HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP190003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 6 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Page 1 of 18
March 24, 2020
Stephanie Hansen
Ripley Design Inc
419 Canyon Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Sanctuary on the Green, PDP190003, Round Number 4
Comment Responses by:
Northern Engineering
Ripley Design
Cedar Creek Associates
Owners
Comment Summary:
Department: Stormwater Engineering - Floodplain
Contact: Beck Anderson, ,
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: Please refer to the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Modeling Report
Guidelines submittal checklist. The current submittal was incomplete and was
missing information that is required to initiate our floodplain review.
Specifically, please submit all digital data associated with the analysis including
hydraulic models, complete floodplain and floodway mapping, cross sections,
stream centerlines, and proposed grading.
Response: Updated Floodplain modeling report has been submitted
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: The submitted report shows an increase in the base flood elevation
at numerous locations throughout the project limits. Please supply adequate
documentation to show that all increases are contained within the
development's property and do not impact adjacent private properties.
Response: Updated Floodplain modeling report has been submitted
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: Please ensure all submitted work maps contain the information
listed in Section 5.6 of the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Modeling Guidelines.
Response: Updated Floodplain modeling report has been submitted
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: The floodplain delineation provided on the submitted floodplain
work map is incomplete, but it appears to not meet the horizontal tiein
requirements. All CLOMR and LOMR submittals must meet the horizontal and
vertical tiein requirements at the upstream and downstream limits of the project reach.
Response: Updated Floodplain modeling report has been submitted
Page 2 of 18
Contact: Heidi Hansen, 9702216854, hhansen@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019
07/20/2020: Repeat Comment
08/27/2019: Repeat Comment
03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please show the revised floodplain/floodway
boundaries on the floodplain exhibit along with the proposed CLOMR linework
and clearly label the different linework. The current plan does not show all of the
different linework and does not appear to show any floodway (proposed or
existing). The linework does not appear to be complete or even to cover the
entire floodplain revision area.
Response: Updated Floodplain modeling report has been submitted
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019
7/20/2020: Repeat Comment
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.
Response: Report has been updated to reference ICON floodplain report
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019
07/20/2020: Repeat Comment
08/27/2019: Repeat Comment
03/04/2019: For Hearing: If the project will continue moving forward in the
planning process prior to CLOMR approval please add the following note to the
Site Plan and Floodplain Exhibit: The applicant is aware that the current plan
does not meet regulatory floodplain requirements as proposed and is
continuing through the planning process at the applicant’s own risk. Building and
construction permits for structures not meeting floodplain requirements will be
held up if the LOMR is not regulatory.
Response: Understood we are proceeding at own risk
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019
07/20/2020: Repeat Comment
08/27/2019: Repeat Comment
03/04/2019: For Hearing: Add and label the floodplain/floodway boundaries on
the site plan.
Response: Floodplain boundary has been added to the site plan.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019
07/20/2020: Repeat Comment
08/27/2019: Repeat Comment
05/24/2019: FOR HEARING Staff must be comfortable that the proposed
design for the floodplain is reasonable prior to hearing. Please submit the
CLOMR floodplain modeling and mapping for review. The information provided
with the latest submittal is incomplete and does not meet our modeling and
mapping guidelines (please see Beck Anderson's comments below), staff is
unsure as to whether the proposed design can meet the floodplain regulations.
The modeling and mapping must be a digital submittal, the paper modeling
output is not useful for review purposes.
Response: Updated Floodplain modeling report and exhibits has been submitted
Page 3 of 18
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion and Sediment Control
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 9702182932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019
07/16/2020:
08/26/2019:
03/04/2019: For Final:
Please resubmit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria.
Response: Will submit with Final
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019
07/16/2020:
08/26/2019:
03/04/2019: For Final:
Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria.
Response: Will submit with Final
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019
07/16/2020:
08/26/2019:
03/04/2019: Development Agreement:
Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the
accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria.
Response: Will submit with Final
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019
08/26/2019:
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.
Response: Will submit with Final
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 9704162418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR HEARING The development is proposing the standard
water quality treatment to be in Pond 3 again. This comment was first made in
March of 2019. This pond is temporary and will become the regional channel in
the future. All water quality for the development needs to be located onsite and
out of the limits of the future regional channel.
