Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMBERLINE INTERNATIONAL APU - PDP200014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview March 26, 2021 Steve Steinbicker Architecture West LLC 5833 Big Canyon Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Timberline - International, PDP200014, Round Number 2 RESPONSE COMMENTS – ARCHITECTURE WEST LLC, APRIL, 2021 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Timberline - International. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras via phone at 970-416-2744 or via email at bbethuremharras@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Brandy Bethurem Harras, 970-416-2744, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com Topic: General INFORMATION NOTED. Comment Number: 1 10/20/2020: 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 10/20/2020: 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. 2 Please avoid using acknowledged, noted, or other non descriptive replies. Comment Number: 3 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: This proposed project is processing as a Type 2 review with an Addition of Permitted Use (APU). The decision maker for Type 2 is the Planning and Zoning Board. 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. Comment Number: 4 03/26/2021: FOR HEARING: All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the hearing. Comment Number: 5 10/20/2020: INFORMATION: When you are ready to resubmit, please let me know at least 24 hours in advance. Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut off for routing the same week. Comment Number: 6 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: I am letting you know that your quasi-judicial item will be heard remotely and that there is the option to hold off until an in-person hearing can be conducted. Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or commission or an administrative hearing officer under the City Code or the City's Land Use Code, shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a Quasi-Judicial Hearing using Remote Technology. Such person or applicant shall be entitled to request that the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be conducted in person. Department: Planning Services Contact: Will Lindsey, , wlindsey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: MODIFCATION REQUEST SUBMITTED. Modification of Standards– LUC 2.8(H) The Project Narrative states that one LUC Modification is requested, but no official modification request was submitted with the Round 2 Submittal. Staff sees one modification that is needed for the direct pedestrian connection from the drive-thru to the public sidewalk (LUC Section 3.5.3(C)(1)) 10/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Based on the number of Industrial and Commercial standards that have not been met it appears that a number of modifications would need to be requested (in addition to those already submitted). Per our conversation on 10/22, Staff recommends that you explore an alternative site design layout that better meets the applicable building standards to mitigate the need for multiple modification requests. 3 If you move forward with the modifications submitted as part of the original proposal they will need to be revised. It is unclear to me what they are, or which of the applicable standards (see below) that they address: The plan as submitted will promote the general purpo se of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL INCREASE OVER TIME AS NORTH TIMBERLINE DEVELOPES FURTHER. THE CROSSING CONNECTION WILL BE IMPORTANT TO NEARBY USERS, RESIDENTS AS MORE BIKE ACCESS AND INTERCONNECTING SIDEWALKS ARE INCREASED. THE SITE HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO 3 OF THE 4 PROPOSED USES. GIVEN THE 2-BUILDING DESIGN LAYOUT, IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO HAVE THE WEST BUILDING ACCESS WITHOUT A CROSSING TO THE WEST BUILDING. NOTING, THE VERY NATURE OF A DRIVE-UP COFFEE SHOP USE REQUIRES FULL VEHICULAR MOVEMENT AROUND THE BUILDING. OTHER DESIGN OPTIONS WITH SINGLE-SIDE ACCESS WERE INVESTIGATED BUT DETERMINED WOULD NOT MEET OTHER LUC. DESIGN CRITERIA. THE WEST BUILDING DOES HAVE DIRECT PARKING ACCESS SPACES THAT DO NOT CROSS THE TRAFFIC SO THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PATRONS TO ACCESS WITHOUT ANY VEHICULAR CROSSING CONCERNS. ALL TRAFFIC IS STOPPED PRIOR TO EXITING THE DRIVE-UP LANE. THE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DESIGN INCLUDES; CONSISTENT SIDEWALK LEVEL RAISED ABOVE THE CAR LANE PAVEMENT ELEVATION, ‘SPEED -BUMP/CALMING’ DESIGN/ELEVATION CHANGE, BOLLARDS FOR ASSIST IN VISUAL AWARNESS TO BOTH PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER, PAVEMENT TEXTURE AND COLOR CHANGE. ACCESS TO THE DRIVE-UP USE (COFFEE SHOP) WILL PROVIDE CLEAR AND SAFE ACCESS TO THE USERS. PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE. The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES. By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the own er's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN REGARD TO ITS’ PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES, ADJACENT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS TO THE PRACTICAL ACCESS TO BOTH BUILDINGS. THE SITE IS AN IN-FILL SITE AND NOT A PART OF ANY DEVLOPMENT CENTER. INTERCONNECTION TO OTHER AREAS OF THE SITE ARE LIMITED TO DUE THE DITCH ON THE WEST SIDE AND SURROUNDING EXISTING & VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT. THE SINGLE ACCESS FROM TIMBERLINE ONLY, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR INTERCONNECTIVITY, LIMITING ACCESS FROM OTHER LOCATIONS. PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE. The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4 THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS NOMINAL AND INCONSEQUENTIAL WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN DESIGN. THE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IS ONLY A SINGLE COMPONENT OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN AND THE