HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUN COMMUNITIES - THE FOOTHILLS - PDP210001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - STAFF'S PROJECT 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
July 09, 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 4
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
01/19/2021: FOR HEARING:
For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners.
Comment Number: 7
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
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: 10
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: Clark Mapes, 970‑221‑6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
06/08/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
With Clark Mapes shown as the staff:
I will need to have a good answer to the Neighborhood Center requirement ‑
perhaps you have that resolved. 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: 28
07/09/2021: FOR HEARING:
I sent an email yesterday about the view down the southeastern cul‑de‑sac street.
As you adjust that onion shape as needed for fire turnaround, would you also redesign the
parking and walkway as shown?
To improve the every day experience of being on that street. It's a significant
opportunity. That was a quick sketch and now I realize that if you could scoot
the parking spaces a little further to the sides and create a little more of an
opening at the end, centered on the eastbound half of the street, that would be
even better. Also, maybe you can even get one more parking space if you would like.
Contact: Meaghan Overton, 970‑416‑2283, moverton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
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 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: 25
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
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.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970‑221‑6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 22
07/05/2021: FOR HEARING :
The remaining pre‑hearing items for Engineering are the acknowledgement
letters of intent from offsite property owners for the work occurring outside of the
property boundary, as well as ditch owners within the property boundary. The
North Louden (ditch) and Tumbleweed Holdings Company LLC (property north
of the project along College) were the two previously identified. Note that the
plans also show work occurring on the City land bank parcel, has officially the
City provided its letter of intent? Also I'm understanding that the 6824 S College
property owner reached out to the City to inquire about the access change to
the parcel with the development, are there discussions/concerns with the 6824 S College owner?
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970‑221‑6820, nhahn@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
06/08/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Please provide detailed signing and striping sheets at FDP with labeled street
crossings. Some striping is visible on the site plan. Marked crosswalks are
desirable at some high pedestrian locations. The plan shows marked cross
walks through out the site. On City Streets crosswalks are marked at
intersections where there is substantial conflict between vehicle and pedestrian
movements, where significant pedestrian concentrations occur, where
pedestrians could not recognize the proper place to cross, and where traffic movements are controlled.
Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970‑224‑6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
07/02/2021: FOR INFORMATION:
At several locations the crosswalks and ramps are set back away from the
intersections which doesn't represent natural walking patterns. Should consider
moving crossings more in line with the intersections. (i.e. Street C at Street F,
Rick Drive at Street B and Street G. The crosswalk on Crown Ridge east of
Portner would be better served on the west side of the intersection, and the
parking moved east a little, out of the intersection.
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970‑222‑1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 9
06/07/2021: 06/07/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Thanks 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
06/07/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
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
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
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: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970‑416‑2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
07/09/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED:
The bio‑retention sizing calculations now show what will be needed to meet the
City's LID requirements and it appears there will be enough space to
accommodate this design. Please submit an updated Grading Plan showing
the revised bio‑retention facilities, which is needed to document there is enough
space for these and to ensure all grading meets City Criteria.
07/06/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED:
The sizing calculations did not include the total sub‑basin areas draining to the
bio‑retention facilities. Also, utilizing a 100% impervious area for a smaller area
is not the sizing technique that should be used. Actual sub‑basins with the
corresponding impervious areas should be used for each bio‑retention facility.
Also, how much of the site is being treated with LID? This should be itemized to
ensure the site is meeting City Criteria.
06/09/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED:
Sizing calculations are required for the bio‑retention techniques proposed to
meet the City's LID requirements. These calculations need to include the linear
pond's required 12‑hour water quality volume for the sub‑basin area draining to
them as well as the required soil media surface area for each particular pond.
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: 12
06/09/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
The linear bio‑retention ponds need to be located within a drainage easement.
Comment Number: 13
07/06/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
The water quality pond at the northeast corner of the site needs to meet the
City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards and have a more naturalistic
shape. Retaining walls can be utilized, but not in the rectangular pattern as shown.
Comment Number: 14
07/06/2021: FOR HEARING:
It came to my attention that the southern LID linear bio‑retention feature is not
on‑site and is on the parcel to the south. An off‑site drainage easement is
required for this LID facility and a letter of intent is required before hearing.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970‑416‑2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
06/09/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN ‑ UNRESOLVED:
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
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
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
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
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
Comment Number: 17
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
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416‑4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 27
03/29/2021: 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
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: 29
03/29/2021: 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
03/29/2021: 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
03/29/2021: 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
03/29/2021: 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: 37
06/30/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
Thank you for breaking up the files, there was no issue reviewing this round.
Comment Number: 38
06/30/2021: FOR HEARING:
Thank you for providing additional calculations regarding stormwater. Environmental Planning
will follow Stormwater’s determination regarding adequate/satisfactory calculations.
Comment Number: 39
06/30/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
All the NHBZ is noted as low hydrozone with only trees and shrubs receiving
irrigation. Will temporary irrigation be provided? Revegetation is possible with
or without temporary irrigation with both methods having pros and cons. A
conversation with the applicant team regarding this is merited to make sure
expectations align and that the restoration plan adequately addresses all aspects of revegetation.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
7/6/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Tree counts to be verified at FDP.
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
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
7/6/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Thank you for addressing the redlines. Final tree counts and tree/utility
separation will be verified at FDP.
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.
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: 11
03/30/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Lindens are prone to salt damage. Please substitute a different species along the arterials.
Comment Number: 12
07/06/2021: INFORMATION ONLY
Forestry is ready for hearing.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970‑416‑2869, jlynxwiler@poudre‑fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
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
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
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.
Comment Number: 6
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
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.
Comment Number: 8
07/06/2021: FOR HEARING ‑ FIRE APPARATUS TURNAROUND:
The proposed dedicated turnaround noted on the plat for Maintenance Building
B does not meet the minimum turnaround dimensions. I also noticed this
turnaround is also proposed at the end of Street I. These turnarounds must
meet the dimensions in 2018 IFC amendments Figure D103.1
Department: GIS
Contact: Todd Reidenbach, 970‑416‑2483, treidenbach@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
03/25/2021: Street names ‑ UNRESOLVED:
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.)
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
07/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
07/02/2021: 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.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970‑221‑6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
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