HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS FIFTH FILING - FDP200024 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 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 09, 2021
John Beggs
Russell + Mills
506 S College Ave
Unit A
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing, FDP200024, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing. 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
Comment Number: 1
11/17/2020: 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
11/17/2020: 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.
Please avoid using acknowledged, noted, or other non descriptive replies.
Comment Number: 3
11/17/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
When you are ready to resubmit, please let me know 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: 4
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All "For Final Approval / For Approval" comments need to be addressed and
resolved prior to moving forward with the final documents and recording of this project.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Kai Kleer, 970‑416‑4284, kkleer@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
03/09/2021 FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Revisions are needed for the modification and condition notes that were added
as part of the last round of review. A word document will be attached to this
comment letter to show the exact language that is needed.
Response: Modification and condition notes have been updated on the cover sheet.
Comment Number: 3
03/09/2021 FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
For discussion: The second story balcony of unit type 5A, B, and C does not
meet the condition of approval which requires the first‑floor patio space to
mirror the second floor. There has been conversation around taking an
alternative approach by providing a deeper first floor porch and second‑story
deck, however, the second‑story deck seems to be unusable based on its depth
and length (think about two chairs and a table being in the space). Can this area
be expanded? If not, what other options do we have?
Another concern regarding the aforementioned side‑facing porches is privacy. It
appears that a few of these units are placed along Avondale side‑by‑side in a
way that allows for a direct view into the neighboring bedroom and living room.
Response: The second story balconies have been updated per correspondence and the units have been ‘flipped’ in the instances where they were facing each other on previous plans. All
second story balconies do not face another second story balcony.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970‑221‑6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/09/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
The updated plan and profile sheets with having the centerline and flowline
profile sheets for each street section is appreciated, this is far more understandable to review.
Response: Comment noted.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The placement of street profile sheets on the same section of street on three
separate pages between the two flowline and centerline views, with their own
stationing doesn't allow for a timely review to check for meeting acceptable
cross slopes. In general the review of the roadway sheets for verification of
compliance to city standards wasn't performed as a result. Please ensure the
information on civil design meets the level of information required in Appendix
E‑4 of LCUASS (https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/apdxe.pdf). Much of
the comments following are some (but not all) of the aspects of the level of
information not being provided per E‑4. Please note that spot elevations were
not reviewed and would be looked at in conjunction with the resubmittal
providing the level of information indicated.
Comment Number: 5
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The road design and cross sections for Avondale Road abutting Tract J still
appears not fully designed with missing grading information information on the
grading plan information (existing and future) on the grading plan sheets and the
plan and profile sheets with missing existing contour lines. The cross sections
don't provide a complete sense of what future development would have to do to
extend Avondale in the alignment set by this project. Key to this would be the
project depicting the sidewalk and landscaping that would abut Tract J as part
of the development's obligation for Avondale along with half the street width
(why isn't this shown on the Landscape Plan?)
Response: The plan and profile information has been updated to show the ultimate Right-of-Way improvements, including the parkway and sidewalk adjacent and opposite the right-of-way
of Tract J. Section view information has been updated to show the ultimate section and how that section would tie into the adjacent properties. A supplemental exhibit is provided with
this update, titled “Avondale Future Grading” that shows how the future developer of Avondale road could potentially tie into adjacent properties.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The street design of Avondale road isn't considered off‑site adjacent to Tract J
since Tract J abuts the future street and should be fully designed with centerline
and flowline profiles. This level of design is also required for a distance of 500
feet off‑site (past Tract J) which would extend to College Avenue.
Comment Number: 6
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are still some fundamental concerns about how future development would
be able to extend Avondale along Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing abutting
obligation for Avondale Road along Tract J. From STA 24+00 to about 28+50
this development is fundamentally obligated for frontage improvements abutting
Tract J. The cross sections by not showing sidewalk, curb and gutter, and a
parkway abutting Tract J and the existing contours not tying in, leave the ability
for future development to extend Avondale Road largely in doubt. The response
indicated that this would all be addressed in the development agreement, and it
is requested that the D.A. include language that would obligate the owner to
dedicate easements needed in the future. There are some fundamental
concerns with this approach to obligate a dedication in the future as it's likely
not simplistic to have the abutting owner of Tract J which may be under
ownership of an association to convey an easement in the future, and also there
aren't triggers generated in the future to ensure performance (withholding
building permits, C.O.'s, plan approval, etc.)
