The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSunCommunities_PDP_Rd1 Response Letter Master March 17, 2021 Ms. Brandy Bethurem Harras Development Review Coordinator City of Fort Collins Planning & Development Services 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: The Foothills PDP210001- Sun Communities Round 1 Comment Response Dear Brandy: The following are Atwell’s response to the comments provided in August 2019. Atwell’s responses are shown in red bold font. Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Brandy Bethurem Harras, 970‑416‑2744, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: As part of your resubmittal you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable Comment Number: 3 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut‑off for routing the same week. Please give me advanced notice of when you plan to resubmit. Comment Number: 4 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The proposed development project is subject to a Type 2 Review. The decision makers for your project will be the Planning & Zoning Board at a public hearing. RESPONSE: Noted Comment Number: 5 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners. RESPONSE: Noted Comment Number: 6 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Staff would need to be in agreement the project is ready for Hearing approximately 3‑5 weeks prior to the hearing. I have attached the 2021 P&Z schedule, which has key dates. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Upon field observations, staff witnessed a coyote and Northern Harrier on the property. Staff also witnessed the red‑tailed hawk nest in a cottonwood south of the site. Further evaluation will be required to confirm the location of these habitats and a bird survey should be conducted during nesting season to see if the red tailed hawk nest is being used during nesting season. Keep in mind, coyote dens receive a 50' buffer, Northern Harriers typically nest on the ground, and active red‑tailed hawk nests receive a temporary four‑hundred‑fifty‑foot radius during the period from February 15 through July 15 of the first year of a multi‑year development construction project. RESPONSE: ERO did not observe any coyote dens or northern harrier nests during our March 2020 site visit, the presence of either species does not definitively indicate the site contains a coyote den or northern harrier nest. However, both those species likely use the site as forage habitat. The red-tailed hawk nest didn’t appear to be active during the March 2020 site visit. In addition, there was ongoing development occurring less than 200 feet to the west of the nest on a different property. If the red-tailed hawk nest was occupied during the 2020 site visit, it is likely that the hawks were habituated to human disturbance due to the ongoing development nearby. As stated in the ECS we recommend vegetation removal outside (typically September through February) of the breeding season and complying with applicable CPW recommended buffers and the Fort Collins recommended buffers for active red-tailed hawks nests if the red-tailed hawk nest becomes active prior to construction. Both the Denver Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Department of Transportation have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in eastern Colorado as occurring between April 1 and mid to late August. However, a few species, such as bald eagles, great horned owls, and red-tailed hawks, can nest as early as December (eagles) or late February (owls and red-tailed hawks). Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends, at a minimum, that a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. Comment Number: 2 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Wetland mitigation seems insufficient. The requirements for environmental mitigation is to replace the resource value lost to the community. Because wetlands are being impacted, they must be replaced 1:1. Based on the ECS, it appears 1.51 acres of wetlands are being removed. It is not clear where the 1.51 replacement wetlands are located. RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to show the wetland mitigation area and the associated buffer area. Comment Number: 3 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide the following in a table on the site plan: A. The total acreage required by the standard 100' buffer zone for wetlands. B. The total acreage proposed within the submitted site plan. This may be best illustrated through a vignette/detail on the site plan for clarity. RESPONSE: A table has been provided on Sheet 1 of the PDP. Comment Number: 4 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to be delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plan. RESPONSE: Labels indicating “Natural Habitat Buffer Zone” has been added to all sheets containing wetlands. Comment Number: 5 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please add the following note on all sheets of the site, landscape and utility plans that show the Habitat Buffer: "The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future. RESPONSE: The requested note has been added to all sheets containing wetlands. Comment Number: 6 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide the seed mixes for groundcover, including the native grass. Recommended species lists can be provided, including native grass seed mixes. Please contact Environmental Planning for further details. RESPONSE: Seed mix can be found on Sheet L0.02. Comment Number: 7 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Within the natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. From a quantity perspective, additional material should be provided to meet this standard and the standard highlighted in Comment x above. Please update the plans accordingly. From a quality perspective, more detail in the buffer zone is needed to evaluate compliance with this standard. The ECS discusses several measures meant to enhance the buffer zone, including enhancements through native plantings such as chokecherry and other appropriate species. Buffer planting enhancements should include appropriate native vegetation, species diversity and variety in vertical structure. RESPONSE: Currently the buffer surrounding wetland 1 lacks riparian vegetation and is dominated by a non-native pasture grasses including, smooth brome, orchard grass, crested wheatgrass. The proposed natural buffer would be vegetated with 2 different native seed mixes and would include several riparian plantings. Comment Number: 8 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: If any trees will be removed, please add the following note to the landscape plans: “If tree removal is necessary, please include the following note on the tree mitigation plan and/or landscape plan, as appropriate: “NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.” RESPONSE: The required note listed in Comment has been added to L0.04 Tree Mitigation. Comment Number: 9 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please vary the grading of the detention areas near the wetland to create a more naturalistic, undulating landform. Side slopes should vary and range from 4:1 to 20:1, per the Stormwater Standards and Guidelines. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/Detention_Pond_Lands caping_Standards.pdf RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to reflect the varied side slopes as much as possible. Stormwater Standards and Guidelines state range of 4:1 to 10:1. Comment Number: 10 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please include a water budget chart and hydrozone diagram with the next submittal that identifies all hydrozones and total annual water use on the site, per LUC section 3.2.1(E)(3). Total annual water use should not exceed 15 gallons/square foot over the site, including all hydrozones used on the landscape plan. RESPONSE: Hydrozone diagram and water budget chart has been added to sheet L7.00. Comment Number: 11 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please add the following note to landscape plans: NATIVE SEED MIX NOTES 1. THE TIME OF YEAR SEEDING IS TO OCCUR SHOULD BE OCTOBER THROUGH EARLY MAY. 2. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE SEED MIX SPECIES THROUGH LOOSENING AND ADDITION OF AMENDMENTS THAT PROMOTE WATER ABSORPTION AND RELEASE, THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENLY OVER ENTIRE AREA. DRILL SEED ALL INDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS. 3. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 4. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED). 5. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN ½ INCH DEPTH. FOR BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES. 6. PREPARE A WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WEEDS ARE PROPERLY MANAGED BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SEEDING ACTIVITIES. 7. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS. 8. WHERE NEEDED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED UNTIL SEED IS GERMINATED THEN WEEN THE SEED FROM IRRIGATION. IF IRRIGATION IS USED, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE TIME OF SEEDING AND SHALL ENSURE 100% HEAD‑TO‑HEAD COVERAGE OVER ALL SEEDED AREAS. ALL METHODS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPROVED IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL BE FOLLOWED. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER. 10. THE APPROVED NATIVE SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. DO NOT MOW DURING HOT, DRY PERIODS. DO NOT MOW LOWER THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH. 11. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY PERCENT VEGETATIVE COVER IS REACHED WITH LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF COVER CONSISTING OF NOXIOUS WEEDS, NO BARE SPOTS LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE, AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES AND EROSION CONTROL. 