Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUN COMMUNITIES - THE FOOTHILLS - PDP210001 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS Page 1 of 19 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 June 08, 2021 Nikki Jeffries Sun Land Development on behalf of Sun Communities Two Towne Square, Suite 700 Southfield, MI 48034 RE: Sun Communities - The Foothills, PDP210001, Round Number 3 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Sun Communities - The Foothills. 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 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as Page 2 of 19 all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. Please give me advanced notice of when you plan to resubmit. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The proposed development project is subject to a Type 2 Review. The decision makers for your project will be the Planning & Zoning Board at a public hearing. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: INFORMATION: All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Staff would need to be in agreement the project is ready for Hearing approximately 3-5 weeks prior to the hearing. I have attached the 2021 P&Z schedule, which has key dates. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/12/2021 03/30/2021: 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. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/12/2021 05/12/2021: INFORMATION: Temporary Service Changes - City of Fort Collins Development Review In order to continue providing thorough reviews and giving every project the attention it deserves, the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has Page 3 of 19 begun to impact the quality and timeliness of our reviews. We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service changes. Beginning Monday May 10th one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks). Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/12/2021 05/12/2021: INFORMATION: LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review: Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. Department: Planning Services Contact: Meaghan Overton, 970-416-2283, moverton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 03/30/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Carrying this comment forward for future reviews as a summary; no need to respond unless changes are proposed that impact the conditions outlined below. Please see below for a summary of conditions of approval: - 15% deed-restricted lots/houses at 80% AMI or below - Adequate parking for guests and residents - Street trees placed at 30-40' intervals in parkway, irrigation required, if driveways/parking conflict trees must be placed 3-7' behind sidewalk - Housing models with entrances facing streets to maximum extent feasible, except small lots - Guest parking no more than 200' from any home and landscape islands provided - Minimum of 15 different elevations - Distinctive housing models - variety of rooflines (gables, dormers, pitch) and variety of porches (covered, uncovered) and variety in trim/color - No 2 similar houses placed next to each other 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see below for a summary of conditions of approval and comments to address in future submittals to fully comply with the conditions: - 15% deed-restricted lots/houses: Documentation will be required prior to hearing - Adequate parking for guests and residents: Meets residential parking requirements; 151 guest parking spaces is sufficient. This condition is satisfied. - Street trees placed at 30-40' intervals in parkway, irrigation required, if Page 4 of 19 driveways/parking conflict trees must be placed 3-7' behind sidewalk: Trees provided. Please clarify plans for irrigation on utility set and see comments from Forestry regarding species diversity. - Housing models with entrances facing streets to maximum extent feasible, except small lots: Unclear whether site plan meets this condition; see additional comments below. - Guest parking no more than 200' from any home and landscape islands provided: Guest parking meets distance requirements; does not meet landscape requirements - Minimum of 15 different elevations: 15 elevations provided, but some are very similar and it is unclear how many of each elevation will be in the development. See additional comments below. - Distinctive housing models - variety of rooflines (gables, dormers, pitch) and variety of porches (covered, uncovered) and variety in trim/color: Unclear how many units will have porches and how many color varieties will be provided. Variety in rooflines among elevations is sufficient. - No 2 similar houses placed next to each other: Unclear how this will be accomplished. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 06/08/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The site plan no longer indicates a convenience retail store as part of the neighborhood amenity area. How are you proposing to meet the definition of a Neighborhood Center for this project? 03/30/2021: The neighborhood recreation and convenience retail store uses proposed for the amenity center meet the definition of a Neighborhood Center. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The LMN zone requires a Neighborhood Center to be located within ¾ mile of any development larger than 40 acres, without crossing an arterial street. Currently there is no Neighborhood Center identified for this proposal. There are a couple of options to consider here. One is to request a modification to the standard. The other is to modify the uses proposed in the amenity center to meet the code section by adding at least one use to the proposed neighborhood support/recreation facilities. For example, inclusion of a child care center, clinic, or retail store, etc. in addition to the proposed neighborhood support facilities could meet the definition of a neighborhood center. Please see section 4.5(D)(3) for more details. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 06/08/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The calculation should show the total square footage of the interior parking lot area, the square footage of the landscaped area, and the percentage of interior area that is landscaping. Currently the site plan only states that 8% of the interior area is landscaping; staff will need to see the actual calculation on the plans. 