Response: See response to Comment 5 related to section information and grading/feasibility for adjacent properties. Temporary Grading Easements and required utility easements on the
Ridgewood Hills 5th Filing property are dedicated with the proposed plat to allow for installation of utilities and ultimate grading to occur in association with the Avondale Road future
improvements.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The ability for the extension of Avondale to continue and ensure its future
construction can occur and provide the intended improvements adjacent to
Tract J as a responsibility of this development will need to be looked at further.
At a minimum, there would need to be some sort of temporary construction
easement (determined in part by the grading and street design information in
the previous comment) within Tract J to allow access onto Tract J to build
Avondale. The installation of a parkway and trees abutting Tract J (in addition to
the sidewalk and street) as a responsibility of this development is needing
additional discussion and coordination. Funds in addition to specifying
cooperation from the future owner(s) of Tract J would need to be worked out in
the development agreement.
Comment Number: 9
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The response added the steel casing but switched the pipe to ADS. ADS is not
an approved product allowed under City right‑of‑way. An acceptable pipe under
roadways would be PVC C900.
Response: Right-of-way piping has been revised for the irrigation crossing for PVC C900.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
I'm unfamiliar with the use of A‑2000 pipe in right‑of‑way and currently verifying
whether it's allowed. Note however that as a private utility an encroachment
permit is needed and the use of a steel casing/sleeve is needed for ease of
repair/replacement in right‑of‑way.
Comment Number: 10
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The response indicated a concern with a clearance conflict with Storm line A‑11
driving the inability to have storm line B meet cover requirements. I'm unsure if
all options have been explored before requesting a variance. Can A‑11's
design be adjusted? Are there options to go with an elliptical pipe or twin pipes
to achieve greater cover? A variance request would need at least additional
documentation about how the standard cannot be met in looking at other design options.
Response: We have discussed with stormwater engineering regarding revisions to Storm Line B to achieve additional cover. We concluded to revise the portion of pipe with cover issues
to be 15” RCP, which is minimum allowable pipe size within the R.O.W. Other options discussed revising Storm A-11 to accommodate additional cover at the crossing, however due to hydraulic
modeling results of the A-11 crossing, this may not be adjusted to achieve additional pipe coverage at this point. Further, stormwater engineering is not supportive of reducing storm
pipe slope for Storm Line B or revising this portion of pipe within the right-of-way to utilize an elliptical section. A revised variance letter is provided with this update.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Storm line B has a cover issue with less than 3 feet from the top of pipe to the
finished grade of the roadway as it enters Outfall B‑5.
Comment Number: 14
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
On the plan and profile sheets it appears the intent of the "(xxxx.xx)" vs "yyyy.yy"
elevations specified in the profile view is to distinguish between the existing and
proposed elevations. It would appear however that the elevations are largely
incorrect on the road plan and profile sheets. In some cases it appears the only
difference between the two elevations are a rounding of digits. In other cases
there are outright missing elevations and missing existing contour lines in the
plan and profile sheets, especially on Avondale Road.
Response: This has been corrected in the plan and profile and section sheets.
Comment Number: 15
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Field View Drive has cross sections that generally looked fine with respect to
cross slopes. However the stationing picked to identify specific cross sections
weren't on major intervals that were easy to cross check in the plan and profile view.
The one location that corresponded to a standard interval was 45+50 and
while the centerline elevation in the cross section matched the elevation
specified in the profile view, the flowline elevations in the cross section did not
match the flowline profile elevation specified (and may be due to the previous
comment.) It would be beneficial to verify that the cross sections are accurate
representations of the flowlines shown when the elevations are fixed in the profile view.
Response: Sections provided are intended to be at critical sections along the road alignment as agreed upon with the review from correspondence dated 1/19/2021. The Plan and Profile
Sheets have been updated to call out and label the section location for reference.
