMMENT ORIGINATING 08/12/2016:
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.
Comment Number: 8
3/26/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL- UPDATED:
Since the last round of review, three trees were inventoried and are slated to be
removed. Please include justification for the removal of these additional trees to
the Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter.
RESPONSE: The letter has been updated.
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
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,
7
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.
Comment Number: 10
3/26/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
There still appears to be some discrepancies between the number of trees
shown in the plant list versus what is shown on the landscape plan. Please
adjust and update the Species Diversity Percentages.
Southwestern White Pine: 2 additional trees shown on the plans (7 total)
Fat Albert Spruce: 3 additional trees shown on the plans (9 total)
Black Hills Spruce: 3 fewer trees shown on the plans (6 total)
Amur Maple: symbol doesn’t exist on the landscape plan
RESPONSE: The plant schedule has been corrected.
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)
Comment Number: 16
3/27/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED:
There still appear to be utility conflicts with trees. Please see Forestry redlines.
RESPONSE: The conflict as shown on Forestry redlines have been resolved.
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
Comment Number: 17
3/26/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Plant List
Imperial Honeylocust does not thrive in Fort Collins. Please specify either
‘Shademaster’ or ‘Skyline’ Honeylocust in place of ‘Imperial’.
Rocky Mountain Juniper is more of a tree than a shrub. Please move this
species to the Evergreen Trees section in the plant list. Adjust Species
Diversity Percentage to meet LUC requirements.
Some of the Plant List text is cut off on sheet LS1.
The total quantities of Shade and Evergreen categories are not correct. See
8
comment # for updated plant totals and update these quantities.
RESPONSE: The honeylocust has been revised to Shademaster. Per our last staff review, the
Rocky Mountain Juniper will remain on the shrub list. The plant legend has been updated with
current quantities & percentages.
Comment Number: 18
3/26/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please label mitigation trees directly on the landscape plans. Right now, it is not
clear which specific trees should be upsized.
RESPONSE: The mitigation trees have been shown directly on the landscape plans in all of our
submittals. The trees are labeled ‘Mitigation Tree’ with an arrow pointing to the tree. The mitigation
trees are shown on landscape sheet 3.
Comment Number: 19
3/27/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Poudre Fire Authority would like the following maintenance note added to the
landscape plans regarding clearance from trees and their Emergency Access
Easement. Please add to the landscape sheets: POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY
REQUIRES 14 FT VERTICAL CLEARANCE FROM ALL OBSTRUCTIONS TO
THE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT. PLEASE PRUNE TREES THAT
ENCROUCH INTO THIS EASEMENT TO MEET THE 14 FT VERTICAL
CLEARANCE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CLEARANCE HEIGHT DOES
NOT APPLY TO NEWLY PLANTED TREES THAT ARE BARELY 10 FT TO
START. THIS CLEARANCE CAN BE ACHIEVED ONE THE TREES
BRANCHING STRUCTURE AND HEIGHT MATURES.
Is it possible to set back the parking lot island trees so they do not encroach the
emergency access easement as much as they do now?
RESPONSE: The note has been added to sheet 2 & 3. The parking lot trees that could be moved,
have been moved towards the back of the parking islands. The majority of the island trees are
placed so as not to conflict with utilities.
Department: Environmental Services
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-4162701-, jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
02/22/2019: 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 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: In our staff review meeting on 4/3, we were directed to provide a 4-cubic yard dumpster for
trash and recycling. We have provided one each in the two smaller trash enclosures. For the larger trash
enclosure between buildings A and B, we have provided two 4-cubic yard dumpsters for trash and one 4-
cubic yard dumpster for recycling.
Comment Number: 10
9
04/03/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Interior walls of trash and recycling enclosures 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: This is a detail that is typically a part of our building permit drawings. We have added a wall
section for the trash enclosure to the elevations. The section shows that we provide a poured curb on the
inside of our trash enclosure wall.
Comment Number: 11
04/03/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please be aware this development will be very challenging to service for trash
and recycling haulers because it does not provide an 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. The current proposed ratio of trash and recycling container is
not adequate, the current enclosures at Landmark Apartments use 1 full size
dumpster for both trash and recycling which is recommended for the enclosures
adjacent to Building E and C/D. Two 4 yard dumpsters one for each would allow
for reasonable weekly pickups. The enclosure near Building A/B will likely need
three dumpsters (two for trash and one for recycle) to provide an adequate
volume/service frequency. Please call me, Jonathon Nagel at 970-416-2701.
RESPONSE: See response to comment number 4 above.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Don Kapperman, don_kapperman@cable.comcast.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/22/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Comcast would like to do Joint trench with Ft Collins light & power.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
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.
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-investment-development-fees
Comment Number: 3
10
02/21/2019: SITE SPECIFIC:
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.