Response: Water quality moved out of pond 3 and back to ponds 1 and 5
Department: WaterWastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 9704162418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: The wet utility layout is at a point where the City is comfortable
going to a hearing. Some minor utility adjustment comments may apply during
Page 4 of 18
Final Compliance.
Response: Thank you
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019
08/26/2019: FOR HEARING
Unresolved from last submittal: Please provide documentation of coordination
with the ditch company to determine whether any easements or restrictions
apply for the ditch for pedestrian and vehicular crossings, and whether the ditch
road can be used as a soft surface trail. Also, a number of plantings are being
proposed within the ditch easement. Ensure the ditch company is amenable to
these plantings.
Response: The ditch company prefers to separate pedestrian and vehicular uses. Rather than
providing two trails adjacent to each other, we are providing a north/south and east/west pedestrian
connection in a different area of the site. Email was sent from Secretary of ditch company to
Todd on 8/25/2020 stating that they are comfortable with the plans moving to Final.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/17/2020
07/17/2020: FOR HEARING:
There seems to be trees missing from the environmental planning mitigation
requirements. Additionally, the tree mitigation table is a little confusing. What
does "Mitigation to be Preserved" and "Mitigation to be Removed" mean?
Once staff has clarity, staff will provide a redline of mitigation table so all tree
groves are adequately mitigated.
Response: Tree mitigation table has been revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/19/2020
07/19/2020: FOR HEARING
Staff has been in touch with the ECS consultant to perform additional bird
surveys, as promised in the ECS. Additional wetland information along the
swale north of the property was also requested. These will be included as
addenda to the ECS and may influence mitigation requirements.
Response: A nest survey was conducted on 9/3/2020 and no nests were identified. However, a
survey must be conducted after leaf-drop to ensure an unobstructed view and appropriately
evaluate trees for nest presence. Therefore, a winter nest survey of the Site and nearby vicinity will
be conducted, and results will be provided in an addendum to the ECS.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/19/2020
07/19/2020: FOR HEARING
The ECS recommends restoration of native grasses in NHBZs. It also states the
condition of the Laporte wetland is poor in terms of structural and species
diversity. To meet the performance standards for the project, environmental
planning is requesting the Laporte wetland ecological function be improved
through weed mitigation, fringe plantings (shrubs and trees) and seeding.
Additionally, weed mitigation should occur along New Mercer.
Response: Additional fringe tree & shrub plantings & seeding (rush and sedge seed mix) has been added.
Response: Weed mitigation recommendations have been added to Section 5.0 of the ECS.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/19/2020
Page 5 of 18
07/19/2020: FOR HEARING
The transition area between the New Mercer and Block 4 still does not
adequately provide enough space for buffering. Staff understands unit number 1
has been removed, which is appreciated. There is still concern over the
proximity of the alley at SFA #10 to the New Mercer ditch. The alley will cause
continuous noise and light impacts at this location. Is it possible to make this
front loaded and remove the alley? The significant encroachment of lots 11 and
12 is concerning. Is it possible to step down to a two story in these locations?
Response: Front loaded units are not possible at this location. Small berms have been added to
soften corners and block lights.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 07/19/2020
07/19/2020: FOR HEARING
Detention Pond 4 is in an NHBZ and require a more naturalized appearance
from a grading and vegetation standpoint. Please explore ways of making this
detention fit the character of an NHBZ.
Response: The banks have been laid back to provide a more naturalized appearance.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/19/2020
07/19/2020: FOR HEARING
Will you be submitting a photometric plan?
Response: Please see photometric plan with this submittal.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/19/2020
07/19/2020: FOR HEARING
Please ensure the planting plan and drainage plan work in tandem. There are
instances where a drain pan intersects the boundary of a shrub bed.
Response: Plant beds have been revised.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/19/2020
07/19/2020: FOR HEARING
Please remove wood mulch planting beds in NHBZs and use native seed and
wildflowers with shrub/screen plantings.
Response: Wood mulch has been removed.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 9704164320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019
07/21/2020: This request is to combine the ditch rider road with a paved
bike/ped access so as to not expand the road/trail space adjacent to the ditch.
This would make our comments consistent with Environmental Planning.
Additionally, it will require an access easement from the ditch company.
Response: In order to satisfy multiple City departments, it was determined that we would provide a
concrete trail connection instead of combining the ditch road with a paved surface.