Comment Number: 16
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The Avondale Road cross sections are at intervals that can be cross checked
with the plan and profile sheets unlike Field View Drive. In general the centerline
elevations on the cross sections appear to match the centerline profile elevations,
however the flowline profiles don't correspond between the cross sections and the flowline profiles.
Response: Due to horizontal curve geometry the flowline stationing does not always match the centerline stationing. Flowline stationing is shown in plan view for reference. As mentioned
in response to comment 15, the section locations have been labeled on the plan and profile sheets so you can see where the section occurs.
Comment Number: 17
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The cross section for Avondale on STA 24+00 shows grading in right‑of‑way
that exceeds 4:1 and should be readjusted.
Response: As this is a temporary condition that would be alleviated with the installation of the future Avondale conditions, we have proposed a solution of either to allow to remain
as is or install a temporary boulder wall following the end road treatment. As noted in discussions with the reviewer, we have provided a similar solution on the Mars Landing project
working with Spencer Smith.
Comment Number: 18
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
With respect to comments #5 and #6 regarding Avondale Road, in order to get to the point where
I can feel comfortable drafting a development agreement that addresses the Avondale Road design
and construction along Tract J, the following details will need to be worked out:
‑ The development plans need to design and show complete frontage
improvement along Avondale Road abutting Tract J, which at least half of the
road is an obligation of the development. Even though it may not be proposed
to be constructed at this time the plans should be showing along the west side
of Avondale Road how sidewalk, curb and gutter, street trees can be
constructed in the future. Temporary construction easements to allow the future
development to the south to extend the road should be recorded against the
property at this time with a design of the roadway that demonstrates how much
construction easement along Tract J is needed to accomplish this (and would
be verified by the cross sections for Avondale Road that depict the how the
much grading is needed to tie into the finished condition of Tract J).
‑ Costs that would be required to be provided to the City in the form of
cash/check prior to the first building permit would include the following:
>The local portion of the west side of Avondale Road abutting Tract J (asphalt,
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk trees and landscaping.)
>The cost of right‑of‑way for half the width of Avondale Road at fair market value
to account for the road not being split between the development and the future development to the south.
>The City would hold on to the deposit and be used to compensate the party
that would extend Avondale Road abutting Tract J.
Response: Comment noted, per previous responses, profile, section, and alignment information requested is shown within the utility plans. Temporary construction easements are dedicated
with this plat to accommodate future grading as necessary when Avondale is installed.
Comment Number: 19
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The College Avenue frontage should be showing how existing utilities are to be relocated/adjusted
with the change in the grading along the frontage and how these tie back in to existing at the limits
of frontage improvements. Approvals from the utility providers (including likely PVREA) will need to
be provided whether in writing or on the plans prior to plan approval.
Response: As a follow up to the Utility Coordination meeting on 3/9, we have provided revisions to the utility plan to relocate Utilities owned by Poudre Valley REA, Xcel, and Comcast.
We are currently coordination with the individual providers on their design and construction permitting. The utility plans show the relocated utilities within the 15’ easement, as
is preferred by CDOT.
Comment Number: 20
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The City has adopted a newer Utility Plan Approval Block that is only needed on
the cover sheet and the original approval block can be removed from all the
pages. A link to this update approval block can be found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/files/utilitysigblock.pdf?1611856399
Response: The Utility Block has been updated and is only shown on the cover.
Comment Number: 21
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The status of the existing ditch and easement that's reflected on the plat needs
to be understood as to whether the intention is to have this be vacated before or
after the plat is filed and how North Louden is in agreement with this. It seems unclear at this time.
Response: These have been noted to be vacated by separate document. A similar dedication is made to the SFCSD utility easement near the apartments. Those will be vacated following
acceptance of the infrastructure construction.
Comment Number: 22
03/12/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The sidewalk being installed along the frontage of College Avenue by
demonstrating to be in the ultimate condition will be eligible for partial
reimbursement through the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee. With the
parkway landscaping including trees not being installed at this time in the
ultimate condition, a payment in lieu will be required.
Response: Comment noted.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970‑224‑6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/09/2021:FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
Thank you for updating the Utility plans to reflect the changes in signing and
striping. Please have the other plan sets reflect these as well.
Response: Comment noted.
