Loading...
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