08/26/2019: A bike/ped connection should be made along the northeast side of
the New Mercer Ditch between the proposed bridge and the sidewalk network
in Block 6. This allows residents to quickly ride or walk to the neighborhood
school to the northwest.
Page 6 of 18
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: Pertaining to the realignment of the Soldier Creek Trail. Please
show the newly installed RRFB for crossing Taft Hill and the trail should align for
easy and direct access to cross at this location.
Response: RRFB added to existing files and proposed replacement shown at same location with
proposed curb and gutter and ramp
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 9704162869, jlynxwiler@poudrefire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: FOR HEARING
CLUBHOUSE:
> Prior PFA comments noted the clubhouse does not require a fire sprinkler
system if less than 5,000 sq. ft. This is true but it is not the only trigger for a fire
sprinkler requirement.
> A Group A2 assembly with an occupant load greater than 99 persons will
require a fire sprinkler system. In order not to sprinkler the building, the architect
team should revisit the projected occupant load for the building to ensure it
remains under 100 persons.
> Furthermore, the building's setback and orientation do not currently allow it to
meet minimum perimeter access of 150 feet as required. If the site cannot be
redesigned to meet minimum perimeter access requirements, the building will
require a fire sprinkler system to offset the deficiency.
> If the building is to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system, a fire service line
and fire department connection shall be labeled on the Utility Plans.
Response: The building will need to be sprinklered. Fire line added to utility plans
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: FOR HEARING
BUILDINGS EXCEEDING 30 FEET IN HEIGHT IFC Appendix D105
> Fire lanes required for aerial apparatus access shall be a minimum of 26 feet
in width on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required
access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15
feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building.
> Also, Taft Hill Road (an arterial) may not be used to plan access to buildings
fronting it and shall instead be served by the alley on the west side.
> Minimum setback distances from fire lane to building are 15 feet for aerial
apparatus access. A 10-foot separation is shown in some areas of the plan
(Bldgs #14 & 15). If footprints cannot be adjusted, the fire marshal will require
attic protection as an offset to aerial access deficiencies. Townhome
construction will provide 2-hour separation from foundation to roof deck and 4
foot of increased protection on the roof on each side of the property line. PFA's
recommendation is to require buildings 14 and 15 be provided with a 13D
system supplied by a separate fire line and add attic suppression as an
additional requirement.
Response: We have adjusted the alley spacing for buildings 14 and 15 to allow aerial access.
> At least one building (Bldg #9) fronts a 20-foot-wide fire lane rather than a 26
foot wide fire lane, nor has the minimum 15-foot setback. One suggested
solution is to swap Building #9 (3story bldg.) with Building #7 (2story bldg.).
Page 7 of 18
> Refer also to IFC D105 for details.
Response: Building 7 stepped down to a two-story when it was a 5-plex. The building is now all 3-
story. Building 9 will need a 13D system with fire line. Fire line added to utility plans
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: FOR HEARING
EMERGENCY ACCESS CONNECTION TO IMPALA STREET
> The emergency access connection to Impala Street SHALL be dedicated as
an EAE with the plat rather than dedicated by separate document.
> It shall be constructed to minimum fire lane specifications. Those details shall
be included on the plans.
> It shall be posted with appropriate signage to label it as a fire lane at each end.
> Sign locations shall be added to the plans.
Response: Emergency access easement added to plat and shown on utility plans. Easement on
City property to be dedicated by separate document during Final. Signage and drive access also
added to utility plans. More detail on signage will be provided at Final.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: FOR HEARING
REQUIRED TURNING RADII In reading through prior PFA comments, there is
a mention of turning radii on alleys and the potential need for an AutoTurn
exhibit. I did not see a turning exhibit and have not had time to study all private
alley radii. My question for the applicant is to confirm there are no 20-foot wide
alleys with an inside turning radius less than 25 feet and an outside turning
radius of 50 feet? Please specify any area not in compliance with minimum fire
code standards and provide a turning exhibit.
Response: Auto-turn exhibit included in submittal
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: NOT FOR HEARING FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
FIRE LANE SIGNAGE:
> Fire lanes to be identified by red curb and/or signage, and maintained
unobstructed at all times.
> Fire lane sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final
plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and
spacing.