11/16/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Signing and striping redlines have been provided. See comments within
redlines for further details on changes needed. These will need to be updated
on all your plans where these are shown. If there are any questions please feel
free to contact me, Steve Gilchrist 970‑224‑6175 or sgilchrist@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 2
03/09/20201: FOR INFORMATION ‑ UPDATED:
This was noted but not addressed. Are tree types in these areas capable of
being trimmed up above the top of a stop sign? If not they may need to be moved or removed.
Response: All trees located within the clearance distance from a stop sign are capable of being trimmed above the stop sign.
11/16/2020: FOR INFORMATION:
The stop signs on several of the privately maintained streets and parking lots
have trees planted directly adjacent to them. These will create an issue for sight
distance to the stop signs and may need to be relocated. We typically require
50 feet of clearance to the first tree on the approach to the stop signs.
Comment Number: 3
11/17/2020: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
The DA will need to address specifics (timing, construction, funding, etc.) for the signalizations
of College and Triangle. No certificates of occupancy can be granted until the signal is in place.
Comment Number: 4
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
The installation of the traffic signal at College and Triangle will need to be completed through
the developer/private contractor. Resourcing is not available at this time for the City to complete
this work as was previously discussed. We can meet to discuss this further if needed.
Response: Comment noted
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
We will need a fully engineered and stamped signal plan including utilities and
we are currently reviewing the signal plans that have been submitted, but still
need to coordinate with CDOT to finalize comments. Once this has been completed, we may need to meet offline to go over and finalize the all the details surrounding the signal.
Response: Comment noted
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970‑222‑1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
03/04/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
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.
As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections.
The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site
disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the
Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that
are designed for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction
associated with this project we are assuming 63 (56 single family, 7 multi
family) lots, 34.81 acres of disturbance, 3 years from demo through build out of
construction and an additional 3 years till full vegetative stabilization due to
seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of 4,950.84
Based 1 bioretention/rain garden, 3 extended detention ponds and 1
underground treatment system the estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ
Inspection fee is $ 1,480.
I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review.
These fees will need to be paid at the time of erosion control escrow is
provided and prior to construction activities beginning on the site.
Response: Comment noted.
FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please delineate the limits of the existing wetlands on the Erosion Control plans.
Please provide phased Erosion and Sediment Control plans as these plans are developed.
Please address al redlines provided on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans.
Response: Existing Wetlands and proposed buffers are shown on the Erosion Control Plan. For the overall Phasing Plan see Sheets C3.0-C3.3. Notes have been added regarding phasing
of the underground chambers and bio-retention ponds. For phased erosion controls, the contractor will serve as the stormwater permit manager and will be responsible for updating the
erosion controls and permits and the project is developed.
11/12/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The plans do not show phasing, will this project be built in one phase? Based
on the size of the development it seems that a phasing plan might be
necessary. Any construction within the wetlands will need to ensure that these
are protected, please delineate the limits of the existing wetlands on the Erosion Control plans.
Please address all redlines provided on Final utility plan.
Response: See response to comment above.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
There are a couple pipe segments that need to be changed from public to private. Please call to discuss.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please label "Public" or "Private" for all the proposed storm sewers on the storm sewer profiles.
Response: Public and private notation has been updated per conversation with reviewer on 4/9.
Comment Number: 9
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There is one row on the Utility Plan that is not shown as an isolator row, but
should be per the Stormtech details. Please revise.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please clarify why all the rows in the Stormtech chamber system are not isolator
rows. Typically, an isolator row is required for the volume to count as LID treatment.
Response: All chambers are now shown as isolators rows as intended.
Comment Number: 10
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It appears the underdrain could be positioned along the southeast edge of the
system and connect into the southern outfall into the detention pond. This could
eliminate the need for the other pipe outfall into the pond. Please clarify and revise.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The bioretention underdrain release does not enter the detention pond and
does not seem to have a positive outfall. Is there a reason for this?
Response: Due to the depth of the underdrain needing to be placed at the bottom of filter media (stone) below the chambers, connection to the overflow drain is not feasible.
Comment Number: 11
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UNRESOLVED:
There are two trees that need some shifting. Discussion to follow.