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The landscape islands added near the amenity area likely meet this requirement, but please add a calculation to the landscape plans to verify. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Any parking area greater than 6 spaces and 1800 square feet in area must have at least 6% of the interior dedicated to landscaping. This requirement may be applicable to some of the larger guest parking areas, particularly around the amenity center. Consider adding landscaped islands or similar to meet this standard. Also note that a landscaped area is required every 15 spaces, which Page 5 of 19 impacts the parking proposed on the south side of the amenity center. See section 3.2.1(E)(5) for details about parking lot interior landscaping. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Please note that the City’s Municipal Code contains regulations for manufactured home parks that you will want to review. Permitting, installation and anchoring of units, and other requirements are located at https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code? nodeId=CH18MOHO. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: This comment is primarily to bring forward the stated intent to establish a resident/homeowner’s association. The details for this will not need to be finalized at this point, but may be incorporated in later stages of the project. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 03/30/2021 06/08/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Has a second utility coordination meeting taken place? 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see comments from City utilities and Fort Collins Loveland Water District. Because the requirement for a public water system will have significant site design impacts, we will need to have another utility coordination meeting and at least one more round of staff review prior to hearing. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 06/05/2021: FOR HEARING: The response provided the information that an agreement with North Louden will need to be obtained and the coordination is taking place. The agreement would provide for a defined easement for the ditch and may partially overlap into right-of-way dedicated by the plat. The civil plans themselves appear to be showing a concrete ditch that is not in right-of-way and the establishment of the ditch and easement should be fully outside of the right-of-way. Ideally instead of an open ditch that's depicted, the ditch would continue to be piped when running parallel along the College Avenue sidewalk. Otherwise please provide an indication on the distance between the back of sidewalk and the start of the concrete ditch for verification that there is sufficient separation from the sidewalk and the ditch as a potential safety concern. The plat does not specify an easement width for the ditch and only appears to depict the centerline and indicate this as an easement. The plat would need to specify an easement width (whether conveyed to North Louden via plat or by separate document) in order to confirm that the ditch interest to North Louden is not in conflict with City improvements and City interests. Page 6 of 19 The location of the ditch easement would need to be outside of City right-of-way as the overlapping of the ditch easement in right-of-way would impact the City's interest in the right-of-way and would presumably be in conflict with uses in the right-of-way (sidewalk, street, trees, etc.) Communication from North Louden would again be needed prior to the scheduling of a hearing, indicating they do not object to the proposed ditch realignment and the easement dedication (with a specified width). In addition to the need for a letter of intent from North Louden, it would also appear that the proposed pipe shown north of the development would be located within private property to the north, is there a believed easement right to install this on private property? Otherwise a letter of intent from the property owner to the north is needed in addition to North Louden. 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: With the information provided that the North Louden is the ditch owner behind the College Avenue frontage, and running along the southern boundary, the plans should be labeling this ditch and the owner. North Louden would need to provide a letter of intent not objecting to the project proposal and changes in proximity to their ditch prior to the scheduling of a hearing. The prescriptive right of the ditch will likely require that a defined ditch easement be created on the plat and North Louden signing the plat, in order to ensure that the City's interest in easements, and right-of-way are not impacted by the prescriptive easement. In general, please ensure that the plans label all features that appear to be ditches and indicate whether they serve a drainage vs an irrigation conveyance and if they are owned/managed by an entity other than the developer (such as North Louden). 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: In general, several of the following comments pertain to existing features (ditches, utilities, drainage conveyances) that are not specifically called out on the civil plans and are unclear as to how the development proposal would impact these. An existing conditions sheet on the civil set that identifies these items and how they may be changed, removed, etc. would ideally be helpful -- note that sheets 2 and 3 of the site plan provides some of this information. To the extent that these features are either private interests or utilities not owned by the City, their approval would be needed on the plat/plans and letters of intent from those parties are needed prior to a hearing. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 06/05/2021: FOR FINAL: The response in utilizing elliptical piping improves the condition but still doesn't meet minimum cover requirements. We would look further into this at time of final plan review. We may want to explore additional options at time of final such as having a short stretch of concrete roadway over the pipe to have a rigid roadway surface over the rigid pipe with minimal cover. 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The revised preliminary design appears to better address road design Page 7 of 19 concerns. Please note that the 24" RCP now shown does not appear to meet cover requirements and isn't sufficient in depth below the subgrade of the roadway. We would look to ensure a 3' minimum of cover from the top of the pipe to the finish grade of the roadway. In addition, while OK for preliminary, the plans will need to sho more of the existing grades at time of final to show that the grades are tying into existing grades or whether grade beaks are being introduced. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: The preliminary design for Debra Drive as the lone new public street being built with the development has some concerns with the K values not meeting minimum requirements in both crests and the sag condition. The indication of matching existing condition requires showing existing centerline grades on both sides of Debra Drive (within Trilby Heights and Lakeview on the Rise) as evidence of this, note that the Lakeview on the Rise plans show for instance a 2.44% centerline grade of Debra Drive to its northern boundary while the project shows a 1% tying into this. This amount of grade break would require a vertical curve. Please show an existing centerline g In general, why is a low spot being introduced into Debra (and no depiction or indication of an inlet) with the crest, sump, crest design, instead of a singular crest? Note also that the elevation shown in the profile view does not correspond to the road design data. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 06/05/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Carrying over the comment only to reiterate the indication here and in the first comment that we really need to have communication from North Louden on this proposal before proceeding to a hearing (and potentially the property owner to the north for the proposed placement of a portion of the North Louden ditch pipe on their property.) 03/30/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: North Louden would likely need to be one of the signatures required on the plat based on the information provided and again a letter of intent is needed prior to a hearing. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Note that the plat indicates the vacation of several existing easements within the platted boundary. It is unclear on the plat who is the owner(s) of the easements being vacated and to the extent that the ownership is not with the owner/developer of the overall parcel, the owner(s) of these easements being vacated would need to sign the plat consenting to the vacation. In addition, to the extent that there are any interests being dedicated to the City on the plat (such as a right-of-way or easement) that would overlap an existing easement, the owner of that easement would likely need to sign the plat in accordance with our signature requirements for plats under 2.2.3(C)(3) of the Land Use Code. An example of this would be the owners of the 50' access easement (book 1371, page 852) and 30' water line easement (rec. 2002077795) as these easements rights would overlap the dedication of Debra Drive road right-of-way and 9' utility easement on either side. Letter of intent from these easement holders not objecting to the project going to public hearing would be required prior to any hearing. Page 8 of 19 Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/05/2021 06/05/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Carrying over the comment only to reiterate the indication here and in the first comment that we really need to have communication from North Louden on this proposal before proceeding to a hearing (and potentially the property owner to the north for the proposed placement of a portion of the North Louden ditch pipe on their property.) Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2021 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING: The Development is not meeting the City Code requirements for WQ and LID as is currently designed. This needs to be addressed before a Hearing can be scheduled. 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: The drainage design did not include any water quality or LID features. Per City Code, water quality and LID are required. The City suggests a meeting to discuss what is exactly required and how the design can meet code. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2021 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide a more naturalistic shape to all the drainage channels. This includes varying side slopes. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/15/2021 03/29/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The C-factors are not per City Criteria. The 100-yr C is C2 times 1.25. Please revise. 01/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please use the City's Hydrology Criteria. The Drainage Report used Urban Drainage Criteria. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 03/29/2021 03/29/2021: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The standard upland, wetland, and detention (labeled ‘100’ Wetland Buffer Seed Mix’ in the Landscape Plans) City seed mixes are called out in the Landscape Plan. These are absolutely acceptable, but seed mixes can be tailored for site specific edaphic conditions, expected uses, and desired goals. Agronomic soil testing that analyzes soil texture, nutrient levels, and alkalinity of the various areas is highly recommended, as well as further analysis of the vegetative composition of the existing wetland to guide seed mix design. Soil testing should occur post-construction in areas to be disturbed but can anytime Page 9 of 19 in areas that will remain undisturbed. For example, the upland mix is called out to be used in parkways outside of NHBZ; there are alternate mixes of low water, low maintenance, native grasses that can tolerate moderate amounts of traffic and provide good cover. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 03/29/2021 03/29/2021: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Some riparian shrubs are depicted heavily in non-wetland areas of the NHBZ. Some modification may be necessary to ensure that these higher water need species have adequate hydrology in the upland areas. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 03/29/2021 03/29/2021: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Thank you for providing a prairie dog mitigation plan that provides proof of efforts to find relocation donors. Trapping and donating to a raptor recovery program is listed as an option if available; the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program (RMRP, https://www.rmrp.org/, 970-484-0322) is accepting prairie dogs on a continual basis. The conceptual removal plan seems to be in general compliance with RMRP’s standards. Please provide the results of communications with RMRP as matters progress. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 03/29/2021 03/29/2021: (REPEAT) PRIOR TO DEVLOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (DCP) ISSUANCE: Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this project. A security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to the FDP approval please provide an estimate of the landscaping costs for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, including materials, labor, monitoring, weed mitigation and irrigation. We will then use the approved estimate to collect a security (bond or escrow) at 125% of the total amount prior to the issuance of a DCP. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 03/29/2021 03/29/2021: (REPEAT) PRIOR TO DCP ISSUANCE: Thank you for providing the acreage of impacted prairie dog colony (24.015 acres). The payment-in-lieu fee without CO/PERC is $1,637/acre, or $39,312.56. If CO/PERC is used, then the payment-in-lieu fee is $1,337/acre, or $32,108.06. Whichever method is chosen, the payment-in-lieu is in addition to relocation, trap and donate, or euthanization costs. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 03/29/2021 03/29/2021: (REPEAT) PRIOR TO DCP ISSUANCE: Prior to prairie dog removal, please submit 1) the results of a burrowing owl survey completed by a professional, qualified wildlife biologist, and in accordance with CPW standards if removal is between March 15 and October 31, and 2) a letter explaining how and when prairie dog removal occurred at the site and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 06/08/2021 06/08/2021: FOR HEARING: Environmental Planning reiterates Stormwater’s concerns with providing more calculations to ensure that forebays and bioretention facilities are sufficient. Page 10 of 19 Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 06/08/2021 06/08/2021: FOR HEARING: Please clarify if the drainage channel and detention pond north of Crown Ridge Lane designated as part of the NHBZ? If so, then both features must be altered from their current channelized, straight shape to meet the success criteria of stormwater features as per LUC 3.4.1(E) and the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 06/08/2021 06/08/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Several departments have had great difficulty opening the project files. I was unable to adequately review some aspects of the photometric plan, landscaping details, etc. and will provide more detailed responses later. Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 FOR HEARING – UPDATED My previous comment may not have been very clear. A tree inventory/mitigation plan needs to be included for hearing. The tree mitigation plan that was submitted in round one with the tree locations labeled should be adequate. However, the corresponding table needs to be updated to reflect up to date information about each tree. The table from sheet 5 of the landscape plan (The Tree Mitigation Plan) should be sufficient. 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: Thank you for adding the column. Is the tree mitigation plan that was submitted in round 1 going to be part of hearing? If so, please include this column on that plan as well (since the tree mitigation plan maps out the locations of the existing trees). 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for submitting a tree mitigation plan. Please add a status column to the tree inventory/mitigation table on sheet 1 indicating whether each tree is to be removed, protected, or transplanted (similar to sheet LO.04 in the planning set). Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 6/8/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED Thank you for updating the species list. I believe each species meets the diversity criteria now. However, please review the percentages indicated. It appears that they may be off based on the total tree count provided. 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: It appears that the species percentages indicated are inaccurate. There are a total of 457 trees proposed on this project. Sugar maples, hackberries, chinkapin oaks and lindens all exceed the 15 percent maximum. Forestry recommends incorporating additional shade tree species in the Page 11 of 19 proposed palette, both to meet the diversity requirement as well as to set the landscaping up for success in the future. Increasing species diversity serves as a mechanism to prevent widespread damage against insects/pests, climate variability etc. 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: It appears that only two species of shade trees are being proposed for the streetscape at this moment. Please see the following note pertaining to species diversity. LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to prevent insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan: Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species 10-19 50% 20-39 33% 40-59 25% 60 or more 15% The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reached the maximum percentage of the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose: ‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the review process. The following list may be helpful: https://www.fcgov.com/forestry/approved-street-trees Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 6/8/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED Based on preliminary review, it appears that there may be quite a few tree/utility separation issues (please see redlines). The dual meter pits are certainly helpful. However, FCLWD has previously required 10’ of separation from their service lines. While we can typically wait until FDP to work through minor tree/utility separation issues, our concern is that a significant number of trees may have to potentially be eliminated down the line to accommodate tree/utility separation. While it’s understandable that, in certain areas, it may be difficult to achieve the 30-40’ tree placement, the goal should still be to avoid significant gaps in tree canopy along the streetscape. Please refer to the redlines and review the tree/utility separation requirements more closely prior to next round. The landscape plan/tree counts should be updated accordingly. 