Response: A more detailed signage and striping will be included at Final
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: NOT FOR HEARING
ALLEY CROSS SECTIONS
> Please detail or update the alley cross sections for Tracts T & U so as to
verify the full width will be engineered to support 40 tons.
> The alley cross sections for Tract X & S are not shown and needs to be
provided, same as above.
> Appropriate fire lane signage will be required to notify emergency personnel
that the sidewalks are designed to support a minimum of 40 tons. Signs in
these areas shall state. Rather than "No Parking Fire Lane", signage shall
read, "No Parking Fire Lane To Include Sidewalks".
Response: Tract X and S cross sections vary. More detail on cross section will be added on
individual plan and profiles sheets for the alleys. Cross sections labels updated on cover sheet.
Detailed signage plan to be submitted with Final submittal.
Page 8 of 18
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: NOT FOR HEARING FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
WAYFINDING & ADDRESS POSTING A coordinated system of address
posting and wayfinding is required to be submitted for review and approval prior
to final plans approval. The MF buildings may benefit from a campusstyle
address plan (i.e. one address with separate building numbers). And unless a
campus address plan is adopted throughout, other areas may require private
alleys to be named in order to facilitate addressing. Please submit a plan with
the FDP.
Response: Understood, will be designed and included with Final submittal
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: NOT FOR HEARING FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS (Group R2) up to 12 units per
building.
> Show fire lines for MultiFamily buildings (Group R2) on the Utility Plans.
> Show Fire Department Connections for MultiFamily buildings (Group R2) on
the Utility Plans.
Response: Fire lines are shown on multi-family buildings. FDC connections will be included with
Final.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/16/2020
07/16/2020: NOT FOR HEARING INFORMATION ONLY
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN GROUP R2 OCCUPANCIES In response to
the last comment letter, a note added to the plans to install 13R fire sprinkler
systems in R2 occupancies is mute.
> NFPA 13 systems are required except where 13R is otherwise allowed by
the building department. 1 or 2hour fire separation is also required between
units in order to allow 13R systems to be installed. Otherwise, full 13 systems
are required by default.
> SF attached townhomes require installation of residential fire sprinkler
systems (13D or P2904).
Contact the Building Department for details and direction.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jason Holland, 9702246126, jholland@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019
07/21/2020: Repeat comment, unresolved. Please also see environmental
comments.
Response: A unit has been removed and berms have been added to soften the harsh corners
08/27/2019: FOR HEARING: Along the ditch lateral, the footprint and paving
placement is still very angular and forced in several locations along the habitat
buffer. A more gradual transition is recommended by pulling developed areas
further away from the ditch.
Department: Historic Preservation
Page 9 of 18
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 9702216206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2019
02/19/2019: The applicant completed the presubmittal requirement to provide
for the historic survey of the only two properties adjacent to the site that were
noted as potentially eligible for local landmark designation (2318 Laporte and
2540 Laporte). Neither one has enough historic integrity to qualify for
designation, so no further historic review will be required for this project.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Spencer Smith, 9702216603, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/08/2019
07/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY
Please see redlines for additional comments.
08/23/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
Redlines have been provided for reference.
03/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
Please refer to Engineering redlines on the Plat, Site Plan and Utility Plans for
additional comments.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019
07/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY
The revised Master Street Plan has been adopted, with Taft Hill Rd. being
officially downgraded to a 2lane arterial roadway.
Response: Acknowledged
05/23/2019: BY HEARING
We need to have further discussion regarding the proposed street section for
Taft Hill Rd. We initially were okay with dedicating the necessary ROW for the
2Lane 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
4Lane 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 2Lane 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 4Lane Arterial ROW width necessarily,
but we need to ensure that if it is needed, it is available. We will have the final
approval conditioned on the correct Taft Hill Rd. ROW being dedicated. I would
recommend coming up with an alternative site layout that accommodates the
wider ROW to avoid having to do a major site redesign if the downgrade does
not get approved.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/23/2019
07/21/2020: FOR APPROVAL
The full 15-foot utility easement needs to be dedicated along all of the Laporte
Page 10 of 18
Ave. frontage as well as the Taft Hill Rd. frontage. It looks like there is a portion
of Taft Hill Rd. (toward the north end) that only has a 9 foot utility easement
being dedicated.