IMPACTS TO THE CROSSING ARE BEING MITIGATED, LIMITED THROUGH MULTIPLE PRACTICAL URBAN DESIGN MEASURES. THE CROSSING CONNECTS TO PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AREAS, INTEGRATING THE DEVELOPMENT INTO A CREATIVE URBAN LEVEL FUNCTIONAL AND SAFE DESIGN SOLUTION. PROPOSED DESIGN COMPLIES. Comment Number: 5 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: PROPOSED USES ARE LISTED ON THE SITE PLAN. The site plan still does not clearly list all of the potential uses for the site. Please add those to the site plan land use table so that that the parking calculation can be clarified. Staff has concerns that the retail building could be utilized for a restaurant use which requires a minimum of 5 spaces per 1,000 sf. The site is already constrained on parking, and such a potential restaurant use would not be able to satisfy it's parking requirement. If coordinating with Engineering on a variance for the easternmost parking space, please consider adding additional spaces to the northern parking bay to help satisfy the parking needs on-site. Please note: “Stacking Spaces” do not count toward to overall parking requirement. Please remove these from the parking table. NOTED. 10/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Vehicle Parking Requirements – LUC 3.2.2(K)(2) (a) Please provide a more detailed breakdown of the number of proposed parking spaces based on the use type and the corresponding ratio (see below): Restaurant – Fast Food Minimum: 7 spaces / 1,000 sf Maximum: 15 spaces / 1,000 sf General Retail Minimum: 2 spaces / 1,000 sf Maximum: 4 spaces / 1,000 sf Based on the above ratios it appears that the minimum number of spaces required is 13, and you are only providing 9 at this time. Have you considered constructing the 7 “future” spaces at the same time as the rest of the site? This would help you meet your requirement. 13# (MIN.) SPACES REQUIRED, 16# SPACES PROVIDED. Please note: “Stacking Spaces” do not count toward to overall parking requirement. Please remove these from the parking table. Comment Number: 6 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: BICYLCLE PARKING PROVIDED/NOTED. 20% of the provided bicycle parking for the retail building is required to be enclosed, but it appears that only fixed parking is being provided. Please provide the required enclosed spaces. The fast food requirement is 1.5/1,000 sf with a minimum of 4. Those fixed bike parking spaces should be provided as close to the drive-thru as possible (ideally on the patio area). Additionally, please add the bicycle parking to the parking calculations table. What kind of enclosed parking and fixed racks will be used? Please provide specs for inclusion in the plan so that staff can verify the proposed bike parking meets the definition for enclosed and fixed spaces. 5 10/21/2020: FOR HEARING: Bicycle Parking Requirements - LUC 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) Please provide bicycle parking somewhere on the site that meets the required bicycle parking ratios for drive-thru and retail uses (see below): Restaurant – Fast Food: 1.5 spaces/ 1,000 sf (100% Fixed) General Retail: 1 space / 4,000 sf - minimum of 4 (20% Enclosed / 80% Fixed) Comment Number: 8 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: ELEVATIONS REVISED & RE-SUBMITTED. Commercial Buildings & Convenience Shopping Center Standards Per the discussion during the Project Review meeting on 03/23, if you move forward with the increased number of retail uses (4) than the anticipated use is a Convenience Shopping Center. You must still apply for an APU for the drive-thru use, but per the Industrial zone district Building Design standards the project is subject to the standards contained in 3.5.3 for Commercial Buildings and 3.5.5 for Convenience Shopping Centers. Please see the sub -sections of 3.5.3 and 3.5.5 below that the buildings do not currently meet: 3.5.3(D) Variation in Massing ELEVATIONS MODIIFIED AND COMPLY WITH MASSING REQ’TS.. A single, large, dominant building mass shall be avoided in new buildings and, to the extent reasonably feasible, in development projects involving changes to the mass of existing buildings. (1) Horizontal masses shall not exceed a height:width ratio of 1:3 without substantial variation in massing that includes a change in heigh t and a projecting or recessed elements. (2) Changes in mass shall be related to entrances, the integral structure and/or the organization of interior spaces and activities and not merely for cosmetic effect. False fronts or parapets create an insubstantial appearance and are prohibited. As it is now, the larger retail structure is a single rectangular building mass. If you could incorporate some additional recesses or variation in the footprint that would satisfy this standard. 3.5.3(E)(2) Façade Treatment ELEVATIONS MODIFIED TO INCLUDE MAX. 30’ OFFSET, ADDED DETAILING, WINDOWS, MATERIALS AND OVERALL DESIGN CONSISTENCY, CHARACTERISTICS ON ALL FACADES. a)Minimum Wall Articulation. Building bays shall be a maximum of thirty (30) feet in width. Bays shall be visually established by architectural features such as columns, ribs or pilasters, piers and fenestration pattern. In order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, long or massive wall with no relation to human size, the following additional standards shall apply: 1.No wall that faces a street or connecting walkway shall have a blank, uninterrupted length exceeding thirty (30) feet without including at least two (2) of the following: change in plane, change in texture or masonry pattern, windows, treillage with vines, or an equivalent element that subdivides the wall into human scale proportions. 2.Side or rear walls that face walkways may include false windows and door openings defined by frames, sills and lintels, or similarly proportioned modulations of the wall, only when actual doors and windows are not feasible because of the nature of the use of the building. 