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: We understand that there may be some changes to the utility services on this project. We would like to better understand whether/how this may impact tree placement along the private streets and work through tree/utility separations in following rounds. Page 12 of 19 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Will the water and sewer utility services to each property be shown in subsequent rounds? Standard tree-utility separation distances currently used per Land Use Code standards are preferred and are as followed: Street Light/Tree Separation: Canopy shade tree: 40 feet Ornamental tree: 15 feet Stop Sign/Tree Separation: Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs. While the 50 feet of separation is not officially codified yet, Traffic Operations has indicated that the current standard of 20 feet does not provide adequate stop sign clearance. Driveway/Tree Separation: At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys Utility/Tree Separation: 10’ between trees and electric utilities, public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 4’ between trees and gas lines Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 6/8/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED Please ensure that the Tree Removal Feasibility Letter is updated to match the tree inventory/mitigation plan. Thank you for providing an explanation for tree #29G. The justification provided in the comment letter for the removal of 29G should be included in the Tree Removal Feasibility letter as well. Additionally, our recommendation would be to illustrate how tree #29G is being impacted by the emergency access and grading. A diagram that shows the critical root zone of tree #29G with the proximity to the emergency access and grading impacts would be helpful. Please ensure that there is updated information for tree #30 in the Tree Removal Feasibility letter. 3/30/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED: Forestry would like to better understand the grading constraints around tree #29G. Please provide additional details as to why this tree cannot be protected. Can the grading be avoided around the root zone of this tree? It’s not entirely clear what the ultimate design of College Ave will be. Therefore, we would like additional information regarding how tree #30 will be impacted by the final design. Lastly, is Kevin Dr. being paved? If so, we still need to evaluate the cottonwood tree on the west side and ensure that it is being accounted for in the mitigation plan. Page 13 of 19 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: During the tree inventory, we discussed retaining the large spruce on the west side of the property near the existing structure on College (#29G). Is it possible to retain that tree? On Kevin Dr., there is a cottonwood tree on the west side that is in the public right-of-way, which wasn’t inventoried. Based on discussions with Engineering, it appears that frontage improvements along Kevin Dr. may impact this tree. Please coordinate with Forestry and ensure this tree is accounted for in the mitigation plan. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/30/2021 03/30/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Lindens are prone to salt damage. Please substitute a different species along the arterials. Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970-416-2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR HEARING: Please provide AutoCAD drawing files showing all utilities, existing conditions, and the proposed site plan for preliminary designs. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: If the private drives are proposed to be illuminated, the streetlights are considered private and will need to be privately metered. Please show all private streetlights and private meters on the Final plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: All utility easement and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, floodplain, etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained by the developer. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: For the Club House, Maintenance Building or any other commercial building, a commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one-line diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: On the one-line diagram, please show the main disconnect size and meter sequencing. A copy of our meter sequencing can be found in our electric policies practices and procedures below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations Page 14 of 19 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/08/2021 06/08/2021: FOR FINAL: Thank you for providing all the utility services to the residences within the Utility Plans. It was very helpful to see how everything will fit for each lot. Per the Electrical Service Standards, the residential electric service will not be allowed to cross a residential gas service. With the current configuration, please show the electric meter towards the front of the house with the gas meter towards the rear of the house to avoid crossing conflicts. Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion and Sediment Control Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/07/2021 06/07/2021: 06/07/2021: FOR FINAL: Thank you for the revisions to the Preliminary PDP Erosion and Sediment Control plans. Most comments have been addressed and plans are OK for PDP. Additional comments may be provided at FDP level submittal based on revised plans. 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Review of the erosion control materials found a number of comments that will need to be addressed at next submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/07/2021 06/07/2021: FOR FINAL: Please submit an Erosion Control escrow calculation based on the updated Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: No erosion control escrow was provided. An escrow calculation will need to be provided at next submittal in accordance with FCDCM Ch Section 6.1.5 Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/29/2021 03/29/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Updated fees estimate based upon submitted information. 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 Page 15 of 19 are designed for on this project. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming 204 lots, 52.65 acres of disturbance, 3 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 5 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $10,142.94 . Based on 0 number of porous pavers, 0 number of bioretention, 2 number of extended detention basins, 0 number of underground treatments, 0 number of level spreaders results in an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $500. (However there is some question as to the lack of LID to accurately estimate the Stormwater Inspections) I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2021 01/20/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL - AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: > Any Group B or A occupancy over 5,000 sq. ft. in area will require a fire sprinkler system or fire separation. > Any Group A occupancy with an occupant load over 99 will require a fire sprinkler system. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2021 01/20/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN - FIRE LANE SIGNAGE: > Add LCUASS detail #1418 to plan set. > Location of fire lane signage shall be labeled on the plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1419 for sign p0lacement, and spacing. Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/30/2021 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING - FIRE ACCESS: Maintenance building is not within 150 feet of fire access roads. The access road to the maintenance building (Bldg B) will need to be dedicated emergency access and meet fire lane specification. -Maintain the required 20-foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20 feet in width, the full width shall be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ. -Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround area for fire apparatus. -Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. Page 16 of 19 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/03/2021 06/03/2021: FOR HEARING - FIRE ACCESS Dedicated emergency access easement for Maintenance Building B requires a turnaround. The provided access stops at the gate location. Dedicated access will need to be provided for the turnaround as well. Please update this on the plat and site plans. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/03/2021 06/03/2021: FOR FINAL - SECURITY GATES Please add a note to the site plan that indicates the security gate for Maintenance Building B complies with IFC D103.5 - IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times - IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. Gates must have a Knox Gate Key Switch that fits the Knox Key system for Poudre Fire Authority. 6. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official prior to installation. 7. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325 and have a means of emergency, manual operation during power loss. 8. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2021 01/15/2021: BUILDING PERMIT: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments 2018 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Page 17 of 19 Please read the residential permit application submittal checklist for complete requirements. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): · 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or · Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: 2018 IRC chapter 11. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: · 5ft setback required from property line or provide fire rated walls & openings for non-fire sprinkled houses per chap 3 of the IRC. 3ft setback is required for fire sprinkled houses. · Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms. · Prescriptive energy compliance with increased insulation values is required for buildings using electric heat. Stock Plans: When residential buildings will be built at least three times with limited variations, a stock plan design or master plan can be submitted for a single review and then built multiple times with site specific permits. More information can be found in our Stock Plan Guide at fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2021 01/15/2021: BUILDING PERMIT: All non-fire sprinkled houses must be 5ft minimum from the property lines or must have 10ft minimum between houses for fire separation distance. Contact: Todd Reidenbach, 970-416-2483, treidenbach@fcgov.com Topic: GIS Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/25/2021 03/25/2021: Street names: Swap Street G and the north/south Rick Dr. (Rick Dr should be extended to Crown Ridge Ln and the north/south street between Rick Dr and Street E should have a unique name.) Break Street J into two names at 90-degree corner. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 06/07/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Page 18 of 19 03/31/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 01/19/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 06/07/2021: 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. 03/31/2021: 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. 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Megan Harrity, , Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/22/2021 01/22/2021: FOR HEARING: The parcels need to be in the same tax districts. Since the plat is joining the two parcels into one lot; Lot 1, Blk 1, they either both need to be in South FTC San Dist. or both out of the South FTC San Dist. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/23/2021 03/23/2021: FOR HEARING: Please update on the PLAT - "FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (COLLECTIVELY.'OWNER') HAVE CAUSED THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS, TRACTS AND STREETS AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS (THE "DEVELOPMENT"). SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY NOW Of' RECORD OR EXISTING OR INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND." Page 19 of 19 Contact: Nate Ensley, , Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/30/2021 03/30/2021: FOR HEARING: Per FCLWD board determination at the March Board meeting, this project will have a customer class of Single Family Residential. Since it is Single Family Residential, all water mains, hydrants, and meter pits need to be public infrastructure. All Sewer manholes and Main pipes (excluding service laterals) need to be public as well. Please resubmit plans that reflect this requirement. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2021 01/19/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit, but we would prefer them sooner. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2021 01/20/2021: FOR HEARING: The US287 frontage will need to be brought up to standard and further coordination with the City Capital project at US 287 and Trilby road is needed.