12. THE DEVELOPER AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATE SEEDLING COVERAGE AND GROWTH AT THE TIME OF FINAL STABILIZATION, AS DEFINED BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES. IF FINAL STABILIZATION IS NOT ACHIEVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AGENCY, THE DEVELOPER AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO SATISFY FINAL VEGETATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSEOUT. RESPONSE: Native Seed Mix notes have been added to L0.02. Comment Number: 12 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide a concept prairie dog removal plan prior to Hearing. The plan must explain the methodology and timing. The payment in lieu will be calculated based on the size of the colony and must be paid prior to issuance of a Development Construction Permit. RESPONSE: A Prairie Dog Mitigation plan has been provided in the Environmental folder. Comment Number: 13 01/15/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Please keep in mind you may need to demonstrate how you made an effort to find a receiving site for prairie dogs at Hearing. While city regulations do not require developers to demonstrate this action, the last project that proposed prairie dog eradication during Hearing was conditioned to make an effort by the Planning and Zoning Board. Comment Number: 14 01/15/2021: PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: Should this project achieve approval and proceed to construction, a burrowing owl survey, in accordance with Colorado Parks and Wildlife standards shall be provided prior to any prairie dog removal and prior to issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP). The survey must be completed by a qualified wildlife biologist. Documentation of the burrowing owl survey should be provided 1 week minimum prior to DCP meeting, and be in the form of a signed letter from the wildlife biologist. Comment Number: 15 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Environmental Planning mitigates for trees being removed that are not being mitigated by Forestry. Staff must perform a site visit to determine the value of these trees, and the mitigation trees must be placed in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Several are being proposed for removal that are not being mitigated. Also, please be sure the blocked out cells in the table on the Tree Mitigation Plan are removed. RESPONSE: All trees – dead, sick, and healthy – are being mitigated at the rates provided and required by Forestry. Please reference sheet L0.04 Tree Mitigation for updated plan and table. Blocked out cells have been removed. At the time of this resubmittal, we are still waiting assigned mitigation values for the additional mitigation of trees required by the Environmental Planning Department. We have email correspondence to Kelly Smith & Scott Benton on 1/29/2021 and 3/9/2021. We are confident that there are enough trees proposed on site to satisfy this requirement, but at the time of resubmittal, those values have not been provided by City Staff. Comment Number: 16 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Plantings should be placed around the cul de sac and homes proposed around the wetland to screen noise and light and other impacts from the development. RESPONSE: Plantings as well as fences have been provided for screening noise, light, and general impact from the development. Please refer to sheet L0.03 for fence locations and refer to sheet series L5 for plantings proposed. Comment Number: 17 01/15/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Staff is happy to meet to discuss strategies to get plans in accordance with standards. To schedule a meeting, contact development coordinator. Comment Number: 18 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Any impacts to ditches must be mitigated. It is not clear the impacts to the unnamed ditch, who owns the ditch, and whether coordination should occur with ditch owner. This must be resolved prior to hearing. RESPONSE: The irrigation ditch (North Louden Ditch) located on the western edge of the property adjacent to College Avenue and continuing along a portion of the southerly property line is proposed to remain in its existing condition and location. We are currently in the process of reaching out to the ditch owners to discuss our plans since we will need to install a crossing where Debra Drive crosses the ditch. The ultimate future plans for the widening of College Avenue, which are unclear at this time, would likely impact the existing location of the ditch. Sun has proposed to provide fee-in-lieu for what their share of the widening costs would be for use by the City when and if the City ever decides to widen this portion of College Avenue. Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for submitting a tree mitigation plan. Please add a status column to the tree inventory/mitigation table on sheet 1 indicating whether each tree is to be removed, protected, or transplanted (similar to sheet LO.04 in the planning set). RESPONSE: The additional column showing “Status” has been added. Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide an “Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter” for City Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter with specific details of the reasons for removal. For example, tree X removed due t grading; grading proposed to enhance storm water flow in this section of the development. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings, and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on‑site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. RESPONSE: The Tree Feasibility Letter with detailed explanation per tree is included in this resubmittal in the Environmental Folder. Comment Number: 4 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for showing the street tree locations. Please provide a detailed overall plant list, which includes species, quantity, size, method of transplant and species percentages. RESPONSE: The plant schedule including species, quantity, size, and percentages is located on sheet L0.02. Comment Number: 5 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please adhere to the minimum required tree sizes and method of transplant, per LUC 3.2.1. The sizes are reduced for Affordable housing projects. Required tree sizes and method of transplant: Canopy Shade Tree: 1.0” caliper container or equivalent Evergreen tree: 4.0’ height container or equivalent Ornamental tree: 1.0 caliper container or equivalent Canopy Shade Tree as a street tree on a Local or Collector street only: 1.25" caliper container or equivalent Replacement (mitigation) trees shall meet the following minimum size requirements: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent. Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped or equivalent. Ornamental tree: 2.0 caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent. RESPONSE: The plant schedule including caliper or container size is located on sheet L0.02 Comment Number: 6 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: It appears that only two species of shade trees are being proposed for the streetscape at this moment. Please see the following note pertaining to species diversity. LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to prevent insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan: Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species 10‑19 50% 20‑39 33% 40‑59 25% 60 or more 15% The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reached the maximum percentage of the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose: ‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the review process. The following list may be helpful: https://www.fcgov.com/forestry/approved‑street‑trees RESPONSE: The revised streetscape design of tree species is located in L5 sheet series, additional trees have been added per species diversity requirement. The planting schedule showing percentages is on L0.02 Comment Number: 7 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see the following notes on the trees proposed thus far: 1. Autumn blaze maples are poorly suited to Colorado’s soil. They are highly prone to chlorosis and have relatively short life spans. Please substitute autumn blaze maples with any and all of the following: sugar maple (Fall fiesta or green mountain), Kentucky coffeetree, oak species (Texas red, shumard, chinkapin), hackberry etc. 2. Aspens are also poorly suited to Fort Collins and have a relatively short life span here. They are much better suited to higher elevation areas in Colorado. Please substitute with another ornamental species (ex: Tree lilacs, sucker punch chokecherry, serviceberries) or if space allows, with a suitable shade tree. 3. While the honeylocust is a reliable urban tree, this species is overplanted in Fort Collins. Please reduce the number of honeylocusts proposed and substitute with any of the trees listed above or in the Approved Street Trees List. RESPONSE: Adjustments have been made to the planting design regarding plant diversity, and more specifically to respond to the Autumn Blaze Maples, Aspen, and Honeylocust species as indicated in comment #7. Please refer to L5 series for updated planting design, sheet L0.02 for updated Plant Schedule including percentages Comment Number: 8 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Will this project be responsible for frontage improvements along Trilby and College? If so, please show canopy shade trees at 30‑40’ spacing centered in the parkway along both streets. RESPONSE: Streetscape plantings have been added to Trilby Road (L5.20 & L5.21) and College Avenue (L5.01) Comment Number: 9 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Will the water and sewer utility services to each property be shown in subsequent rounds? Standard tree‑utility separation distances currently used per Land Use Code standards are preferred and are as followed: Street Light/Tree Separation: Canopy shade tree: 40 feet Ornamental tree: 15 feet Stop Sign/Tree Separation: Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs. While