Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP190003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPage 1 of 21 July 3, 2019 Jason Holland City of Fort Collins, Planning 281N. College Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Sanctuary on the Green, PDP190003, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comment responses. If you have any questions for responses please contact the following people: Red: Stephanie Hansen or Andrew Papke-Larson at Ripley Design 970-224-5828 Blue: Ryan Banning or Mason Ruebel at Northern Engineering 970-221-4158 Purple: Alex Duran at Godden Sudik Architects 303-455-4437 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. Response: Policy LU-1.4 describes areas that are suggested to have lower density (RL Zone district) for compatibility with existing neighborhoods. This project is not located within those areas. This site is shown as LMN which on page 16 describes the density as allowing up to eight dwelling units (DU) per acre. (Our project currently is 6.54 DU per acre and the Land Use Code allows 9 DU) That being said, we have taken measures to ensure compatibility. The duplexes were exchanged for single family homes along the western boundary for compatibility. The gross density of the western portion of the project that is adjacent to the existing neighborhood is approximately 4.8 dwelling units per acre. All other areas of the site have a minimum setback of 115’ from any existing single family lot line. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Recommend making SFA #30 (AKA Building Type B; AKA 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. Page 2 of 21 Response: The building can flip so the two-story portion is adjacent to the intersection. 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. Response: See updated site plans showing spacing between buildings as well as updated plans with walkways. We have incorporated adjustments to buildings and removed a unit to make more space for walkways and utilities. In locations that have potential for stairs and tight walkways, stairs can be incorporated into patios or along edges of buildings before meeting the walkway. This detail will be decided at final but will not greatly impact the layout of the site. 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. Response: Landscape beds and natural habitat buffer plantings will soften the transition space around the ditch 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. Response: Property lines have been adjusted and Labeled, additional access easements have been added and labeled as well. See the landscape plan for clear hatching on what is HOA maintained and what is maintained by homeowner. 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. Response: Fencing has been added and labeled. 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. Response: The previous comments stated driveways longer than 20’ or less than 8’. This was accomplished whenever possible with the last submittal. 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. Response: Tables have been revised. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: Formatting requirements: Page 3 of 21 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. Response: Sheets were printed to PDF through the sheet set manager NE Response: Issue has been addressed by removing embedded SHX notes 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. Response: The white paint color is trending all across the US housing markets as a result of the popularity of the Modern Farmhouse architecture. Wonderland has had an excellent consumer acceptance of their homes with white exteriors as have numerous other buildings. It is also the base color or the community center and reinforces the rural farm heritage of the property. Shutters, trim, siding panels, doors, roofs will have accent colors that complement the base color. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: (6) Small Neighborhood Parks. Either a neighborhood park or a 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. Response: Park location has been clarified. Amenities within the park have been added. See updated landscape plans. 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. Response: Rock mulch areas were intended to show shrub beds. We have revised the legend and provided planting typicals. Page 4 of 21 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. Response: Additional trees and landscape have been added. Buildings have been adjusted to incorporate more room for trees and landscape. 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. Response: Understood. 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 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. Response: All single family detached have a 15’ front yard setback. All attached and multifamily units comply with the 9’ setback as stated in 3.8.30. 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. NE Response: Pedestrian connection will be shown as future until there are adequate pedestrian facilities along Laporte. Sidewalk will stop at the end of the property line. 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL Page 5 of 21 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. NE Response: Per discussions an interim pedestrian connection is shown crossing at the Impala Intersection. We will continue to coordinate our interim pedestrian access with future city design of Laporte Ave. 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. NE Response: Per Discussions with city staff curb and gutter will be installed at the ultimate 2-lane arterial location. Existing trees along the Laporte Intersection are shown as being removed with the proposed street widening. Payment in lieu can be discussed with other portions of the site located between the site access and Taft Hill. 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. NE Response: See above Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL See Construction Plan redlines for comments on typical street sections. NE Response: See redlines for responses Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/08/2019 03/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Please refer to Engineering redlines on the Plat, Site Plan and Utility Plans for additional comments. NE Response: See redlines for responses 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 Page 6 of 21 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. Response: At this time we are prepared to proceed at risk. We anticipate the Master Street Plan to be approved prior to mylars being recorded. If the project went through FDP approval and then the additional ROW was required to be dedicated, the project would go through a minor amendment to dedicate ROW. 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. NE Response: A typical section has been provided and more detailed design of the pedestrian connection will be provided with Final. The interim pedestrian connection has also been added to the construction plans for reference. We will make sure to coordinate design with future city improvements 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. NE Response: We are uncertain if an easement can be obtained through the adjacent property. Gas and electric have been adjusted to show that utilities can work if there is a gap in the utility easement. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: FOR APPROVAL See redlines for comments regarding inadequate cover over proposed box culverts. NE Response: Road was designed to an incorrect elevation and has been corrected. I have adjusted the road to maintain a Page 7 of 21 minimum 2’ of cover over box culverts and made sure that is shown in the plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 05/23/2019: FOR FINAL Please detail the interim condition of the intersection of Street C and Street A NE Response: More detail of the interim intersection will be provided with final submittal 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. NE Response: Site distance have been checked and easements added where needed. 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. NE Response: Sidewalks have been adjusted to stay out of property lines as much as possible. The property owner has a contract with the homebuilder to provide lots of certain size, so a private access easement will be needed in a few locations due to site constraints. 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? Response: Connection to LaPorte on the west side will be completed up to the property boundary. When the Baptist Church redevelops the rest of the connection will be made as it is on church property. When this happens the LaPorte frontage will be updated and a sidewalk will be added in redevelopment. The connection will end on the new LaPorte sidewalk. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR HEARING: Work with the Engineering Department on required frontage improvements along LaPorte. NE Response: Per discussions with city staff the north half of Laporte has been widened to the ultimate section along the west access frontage and an interim pedestrian connection is shown along Laporte to the Impala intersection. 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. Response: Note has been removed. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 Page 8 of 21 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. We currently show the trail adjusted to avoid the proposed channel, but we will coordinate the location of soldier creek trail with city staff for final submittal. 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? Response: Transportation has requested the crossing just south of Impala so the other crossing has been moved to the intersection. 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. We will coordinate with city on final signing and striping. 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. NE Response: See redlines for responses 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. Response: Connection has been added 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. NE Response: Acknowledged 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. Page 9 of 21 NE Response: Acknowledged. Form will be filled out for Final 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. We will coordinate with Light and power of utility locations 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. Response: See landscape plans for street tree and light seperations. 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.) NE Response: Transformers have been adjusted to meet standards 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 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. NE Response: Acknowledged 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. NE Response: Transformers have been adjusted per discussion with Light and Power and to avoid conflicts with other utilities Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 Page 10 of 21 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. NE Response: Acknowledged 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. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff the Floodplain modeling will be provided separately. Response to comments will be provided with submittal of Floodplain modeling. 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. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff the Floodplain modeling and CLOMR will provided separately. Response to comments will be provided with submittal of Floodplain modeling. 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. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff the Floodplain modeling will provided separately. Response to comments will be provided with submittal of Floodplain modeling. 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. NE Response: The drainage report has been updated to expand floodplain discussion. Per discussion with city staff Floodplain modeling will provided separately. 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. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff Floodplain modeling will provided separately. Response to comments will be provided with submittal of Floodplain modeling. Page 11 of 21 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. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff Floodplain modeling will provided separately. Response to comments will be provided with submittal of Floodplain modeling. 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. Note has been added to drainage report Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Add and label the floodplain/floodway boundaries on the site plan. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff the Floodplain modeling will provided separately. Response to comments will be provided with submittal of Floodplain modeling 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. NE Response: Acknowledged 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 NE Response: Acknowledged 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. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff the Floodplain modeling will provided separately. Response to comments will be provided with submittal of Floodplain modeling. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Page 12 of 21 Topic: General 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. NE Response: A temporary storm drain will be installed in the future regional channel to maintain the detention volume needed. The storm drain will be removed and berm removed with future improvements 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. NE Response: Per discussion with city staff, the ultimate channel design will be coordinated with city for final submittal 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. NE Response: Per discussion with City staff the floodplain modeling will be provided separately, and ultimate channel design will be coordinated with the city prior to the final submittal 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. NE Response: See above 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. NE Response: A water quality weir with a notch and water quality plate will be added to pond 1. This weir will be installed in front of the box culvert and a concrete apron added to prevent scour. We believe this design will not negatively affect 100-yr flows through the channel and box culvert 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. NE Response: A blanket maintenance access easement has been added to the tract containing the ditch access road. An additional maintenance access easement has been added around the playground to serve the remaining sewer manholes 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 Page 13 of 21 05/29/2019: BEFORE HEARING - Repeat Comment. Please see the northeast corner of the site. NE Response: Sanitary Sewer mains and buildings have been adjusted to meet the 15 separation requirements. And additional spacing requirements 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. NE Response: Water service has been separated to serve buildings separately 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. NE Response: See redlines for responses 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. NE Response: Utility layout has been adjusted per discussion with city staff. A unit has been removed in the northwest corner and services adjusted to meet spacing requirements 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. NE Response: Sanitary Sewer mains and buildings have been adjusted to meet the 15 separation requirements. Water mains have also been adjusted to meet spacing requirements. 