Response: These were not identified in any redline drawings - a drawing showing these trees needs to be forwarded on to the design team.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are some trees located within the bioretention pond. Please provide 10
feet separation from any tree to any underdrain. Also, shade trees in the
bioretention media will not be sustainable due to the minimal soil and mostly
aggregate cross‑section. Due to the bioretention pond's large size, a couple
ornamental trees within the soil media may be sustainable and a good option.
Comment Number: 13
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
There is an ornamental tree over a storm sewer at Field View Dr., an Espresso
Kentucky Coffee Tree to close along Field View Drive.
Response:
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are a couple locations where trees are too close to storm sewers and
one where it is too close to the Stromtech chambers. Please revise.
Comment Number: 17
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
The Stormtech calculations have some sizing errors. Please call to discuss.
11/18/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The StormTech sizing calculations show that 76 chambers are needed and it
appears only 45 chambers are proposed. Please clarify the difference and revise as necessary.
Response: Chamber calculations have been revised as discussed.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970‑224‑6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/08/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
Response says Cottage units will not be serviced by gas. What about the
apartment buildings? Please denote on the Utility Plan which units will be electric only.
Response: It is noted on the utility plan for each building whether it will be served by Gas & Electric or Electric Only.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Light & Power will need to know if all of the dwelling units in the site will be
serviced by gas. If gas will not be provided to some or all of the units Light &
Power will need to have those dwelling units that won't have gas depicted somehow on the site plan.
Comment Number: 4
03/08/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
Developer has indicated a combined transformer be used for the clubhouse
and the apartment building. This is a possibility, depending on the One‑line
diagram and the C‑1 Form indicating the size of the services and service runs.
Response: Comment noted. This will remain as shown with two transformers awaiting final determination and design from Light & Power on whether both can be served by a single transformer.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The two transformers at the entrance off Triangle Dr. could possibly be
combined into one transformer as to not have two large 3‑phase transformers
sitting directly across from each other at the entrance. This would most likely
involve the contractor placing sleeves under the drive entrance to the transformer.
Comment Number: 8
03/08/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
C‑1 Forms and One‑line diagram will be necessary in determining how many
transformers will be needed based on service size and number of services. In
turn, this will determine any utility conflicts and spacing issues.
Response: Comment noted, preliminary loading information has been provided to Light & Power and applicable transformer loading has been determined. Utility Plans are reflective of
this information. C-1 Forms and One-Line diagrams will be provided when available.
11/17/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
A commercial service information form (C‑1 form) and a One‑line diagram will
need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all proposed
commercial buildings and multi‑family buildings. A link to the C‑1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/development‑fo rms‑guidelines‑regulations
Comment Number: 10
03/08/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL ‑ UPDATED:
Vault transformers will be used for the townhome units as these are located in
public ROW. Pad mount transformers could be used along the private drives to
feed the cottages and could possibly help with tight utility conflicts and spacing.
Response: Transformers for the cottages are shown on the Utility Plan
11/17/2020: INFORMATION:
There could be an opportunity for some cost savings if the applicant were not
opposed to placing pad mount transforms, instead of vaults, along the private
drives. These would not be allowed in the public rights‑of‑way.
Comment Number: 13
03/08/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Finding room for transformer placement, especially for the cottages, could be
difficult. The second round of final is now showing an additional fire line for each
unit along the private drives. This area was already very congested and may be
difficult to meet required separation from other utilities. Light & Power's electric
vault is approx.. 3.5 feet by 6.5 feet, please show where these can fit on the plan
set and coordinate these locations with Light & Power.
Response: Transformers for the cottages are shown on the Utility Plan
Comment Number: 14
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
The transformer proposed for the farthest 42 unit apartment building to the south does not fit
into the Utility easement. Please adjust the Utility easement to include the pad mount transformer.
Response: The easement has been adjusted.
Comment Number: 15
03/09/2021: Information Only:
Light & Power will need to cut in 1 maybe 2 primary vaults on Triangle to extend
primary down Strasburg Dr. and to feed the clubhouse and 24 unit apartment
building. This may mean removing some sections of sidewalk along Triangle to
access the existing primary if it truly is under the sidewalk.