Comment Number: 4
02/21/2019: SITE SPECIFIC:
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.
Comment Number: 5
02/21/2019: SITE SPECIFIC:
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?
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 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
Comment Number: 7
02/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
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.
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.
Comment Number: 9
02/21/2019: SITE SPECIFIC:
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 set up a utility coordination meeting with
Engineering Department.
Comment Number: 10
02/21/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
11
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
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/09/2019
04/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
It was discussed that primary power will now be bored under the ditch east of
buildings E and D to avoid going down the private drive. Please show the
primary power route on the utility plans, connecting to each transformer location
and extending north to Prospect Rd.
RESPONSE: Added electric route based on conversation with Tyler
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/09/2019
04/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
Please show proposed electric meter locations for all buildings on the utility plan set.
RESPONSE: Added electric meters locations to Utility sheets
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/09/2019
04/09/2019: AT DCP:
Comcast has expressed interest in going joint trench with primary power to feed
the site. This is ok for all trench locations but further discussion with the
developer will be needed to bore the ditch. Typically, Light and Power does
offer joint trench in a bore bundle. Comcast may have to bore their own lines under the ditch.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, we will coordinate with Comcast
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-4162599-, arosen@poudrefire-.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
04/03/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
>After further discussions with Danny Weber and Marc Virata the entrance to
the EAE from Prospect has been revised giving PFA emergency equipment 6"
of clearance and still maintains 100yr runoff control.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
>A roll-over curb will be used to discourage vehicle traffic from using the EAE to
the north of the parking adjacent to Building A. This will be located across the
EAE just to the north of this parking area while allowing vehicles ample turning
space to drive south.
RESPONSE: Added
>A final design of the gate to Prospect will be provided for PFA approval at the next submittal.
RESPONSE: Gate detail has been approved by PFA
>Please note that the project team can submit the building plans for PFA review
at any time. However, any project design changes after that time may cause
disruption to this process and be the project team's responsibility.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
>The link is provided for reference:
https://www.poudre-fire.org/online-services/contractors-plan-reviews-and-permit
s/new-building-plan-review-application.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
12
04/02/2019:
>No bollards will be approved for the entrance from Prospect Ave.
RESPONSE: Removed bollards
>After further review a driveway style access will be required from Prospect to
enable greater clearance for the emergency vehicles.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
>Further discussion is invited for gating the entrance from Prospect Avenue
RESPONSE: Gate detail has been approved by PFA
>It is understood that the Elevation for Building D has been changed. Should it
now be greater than 30ft vertical to the eaves from the street then a wider
access will be required
RESPONSE: Building D is 2-story and only around 20ft vertical from street to eaves
>It is understood that the buildings will have a separate address from the
existing buildings. Further discussion will be required regarding best location of
wayfinding signage and unit numbering.
RESPONSE: The buildings will have one address number and they will be differentiated by the building
letters: A, B, C, D, E. Chad Arthur with Infusion Architects met with Andrew Rosen and PFA is aligned and
in agreement with the addressing plans, unit numbering, breezeway signs and building identification
signage.
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.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-4164320-, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/26/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Per the PDP approval, please provide an improved bus stop on Prospect
consistent with a Type III stop in the Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines:
http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standards.pdf
RESPONSE: Added Type II bus stop per agreement at last DRT meeting
Comment Number: 2
03/28/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Please contact Melina Dempsey (mdempsey@fcgov.com) for the purchase of
the shelter and accompanying amenities.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-2216225-, cmapes@fcgov.com
13
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 12
04/02/2019: Elevations – the color and quality of the graphics is helpful and appreciated.
Staff now understands and accepts the final engineering changes based on floor joists.
The one remaining question is about the stepped roof on Building A which was
eliminated in the Round 2 elevations. Actually the elevation graphics sort of
imply a very slight step but I assume that's just a drafting glitch.
One more conversation is needed regarding the change from Round 1 in this regard.
The portion of sloping roof that we discussed at the Wednesday meeting was
my misunderstanding - the approved plan eliminated that feature.
RESPONSE: The south side of building A has been dropped 4’-0”.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
4/5/2019 continued comment about notes and an agreement/easement 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.
It will be best if staff can see the agreement language before you and the owner
of existing Landmark sign and record it.
I sent an email with needed content in notes to go on the plans. You can use that verbatim.
The MA should include a signature block for the owner, and also show the new
layout at the access drive. (Comments really apply to that MA application but
are intrinsic.)
RESPONSE: The previously-submitted MA from Round 1 Final did contain this language and a
signature block for the owner to sign. Please review it for language. The language has also been
placed on the Site Plan and Plat.
Comment Number: 4
Irrigation Plan: Information suggestion only: 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.
RESPONSE: An irrigation plan is included with this round.