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. NE Response: When serving one building the sewer mains have been changed to a private service line and labeled accordingly 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. Response: Understood. Tree separation requirements will be respected Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 Page 14 of 21 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. Response: NHBZ’s have been adjusted to only show within the property lines and have been adjusted for plant beds. Additional screening has been added as shrub beds. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR HEARING: Please ensure trees are not placed on top of underground utilities. Response: Trees are placed to avoid utility conflicts. 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 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. Response: The latest photometric plan shows no light spillage within 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. Response: Understood. This is in progress 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 Response: Understood. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR DCP: Page 15 of 21 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 Response: Understood. 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 Response: Understood. 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 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. Response: The trees along Laporte have been removed and replaced with a tree lawn. Street trees were added for mitigation and the mitigation plan adjusted. 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. Response: Tree lawn has been added with 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? NE Response: The only area overhead utility lines will be undergrounded is at the west access Page 16 of 21 along Laporte ave. Overhead cables are labeled on the existing conditions and demolition plan 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. Response: The intent is for the sidewalk to narrow as needed around existing trees. 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.” Response: The intent is for the sidewalk to narrow as needed around existing trees. Note has been added to mitigation plan. 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. Response: Additional tree species have been added. 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. Response: Table has been updated. 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. Response: Trees have been adjusted to avoid sidewalk conflicts. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FDP There are various tree/utility separation conflicts. See redlines for examples Page 17 of 21 (L24) and adjust accordingly. Sewer and water lines should be approximately 10’ from shade trees. Response: Tree utility conflicts have been addressed. 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. Response: Light poles have been added and proper tree separation provided. 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. Response: Plans will remain as designed. 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. Response: Trees have been adjusted. 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). Response: Trees have been adjusted. 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 NE Response: Emergency Access Easement to Impala Drive has been added to plat >Please extend the walkway from Tract B to connect with Tract A NE Response: Walkway has been extended >PFA may require Alley access verification by Autoturn when the design has been finalized. NE Response: Autoturn exhibit will be provided with final submittal >The project team confirmed at the staff review meeting, 5-29-2019, that the Page 18 of 21 Alley shown as Tract T will be designed to support 40T across the entire 26ft width. NE Response: Acknowledged. Sidewalks and main drive lane will be design to support 40T and meet the 26ft requirement 03/06/2019: >The project team stated that the alleys will be 26ft where required for the residences over 30ft in height. NE Response: Acknowledged. Alleys has been widened to meet required 26ft width where necessary >Tract T in the north-east area will change layout including two possible gates the design of which will be discussed further. NE Response: Acknowledged. Sidewalks and main drive lane will be design to support 40T and meet the 26ft requirement >The project team will verify the height to the eaves of the two-story Farmhouse Units Response: The tallest eave on the two story product is 25’ 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. We will coordinate with PFA on approved access locations. 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. Alleys have been widened to 26ft adjacent to all 3-story residences 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. Response: 13R sprinklers with 2hr firewalls will be used with MF residences. 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. NE Response: Fire lines added to duplexes >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. NE Response: Fire lines added to duplexes >The Clubhouse will require a sprinkler system or an approved method of fire Page 19 of 21 containment if it is greater than 5,000 square feet. NE Response: Acknowledged. Fire line has been added to clubhouse 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. Response: Understood 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. Response: Clubhouse has been moved into compliance. 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. NE Response: Clubhouse has been moved closer to cul-de-sac to meet perimeter access requirement 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. Response: See revised locations 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. Response: Enclosure has been added 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 Page 20 of 21 recycling enclosure walls so the dumpsters may be slid farther back allowing for a more comfortable pedestrian access in front of them. Response: Noted, this will be addressed at final plan stage 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. Response: Noted, this will be addressed at final plan stage 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. Response: We will ensure there are sidewalk connections once we have the final location of enclosures. 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. Response: Most of the enclosures have been adjusted to limit drive isle intrusion. 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. Will be provided with Final Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. NE Response: Acknowledged. Will be provided with Final 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. Will be provided with Final 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. NE Response: Acknowledged for Final. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 Page 21 of 21 05/24/2019: INFORMATION ONLY-UPDATED: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. NE Response: Acknowledged. 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. NE Response: Acknowledged. 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. NE Response: Acknowledged. 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. NE Response: Acknowledged.