Response: Comment noted.
Department: Parks
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11/16/2020: FOR INFORMATION
Parks Department Planning staff can help with any questions you may have
regarding these comments. Please contact Jill Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com),
970‑416‑2062, or Parks Planning Technician, Aaron Wagner
(aawagner@fcgov.com) 970‑682‑0344, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO
80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest. . For Natural Areas related
items, including the easement policy, please contact Dave Myers (dmyers@fcgov.com) 970‑224‑6170.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 3
11/16/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UPDATE 3.09.2021: Please ensure that the ditch easements are labeled
consistently across all plan sets per the Natural Areas easement requirements.
There are instances where the easement is labeled 20 ft. Drainage Easement
(City of Fort Collins), when it should read as Privately Owned ‑ Robert Benson
Irrigation Ditch Lateral Easement. Parks would prefer the latter over the more
general 20’ Irrigation Easement (City of Fort Collins). Please label the ditch
easement correctly on sheet 3 of the Plat to include the top of bank to top of
bank portion of the ditch as well as the access easements on either side of the ditch.
There are some questions about how the ditch easements will be vacated and
the timing of the re‑Plating. Please coordinate with the ditch companies and planning for this.
Response: As discussed with Parks and NAD, the easement will be labeled as a single easement – “Privately Owned – Robert Benson Irrigation Ditch Lateral Easement”
Comment Number: 4
11/16/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
UPDATE 3.09.2021: Related to the above irrigation ditch easement, please ensure that there
is a continuous and clearly labeled irrigation ditch easement from the head gate to Hwy. 287.
Response: As discussed with Parks and NAD, the easement will be labeled as a single easement – “Privately Owned – Robert Benson Irrigation Ditch Lateral Easement”
Comment Number: 29
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
NA is reporting that the comprehensive application for the crossing agreement
has not been submitted as of this writing. Please remember this process takes
time and needs to be recommended by the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board and then City Council will need to adopt the easement/ditch
crossing agreement by ordinance. Parks recommends that the ditch
easement/crossing agreement be completed prior to mylars and final plan approval.
This project is scheduled for March 10th Land Conservation and Stewardship
Board Agenda. NA is not anticipating any issues with the Board. However, we
do not currently have this on the City Council calendar.
• #1 On the requirements will need to be completed prior to taking the agreement to Council.
• The remaining portions of the requirements will be spelled out in the agreement.
Response: The draft agreement is being prepared by NAD following presentation to the board on March 10. The owner will review the draft agreement and will be submitting accompanying
exhibits prior to signature approval.
Comment Number: 30
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Review the Natural Areas’ Robert Benson Lateral (RBL) Ditch Crossing
Requirements’ that was sent Feb. 23, 2021. These requirements need to be met and on the plan set.
Response: The Utility Plans are reflective of the proposed terms of the RBL Ditch Crossing requirements.
Comment Number: 31
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Thank you for providing the cross sections of the drainage pipe and irrigation
pipe; however please coordinate with Stormwater to ensure there is adequate
distance in between and enough cover for the two pipes.
Response: We discussed with the stormwater reviewer on 4/9 and he accepts the clearance as shown in the section and utility plan.
Comment Number: 32
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please label the 21 in. HDPE pipe as (Privately Owned ‑ Robert Benson Irrigation Ditch Lateral)
Response: This is labeled accordingly.
Comment Number: 33
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please include the slope of the RBL ditch access easements on the plan sets
for reference. The Parks Dept. recommends that the slope not exceed 6%, but
will allow a slight increase in order to reduce disturbance within the ditch
corridor. Please coordinate with the RBL ditch owners as other details arise.
Response: Slopes are labled along the ditch access. As noted, these slightly exceed 6% to minimize ditch disturbance, but 6% is maintained to greatest extent possible.
Comment Number: 34
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL
Where are the head gate design details (HEAD GATE – IRR A‑7)? Has the N.
Louden ditch company signed off on the headgate design? The head gate
design will need to be reviewed and approved by Parks and Dave Myers with
Natural Areas, please coordinate with our departments as well as any other
departments (Stormwater, Engineering, etc.) that are required to approve these details.