3.All sides of the building shall include materials and design characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for 6 side or rear facades shall be prohibited. 3.5.3(E)(3) Facades ELEVATIONS MODIFIED TO INCLUDE ENHANCED WALL TREATMENT DETAILING AND OVERALL COMPATABILITY WITH BOTH BUILDING IN CHARACTER, SCALE, COLORS, ADDED MATERIAL INTEREST AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SHOPPING CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS. Facades that face streets or connecting pedestrian frontage shall be subdivided and proportioned using features such as windows, entrances, arcades, arbors, awnings, treillage with vines, along no less than fifty (50) percent of the façade. The Retail building that has been located closer to the street needs to better articulate the east and south building facades which are clearly visible from the Timberline right-of-way. As they are currently, the southern elevation reads as a mostly blank wall, and the east elevation is more than 50% blank. Is it possible to incorporate additional windows or more of the stone veneer used in the base treatment? Also, if is possible to incorporate the stone veneer into the design of the drive-thru building to make the buildings more compatible with one another? This links into the following standard for Convenience Shopping Centers that requires visually attractive sides to all buildings. Comment Number: 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: ELEVATIONS REVISED & CONSISTENT WITH CRITERIA. 3.5.5(D)(1) Buildings – Architectural Style (1) Architectural Style. Standardized architecture, recognized as a prototype of a larger chain of establishments, shall be customized as necessary to express a level of quality that enhances the distinctive character of the immediate neighborhood and the City as a whole. Forms and finish materials of buildings, signage, gasoline pump canopies and other accessory structures shall be compatible with the architectural character of the adjacent area through compliance with the following standards: (b)The sides and backs of buildings shall be as visually attractive as the front through the design of roof lines, architectural detailing and landscaping featur es. Currently, the sides and backs of both buildings present relatively blank facades without much variation in material or architectural detailing. This of a particular concern for the building facades that are visible from north/ southbound Timberline and International Blvd. 3.5.5(E)(1) Site Design – Screening SCREENING DELETED AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PROVIDED. (a)Screening walls or fences shall be at least five (5) feet, but not more than eight (8) feet in height. The proposed screening walls adjacent to the plaza/patio and parking stall on the east side of the site do not appear to be 5 feet in height. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 03/23/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The response references a fully signed agreement to allow discharge of drainage water into the Lake Canal Ditch. Curiously the agreement was signed 7 in 2019 before the project was formally submitted to the City and references that the ditch company approved the current plans dated March 7, 2018. We should still have some sort of updated correspondence from Lake Canal acknowledging plans that have been submitted to the City. Devin Ferrey contacted Lake Canal Company on March 31, 2021 and informed them that the site layout was revised, however nothing has changed related to the stormwater release to Lake Canal since the date the Agreement was executed. 10/20/2020: FOR HEARING: Correspondence from Lake Canal on the design of the project should be provided as part of a letter of intent prior to any hearing for the project. Their signature and approval block should be on the cover sheet of the civil plan set. Their signature would be needed on the plat as well with the dedication of easements and rights-of-way to the City as part of the City's attorney certification requirements. (Note that the plat is indicating an easement dedicated to the Lake Canal but this is not being clearly indicated?) Comment Number: 2 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Please coordinate with the info provided by Traffic Operations that would appear to offer an option that provides an interim northbound left turn lane. If it's ultimately viewed that this cannot be accommodated, some sort of access control to limit the movement to right-in, right-out should be implemented at this time. A northbound left-turn lane into the project site has been added. 10/20/2020: FOR HEARING: The design of the project would need to look at implementing an interim northbound center turn lane along Timberline Road, of which the left turn movement would go away in the ultimate build out of Timberline Road with a median. With the additional width that the project is widening with the intent of building the frontage to the ultimate, there would appear to be sufficient area to provide the interim turn lane. Note that as part of a development agreement there would be language added indicating that the developer/owner understands that access to the site is intended to be limited to right in, right out in the future with a median at the time of the ultimate construction of Timberline Road. Comment Number: 4 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The plans did not provide detail of the box culvert which would show the new guardrail referenced in the grading plan. This is OK to not provide at this time, but the height of the guardrail and additional design information is still required to be reviewed. The usability of the utility easement is still a question, but if the utility providers do not object then I will presume this is OK. There is currently a distance of 1.5-feet from the existing back of curb to the headwall of the existing box culvert. The proposed condition offers essentially the same amount of separation. We acknowledge there may be a need for a utility easement should it be requested by a utility provider. 10/20/2020: FOR HEARING: The grading at the southeast corner of the property behind the sidewalk at the opening of the ditch appears to be 1:1 and would not be supported. 4:1 grading is required from both a safety and slope stability perspective. The utility providers may also have a concern with the usability of the 15 foot utility easement with the slope provided. The further extension of the box culvert may be needed to address these concerns. Comment Number: 8 – corrected from meeting 8 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: The response indicated that an averaging of 70' was provided along both sides of the drive aisle. The standard in Table 19-6 doesn't make the discernment of averaging the distances and a variance justification for the standard not being met should be provided by consulting engineer and/or consulting traffic engineer. A variance has been requested and approved for a 48’ setback for the south side parking. 10/20/2020: FOR HEARING: Table 19-6 of LCUASS specifies the parking separation requirements from a public street. With Timberline Road being an arterial roadway and the traffic study indicating 568 ADT's, the setback to the first parking stall is required to be 75'. In the interim condition, only 53 feet is provided and to meet the standard and the eastern 3 parking stalls would appear to be in conflict. Note that in the ultimate, if these parking spaces still remain further parking stalls would be out of compliance though as noted in the previous comment, it appears these parking spaces are proposed to be eliminated in the ultimate condition. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 10/19/2020: FOR INFORMATION: The TIS has been received and reviewed. The information provided will be used for subsequent comments regarding the conclusions. Comment Number: 2 03/22/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The proposed left turn lane drawing needs to be re -evaluated with the transition starting further north. Would also like to look at extending the two -way left turn lane all the way to International as well. See redlines for example. A northbound left-turn lane into the project site has been added. 10/19/2020: FOR HEARING: Further conversation is needed in regard to the analysis for the potential need of northbound left turn lane into your site. As an arterial roadway, a left turn lane is required and while Timberline will not be completely built out for some time, there may be an interim way to restripe this section of roadway to accommodate a center left turn lane until a median is built. Please review the possibility of this within the interim striping plan. If it is determined that this is not a possibility, we may need to consider restricting the access to right in/right out, which will be the case upon full build out of Timberline. Comment Number: 4 10/20/2020: FOR HEARING: This project will be required to contribute a proportional contribution towards the Timberline and Vine Capital project that currently is not fully funded. We will work to determine the impact from this development and the expected fee in lieu. Comment Number: 5 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: Please update the Traffic Impact Study to reflect the current configuration of the site in relation to the queuing analysis. Any potential queuing of drive through 9 traffic on to Timberline is going to be an ongoing concern. The Traffic Impact Study has been updated & submitted. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 03/23/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN - UPDATED: It appears all the impervious area is being treated with the rain garden and the extended detention is not needed or required. Extended detention has been removed. 10/19/2020: FOR HEARING: The plans shows details for extended detention, but no extend ed detention is proposed. The rain garden is proposed in the pond. Please revise. Comment Number: 7 03/23/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN - UPDATED: The City agrees that sub-basin specific data is best for impervious surfaces, but for consistency the City rainfall data needs to be used. Please revise. The rainfall data has been revised to be consistent with the City’s design criteria. 10/19/2020: FOR HEARING: The rainfall intensities do not match City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria. Please revise. Comment Number: 9 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: Please contact the City to discuss. The detention pond sizing is still low compared to City calculations. Only 3,027 cf is being proposed and more than double that is required. We have studied the difference between the FAA method and the Storage Indication method currently being used. There is a significant difference, and this issue is currently under evaluation. The proposed detention pond provides adequate storage volume for the 100-yr flood, based on the FAA method. 10/19/2020: FOR HEARING: The required quantity detention from my calculations was around 6,700 cf, which is higher than the 2,602 cf from the calculations in the drainage report. It appears there is extra capacity in the pond, however the calculations need to be revised to better reflect City Criteria. Comment Number: 11 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: The existing 16” COFC water main is labeled on the Utility Plan, based on mapping provided by the COFC. 10/22/2020: Please show the City of Fort Collins 16-inch water main on the Utility Plan and the 36-inch storm sewer plan and profile sheets. This crossing between the storm sewer and the water main was not shown. Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 10/20/2020: INFORMATION: Light and Power would like to remind you that all of our facilities must have a ten 10 foot clearance away from all water, wastewater, and storm sewer facilities. We also require a three-foot clearance away from all other utilities with the exception of communication lines. Comment Number: 3 10/20/2020: 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.) Comment Number: 4 10/20/2020: INFORMATION: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Comment Number: 5 10/20/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please provide a one-line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and Power Engineering. The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Comment Number: 6 10/20/2020: INFORMATION: You may contact Austin Kreager, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 224-6152. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Comment Number: 7 03/23/2021: INFORMATION: The power coming to the new transformer location will be coming from across Timberline and then up your parkway from the south, not from the Xcel Energy owned facilities on the northeast corner of your site. The routing of the proposed power has been updated on the Utility Plan. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 10/19/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN: - NOT COMPLETED Language for the Natural Resources section of the Development Agreement will be provided to Engineering. The following items must be submitted prior to the recording of the Development Agreement: 1. A cost estimate for landscaping in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (including plant material, labor and irrigation) 2. A cost estimate for three years of monitoring and annual reporting of landscape establishment in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone 3. An annual monitoring and reporting plan 11 I can provide examples and additional detail for any of these items if needed. Please contact me if you have any questions. A bond, letter of credit, or escrow warranting the landscape installation, establishment, monitoring, and reporting for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (125% of cost estimates) will be required prior to issuance of a Development Construction Permit. Comment Number: 9 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: SETBACK INFORMATION PROVIDED ON SITE PLAN. A table is required on the site and landscape plans that details the following, most of which you provided in text form in #9 of the Project Narrative: - amount of buffer area that would be required by a 50' buffer from the ditch - amount of buffer area provided on these plans - minimum buffer distance - maximum buffer distance - average buffer distance Comment Number: 10 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: LABEL REVISED. Language regarding the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) needs to be unified to provide clarity. Please change 'Natural Area Buffer Notes' on sheet L-2 of the landscape plan to 'Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Notes'. The notes have been revised in response to the comment. Comment Number: 11 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: LABEL INCLUDED. The NHBZ needs to be labeled and depicted on all plan sets. NHBZ has been labeled on the landscape plan. Comment Number: 12 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: NOTED. Thank you for submitting a photometric plan. No light spillage is allowed in the NHBZ; please revise the central portion of the NHBZ where light spillage currently exists. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 3/23/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: UDPATED Please label the northern most “Street tree” as in its ultimate condition. The tree should be centered in the future parkway width east of the sidewalk. Provide specific dimensions on the plans that detail the tree setback from the road and sidewalk. The street tree has been labeled per the comment . Comment Number: 12 03/23/2021: INFORMATION ONLY Forestry is ready for hearing. Noted. Department: PFA 12 Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 2 10/19/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL NOTED, TO BE PROVIDED. FIRE LANE SIGNAGE > Fire lane sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. > Please add LCUASS detail #1418 to plan set. Department: Erosion Control Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 03/12/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The submitted plans meet the standards for Erosion and Sediment Control for a preliminary submittal. Thank you. At Final submittal (FDP), please provide an Erosion Control Report and an erosion control security escrow calculation. 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. Noted. As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. Noted. 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 proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 1 lot, 1.25 acres of disturbance, 1 year from demo through build out of construction and an additional 2 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $ 1,172.09 Based on 1 bioretention/rain garden and 1 extended detention basins, the estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee is $ 565.00 I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review. These fees will need to be paid when the Erosion Control Security escrow is provided. Noted. 10/15/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN: The site disturbance exceeds 1 acre in size. This will trigger the need for a State Construction Dewatering Permit to be applied for and issued by t he state prior to commencing construction on the site. Thank you for submitting a Stormwater Management Plan and report. Please use the updated Construction Control Measures notes for the City of Fort Collins these can be found at the following link: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fcscm-appendix-f.pdf?1549566342 Please address all redlines provide on the Stormwater Management Plan. 13 See responses on redlined plans. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 03/22/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY: NOTED. Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 03/22/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: CORRECTED PLAT INCLUDED. 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.