Response: Easement width increased to 15’
08/23/2019: FOR APPROVAL
Please dedicate the typical 15-foot utility easement along all Laporte Ave.
frontage.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
The City Capital Improvements Engineering staff will review the design of the
ditch crossing structure(s) that will be within public ROW. I would recommend
submitting full plans as early as possible during the final design process to
avoid any delays in final approval. Also, please begin working with the ditch
company(ies) as early as possible regarding ditch crossing agreements,
easements, approvals, etc.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
Please show the existing trail improvements and signal, etc. near the northeast
corner of the site and work with City staff to fine tune the connection of the
proposed sidewalk along Taft Hill Rd. and the trail at the spot where it crosses
the road.
Response: Existing trail updates and RRFB added to existing conditions. Proposed ramp and
RRFB shown on utility plans
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
You may want to add some sort of curbing at the end of private drives that are
adjacent to walks (see utility plan redlines) to keep vehicles in the drive areas.
Response: Acknowledged. We will plan on added with final submittal
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 9702216887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
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.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
The Soldier Creek Trail is being realigned please ensure that there is an easy
turn/access to the crossing of Taft Hill sharp 90 degree turns of the trail will
generally result in 'goat paths'.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
Page 11 of 18
You may need to add a note to the plans that indicates that the walking area in
the alleys is actually part of the roadway, and no furniture, flower pots etc can be
allowed.
Response: Acknowledged, note has been added. PFA is recommending something similar. More
detail/signage on roadway and sidewalks will be added with Final submittal
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
Regarding pedestrian crossings on LaPorte.
The one at Impala will need a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB).
That should be planned to be installed unless FCMoves or other City
Department can fund it.
The one at Barton (Stephens) will likely need a new ramp on the south side.
Response: RRFB is being proposed. We will coordinate on who will install with Final submittal. A
ramp is proposed on the south side of Laporte.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
The plans indicate some identified parking along the main public road. We
don't stripe parking spaces on local roads so those markings can be removed.
Response: Stripes are shown for graphical purposes only to show on-street multi-family parking.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
We may need to work on the size of the opening in the protection along LaPorte
for driveways depending on the design vehicle, it may need to be larger. The
protection (curbing) will also need delineators on top every now and then.
Response: We will add more detail on protection along Laporte and coordinate Laporte design with
Final.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 9702246152, 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.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019
03/05/2019: FOR FINAL:
Multifamily buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a (C1) 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.
Response: Acknowledged
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.
Response: Acknowledged
Page 12 of 18
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: Acknowledged
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.)
Response: Acknowledged
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) 2216700. 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/buildersanddevelopers.
Department: Parks
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR INFORMATION
The Parks Department is investigating the Soldier Creek Trail segment and
may have some comments regarding the intersection of the proposed 8 ft wide
Soldier Creek Neighborhood Trail.
Response: We will verify that the design of the trail intersection works for maintenance
personnel.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR INFORMATION
Please clarify the intent of the proposed 8ft wide Soldier Creek Neighborhood
Trail and whether this will be public trail and open to the public or private and
privately maintained. Please label the trails accordingly. Parks Department
Planning staff can help with any questions you may have. Please contact Jill
Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com), 9704162062, or Parks Planning Technician,
Aaron Wagner (aawagner@fcgov.com) 9704168083, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort
Collins, CO 80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest.
Response: The intent is that the trail on this property is privately constructed and maintained.
However, it is available for public use.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR INFORMATION
Please show the ditch easement on both sides of the ditch.
Response: Ditch easement added to plans.
Page 13 of 18
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR INFORMATION
Parks is investigating the Soldier Creek Trail and may have some comments
regarding alignment and connections to the proposed trails within the
development. If it is determined that he Parks Department is to maintain the
Soldier Creek Trail. Maintenance consists of snowplowing of the paved
surface, occasional seasonal mowing 23ft adjacent to the trail surface and
repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail. The underlying property owner
shall be responsible for all other landscaping and maintenance within the
easement. Please coordinate with Parks Planning on required typical trail
cross sections for the proposed connection (As previously noted from the 2019
submittal).
Response: Not Applicable because the trail is private.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR INFORMATION
The development would appear to require modifications to the New Mercer
Ditch (ditch), which is used by the Parks Department (Parks) and other water
users. The development would also deliver stormwater into this ditch. These
aspects of the development thus trigger the need for an agreement with the
ditch company. Please provide a signed Letter of Intent with the ditch company.