Comment Number: 6
Site Plan, Fence: Emails cover the final resolution of this. The fence should
extend clear to within an inch or two of the ground, a cap will be added, and the
posts will be chamfered at the top. Any further neighborly arrangements and
understandings would be great but will not involve the City.
RESPONSE: Done. See Sheet 4 of the Site Plan set.
Comment Number: 9
Site Plan: Emergency access drive needs to be finalized with the material
decided and gates designed, shown and labeled.
RESPONSE: Gate detail has been approved by PFA
14
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/10/2019
04/10/2019: Email message sent 4/10: Here is the follow-up we discussed last
week regarding the change to Building A which eliminates the stepped roof and
adds 4-5 feet in height to the south end:
Staff does not find that to be an adequate implementation of the approved plan
and thus the design should revert back to the approved and Round 1 version
with the stepped roof and lower total height. Attached is a comparison showing
our understanding of the issue. Note that the round 1 Final plans matched the
approved PDP shown in the comparison.
RESPONSE: the south side of Building A has been lowered 4’-0”.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/10/2019
04/10/2019: Email message sent 4/10: here is follow-up on the AC units along the main spine:
Staff appreciates the inclusion of AC units in the development plan package but
as discussed last week that is a major downgrade along the main spine. A
different solution should be found for those appurtenances in conjunction with
your urban design of the spine. And, they should be shown on the site and
landscape plans. More commonly, we see other apt. developments where these
things are located and screened with small trellis fences or landscaping.
RESPONSE: Condenser locations have been coordinated with city staff.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/10/2019
04/10/2019: Other observations for you to consider:
-Throughout the entire design process, I wondered whether the garden level
windows along the spine should be frosted glass? I recall discussing possible
options for easing this awkward relationship back at the PDP stage, not as an
official comment or code issue, more as an everyday benefit for the relationship
of the buildings to the walkway so that people in the units don’t have people on
the walkway looking directly down into their homes.
-Meter banks should be painted to match the architecture. I would expect you
would want to consider this anyway, and there is a code requirement to do so. It
looks especially on Bldgs. A and C. The meters sort of match on other buildings.
-I don’t see meter bank location on Building B.
RESPONSE: We would not recommend frosting the glass for unit windows. Tenants have the option to close
provided blinds if they desire privacy. Frosted glass would limit their options.
We will show that the meter banks need to be painted to match the exterior wall color. Building B’s electrical gea
on the south end between the stair and building.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 16
04/02/2019: Evergreens – In order to achieve more screening within a time
frame relevant to current neighbors, please add two rocky mt junipers and 2
spruces along the eastern buffer yards as shown in a previous email. (Show a
15’ rather than 20-foot spacing for the spruces.)
RESPONSE: Per Clark Mapes, this comment no longer applies and is considered resolved.
15
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 13
04/02/2019: Walkway spine: This is the most important aspect of the site plan.
It was the main premise in approving the whole fundamental Modification of a
standard requiring dwellings to be placed in direct relation to streets. Its design
is crucial. The ramps that are being shown at the colored concrete ped
crossing area at the south end of building B, and the ramp at the south end of
building A, form restrictions and would detract significantly from the inviting
continuity of the spine. The urban design of the spine needs to avoid ANY loss
of urban design quality and should retain and implement the full intent for it as
the basis for allowing this plan layout with these buildings. For discussion at the
meeting, the spine should be as wide open, clear and direct as possible.
There’s a significant population and high pedestrian flows with groups of people
should be expected and accommodated as well as possible. Are flush paving
and bollards needed instead of small restricted spaces and routes?
RESPONSE: The ramps have been re-designed at the south ends of Buildings A and B to provide better
walkability and as discussed, the south side of the colored concrete crosswalk will remain vertical curb and
gutter for drainage conveyance.
Comment Number: 14
04/02/2019: There are little rectangles on the sidewalks – what are they.
There are louvered-looking things on the elevations. Are these AC units in the
walkways? Do some extend below grade?
RESPONSE: These are columns.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9
04/01/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
There is a typo in the Benchmark Statement. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
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.
16
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION
SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF
FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 - X.XX’.
Comment Number: 15
04/01/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Updated
02/20/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Easements
Comment Number: 20
04/01/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
There are some boundary concerns that could affect some of the easements &
vacations. We will wait to finish our review of these until all the boundary issues are addressed.
RESPONSE: Boundary issue resolved, please review included easements
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
04/01/2019: 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: Updated
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.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 17
04/01/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the
noted sheets. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The Trash Enclosure Elevations has been changed to Trash Enclosure Drawings.
Comment Number: 18
04/01/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Some of the easement descriptions & line work shown are incorrect. If they are
going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat.
RESPONSE: The easements now match the Plat.
Comment Number: 19
04/01/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are Subdivision Plats referenced with incorrect names. See redlines.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected per TS redline.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
17
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
02/08/2019: BUILDING PERMIT:
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