the 50 feet of separation is not officially codified yet, Traffic Operations has indicated that the current standard of 20 feet does not provide adequate stop sign clearance. Driveway/Tree Separation: At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys Utility/Tree Separation: 10’ between trees and electric utilities, public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 4’ between trees and gas lines RESPONSE: Trees locations have been re-evaluated to accommodate the above stated separation distances for utilities and lights. Street signs will be provided at FDP and tree locations will be re-evaluated at that time. Please note that due to conflicting separation requirements, there are a few areas where 40’ on center streetscape shade tree spacing cannot be achieved, but we have achieved this for majority of the masterplan. Comment Number: 10 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide a typical right‑of‑way transect for the Debra Dr. RESPONSE: A cross section of Debra Drive has been added to the plan set on Sheet 12. Comment Number: 3 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: During the tree inventory, we discussed retaining the large spruce on the west side of the property near the existing structure on College (#29G). Is it possible to retain that tree? On Kevin Dr., there is a cottonwood tree on the west side that is in the public right‑of‑way, which wasn’t inventoried. Based on discussions with Engineering, it appears that frontage improvements along Kevin Dr. may impact this tree. Please coordinate with Forestry and ensure this tree is accounted for in the mitigation plan. RESPONSE: We will not be able to save 29G Spruce 20” due to conflicts with grading for drainage. We have confirmed with the civil engineer that the cottonwood tree to the west side of Kevin D r. is not being impacted. For a full understanding of mitigation inches, please refer to L0.04 and Existing Tree Feasibility Letter that will accompany the drawing set. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: The submittal did not include a Grading Plan. The Utility Set only included Erosion Control Plans, but needs to have dedicated Grading Plans. RESPONSE: The grading plans were submitted as part of the Drainage Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. However, for more clarity, the Grading Plan has been separated out as a separate set of sheets within the PDP. Comment Number: 3 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: The drainage design did not include any water quality or LID features. Per City Code, water quality and LID are required. The City suggests a meeting to discuss what is exactly required and how the design can meet code. RESPONSE: The proposed Detention Pond included water quality volume. LID Features Provided include: Constructed Wetland: Historic flows drain to an existing non-jurisdictional wetland area that will be extended and upgraded to provide additional wetland plantings while removing the existing noxious weeds that currently occupy the area due to intermittent water supply. The existing and expanded wetland area is part of the overall detention pond which includes a specified water quality volume. The water quality and detention attenuated volumes will provide the water necessary to maintain the wetland species. The wetland vegetation will provide will help mitigate water quality of storm water. The wetland vegetation will also provide natural erosion control and site sedimentation control. This area will be owned and maintained by the landowner. Wetland Channels: The site is proposing to utilize wetland channels to pretreat the storm water and enhance the water quality of the wetland. The channels will be gently sloped at 0.5% to 0.35% and densely vegetated to provide time for sediment to settle and to slow runoff. The main channel along out northerly property line will transport existing developed offsite storm water from the development to the west and north of The Foothills site. These flows, for whatever reason, are not being detained to historic levels and have created a burden on our site. These offsite flows are what appears to have been the source of water that created the man-made wetland complex due to there being an existing low point in the topography at the point where the wetlands now exist. The slope of this channel is controlled by the fixed elevations at the two ends of the channel, i.e. the invert of the existing storm sewer system coming from the west and the elevation of the wetland area. The second wetland channel is located to the southwest of the existing wetland area. Due to the relative flat site conditions, the slope of this channel will also be relatively flat thus creating an opportunity to provide water quality mitigation before entering the detention pond/wetland area. Forebays: Concrete forebays will be placed at the entrances to the wetland channels. The forebays will capture large sediment before it enters the channels. Rip rap forebays will be placed at the toe of the wetland channels for additional pretreatment of the stormwater while preventing scour and providing erosion control before the storm water enters the wetlands. Vegetated Buffer: A vegetative buffer will be placed around the wetland. The buffer will improve the water quality of the storm water that sheet flows across this area before it enters the wetland by reducing sediment and debris. The buffer will also provide aesthetics to the site and enhance the trail around the wetland. Certain LID’s are not feasible due to the existing elevations of the site which are driven by the existing wetlands and outfall at Trilby Road and the existing development to the north and northwest. The project site is receiving historic developed flows from the existing developments and must preserve the historic flow path. The site must also maintain the elevation of the wetland bottom so that a water source can be provided to the wetland vegetation. The water for the wetland area is provided by the historic surface flows and not through ground water, thus the surface water is crucial to the survival of the wetlands. Maintaining these existing elevations results in flat grades across the site with some street grades at 0.8%. LID practices where infiltration and slotted pipe are utilized are unachievable due to the flat slopes across the site. Raising the site to accommodate these types of LID’s would result in blocking the historic flows from the west and north from entering the site. It is noted again that these flows are crucial to the survival of the wetland area. The wetland channels are sloped at 0.5-0.35% and drain directly into the existing wetland area providing the needed water source for the survival of the wetland vegetation. The specifications for a linear bioretention or a sand filter are that 1.5-feet of bioretention media and 0.5-feet of coarse bedding with the slotted pipe 1-inch above the course bedding bottom be provided. Unfortunately, due to the flat slope of the wetland channel and the existing grade of the wetland area, it would be impossible to daylight the slotted pipe into the wetland. Additionally, the slotted pipe would have very little if any positive slope and therefore merely collect water and eventually clog. The LID would not function as intended. Holding the existing elevations is critical to maintaining the path of the historic storm water flow and the function of the wetlands. Therefore, the elevations of the project site are basically set by existing conditions, therefore not allowing the implementation of any additional LID features. Comment Number: 4 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: The proposed detention basin needs to meet the City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards. This includes a more naturalistic shape with varying side slopes and trees, shrubs. RESPONSE: The side slopes have been adjusted to be consistent with the Storm Drainage Criteria. Landscape plans have been modified to show additional landscaping around the edges of the pond within the buffer zone. Comment Number: 5 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide a more naturalistic shape to all the drainage channels. This includes varying side slopes. RESPONSE: Due to grading constraints associated with the need to carry significant offsite developed flows thru our site from the west, there is minimal opportunity to vary side slopes without having significate land use issues. Slopes have been varied where possible and, in some areas, retaining walls have been utilized to obtain usable housing sites. The existing swale on the easterly property line has been redesigned to accommodate the required flow rate from the detention pond. The side slopes on this swale have also been varied as much as possible but we are limited due to property boundary constraints as well as the need to obtain buildable housing sites between proposed Portner Drive, which has to line up with the existing location to the north, and the ditch. Comment Number: 6 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please use the City's Hydrology Criteria. The Drainage Report used Urban Drainage Criteria. RESPONSE: The City’s criteria was used in the preparation of the Drainage Report. References to Urban Drainage Criteria have been removed from the standard forms. Comment Number: 7 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: The City will require a SWMM model revision to verify the use of the existing detention area meets the requirements of the Master Plan. RESPONSE: SWMM model has been included with the resubmittal. Comment Number: 8 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The storm sewer system accepts some drainage flows from the public right‑of‑way. Generally, a storm sewer system that accepts public water would be owned by the City. In this case and as designed, the storm sewer system would need to be privately owned and maintained because the system is not meeting City Criteria with placement and spacing from other utilities. The storm sewer is placed in many locations in residential lots, which the City would not own or maintain. RESPONSE: The intent is that the storm sewer system will be privately owned and maintained by the developer. Department: Fort Collins Loveland Water District Contact: Nate Ensley, HYPERLINK "mailto:developmentreview@fclwd.com" developmentreview@fclwd.