Response: Acknowledged. We are currently working New Mercer on design and agreement. Email
sent from ditch company secretary to Todd on 8/25/2020 stating they are comfortable with us
proceeding to Final.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
07/21/2020: FOR INFORMATION
If there is a need to close a section of the Soldier Creek Trail for any reason, a
traffic control plan is required to be submitted and approved through Traffic
Control. Stormwater will sign off on it once submitted. Please keep the closures
to the shortest amount of time depending on work scheduling and flow.
Response: Acknowledged, there is one section of the trail which will be re-aligned near Taft Hill Rd.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
7/21/2020: FOR FINAL
Tree/utility separation to be verified at final.
Please note that there are several electric vaults that are in direct conflict with
proposed trees. Please provide 10’ of separation between street trees and
electric vaults.
Response: Understood
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
7/21/2020: FOR HEARING
There are sections of the public rightofway that are missing street trees.
Canopy shade trees should be placed at 3040’ spacing in the center of
parkways (3.2.1 (D.2))
Response: Utilities have been relocated to the alleys in all possible locations to provide street trees.
Page 14 of 18
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 07/21/2020
7/21/2020: FOR HEARING
There are trees shown on the plan as mitigation trees, including some that are
ornamental. However, the plant schedule does not reflect the caliper required for
mitigation trees. Please note land use code changes for mitigation trees and
update plant list and plans accordingly:
If any mitigation is required, trees must be upsized to the following dimensions:
Canopy Shade Trees: 2.0" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent.
Ornamental Trees: 2.0" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
Response: Mitigation plan legend has been updated to show caliper required.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019
05/28/2019: FOR FINAL
There are various tree/utility separation conflicts. See redlines for examples
(L24) and adjust accordingly. Sewer and water lines should be approximately
10’ from shade trees.
Response: Understood, utilities will move slightly until FDP. At that time, we will make a thorough
review of the separations.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019
07/21/2020: FOR FINAL
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: Understood, trees will be re-evaluated at time of Final.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019
8/26/2019: FOR FINAL
Please see redlines for examples for where proposed trees do not meet
stormwater separation requirements.
Response: Please see revised plans
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019
7/21/2020: FOR HEARING UPDATED
Thank you for adding the notes and the response. Forestry still has concerns
about building a 10’ parkway and curb/sidewalk around >40” diameter trees.
Instead of waiting for trees to fail during construction, we would like to see a
proactive plan to determine whether these trees can be adequately protected
with the proposed frontage improvements. If not, then mitigation trees should be
reflected on the plan.
Given the project review timeline, it may be worthwhile to revisit the three large
trees that are shown to be retained along Taft Hill and reevaluate their
conditions. Since they were in fair minus to poor condition in early 2019, we
anticipate their conditions may have changed.
It would also be helpful to show the critical root zones of the three trees in
relation to the curb/sidewalk locations. This helps forestry assess the extent of
root damage that may occur during construction.
Page 15 of 18
Response: Trees were re-evaluated at an on-site meeting 8/31/2020. After speaking with the civil
engineer, it was determined that the trees will most likely be negatively impacted with grading work.
We have shown the trees as being removed and added mitigation for them.
08/27/2019: FOR HEARING
The trees along North Taft Hill Rd are shown to be retained on the mitigation
plan. What impacts are anticipated with the addition of the parkway and
sidewalk, including grading changes? Given the condition of the trees, it may be
difficult to retain these trees with the proposed rightofway improvements.
Please update the tree mitigation plan to reflect any additional removals
necessary along Taft.
Additionally, there are overlapping existing and proposed trees. Please update
the landscape plan accordingly.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 9704164340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019
03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
The 2006 Northwest Subarea Plan, Chapter 4, presents conceptual alignments
for MultiPurpose (Regional) Trails and also "Local Area Connections". The
plan discusses the proposed Soldier Creek restoration project and associated
trail connections. The plan indicates that a publicprivate partnership is
anticipated to construct the entire Soldier Creek trail. The Poudre Trail
connection to Lincoln Middle School is designated a multipurpose (regional)
trail both in the NW Subarea Plan and the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail
Master Plan. Park Planning & Development plans to construct this almost
1mile paved trail segment in summer 2019.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019
03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
The Project Development Plan Sheet L2 of 22 "Walkway Classifications"
indicates approximately 900 LF labeled "Soldier Creek Trail Extension" at 6'
wide connecting the existing 6' paved trail on the property to the north to the
local street network of sidewalks and bike lanes within the project. This trail
extension appears to provide excellent connectivity between and through the
project and surrounding neighborhoods. As such, it coincides with the definition
of a "Local Neighborhood Connection" for the Soldier Creek Trail identified in
the NW Subarea Plan. Park Planning & Development funds are not available
for this segment of neighborhood trail.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019
03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
The City Parks Department does not maintain the 6' trail located on the property
to the north which is owned and maintained by the Fort Collins Stormwater
Utility. Parks equipment is not appropriate for maintaining trail widths less than
8'. The Parks Department does not have access, or resources, to provide
maintenance for the neighborhood Soldier Creek Trail Extension.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019
03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY
Constructing additional segments of the proposed Soldier Creek Trail
connection between Lincoln Middle School and potentially Poudre High would
Page 16 of 18
be an important asset to the project and surrounding neighborhoods.
Constructing the paved trail connection as shown on Sheet L2 of 22 as the
"Soldier Creek Trail Extension" should occur along with the site development.
Park Planning & Development does not have funding to contribute to the
construction of this neighborhood trail segment, however, will assist in trail
design and especially in maintaining ADA design standards.
Department: Environmental Compliance
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 9704162701, jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019
05/28/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please evaluate replacing the bollards
with angle iron, curbing, metal framing or other method to protect the rear trash
and recycling enclosure walls so the dumpsters may be slid farther back
allowing for a more comfortable pedestrian access in front of them.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019
05/29/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make sure all pedestrian
entrances on all trash and recycling enclosures have sidewalk connections.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/28/2019
08/28/2019: BY HEARING: The location of the trash and recycling enclosure for
the clubhouse is not conducive to efficient servicing and will require additional
reverse operations. Consider placing the enclosure closer to the turn around so
dumpsters can be wheeled to it for servicing and not requiring any reverse
operations.
Response: Understood, after further evaluation, a trash enclosure is not needed for the clubhouse.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/28/2019
08/28/2019: BY HEARING: Consider removing the trash and recycling
enclosure between building 1 and 2 and using larger 4 cubic yard containers
(very similar footprint to 3 cubic yard containers) in the two nearby enclosures.
This will eliminate one point of reverse operations and still provide enclosures
within reasonable distance to each unit. Additionally, 4 cubic yard dumpsters
should be considered in all other enclosures as it will reduce service frequency,
chance of overflowing and likely save money due to the reduced pickups.
Response: Completed last round of review.
Contact: Katy Hand, ,
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: Provide a sitewide accessibility plans showing compliance with
CRS 95
Response: The attached Site Plan meets the accessibility requirements of CRS 9.5. Final grading
plans may cause the location of one or more of the units to shift (Refer also to the attached memo
dated 6-21-2020 which summarizes the results of the discussion with Russ about the accessibility
requirements)
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: INFORMATIONAL: Buildings located within 250ft of a 4-lane road,
or within 1000 ft of an active railway must provide exterior composite sound
transmission of 39 STC min.
Page 17 of 18
Response: Taft Hill Rd is no longer a 4-lane arterial
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: INFORMATIONAL: 10% of all multifamily parking spaces must be
EV ready (conduit in place) & New homes must be EV / PV ready (conduit in
place).
Response: 10% of the Multi-family units will be planned for EV parking spaces. The EV
requirements for Single Family Detached and Attached Homes will also be met.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 07/20/2020
07/20/2020: INFORMATIONAL: Please visit our website for a list of current
adopted building codes and local amendments for building permit submittal:
https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.phphttps://www.fcgov.com/building/energycode
Response: City current building codes & local amendments have been reviewed. Building plans to
be submitted will be compliant with City codes.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 9702216588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019
07/17/2020: INFORMATION ONLYUPDATED:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
Response: Understood
08/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLYUPDATED:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
05/24/2019: INFORMATION ONLYUPDATED:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019
07/17/2020: FOR APPROVALUPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter.
Response: Acknowledged
08/26/2019: FOR APPROVALUPDATED:
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.
05/24/2019: FOR APPROVALUPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
Page 18 of 18
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter.
03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 9702216704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/02/2020
07/02/2020: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 2216704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Response: Understood