Response: Irrigation Structure Details are Shown on C7.3 & C7.4. We are working with the Louden Ditch Company for the review and approval.
Comment Number: 35
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Parks has some concerns regarding the north access to the ditch via the
parking lot; can a large piece of equipment make the meandering turn through
the parking lot to get to the access easement? Please show turning radius for a
large box truck with a trailer in tow to simulate equipment that tree maintenance will require.
a. Please relocate the trees marked on the redlines to avoid potential
equipment conflicts at this location as well.
Response: Exhibit showing ability to maneuver a truck and trailer was sent to the reviewer on 4/14. Per correspondence from the reviewer on 4/28, we will coordinate with engineering
to include within the Development Agreement that damage and repairs that would occur as a result of this maintenance would be the responsibility of the Owner.
Comment Number: 40
03/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please specify seeding through the ditch access easement corridor. Ensure
that any disturbance will be compacted per geotechnical engineers
specifications and seeded with a native seed mix.
Response: Native seed has been shown within the ditch access easement corridor.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224‑616‑1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 29
3/9/2021: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ‑ UNRESOLVED:
11/18/2020: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Forestry to request a pre‑construction meeting with the contractor to inspect all
tree protection on‑site. Forestry staff would like to discuss critical root zones,
root protection, and pruning on‑site as well. It would be helpful if the licensed
arborist that is hired to do any pruning/removal on‑site attended this meeting as
well. (This is to be discussed at DCP meeting and put in DA)
Response: Comment noted
Comment Number: 33
3/9/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are a handful of trees that are still in conflict with utilities. Please refer to
Forestry redlines and provide a comment response next to each redline
comment in order for Forestry to check for compliance.
Response: Trees have been adjusted per the comments and updated utility plans
Comment Number: 34
3/9/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please provide at least 10ft between street trees and transformers and electric
utility boxes in the right of way.
Response: Comment noted
Comment Number: 35
3/9/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please change the language in the tree mitigation table for tree #55 to say
relocated instead of removed. Please add the following note next to the
inventory table for added emphasis:
Hazard Tree #55 which houses the American Kestrel nest is to be relocated on
the ground via controlled removal methods and retained at its current location.
Ensure the cavity is facing SE and perched (if possible) like a tripod using large
branches to slightly prop the trunk. Tree to be controllably removed in final
stages of construction phasing, with nest boxes installed at the beginning to
allow the kestrel an opportunity to relocate if desired. Please coordinate with
City Environmental Planner and City Forestry before placing the tree. Ensure
the tree is not altered during the nesting season (Feb 1 through July 31). Tree
work to be done by a City of Fort Collins Licensed Arborist. A list of licensed
companies can be found on the Forestry website: fcgov.com/forestry.
Developer (or general contractor) shall provide selected arborist contractor
information with City Forestry and Environmental Planning prior to on‑site
coordination. Field coordination meeting to occur prior to tree placement to
ensure proper practices are used to protect Kestrel nest and cavity.
Response: Language has been updated on tree mitigation table and note has been added to plan set.
Comment Number: 36
3/12/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – COMMENT UPDATED
Please add a note to the landscape plans – specifically near College Ave:
FUTURE STREET TREES TO BE PLANTED ALONG COLLEGE AVE IN THE
RIGHT OF WAY DURING FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OR
CDOT PROJECT. PAYMENT IN LIEU WILL BE REQUIRED ACCORDING TO
ENGINEERING STANDARDS.
Response: Note has been added.
The Engineering payment in lieu cost is currently $44/foot which is subject to change on a yearly basis.
3/9/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
It might be helpful to include a note that states that no street trees are proposed
along College Ave until road improvements are made. Does it make sense for
the project to provide a tentative street tree planting plan for the ultimate condition?
Comment Number: 37
3/9/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please center all trees in landscape cut outs and islands and move trees away
from the edge of island curbs.
Comment Number: 38
3/9/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please add the tree protection notes to the utility/demo plans. Please add the
following note to the utility/demo plan:
Hazard Tree #55 which houses the American Kestrel nest is to be relocated on
the ground via controlled removal methods and retained at its current location.