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/22/2021: FOR HEARING: See our attached comments on the prelim utility plans and plat. RESPONSE: Responses to your marked-up plans are noted on the respective sheets. These sheets are part of the resubmittal package. Comment Number: 2 01/22/2021: INFORMATION: Please note that we requested an offline meeting with the development team to gain a better understanding of their anticipated tap fees/customer classifications for this development. Comment Number: 3 01/22/2021: INFORMATION: The project is proposing a private water system interior to the subdivision. More conversation between FCLWD and PFA regarding who would be responsible for maintaining the hydrants is needed. Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970‑416‑2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: There is 3‑phase along College Avenue. For this development, Light and Power will need to cut in a vault along College Avenue and extend 3‑phase power into the project boundary to allow for phase loading distribution and redundant power. Please show this extension on the plans. RESPONSE: The 3-phase extension has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: There is 3‑phase at the corner of Trilbey Road & Portner Road. For this development, Light and Power will need to extend 3‑phase power into the project boundary to allow for phase loading distribution and redundant power. Please show this extension on the plans. RESPONSE: The 3-phase extension has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 3 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for providing preliminary utility locations on the Utility Plans. With a preliminary layout, I would highly recommend a Utility Coordination meeting with all proposed utility providers to avoid potential conflicts or redesigns further into the process. In the next round, please provide an Overall Utility Plan for clarity. RESPONSE: This meeting has occurred but Developer recognizes that additional coordination meetings will be needed to finalize dry utility design. Comment Number: 4 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide AutoCAD drawing files showing all utilities, existing conditions, and the proposed site plan for preliminary designs. RESPONSE: Cad files will be provided by separate submittal to you. Comment Number: 5 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For the clubhouse, a transformer location will need to be coordinated with Light & Power and needs to be shown on the Utility Plans. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. When located close to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as defined in Figures ESS4 ‑ ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans. RESPONSE: We have shown the desired location of the transformer for the Amenity Site on the Utility Plans. Locations of other transformers will need to be finalized prior to FDP based on input from L & P and our dry utility consultant. Comment Number: 6 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: If any existing electric infrastructure needs to be relocated or underground as part of this project, it will be at the expense of the developer and will need to be relocated within Public Right‑of‑Way or a dedicated easement. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. Comment Number: 7 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement or public right‑of‑way. Comment Number: 8 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: The services to the Club House, Maintenance Building or any other commercial building, will be consider a commercial service; therefore, the service lines from the transformers to the meters are required to be installed, owned, and maintained by the property owner. Comment Number: 9 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: All residential service requests above 200 amps are considered a customer owned service; therefore, the applicant is responsible for installing the secondary service from the transformer to the meter(s) and will own and maintain this(those) service(s). Comment Number: 10 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Per Light and Power’s Electric Service Standards: 8.1.10. The builder is required to install the electric meter socket(s) on the same side as the electric service ‘stub’. 8.1.11. Builders are also encouraged to install the natural gas meter(s) on the opposite side of the house from the electric service. 8.1.12. The electric service trench must be a minimum of 3 feet from the natural gas service trench, and the electric and gas services shall not cross each other. Comment Number: 11 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL: If the private drives are proposed to be illuminated, the streetlights are considered private and will need to be privately metered. Please show all private streetlights and private meters on the Final plans. Comment Number: 12 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL: All utility easement and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, floodplain, etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained by the developer. Comment Number: 13 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL: For the Club House, Maintenance Building or any other commercial building, a commercial service information form (C‑1 form) and a one‑line diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C‑1 form is below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils‑procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C‑1Form.pdf Comment Number: 14 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL: On the one‑line diagram, please show the main disconnect size and meter sequencing. A copy of our meter sequencing can be found in our electric policies practices and procedures below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/development‑fo rms‑guidelines‑regulations Comment Number: 15 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins now offers gig‑speed fiber internet, video and phone service. Contact Julianna Potts with Fort Collins Connexion at 970‑207‑7890 or jpotts@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements. Comment Number: 16 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com). https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go‑renewable Comment Number: 17 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/plant‑investmen t‑development‑fees Comment Number: 18 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric services standards, and fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers. Comment Number: 19 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see redlines for minor explanations and revisions. RESPONSE: Responses to your marked-up plans are noted on the respective sheets. These sheets are part of the resubmittal package. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970‑416‑2869, jlynxwiler@poudre‑fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ FIRE HYDRANT SEPARATION DISTANCE > The fire hydrant plan may be updated as follows: For Group R‑3 occupancies, hydrants required within 400 feet of any residence and on 800 feet thereafter. > The current hydrant placing indicates an excess of hydrants. The plan may be adjusted to allow for fewer hydrants and additional space between hydrants. > A hydrant is required within 300 feet of a maintenance building (Bldg. B), clubhouse, community center, business office or assembly building. RESPONSE: The locations of some hydrants have been modified and some have been eliminated. Comment Number: 2 01/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM > Any Group B or A occupancy over 5,000 sq. ft. in area will require a fire sprinkler system or fire separation. > Any Group A occupancy with an occupant load over 99 will require a fire sprinkler system. Comment Number: 3 01/20/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN ‑ FIRE LANE SIGNAGE > Add LCUASS detail #1418 to plan set. > Location of fire lane signage shall be labeled on the plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1419 for sign p0lacement, and spacing. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970‑416‑4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The overall site plan could use several paved bicycle and pedestrian trails in the following locations: ‑ Behind units 2 ‑ 18 ‑ Behind units 38 ‑ 43 ‑ The proposed soft‑surface trail should be paved ‑ Connect to the proposed trial from Crown Ridge between unit 53 and 54 RESPONSE: The requested locations for trails noted above are adjacent to significant drainage swales. As mentioned in a previous comment, due to the need to pick up offsite developed flows the proposed ditches are narrow and do not have the room to add a trail without significantly impacting the number of usable building sites. These drainage corridors are intended for drainage only. Additionally, trails in these locations would be redundant in that a detached sidewalk is proposed in the adjacent streets approximately +/-100 feet away, which generally runs parallel to these locations. A trail connection has been added from the proposed trail around the detention pond to Crown Ridge Lane. This trail at this time is proposed to be a hard-surfaced trail. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970‑221‑6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: In general, several of the following comments pertain to existing features (ditches, utilities, drainage conveyances) that are not specifically called out on the civil plans and are unclear as to how the development proposal would impact these. An existing conditions sheet on the civil set that identifies these items and how they may be changed, removed, etc. would ideally be helpful ‑‑ note that sheets 2 and 3 of the site plan provides some of this information. To the extent that these features are either private interests or utilities not owned by the City, their approval would be needed on the plat/plans and letters of intent from those parties are needed prior to a hearing. Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The site has existing ditches that traverse the property which appear to create questions as to how they intend to be addressed with the development of the site, among them: along the western boundary abutting College Avenue where frontage improvements not currently exist, along the southern boundary that the Debra Drive extension would cross, along the northern boundary abutting Trilby Road (as well as the eastern boundary between Trilby which the frontage improvements would extend over, and along the eastern boundary of which Crown Ridge Lane's extension would traverse over. In general, with the exception of the depiction of two box culverts crossing Crown Ridge Lane's extension, there doesn't seem to be information as to what these ditches are (drainage and/or irrigation) and how the development of the site intends to incorporate these ditches into their site. Designs for public streets improvements need to show how these water conveyance systems will be physically addressed (piping, box culvert?) meeting City standards (material type in right‑of‑way, cover over roadway, etc.) and whether legal rights need to be secured (signing of a ditch company on the plat and plans?) RESPONSE: The current plans show that the irrigation ditch (North Louden Ditch) adjacent to College Avenue and extending along our southerly property line will remain as is. The resubmitted plans show a culvert under the extension of Debra Drive to convey the irrigation water under Debra Drive to the east in its existing location. The existing ditch rider road will connect to Debra Drive as shown on the plans and continue to the east and west in its current location. We are in the process of reaching out to the ditch owners to discuss our development plans and determine what documents will be necessary. Currently the ditch has a prescriptive easement. It has yet to be determined what improvements this development will be required to provide along College Avenue. Currently the Developer is proposing to provide a fee-in-lieu for the cost of an additional lane, curb & gutter, and detached walk. Any future widening of College Avenue will likely impact the North Louden Ditch as well as the existing properties to the north of this site. We are awaiting direction from the City as to how to proceed with this item. Currently there is a shallow ditch on the southerly side of Trilby Road. Our plans show that we will be widening Trilby Road and providing curb & gutter on the south side. Any existing flows from the west will be directed into the proposed curb & gutter and then into a proposed on grade inlet. The existing culvert under Trilby, on our easterly property line, is being extended to accommodate the widening of Trilby. This ditch will generally remain in its existing location but will be regraded to convey the required flow from the detention pond and standalone water quality pond. This same ditch extends to the south under Crown Ridge. As you noted, proposed box culverts are planned for this crossing. The detailed design information for these crossings will be provided with the final private street profile plans and details as part of the FDP stage. Comment Number: 3 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The geotech report recommends the construction of an underdrain system. The applicant would need to respond to the recommendations in the report. To the extent that an underdrain system is ultimately proposed, a groundwater report is required for review and analysis under Chapter 5.6 of LCUASS. RESPONSE: CTL has revised their Report to address this issue based on the actual type of unit being proposed. An underdrain system is no longer being recommended for units that do not have a permanent foundation. For buildings with a permanent foundation, such as the maintenance building and clubhouse, alternative solutions are still being discussed with CTL to eliminate the need for any type of underdrain system. Comment Number: 4 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The construction of the private portion of Rick Drive east of Kevin Drive has an existing storm manhole at the northeast corner of the intersection that would appear to need to be moved/rebuilt to create the new roadway tie‑in. RESPONSE: The plans reflect that this storm sewer system is being rebuilt to direct existing developed offsite flows from the west into the drainage swale proposed along our northerly property line. Comment Number: 5 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Kevin Drive is an existing street right‑of‑way that traverses the abutting boundary of the site (abutting home sites 1, & 123‑130). The existing attached sidewalk abutting is in substandard condition and is required to be re‑built to a vertical curb and detached sidewalk in accordance with the City's residential street standards (4.5' wide sidewalk, with a 6' parkway). Right‑of‑way would then be dedicated to coincide with the back of walk, with a 9' utility easement behind the new right‑of‑way. (Note that as an abutting public street, street trees are typically required.) RESPONSE: The plans reflect removal and replacement of the existing curb & gutter on the easterly side adjacent to our property line as well as the addition or a 6’ tree lawn and 4.5’ detached walk. These improvements fit within the existing right-of-way. A 9’ utility easement has been added to the final plat. Comment Number: 6 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Kevin Drive is an existing street right‑of‑way that's also stubbed to the boundary of the site. 3.6.3(F) of the Land Use Code would require the roadway to be extended into the property and incorporated into the development. This provision of the Land Use Code does allow alternative compliance under 3.6.3(H) that would demonstrate any alternative plan accomplishes the standards equal to or better a plan that would meet the standard and that any reduction of vehicle use maintains alternative modes to the maximum extent feasible. It appears that an option that could be explored would be a north‑south sidewalk/trail connection along the east side of home site #121 that ties the Kevin Drive detached sidewalk into the sidewalk along the north side of Street A. RESPONSE: The proposed 4.5’ detached walk adjacent to Kevin Drive has been extended to the south to tie into the detached walk adjacent to Street A. Comment Number: 7 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The aforementioned 3.6.3(F) provision of the Land Use Code also requires that developments extend roadways along its periphery to adjacent developable parcels at intervals not to exceed 660'. This standard does not appear to be met with respect to stubbing connections to the "6824 South College" parcel (shown on the plans as owned by Juan A. Herrera‑Trinidad) that appears to have a driveway access through the development and the City of Fort Collins land bank parcel. It would appear that the extension and stubbing of streets to the property boundary (such as Streets B and D to 6824 South College, and Streets E or F to the City parcel) would be needed to meet this standard unless alternative compliance was reviewed and evaluated. It is acknowledged that the pedestrian connection between home site #94 and #95 may be intending to serve as alternative compliance with respect to the 6824 South College Parcel. RESPONSE: The site has been reconfigured to make Street E a thru street into the City’s land bank parcel. Additionally, the current plans show a 20’ private access road connection to the existing adjacent property in our southwestern most corner of the site between sites 94 and 95. Note: Revised plan shows this connection between sites 91 & 92. Comment Number: 8 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The preliminary design for Debra Drive as the lone new public street being built with the development has some concerns with the K values not meeting minimum requirements in both crests and the sag condition. The indication of matching existing condition requires showing existing centerline grades on both sides of Debra Drive (within Trilby Heights and Lakeview on the Rise) as evidence of this, note that the Lakeview on the Rise plans show for instance a 2.44% centerline grade of Debra Drive to its northern boundary while the project shows a 1% tying into this. This amount of grade break would require a vertical curve. Please show an existing centerline g In general, why is a low spot being introduced into Debra (and no depiction or indication of an inlet) with the crest, sump, crest design, instead of a singular crest? Note also that the elevation shown in the profile view does not correspond to the road design data. RESPONSE: The profile plans have been revised. Comment Number: 9 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: When a private roadway intersects a public street, the portion of the private road that is built in the right‑of‑way of the intersection public street is required to be built in concrete as a drive approach (with sidewalk extended across the private drive) in accordance with 707.1 of LCUASS. The concrete provides a separation from publicly maintained asphalt to private asphalt, and also is an additional visualization that there is a transition from public to private. This is applicable for the portion of (private) Rick Drive in Kevin Drive right‑of‑way, the portion of (private) Portner Drive in Trilby Road right‑of‑way, and the portion of Street A in Debra Drive right‑of‑way.To the extent that it appear that there may be portions of unbuilt Crown Ridge Lane as a public street, that portion should be built in concrete to provide a similar demarcation between public and private. RESPONSE: At Kevin Street and Debra Drive, the plans have been revised to show the portion of the private drive, starting at the PCR’s, within the public ROW constructed in concrete. The detail you noted above does not really work in our situation because of the detached private walks that continue along the private streets. The pedestrian ramps are located within the concrete portion of the intersection. For Trilby, the above detail was utilized. The private walks were configured to connect to the public walk parallel to Trilby. There was room to make this transition at Trilby although I think it looks a little odd in my opinion. I prefer the method used at Kevin and Debra. Comment Number: 10 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The note regarding College Avenue improvements on sheet 5 of the site plan is great for the time being. We'll want to coordinate further with Engineering's Capital group on the finalization of the approach to take for College Avenue improvements abutting the property. Understanding the existing drainage/irrigation ownership status abutting College would be helpful in this regard. Comment Number: 11 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: The design for Trilby Road will require a flowline profile design at time of final and extend to depict existing flowline (and centerline) of Trilby Road to the east to show how it ties in. The design should reflect tying into existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, etc. Note that the cross sections provided for Trilby should be showing the ultimate design of Trilby Road along the north side of Trilby Road for verification of the widening satisfying the ultimate horizontal and vertical condition. Comment Number: 12 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: A signing and striping plan should be provided for Trilby Road to show the striping that wil be needed with the frontage widening and how it then accommodates an eastbound left turn lane at Portner Drive. RESPONSE: A Signage and Striping Plan has been provided for Trilby. Comment Number: 13 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The subdivision plat dedicates the interior private roads as easements for emergency access and drainage. Access easement is also required to be dedicated. It appears a utility easement should also be dedicated for utilities to also utilize the private roadway corridors. Note that the City would look to have the development agreement for the project will look to reiterate the private nature of the internal roadways being owned and maintained by the property owner(s) and the City is under no obligation for ownership and maintenance, and is not liable for any concerns or claims of damage arising from the general public utilizing the privately owned roads through the development. RESPONSE: The plat has been revised accordingly to reflect the access and utility use as applicable. Comment Number: 14 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Note that the plat indicates the vacation of several existing easements within the platted boundary. It is unclear on the plat who is the owner(s) of the easements being vacated and to the extent that the ownership is not with the owner/developer of the overall parcel, the owner(s) of these easements being vacated would need to sign the plat consenting to the vacation. In addition, to the extent that there are any interests being dedicated to the City on the plat (such as a right‑of‑way or easement) that would overlap an existing easement, the owner of that easement would likely need to sign the plat in accordance with our signature requirements for plats under 2.2.3(C)(3) of the Land Use Code. An example of this would be the owners of the 50' access easement (book 1371, page 852) and 30' water line easement (rec. 2002077795) as these easements rights would overlap the dedication of Debra Drive road right‑of‑way and 9' utility easement on either side. Letter of intent from these easement holders not objecting to the project going to public hearing would be required prior to any hearing. RESPONSE: The easements that are noted as being vacated by the Plat are currently owned by the City of Fort Collins. A signature block has been added for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Districts related to their easements that are being modified and/or dedicated to the Districts by the Plat. The 25’ to 50’ access easement located along the southerly edge of the property for the benefit of the property being served by the access has been noted on the Plat as going to be vacated by separate document. An alternate access has been provided to this property. Comment Number: 15 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The site plan (Sheet 5) shows a 30' non‑exclusive waterline and access easement to be dedicated. It is unclear who this easement is being dedicated to, and should be shown on the plat. If intending to be dedicated via the plat, the grantee of this easement would need to sign the plat, otherwise the dedication would need to be completed prior to the approval of the plat with the recording information and indication as to who owns the easement. RESPONSE: This easement is being dedicated to the water and sanitary sewer Districts. A signature block for the Districts has been added on the Plat. Comment Number: 16 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The dedication of 15 foot utility easements behind the right‑of‑ways being dedicated for College Avenue and Trilby Road are required. RESPONSE: 15’ Utility Easement has been added to the final plat. Comment Number: 17 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The design of Trilby Road The dedication of Trilby Road right‑of‑way should expand to the back of walk that is being established. RESPONSE: The ROW has been extended to back of walk. Comment Number: 18 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The extension of the Crown Ridge Lane street name will likely need to be split into two street names on site where the road acts as a more north‑south street (verification would be made with City GIS.) RESPONSE: The Street name has been changed for the portion of the street south of the intersection with Rick Drive. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970‑221‑6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING: The US287 frontage will need to be brought up to standard and further coordination with the City Capital project at US 287 and Trilby road is needed. RESPONSE: We are awaiting direction from the City. Currently the Developer is proposing to provide a fee-in-lieu for the cost associated with adding an additional lane, curb & gutter for length of frontage, and detached walk for length of frontage. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 2 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING: The traffic study has been received and reviewed. Please revise and include exhibits reflecting proposed long range and short range geometry at studied intersections. RESPONSE: Revised traffic study is included in this resubmittal. Comment Number: 3 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING: We would like to work with the applicant to determine if a two way left turn lane can be striped on Trilby at the Portner Rd. location to improve the operational delays referenced in the Traffic Study. RESPONSE: Refer to included Signage and Striping Plan included with the resubmittal. The east bound left turn lane will not meet the requirements established in the TIA due to insufficient existing asphalt width to the west of The Foothills site. An interim configuration is shown on the Signage and Striping Plan. Department: Planning Services Contact: Meaghan Overton, 970‑416‑2283, moverton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see below for a summary of conditions of approval and comments to address in future submittals to fully comply with the conditions: ‑ 15% deed‑restricted lots/houses: Documentation will be required prior to hearing ‑ Adequate parking for guests and residents: Meets residential parking requirements; 151 guest parking spaces is sufficient. This condition is satisfied. ‑ Street trees placed at 30‑40' intervals in parkway, irrigation required, if driveways/parking conflict trees must be placed 3‑7' behind sidewalk: Trees provided. Please clarify plans for irrigation on utility set and see comments from Forestry regarding species diversity. ‑ Housing models with entrances facing streets to maximum extent feasible, except small lots: Unclear whether site plan meets this condition; see additional comments below. ‑ Guest parking no more than 200' from any home and landscape islands provided: Guest parking meets distance requirements; does not meet landscape requirements ‑ Minimum of 15 different elevations: 15 elevations provided, but some are very similar and it is unclear how many of each elevation will be in the development. See additional comments below. ‑ Distinctive housing models ‑ variety of rooflines (gables, dormers, pitch) and variety of porches (covered, uncovered) and variety in trim/color: Unclear how many units will have porches and how many color varieties will be provided. Variety in rooflines among elevations is sufficient. ‑ No 2 similar houses placed next to each other: Unclear how this will be accomplished. RESPONSE: All conditions from Planning & Zoning Board approval have been noted and will be addressed. See additional responses below. Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please clarify how the homes will be placed on the site and where the entrances to the homes are located. The “perpendicular” homes on the site plan do not appear to have an entrance facing the street. However, the elevations and the home site details on sheet A27 suggest that the homes have more than one entrance, one of which does face the street. One of the conditions of approval requires that units face streets “to the maximum extent feasible.” One possible way to show the orientation of the buildings is to add a reference to the private street onto the elevations so it is easy to understand what will be visible from the street sidewalk. RESPONSE: The typical unit layout has been revised to indicate the entrance to the perpendicular units does face the street. The plans have been revised accordingly. The front entrances shown on the home elevations are correct. Comment Number: 3 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The LMN zone requires a Neighborhood Center to be located within ¾ mile of any development larger than 40 acres, without crossing an arterial street. Currently there is no Neighborhood Center identified for this proposal. There are a couple of options to consider here. One is to request a modification to the standard. The other is to modify the uses proposed in the amenity center to meet the code section by adding at least one use to the proposed neighborhood support/recreation facilities. For example, inclusion of a child care center, clinic, or retail store, etc. in addition to the proposed neighborhood support facilities could meet the definition of a neighborhood center. Please see section 4.5(D)(3) for more details. RESPONSE: The Neighborhood Center for The Foothills will be located in the central amenity center for the project. It will include the following two uses from LUC Section 4.5 (D) (3): neighborhood support/recreation facilities and a convenience retail store. The convenience store will be under 1,000 square feet and both uses will be located within the clubhouse building. Comment Number: 4 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Is the recreation area near the clubhouse intended to serve as the required “small neighborhood park”? If so, this area is not large enough. The park must be at least 1 acre in size and must be within 1/3 mile of 90% of the homes in the development. The amenity center itself is not considered to be part of the park. The location of the recreation area does appear to meet the requirement to be within 1/3 mile of 90% of homes. RESPONSE: The required small neighborhood park space is located throughout The Foothills in six (6) different locations to be more accessible to residents. A total of 1.45 acres of park space and amenities is being provided in The Foothills including a clubhouse, BBQ grills, leisure pool, shade ramada and seating, firepit, fitness lawn, half-court basketball, pickleball court, dog park, wetland trail, benches, trash receptacles, and passive open space. Please refer to the Program Masterplan exhibit provided prior to submittal and in addition to the drawing sets submitted. The exhibit offers a snapshot of the programming proposed on the overall masterplan in the central amenity, neighborhood parks, trails, and dog park. The Program Master Plan is included in the PDP folder. Comment Number: 5 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: It seems that mid‑block pedestrian crossings with ramps are provided at adequate intervals – these crossings should be marked with crosswalks at key crossing locations (i.e. at intersections). Note that walkways connecting to other streets must be provided at intervals of least every 650 feet, mid‑block wherever possible. Also please confirm that ramps are indeed proposed where it seems that they are indicated on the site plan. RESPONSE: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 6 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Site plan sheet 8 shows 2 parking spaces on the south side of “street E” but the note indicates 4 spaces. Please clarify which is being proposed. Overall, it appears that the site layout does meet the condition of approval that requires guest parking to be located within 200 feet of each home. RESPONSE: Plan has been revised. Comment Number: 7 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The condition of approval related to guest parking further states that the guest parking must meet standards in section 3.2.2(E)(4), which requires landscaped islands with raised curbs to define the ends of parkin aisles. Please show detail in your next submittal of a typical guest parking area to ensure that the proposal demonstrates compliance with this condition. RESPONSE: Please refer to series L5 showing plantings in new parking islands. Comment Number: 8 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Any parking area greater than 6 spaces and 1800 square feet in area must have at least 6% of the interior dedicated to landscaping. This requirement may be applicable to some of the larger guest parking areas, particularly around the amenity center. Consider adding landscaped islands or similar to meet this standard. Also note that a landscaped area is required every 15 spaces, which impacts the parking proposed on the south side of the amenity center. See section 3.2.1(E)(5) for details about parking lot interior landscaping. RESPONSE: Please refer to series L5 showing plantings in new parking islands. Comment Number: 9 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please add additional landscaping to further screen the guest parking areas, similar to what is shown for Sheet L5.08 or Sheet 5.14. More specific requirements for parking lot perimeter landscaping are in section 3.2.1(E)(4) and will apply to any parking area with more than 6 spaces. RESPONSE: Screen plantings have been added to parking areas to further screen guest parking areas – please refer to sheet series L5 to see new plantings. Comment Number: 10 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: It is difficult to tell how the maintenance building will be oriented on the site, and the back elevation is missing. The site plan also states that the building is 2.5 stories, but the elevations appear to show a 1.5 story building. Please clarify. RESPONSE: The maintenance building is 1.5 stories and the plans have been updated accordingly. The rear elevation has been added to the plan set. Comment Number: 11 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Two different elevations are shown for the clubhouse building. Which is being proposed? Either elevation could be appropriate, though the more varied rooflines in option 1 do provide additional visual interest. RESPONSE: One elevation has been included for the clubhouse building. Comment Number: 12 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The architectural elevations note that there will be porch, carport and garage “options” for residents. How many homes will include these features? One of the conditions of approval specifically requires “a variety of front porches” including covered, uncovered, and in differing dimensions. RESPONSE: Garages and carport will be options for residents on any lot where they fit. It is expected that one-car garages or carports will fit on most lots, including the small lots. All home elevations shown with front porches will be offered with porches. Porch variety including covered, uncovered and different dimensions will be offered and are shown in the home elevation package provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 13 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: One of the conditions of approval states that no two similar housing models shall be placed next to each other. How will this be achieved? The site plan as proposed does not identify which elevations are located on which lots. RESPONSE: It is expected that housing model similarity will be reviewed at building permit by both Sun and City staff. Sun expects to submit for 35-45 building permits to begin with and will pick housing elevations and lot locations for that first group at the time of building permit submittal. Sun will make sure no two similar housing models are placed next to each other throughout this process as homes are permitted and constructed on site. Comment Number: 14 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please include elevations of all sides of the buildings in your future submittals. Floor plans are not necessary to include. RESPONSE: Side and rear elevations of the homes have been added to the submittal package. Comment Number: 15 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Elevation 11 looks like elevation 1, with the exception of the porch and some variation in the fenestration pattern. Elevation 13 and 15 also look very similar in form, though the materials are different. Because the porches, carports and garages are optional features, staff has concerns about how varied these elevations will actually be from one another. How can we be sure that the two elevations will be different when constructed? RESPONSE: Additional elevations have been added to the submittal package for more variety. It is expected additional elevations (or “stock plans”) will be added at a future date as Sun continues to work with architects and home manufacturers on this project. In addition, home elevations and materials will be reviewed at time of building permit for each home to ensure there is enough streetscape variety throughout the development. Comment Number: 16 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The landscape plans show chain‑link fence. This is not a material that the City allows. Please choose a different material for your next submittal. Also note that the maximum length of continuous, unbroken and uninterrupted fence or wall plane shall be forty (40) feet. Breaks shall be provided through the use of columns, landscaping pockets, transparent sections and/or a change to different materials. RESPONSE: The privacy fence design has been modified to include a column every 40’ on center. Please refer to the Wall Plan on L0.03 for locations and sheet L3.02 for elevation detail. Comment Number: 17 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please add a water budget chart and overall plant list with your next submittal. Details for water budget requirements are located in Section 3.2.1(E)(3), and the project must have a total annual water use of 15 gallons/square foot or less. RESPONSE: Please refer to sheet L7.00 for water budget chart and overall plant list. Comment Number: 18 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for including the photometric plans and cut sheets for proposed light fixtures. The “Type CC” light does not appear to be full cut‑off and down‑directional and should be replaced with a different fixture. Flood lights are also not full cut‑off and down‑directional (Type DD). The other two light fixtures appear to meet lighting code standards. One remaining question is about wall‑mounted light fixtures on non‑residential buildings (maintenance building, clubhouse, amenity areas). Are you proposing any lighting on these buildings? If so, please add to the photometric plan and cut sheets to reflect what is being proposed. RESPONSE: Type CC & DD light fixtures are able to be outfitted for full cut-off . Additional information regarding the specification of these lights is included with the resubmittal. Comment Number: 19 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For future submittals, please separate the site/landscape plan set from the architecture/elevations to facilitate review by multiple departments. Some departments do not need to see the architecture set, and the size of the file can make efficient review of the site and landscape plans challenging. RESPONSE: Plans have been separated into smaller packages for ease of opening and reviewing. Comment Number: 20 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The site plan shows a gross density of 3.92 du/acre. Please add a net density calculation to the next round submittal and note that the minimum density in the LMN zone is 4 du/acre (net density). The proposal likely meets this minimum threshold; however, staff will need to review the calculation on the site plan to confirm. RESPONSE: Net Density calculation has been added. Comment Number: 21 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For your next submittal, please make a few modifications to the site plan notes as follows: ‑ Delete text for site plan note 7 and replace with “N/A, see Modifications and Conditions of Approval.” Currently, the note states that “A minimum of four housing models for the single family homes shall be required. These housing models shall meet or exceed the standards as outlined in 3.5.2(C) of the land use code.” ‑ Correct spelling of site plan note 12. In a couple of places, replace “accessable” with “accessible.” ‑ Add the date of P&Z approval to both modification notes so each note reads “…was approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on October 15, 2020 with the following conditions:” You can also remove the language after the bullet points on each that refers to the findings and the vote. All we need to document is the modification and the conditions. RESPONSE: Revisions made. Comment Number: 22 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Will the maintenance building include any outdoor storage? Please note that outdoor storage is not a permitted use in the LMN zone. RESPONSE: The maintenance building will not include any outdoor storage. Comment Number: 23 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: A trash enclosure is included on sheet L3.02 but I don’t see it on the site plan. Where will the trash enclosure be located? Please also review requirements for trash and recycling enclosures in Section 3.2.5. These standards require pedestrian access, space for both trash and recycling, and other elements. Also see the example included in redlines of a trash enclosure from a different project that meets these requirements for reference. RESPONSE: It has been determined that a trash station is not needed for this development. The trash enclosure has been removed from the project. Comment Number: 24 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Signs are approved by separate permit and can not be approved at PDP level. Please remove signage from the plans and note “Signage to be approved by separate permit” wherever signs are proposed on the site plan. RESPONSE: The signage details have been removed from plans. The location has been noted “Signage to be approved by separate permit” on sheet L5.21 Comment Number: 25 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Please note that the City’s Municipal Code contains regulations for manufactured home parks that you will want to review. Permitting, installation and anchoring of units, and other requirements are located at https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code? nodeId=CH18MOHO. Comment Number: 26 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: This comment is primarily to bring forward the stated intent to establish a resident/homeowner’s association. The details for this will not need to be finalized at this point, but may be incorporated in later stages of the project. Department: Erosion Control Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970‑222‑1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 01/14/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Based upon the area of disturbance, State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before construction activities can begin. The proposed site construction activities would disturb more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets the criteria for Erosion and Sediment Control materials to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are located in the Stormwater Design Criteria in Chapter 2 Section 6.0 a copy of the requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion Starting in January of 2021 the City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5‑2 was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. These fees will be collected on all new projects slated for inspections. The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the materials submitted we are assuming 1 lot, 52.1 acres of disturbance, 2 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 3 number of years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which roughly equates to an Erosion Control Fee of $ 3,164. Since no permanent stormwater quality measures are currently shown on the plans, the LID/ permanent stormwater quality inspection fee could not be provided at this time. A final fee estimate will be provided as this project progresses through the review process. BELOW ITEMS ARE FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Please submit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based Based upon the project location (GPS Lat) 40.492987 (GPS Long) ‑105.072176 this project is located in the City of Fort Collins MS4 Boundaries and is applicable for review of City Criteria. Based upon the disturbed area of 2,269,476 square feet, this project is greater than an acre, or part of a larger common development and erosion control materials will need to be provided for review and be in accordance with City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria. Please provide an overall Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. RESPONSE: Erosion and Sediment Control plans were submitted as part of the original submittal and are included again with this resubmittal. Department: Building Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970‑416‑2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 01/15/2021: BUILDING PERMIT: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments 2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete requirements. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): · 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or · Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: 2018 IRC chapter 11. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · 5ft setback required from property line or provide fire rated walls & openings for non‑fire sprinkled houses per chap 3 of the IRC. 3ft setback is required for fire sprinkled houses. · Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms. · Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for buildings using electric heat. Stock Plans: When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res‑requirements.php. Comment Number: 2 01/15/2021: BUILDING PERMIT: All non‑fire sprinkled houses must be 5ft minimum from the property lines or must have 10ft minimum between houses for fire separation distance. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: 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. Department: Larimer County Assessor Contact: Megan Harrity, 970.498.7065, HYPERLINK "mailto:mharrity@larimer.org" mharrity@larimer.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/22/2021: FOR HEARING: The parcels are in different taxing districts. Parcel 9613100001 is not in the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Parcel 9613200003 is included into the S FTC Sanitation District. RESPONSE: Required documents have been provided to the District to include Parcel 9613100001 into the District boundary and service area. Comment Number: 2 01/22/2021: FOR HEARING: The parcels need to be in the same tax districts. Since the plat is joining the two parcels into one lot; Lot 1, Blk 1, they either both need to be in South FTC San Dist. or both out of the South FTC San Dist. RESPONSE: Required documents have been provided to the District to include Parcel 9613100001 into the District boundary and service area. Comment Number: 3 01/22/2021: FOR HEARING: The owners of these two lots can accomplish this by doing an order of inclusion or an exclusion from South Fort Collins Sanitation District. RESPONSE: Required documents have been provided to the District to include Parcel 9613100001 into the District boundary and service area. Comment Number: 4 01/22/2021: INFORMATION: Please contact Lisa Ford in our office with any questions or concerns at the following; Lisa Ford Assessment Support Mgr fordla@co.larimer.co.us 970‑498‑7068 Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970‑221‑6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit, but we would prefer them sooner. 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 HYPERLINK "mailto:eolson@fcgov.com" eolson@fcgov.com