Ensure the cavity is facing SE and perched (if possible) like a tripod using large
branches to slightly prop the trunk. Tree to be controllably removed in final
stages of construction phasing, with nest boxes installed at the beginning to
allow the kestrel an opportunity to relocate if desired. Please coordinate with
City Environmental Planner and City Forestry before placing the tree. Ensure
the tree is not altered during the nesting season (Feb 1 through July 31). Tree
work to be done by a City of Fort Collins Licensed Arborist. A list of licensed
companies can be found on the Forestry website: fcgov.com/forestry.
Developer (or general contractor) shall provide selected arborist contractor
information with City Forestry and Environmental Planning prior to on‑site
coordination. Field coordination meeting to occur prior to tree placement to
ensure proper practices are used to protect Kestrel nest and cavity.
Response: Is this note different from the one above? Duplicate comment?
Comment Number: 39
3/9/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
Additional Forestry comments may be added to the final comment letter on Friday.
Department: GIS
Contact: Todd Reidenbach, 970‑416‑2483, treidenbach@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
03/02/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
From PDP 06/08/2020:
Break Field View Dr at Avondale Rd.
Extend Castle View Dr to Avondale Rd.
Correct Avondale Dr to Avondale Rd on site plan.
New street names required for Long Vista Way, Longmont St.
Response: Comment noted
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/08/2021: Prior to DCP
Please perform a bird survey to determine the species and nest location of the
raptor environmental planner provided pictures of to the applicant. Information
could influence how construction is staged and timed.
Response: Comment noted
Comment Number: 2
03/09/2021: INFORMATION:
Ready for recording.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 7
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL‑UNRESOLVED:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL‑UNRESOLVED:
There are sheets missing from the plan set.
Response: Utility Plans have been checked to verify all plans are included.
Comment Number: 12
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL‑UNRESOLVED:
There are sheet numbering issues.
Response: Sheet numbers for Utility Plans have been checked to verify all are shown correctly.
Comment Number: 13
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Line over text issues for Utility Plan redlines have been addressed.
Comment Number: 14
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Because of the large number of sheets in the plan sets, we will need to receive
electronic copies of each set for archiving. If you have any questions, please let us know.
Response: Comment noted
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
03/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL‑UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter.
Response: Comment noted
Department: Building Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970‑416‑2341, rhovland@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
11/13/2020: BUILDING PERMIT:
Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are:
2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments
2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments
2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments
2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments
2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments
2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments
2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9‑5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1‑2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures):
· 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or Front Range Gust Map published by SEAC.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code:
· Single family: IRC chapter 11.
· Multi‑family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2018 IECC residential chapter.
· Commercial and Multi‑family 4 stories and taller: 2018 IECC commercial chapter.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
· 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place)
· Multi‑family Residential located within 1000ft of rail tracks, 500 of highway, or
250ft of a 4 lane road must provide ext wall composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.
· R‑2 occupancies apartment/condo must provide 10ft setback from property
line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and
openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC.
· City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA‑13
sprinkler system in multifamily units with an exception to allow NFPA 13R
systems in buildings with no more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12
dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2 hour fire barrier with no more
than 6 dwelling units on each side).
· Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for
buildings using electric heat.
· A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi‑family structure.
· Attached single‑family provide 3ft setback to property line or provide fire rated
walls & openings per chap 3 of the IRC.
· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms.
· Attached single‑family townhomes and duplexes are required to be fire
sprinkled per local amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and
provide fire rated wall per R302. Determine what water line size will be provided
to dwellings so the fire‑sprinkler system can be designed.
· New homes must provide EV/PV ready conduit, see local amendment.
· Provide site‑wide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9‑5. This requires
accessible units per that state standard. This requirement includes single family
attached homes and accessible path must be provided into the dwelling entrance (no step).
Stock Plans:
When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited
variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single
review and then permit issued from that master.
Building Permit Pre‑Submittal Meeting:
PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW:
Please schedule work with your Coordinator to schedule a pre‑submittal meeting for any
new commercial or multi‑family building with Building Services for this project. Construction Plans
should be at least 50% complete and we will need to receive / review prior to the meeting.
Pre‑Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new projects
are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards.