Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MULBERRY & GREENFIELDS - PUD MASTER PLAN - ODP210002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com August 18, 2021 City of Fort Collins Ms. Brandy Bethurem Harras 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80012 Re: Response to Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan, ODP210002, Round #1 Dear Ms. Bethurem Harras Thank you for your Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan round #1 review comments which we received on May 14, 2021. Our development team has reviewed all the comments and have addressed them in the following pages. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any other comments, questions and/or special requests for additional information. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues at the City of Fort Collins. Sincerely, Norris Design Ryan F. McBreen Principal 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Development Review Coordinator – Brandy Bethurem Harras Comment #1 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! Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment #2 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, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged. Response: We believe we have provided detailed responses to each comment. Comment #3 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. Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment #4 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 Mulberry & Greenfields PUD_Rd2.pdf Response: Noted. Files have been named accordingly as part of this submittal. Comment #5 Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your plans, please notify me advanced notice as possible. Response: Thank you. Comment #6 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 several key departments, which has 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). Response: This change is understood. Thank you. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment #7 04/12/2021: FOR HEARING: This proposed project is processing as a Type 2 Development Plan. The decision maker for Type 2 is the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board. For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners within 800 feet (excluding public right-of-way and publicly owned open space). 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 P&Z schedule, which has key dates leading up to the hearing. Response: Thank you for providing this information. Comment #8 04/12/2021: FOR HEARING: All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Response: Understood. We believe we have worked towards resolving all comments. Comment #9 04/12/2021: 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. Response: Understood. Thank you. Comment #10 04/12/2021: FOR HEARING: A 2nd neighborhood meeting is required before hearing and prior to the final round of review for this project. For the neighborhood meeting, we will formally invite surrounding neighbors to attend the meeting. Neighborhood meetings offer an informal way to get feedback from surrounding neighbors, identify any potential concerns prior to the formal hearing and are an opportunity for you to share your development proposal. Pete Wray your project planner and the City’s Development Review Liaison will help facilitate the meeting. Please contact me to assist you in setting a date, time- meeting are still being held virtually at this time. Response: Understood. Thank you. We will work with Staff to schedule the next meeting date to meet the requirement. Planning Services – Pete Wray 970-221-6754 pwray@fcgov.com Comment#1 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: DOCUMENT FORMAT Please copy or separate LUC standards comparison information from the plan set sheets and separate into tablet format (8 ½ X11), see comment 2. The following sheet index should be considered to provide all relevant master plan information at the plan level in addition to the Utility plan set: PUD MP Set (24 x 36 sheets) Cover Page Included as part of PUD Master Plan 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Ex. Conditions (parcels, RR, natural Areas, vegetation, features, etc.) include ¼ mile context around PUD area. Included as part of PUD Master Plan Ex/proposed Drainage/canal, Floodplain plan Included as part of PUD Master Plan Ex. Zoning Included as part of PUD Master Plan Plat, will you be combining parcels into one plat for PUD area? Not included as part of this PUD Master Plan. The plat will be provided with future PDP applications. Proposed District plan Included as part of PUD Master Plan Proposed parks, trails, greenways, open lands plan Included as part of PUD Master Plan Proposed transportation plan (MSP streets, key local streets to set framework, 660’ stub-outs for ea. District, RR, bike and pedestrian paths and trails) Included as part of PUD Master Plan Include overall illustrative site plan concept (from project narrative) or showing enough design information to reflect overall framework such as streets, external connections greenways, parks, bike/pedestrian network, regional trails etc., to show how revised standards are implemented. A conceptual bubble plan is part of the PUD Master Plan, a Texture Plan showing conceptual ideas of layouts and future development has been included as part the Supplemental Graphics provided as part of this resubmittal package. Detailed site plan illustrations of typical neighborhood blocks to mixed-use blocks Supplemental lot typical information has been included. Public benefits plan (above what LUC requires) There is an approved and record Public Benefits agreement. Narrative addressing this has been included as part of this submittal package. Project phasing plan Included as part of PUD Master Plan Design/Development Standards. Please copy or separate and incorporate all design/development standards comparison information text, graphics, and tables into (8 ½ x 11 tablet format). This format will better assist staff during the review and Board at hearing. If approved this information and format can then be reincorporated into the plan set at FDP. Response: Proposed code changes have been provided in a format that identifies current code vs. what is proposed to be modified. Please see standards included as part of this resubmittal package. Please use an easy-to-follow sequence and format for each LUC section to clearly distinguish existing standards from proposed standards (highlighted in red and underlined) for each district suggested below: A) Article 4 – Zoning Standards for Ea. District Compare ex. Land uses, Proposed uses. Type of review Ex. Standards, Proposed standards B) Article 3 – Comparison sequence Per Section 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 Other PUD Documents: * Design Narrative * Utility Plan * Reports/studies * Public comments * Metro District public benefits agreements * Variances * Other Response: Information included with the resubmittal has been included as suggested by Staff. Comparison information as well as additional descriptive information has been included. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment #2 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: DISTRICT PLAN The PUD master plan districts: Staff recommends combining districts to better align with vision and objectives of master plan, not just overlaying with underlying zoning, to enhance opportunity for creating innovative mixed-use districts and not separate development pods. Proposed Districts: District 1 – LMN 260 acres District 2 – combine 2, 3, 4. This reflects more MMN, higher densities, missing middle housing options. District 3 – combine 5, 6, 7, and possibly 8 into a Commercial/Employment Mixed Use district. This would represent more holistic mixed-use commercial center and having distinctions and boundaries within it does not look important. District 4 – Possibly keep 8 as a more highway-oriented General Commercial transition? Or combine it with 5,6, and 7? Is a bridge contemplated to District 8? Each district needs to show level of detail for how innovative design is above and beyond normal LUC requirements, graphically in master plan, and more detailed typical layouts for blocks. Response: Per Staff’s suggestion and subsequent discussions, the districts have been consolidated and there are now 5 distinct Districts proposed. Additional supplemental information has been provided as part of this submittal. As previously noted, this PUD Master Plan is not proposing extensive deviations from the code, in fact the requests are minimal and mostly relate to permitting more flexibility in housing types (to help achieve affordable and attainable units) and also allow the neighborhood to develop more cohesively as opposed piecemeal based on the 5 different zone districts that make up the property now. Comment #3 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: SECTION 4.29 – COMPLIANCE INNOVATIVE DESIGN: Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards. Illustrate how innovative/higher design, aesthetics work with proposed new standards, see other related comments. Response: The PUD proposed will allow for and encourage a well thought out, cohesively planned mixed- use community. SECTION 4.29 – COMPLIANCE WITH OBJECTIVES B Objectives In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD Overlay must provide public benefits significantly greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a particular PUD Master Plan: Response: Included is narrative language detailing the public benefits associated with this application. Innovation in Development Affordable Housing. Give examples of innovative multi-family housing building prototypes and design. Show how the affordable housing is not just located in one tract but dispersed within residential districts. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: The provided texture plan shows a variety of potential multi-family housing types, as well as the lot typical examples provided as part of the supplemental information. The Mulberry & Greenfields PUD is required to provide a minimum amount of designated affordable housing and as the project is developed it will be implemented as required. It is unknown at this early stage how that will ultimately shake out so identifying locations or how that will be done is premature to be included within the PUD, we believe. Community gateway. Show what this could look like conceptually in triangular tract abutting frontage road and in roundabout (this tract conflicts with the proposed detention in Utility plan). Response: Per discussions with Staff more detail of this area is not provided at this time. There is a PDP accompanying this PUD resubmittal that lays this area, but with constraints proposed by grading and easements on this parcel, additional coordination with Staff will be necessary and will be ongoing as part of this and future applications. Need to illustrate how high quality and smart growth elements work such as higher density, alley access, ped. crossings, central greenway spine, bike/ped network, greenways, mixed-use design, environmental sustainability, solar energy systems etc. Response: The standards proposed including density and development guidelines provide a framework for the growth of this new neighborhood. Please refer to the Transportation, Open Space, & Park sheet within the Master Plan that demonstrates both vehicular and non-vehicular connectivity, greenways, parks, and trail connections. Please clarify what public amenities are part of normal LUC requirements and which ones are above and beyond to justify PUD flexibility (for example parks, connections to regional trail, street infrastructure and intersections are part of normal code requirements). Response: The following is a list of public benefits that are included as part of the new Bloom neighborhood: Those include, but are not limited to: o Inclusion of affordable housing for a minimum 15% of total units within the community; o Infrastructure Improvements; o Crossing of the railroad ROW; o Construct roundabout at Greenfields Drive and Mulberry frontage road; o Contribute funding for improvements at Timberline Drive and Vine Drive; o Contribute funding for frontage road and Highway 14 median; o Contribute funding for Community Gateway; o High-Quality and Smart Growth Elements; o Environmental Sustainability; o Commitment to the development of solar energy development system; o Use of non-potable water irrigation system; o Sustainable landscape design; o Enhanced Community resiliency; Implementation of adopted plans Please includes all relevant policies from these plans into PUD. How are these new standards implementing relevant policies from City Plan, Housing Strategic Plan, EMCP for example? See below for additional comments related to policies. What new standards implement relevant policies and what do they look like? Response: The narrative provided with this application addresses relevant policies. Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within larger area. Master Plan transportation sheet: Include all required MSP streets in PUD and stub out street connections to and from adjacent properties. This includes extension of Delozier Drive south of A Drive, extension of International Blvd. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com east of Greenfields Dr with two connections to north portion of Peakview development. Internal local street connections off-site to Mosaic (3 additional connections), two additional street connections to E. Vine Drive. Extend proposed N/S spine south of A Drive through commercial mixed-use districts. See redlines. Response: The PUD Master Plan has been updated to include further transportation infrastructure per subsequent discussions with Staff. We believe the connections as now shown are in conformance with City standards. Protect neighborhoods adjacent to PUD. Show/illustrate how new design standards for increased building heights, densities etc. provides adequate transition and buffer to surrounding development. Include Bldg. height diagram? Response: Proposed densities and height provide transitions from surrounding uses and each other. The greatest height and densities are proposed closer to Mulberry Street and are buffered via setbacks, natural elements (irrigation ditch), and existing and proposed arterial and collector roads. The community proposes less dense and intense development as you work north through the community. District 2, which permits higher density is buffered by major street corridors and a railroad from the lower intensity uses in District 1 and in the surrounding area. District 1 is very similar in density to the surrounding uses and required setbacks and existing utility easements provide additional buffer and transition space. We believe the proposed standards in tandem with existing Fort Collins standards more than adequately provide transition and buffering to the surrounding community. Comment #4 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: PROPOSED DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON Permitted Uses: Please include tablet format of existing and proposed land uses for each PUD district and corresponding zone district. Clarify which new uses are to be included and why, how will new use advance the purposes and objectives of PUD standards and policies of adopted plans? How will new use satisfy criteria a-d in 4.29? Please include graphic illustrations of proposed uses and how they can be beneficial to innovative neighborhood design. Response: Included as part of the application materials is comparison information so Staff may review what is currently permitted vs what is proposed. As can be seen, what is proposed is not altogether different than what is currently permitted. What is proposed are uses that are consistent and compatible with each other and where underlying zoning within one district has varying standards, the standards have been combined in the districts so that consistent and compatible development may occur. Modification of Densities and Development Standards: Please include tablet format for showing existing and proposed standards. Response: An updated comparison table has been included as part of this resubmittal. How will modified densities satisfy criteria in 4.29? Response: The review criteria have been addressed as part of the project narrative included in the submittal package. How will higher densities achieve appropriate transition and buffer to adjoining existing neighborhoods? Response: The densities proposed are not altogether different from the adjoining communities. District 1 is directly adjacent to the Mosaic neighborhood, but otherwise is not adjacent to other development. The density in this District is capped at 12 du/ac which is the current cap of the underlying zoning, so it is consistent in that regard. The building height in this district allows up to 3 stories, while the adjacent development permits up to 2.5 stories, again, not all that different and entirely acceptable transition. Additionally, buffering via natural (Cooper Slough) and manmade (landscaped utility easements, railroad, major ROW corridors, etc.) further provide buffering and transition depth. It should also be noted that PDP 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com application for the first phase of this community has been submitted concurrently and shows compatible densities and uses adjacent to existing development. The LUC requires a minimum of 4 housing types for the PUD. How will PUD implement innovative mix and variety of housing types and design for new neighborhoods? Response: The standards clearly establish that a variety of housing types will be required. This is the PUD Master Plan step, the mix won’t be known until future PDP applications are prepared and made. At that time the ultimate mix of homes will be known. Staff recommends adding standards for each residential district to require additional housing types. Response: Housing type standards have been establishment with this PUD. Please see standards provided as part of this resubmittal. With the lot typicals -- The rear loaded 'auto court' concept appears fundamentally inconsistent with basic standards for neighborhoods with homes facing streets. Is the intent to make rear drive access to garages into the "front"? Would the side facing the street then become the rear yard? It looks like it creates a garagescape access to the front doors for a person walking. These lot typicals should show how a neighborhood design will meet/contribute to the PUD Purpose and Objectives. What elements of the design are proposed to ensure high-quality development? What is innovative about it? How is the neighborhood stitched together? What is the framework neighborhood experience – walkways, public spaces, amenities, supporting architecture, etc.? See comment about conceptual master plan sheet. Response: Standards have been developed to further clarify these items within the project. The intent is to provide an alternative, potentially lower maintenance, simpler housing option for the community, that lives and looks a little different, provide product type and diversity. First glance with all of the text, it looks like the only major code change is building height? What are all the code changes? Clear and easily understandable comparison of the standards that are being modified is needed -- and to what extent. Too much detective work. The plans should outline this more clearly. Response: Updated comparisons of the proposed standards are included as part of this resubmittal package. Setbacks and other standards on sheet 5 of 12 seem to be the same as the code or close; hard to follow/absorb what code language is proposed to be modified and how it compares to the code. Too much detective work for staff and Board to review. Response: As previously stated, this PUD is not proposing wholesale changes to the current code. Small changes are proposed that will help with the objectives to increase density, provide different housing options, and increase affordable and attainable options, while still providing a high-quality community. We have chosen to consolidate land use standards and developments (even if they are unchanged) into tables that are easy to find and analyze, as opposed to requiring reviewers to reference multiple sections of code to find required development standards, lessening the opportunity for a requirement to be overlooked. Additionally, information showing the comparison between existing and proposed has been provided as part of this resubmittal. Sheet 6 of 12 – Again hard to follow what specific review process changes are proposed? Are any uses excluded? I do not see any justification provided for any use or change in process. What design is proposed? What makes the design suitable for a type 1 review instead of a Type 2? Response: A comparison between existing review process and future review process has been provided to clarify. Generally speaking, the desire is to be able to bring homes to the market quicker by doing what is possible to shorten review and approval process, something the recently adopted Housing Strategic Plan clearly spells out. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com A bunch of references on the sheets to Final Plan should be changed to Project Development Plan (PDP). Response: This has been updated. Comment #5 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS District 1 – LMN To advance City Plan and Housing Strategic Plan policies for providing more housing choices, lot size, variation in housing design and amenities, please show how this neighborhood implements these objectives and goes above and beyond standard LUC requirements? Response: The included narrative as well as public benefits conformance letter included with this submittal lay out conformance with these guiding documents. The Land Use Code and adopted plans such as City Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan encourage a greater diversity of housing types and unit sizes. The PUD Master Plan indicates housing type and model variety that is typical of minimum Land Use Code and LMN/MMN development requirements. Staff recommends exploring additional opportunities for the PUD master plan to provide and demonstrate housing diversity, possibly incorporating from several of the examples provided below: The required minimum 4 housing types for the entire PUD area does not support these objectives. Increasing the minimum number of housing types given the large size of this district, and/or decreasing the maximum percentage of any single housing type below 80%. Consider requiring a minimum of three housing types for all development in this district. Incorporating a wider variety of unit design/models for any housing type that will a large percentage of the overall number of units. Consider specifying a minimum number of smaller unit (e.g., 800-1,400 sf). Response: At this point in time, it seems premature to impose product or size limits, this project is going to many years to develop out. During that time, market conditions, demand, etc. are going to change from what they are today as we prepare this document. It would be shortsighted, in our opinion, to place unnecessary restrictions on a plan, especially those that potentially negatively impact the ability for this project to provide attainable or even affordable housing. The PUD process gives many opportunities to provide housing diversity without simply just adding requirements for more housing types. In addition to housing type diversity, City policy plans actively encourage new forms of housing that will help meeting aging in place, different family/lifestyle preferences, and possible future changes related to occupancy. Several of the PUD master plan’s standards may conflict with these goals and possible future Code direction: Response: We believe this PUD permits all types and levels of housing. Specifically, the allowance and encourage for ADUs will permit aging in place or the ability for seniors to live with family, but independently. Accessory Dwelling Units are encouraged in several City policy plans. Providing minimum standards in the PUD Master Plan for their development is helpful, especially when such units may be considered after initial development by future homeowners. However, providing blanket prohibition by future HOAs in Districts 1-4 appears to run counter to goals encouraging ADUs. Similarly, the minimum ADU size and occupancy standards specified may be unnecessarily limiting. Response: ADU standards have been revised as suggested to provide more flexibility. Housing Strategic Plan strategies call for improving accessibility and aging-in-place capabilities for a greater share of new housing units. Is there opportunity to specify within the PUD Master Plan a certain percentage of age-friendly of accessible design units with features such as with no-step or one-step entries? 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: The project will continue to comply with ADA requirements, which outlines the number of homes within each phase that need to be zero-step. Within Districts and areas with smaller private lots or multifamily development, making sure there are enhanced and conveniently-placed facilities for amenities such as bike parking, pet waste disposal, and visitor parking areas. Response: Understood, that level of detail seems more appropriate to address at the time of PDP. Consider requiring a certain percentage of ADU’s be constructed with principle building on rear half of lots with alley access and detached garage. Response: This is difficult to pin down at this time, without knowing how many SFD units with ADUs could be constructed it may be unnecessarily limiting and cause issues as the design and plan for the project progresses. Include greenways, bike, and pedestrian network and how this connects to park locations. Response: This information is included as part of the updated PUD Master Plan. Include setbacks and buffer from RR Spur track, reserve enough room for trail alignment, crossings, security fencing along both sides of RR tracks. Response: This information is included as part of the updated PUD Master Plan. Show how street connectivity standard is being met along RR tracks segment for two additional crossings (in addition to Greenfields) or how alternative compliance works for ped crossing (grade separated) can work, see redlines. We can discuss further on what should be shown on PUD. Response: Additional crossings of the RR tracks, outside of the Greenfields crossing, are unlikely. Setbacks and trail corridors are provided adjacent to the RR tracks to allow pedestrians and other trail uses the opportunity to cross the tracks at Greenfields. Should conditions change, we have included potential future locations for such crossings to occur. LMN neighborhood center standard needs to be within ¾ mile of 90% of all dwellings. Please check distance from the Mosaic NC and the future Neighborhood Commercial center near Mulberry in PUD to satisfy this requirement. If too far then PUD needs to show a NC in the LMN District. Including one in PUD would also satisfy going above and beyond normal LUC requirements. Response: The Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan is proposing that the commercial/mixed use development within District 3 will meet and exceed the provision for a neighborhood center for the community. The communities long, linear shape, railroad crossing, and the requirement that neighborhood centers be accessible without crossing an arterial make meeting the letter of the code challenging. Additionally, the intent is for the District 3 commercial/mixed-use area to be an inviting area that creates an exciting synergy where people want to be, with the pedestrian parkway proposed that allow people from the community to easily access this area as well as people from outside the community. We don’t want to take energy away from this area by forcing commercial uses in other areas of the community. Additionally, as in other areas of the city, this standard has sterilized properties because of this requirement, there are no other locations within District 1 where a commercial use would likely be successful due to access and visibility constraints. Comment #6 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: DISTRICT 2/3 – MMN 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Same comment as LMN - The required minimum 4 housing types for the entire PUD area does not support these objectives. Consider requiring a minimum of three housing types for all development in this district. Include typical block design for high density housing, common amenity areas, paths, and trails etc. Response: A minimum of 2 housing types or proposed for District 2. The Fort Collins land use code includes provisions for how the City would like high density housing, common amenity areas, paths and trails, and we intend to follow those provisions. District 1 is HUGE at 130 acres compared to the others, and density is limited to 12 du/acre. Could District 2 expand more and District 1 get smaller? District 2 allows more density. Response: As previously described the intent is for density to transition from higher to lower as one moves south to north. Additionally, as Staff pointed out in several comments, we need to be mindful of transitions to existing residential in the area. We feel the Districts, as proposed provide an appropriate transition of density and uses throughout the project. What is the difference between District 3 and 4, other than maximum density? I would think they could be combined, and all held to MMN standards (see redlines for recommended District makeup). Response: The only difference was density and we were directly responding to Staff’s concerns about transitions in density. We have subsequently combined the Districts to streamline the PUD. Wherever the affordable units are planned, it is great to have more flexible development standards to work with and higher permitted densities. Response: Agreed and this is why the proposed standards have been drafted as provided. Need to show lot/block typicals for multi-family/SF attached products for relationship to street, common areas and amenities, inter block ped connections, parking etc. Response: Lot types with examples typicals have been provided, but generally speaking this project will follow the Fort Collins standards for relationship to street, trail connections, etc. Comment #8 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: USES AND REVIEW TYPES: It seems odd that all types of housing would require a Type 1 review. Perhaps the use table could allow projects up to a certain number of units through BDR? This could be a good way to encourage missing middle types too, if the review process were BDR instead of Type 1. Response: We have updated to modify the review process. The ultimate objective to remove obstacles to approval of housing options. I would also consider relaxing uses for commercial/retail that are aligned with what you’d want to see there. It looks like all retail requires a Type 1 right now, same with restaurants, grocery stores, and offices. Response: This has been revisited and revised per Staff’s comment. The mix of housing types looks pretty good to me, and there are several missing middle types in there. Have you considered a further type that could be multi-family between 8-15 or 20 units per building, and then a final multifamily building type with 20+ units? It has been tough to get medium or small multifamily buildings. Response: All these types are permitted and encouraged, and we have revised to add additional categories. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com One thing to look at would be the use list for Montava, which set up more permissive reviews for many uses than would typically be required in our code. Everything up to two family dwellings could be approved through BDR, and some higher-density transect zones allowed mixed-use and multi-family dwellings through BDR too. Response: This has been revisited and revised per Staff’s comment. My overall thought is that the list of uses and required reviews seems to be more process than might be needed. The Housing Strategic Plan and the Land Use Code Audit both encourage removing barriers in the LUC to developing more housing types, so there is policy to support this approach. Response: And that is our objective as well, we appreciate Staffs support of this direction and we have revised accordingly. Comment #10 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: ADUS: It is a good thing that ADUs are permitted with a BDR in Districts 1-4. Response: Noted. Thank you. I noticed that future HOAs could prohibit ADUs (page 8 of the master plan). Is that intentional? Since there are no HOAs here now, it seems like allowing HOAs to prohibit ADUs might undermine the goals of the metro district and our housing policy more generally. I would encourage (if legally permissible) us to say that HOAs can not prohibit ADUs where they are permitted in this PUD. Response: We have updated that language to provide more ADU flexibility. Is there a reason occupancy of ADUs is limited to 3 people? What if a couple has 2 children? ADUs can be up to 1000 sf, so limiting occupancy by the number of people seems overly restrictive. Response: We have updated that language to provide more ADU flexibility. Also, why is there a minimum size of ADUs? We do not have this restriction in our code currently. Response: We have updated that language to provide more ADU flexibility. Comment #11 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: Is there any reason not to combine these into one Commercial/Employment Mixed Use District? And is a bridge contemplated to District 8? Response: Districts 5, 6, & 7 have been combined into one District, District 3. District 8 has been renamed to District 4. There are no plans for a bridge. We foresee (new) District 4 developing independently of District 3. Comment #12 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: Framework & illustrative graphics: The Primary Pedestrian Corridor should continue clear through this whole area. And then to build on that, there is a lack of any illustration of innovation or enhanced public benefit in the development. It's always difficult to create truly comfortable and interesting pedestrian-oriented development under LUC standards--is there anything envisioned for the streetscape or buildings to entice walking? Response: Updated graphics and visioning documents have been included as supplemental information with these resubmittal materials. These materials help establish and idea and objective that trying to be achieved within this community. Additionally, the Bloom – Phase 1 PDP has been submitted concurrently with this application and further details and design intent can be seen within this document. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment #13 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: Grocery use: Is there any mention anywhere of the long-standing purpose of N-C zoning? i.e.: “Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to be a mixed-use commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and a transit stop.” The narrative mentions “encouragement of community-oriented services and retail”. One of the most important things the PUD could do is to reserve a place for this anchor. Such a reservation would be met if a grocery use is developed in the Peakview development across the street. There is an area on the map that looks like the most compelling, in the highest-visibility area near the roundabout. Response: The intent of (new) District 3 is to provide a vibrant commercial/mixed-use area with a variety of uses that will serve the immediate neighborhood as well as the greater Fort Collins community. The Applicant would actively welcome a grocer in this development but does not want to sterilize or withhold develop if one does not arise. We believe the standards provide for the opportunity of a grocer as well as a multitude of additional uses. Comment #14 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: The comment above is perhaps the most significant land use comment that could truly transform and anchor this large area of residential development with a walkable and useful focus and center. Response: Agreed, but as noted, if a grocer anchor is developed on the Peakview property, then it’s highly unlikely one would develop within this community. Ultimate flexibility to react to changing markets conditions for commercial uses is important, especially in the current, highly volatile commercial market. Comment #15 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: Residential: A standard should be added along the lines of the following idea: Any development plan for residential uses in this mixed-use district shall be integrated into a mixed-use plan that demonstrates integration with “community-oriented services and retail uses”; and not simply remove 30% from the area for a self-contained or freestanding residential development. This idea needs more thinking through to be clear and meaningful in terms of the language. Response: Its fully the intent to develop cohesively and at the same time, but the reality is that commercial/retail follows rooftops, so it’s entirely possible that the residential needs to develop first to encourage non-residential development, and we agree that a standard limiting the amount of (non-mixed- use) residential should be limited and feel that using a number consistent with existing code (30%) as the limit. The very nature of that requirement implies that a minimum of 70% will be non-residential and we believe this meets the intent we are all trying to achieve. We feel it would be limiting to require a mix of uses for any single development plan. Comment #16 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: District 5, the current NC area, does not list supermarkets as a permitted use? Comment 1. above would solve this. A minor detail in District 5 standards: does “canopies” refer to gas station canopies? (We assume so.) Response: This is an oversight and has been corrected in the PUD. Grocery stores are permitted in (new) District 3. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment #17 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: OTHER COMMENTS With the proposed major pedestrian spine funning north/south, the Utility plan drainage sheet shows diagonal parking, which is not allowed. This information should be included in the Master Plan transportation sheet of enlarged exhibit, not drainage sheet. Response: This was for illustrative purposes only. This has been revised. As required for the Metro District public benefits agreement, the community gateway tract near frontage road should include a conceptual exhibit that shows intent of gateway design, mounding, signage wall, landscaping etc. The utility drainage plan conflicts with this program by showing detention pond. Response: The preliminary designs for this area are included as part of the PDP, a larger conversation with Staff about this area, constraints, and direction needs to be had. We look forward to working with Staff on this item. Staff is requesting the Mulberry PUD Master Plan have a new project name, Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan would be sufficient. Mulberry PUD is not specific. Response: All plans have been updated as requested the project title is now Mulberry & Greenfields - PUD Master Plan. Please coordinate with Brandy for the 2nd neighborhood meeting to be scheduled prior to hearing, but before final round of review. Response: Comment noted. We will work to schedule the neighborhood meeting at the appropriate time. Comment #18 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: FUNDAMENTAL OVERALL COMMENTS & QUESTIONS: It is understood that the LUC is still used as a “floor” for topics not addressed in the PUD. Response: Correct. Related to that understanding, there is a lot of cut and paste from the LUC. Why--is it because standards are COMBINED from multiple code sections into a given District in the PUD? Response: This is correct. With revisions planned for City Code forthcoming, we find it easier to ensure that complete sections are included so that there are no (or fewer) conflicts between today’s standards and those that may be adopted in the future. Additionally, we find this format much easy to follow than requiring a future reviewer, developer, etc. to have to bounce back and forth between this PUD and Fort Collins code and reduces the opportunity to standards or requirements to be missed and cause issues as this project develops out over many years. Assuming that that is the best way to do it: for each cut and pasted standard, it would be useful to cite the code section. Just add 4.27E3c or whatever at the end of a given standard. And then when you come to a NEW standard, say NEW after it instead. Response: Comparison information has been provided as part of this resubmittal package. We have brought forward the new code with strike-through used to show language being removed, language in red being added text, and yellow highlighted text being moved to a different section and noted as such. The comparison spreadsheet does not show all of the standards, right? Just the density and height standards? Response: An updated spreadsheet has been provided that is intended to direct all standards in regards to height, density, setbacks, and similar. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Related to cut and paste, staff will take a more detailed look at all those standards to scrub for cutting and pasting problematic language in the LUC. (This is a chance to do a little cleaning. There probably are not many of these. E.g., 4.27E3, 3.2.2K vs 3.8.10, setback note 6 on sheet 5.) Response: Please see included comparison information provided with this submittal. Sheet 10 with the housing diagrams shows nothing different from basic LUC housing development except for the 3' side setback and 18' driveways, which conflicts with setbacks in the table. But the point is, why have that sheet? Response: The applicant prefers to show these options so that future home builders/developers have something simple to reference when looking at requirements. A revised format has been utilized as part of this resubmittal package. Comment #19 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: A FEW DETAIL QUESTIONS: "Setback for motor courts" - does that refer to houses in motor courts? Setback note 2 - seems to refer to buffer yards where multifamily abuts single family? Response: These setback standards have been clarified. Urban Renewal Authority – Clay Frickey 970.224.6045 cfrickey@fcgov.com Comment #1 05/07/2021: FOR HEARING: Please add a note to your plan set referencing the Public Benefits Agreement for the Metro District. In this note, please provide a brief overview of the Public Benefits Agreement. This will help staff monitor for compliance in the future. Response: A note referencing this has been added to the plan set as requested. Engineering Development Review – Marc Virata 970.221.6567 mvirata@fcgov.com Comment #1 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: It was brought up during the PDR that one of the premises in allowing the use of the PUD Overlay is that in return for flexibility in site design, there would be the providing of public benefits greater than those achieved through the underlying zone. The response to the PDR comment previously noting this indicated that there is minimal flexibility requested as part of this application and cited pubic benefits such as "affordable housing, identifies a large neighborhood park for the community, provides for safe vehicular, bike, and pedestrian crossing of the existing railroad tracks, a central pedestrian corridor to connect the overall Mulberry community, and provides a regional trail corridor to connect this community to the rest of Fort Collins". The cited public benefits above are not necessarily viewed at this point as going above and beyond, and perhaps other than the affordable housing aspect, likely would have been baseline requirements had the project gone through the Land Use Code. Perhaps the aspect of "minimal flexibility requested" can be taken into consideration, but the overall aspects of documenting in a track changes type of approach where the flexibility is being requested is needed to make an assessment on the amount of flexibility. Additional clarity on the overarching question of whether the PUD is providing "public benefits significantly greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district" under 4.29(B)(2) is needed. In 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com discussion with Brad Buckman, Interim City Engineer, and with general coordination among City staff the following __ comments are aspects of the PUD that we would look to see as public benefits that should be implemented in the PUD Master Plan. Response: As requested a note detailing the required public benefits has been added to the PUD. The accompanying PDP application details those public benefits being provided as part of that Phase 1 application. Comment #2 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The overall PUD Master Plan should be utilizing the local street cross section that is slated for adoption in July as part of the updates to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. This cross section increases the local street sidewalk from 4.5 feet to 5 feet and increases the minimum parkway to 8 feet in all cases where less than 8 feet existed previously. Given the intended adoption in July and the approval of this from a master plan type of level, the newer anticipated standard should be implemented for this overall area. Response: Comment noted. The new street sections have been utilized as appropriate within this PUD application as well as on the concurrently submitted Bloom – Phase 1 PDP. Comment #3 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The overall PUD Master Plan should be intending to implement two additional non-vehicular crossings of the railroad in addition to the vehicular and adjoining trail crossing at Greenfields. These additional non-vehicular crossings are intended to provide additional localized porosity within the overall area. Response: The crossing at Greenfields Drive is the only planned crossing of the RR tracks at this time. Another potential future vehicular crossing as well as potential future pedestrian/trail crossings have been indicated on the PUD Master Plan. Comment #4 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The PUD Master Plan is not in conformance with the Master Street Plan in terms of its intention to not implement Delozier Road as a collector street along (or internal to) the boundary of the site from its current termination in East Ridge 2nd, south that would ultimately cross the Lake Canal to tie into the existing Delozier Drive. To ultimately not move forward with Delozier's implementation the applicant would need to successfully amend the Master Street Plan to remove the depiction of this connection as part of the PUD Master Plan. Response: Through discussions with Staff an alignment for Delozier has been identified and is now shown on the plans. Comment #5 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The Master Street Plan identifies a potential roundabout at the Greenfields and International intersection. Final determination as to whether this intersection would be ultimately constructed as a roundabout or a conventional intersection can occur with the appropriate PDP, however the PUD Master Plan should not be considered to vest the ultimate type of intersection that would be implemented, unless the applicant were to do additional analysis for a potential determination on the intersection type. The Master Plan should otherwise indicate this intersection as a potential future roundabout at this time to be consistent with the intent of the Master Street Plan. Response: Comment noted. The included TIS report addresses this item. Comment #6 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: It would be beneficial in affording greater clarity if the PUD Master Plan provided more detail of how it intends to create a network of streets and non-vehicular paths that provide a transportation network to and through the overall 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com site. As part of this, identification of the intent to continue previously stubbed streets set forth in East Ridge north of Sykes Drive. Conquest Street, Coleman Street, and Barnstormer Street through the site for connectivity between the two developments should be provided. Similarly, the access spacing along Vine Drive from District 1 should be more identified as currently only the Greenfields connection is shown. Response: Additional information in regard to vehicular and pedestrian connectivity has been added to the PUD Master Plan. Comment #7 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The civil set that was produced as part of this PUD Master Plan depicts a "Road C" as apparently a public street with diagonal parking. It should be noted that the PUD Master Plan document itself does not imply any diagonal parking being implemented for Road C that bisects District 3 and District 4. In general, diagonal parking is not an adopted cross section in LCUASS and would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis and evaluated as part of a variance request. It is presumed that the civil set that was produced is more illustrative and is not intended to "vest" the roadway cross sections depicted in the set (note the previous comments with respect to the updated roadway cross sections that would need to be implemented). The City Utility Plan Approval Block should be removed as this is more illustrative than for construction at this level. Response: Noted. This was intended to be illustrative and has been removed as part of this resubmittal to eliminate any confusion. Comment #8 05/11/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Comments under the County Referral process were provided on the adjoining Peakview project. It should be noted that comments were provided that questioned the interim/ultimate approach to the construction of Greenfields Drive and the level of design provided for Greenfields. It is preferred that Greenfields Drive is fully designed and improved to its ultimate condition without utilizing an interim design and construction approach. Understanding which party(s) intend to construct the road would be beneficial. It should be noted that with the interim striping that would propose to be installed in the interim condition, the ultimate width improvement would likely require a mill of the entire road width to remove the striping for the interim condition as sandblasting/painting the striping black leaves ghosting of the previous striping and would be of potential safety and also aesthetic concerns. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. The Applicant intends to construct all of Greenfields from Mulberry Road north to the Sykes Drive intersection as part of the Bloom – Phase 1 development. Comment #9 05/11/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Comments under the Peakview review expressed concern that information on soil conditions did not appear to be included in their submittal. Information provided with this submittal shows groundwater at or around as shallow as 7 feet from existing grade. It is suggested in coordination with the Peakview developer that a subdrain system be explored as there may be a benefit to the roads and the future development in the overall area if an underdrain system was implemented. This would ideally be coordinated prior to any construction of Greenfields Drive, as it may be that Greenfields would serve as part of the corridor for the backbone of an underdrain system. Response: Underdrain within the project area is not currently proposed and don’t believe it will be necessary for the development of this property. Comment #10 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: A variance request was provided for an easement and setback variance along an alley. This variance request would only be needed to the extent that public alleys are implemented. As the project would be required to have alleys as privately owned and maintained (not City right-of-way), the variance request is not applicable. That said, the utility corridors along private alleys should be demonstrated to be sufficient to serve the needs of the utility providers. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Setbacks along private alleys are not evaluated through Engineering and would be more assessed through Planning and Zoning. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. Comment #11 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The roundabout at the frontage road and Greenfields is identified to have a sign/monumentation in the roundabout median. The placement of monument signage in the roundabout would not be supported and would need to be outside of the roundabout on private property. Note that the design of the landscaping in the roundabout was provided in the Peakview plans and would not be consistent with their plans. Response: Comment noted. A request for a sign in this location is no longer included. Comment #12 05/11/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: The civil plans show the entire parcel at the northwest corner of Mulberry and Greenfields as a detention pond for the site. It would appear that this may be in conflict with the intended use of monumentation within this parcel. Response: This area has been updated and is envisioned to include signage, detentions and utility easements. The accompanying PDP application provides details into the design of this area. Signage and monumentation will take further coordination with the City and we intend to work through this with Staff as development of this neighborhood progresses. Comment #13 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: It should be coordinated with the Peakview developer on how there might be connectivity between District 2 and the Peakview project directly south. There may be some challenges in meeting emergency access requirements for sufficient two points of access by solely relying on the two access points shown off Greenfields and not providing additional connectivity to the south. A street (which could potentially be public or private) that bisects both properties may want to be considered. Response: The PUD Master Plan has been updated to show access at this point. At the time of future development applications coordination in this area will be necessary. We believe what we have shown at this point sufficiently shows the opportunity for a future solution. Comment #14 05/11/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Additional comments may be provided as additional information is provided under this review. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. It is presumed that review of a PUD Master Plan is iterative to a degree, as was the case with Montava. Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment #15 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: A similar comment was made under the Peakview review -- ideally information that identifies how both projects intend to coordinate on infrastructure needed for both projects should be provided. There appears to be an "Agreement for Easements, Development Coordination and Reimbursement" between both parties but it's unclear if this document has been finalized and executed. It references responsibility dates of 2019 that have passed, based on the info provided with Peakview. Response: A agreement has been finalized and is awaiting final signatures from all parties. This is anticipated to occur in the near term. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Traffic Operations – Nicole Hahn 970.221.6820 nhahn@fcgov.com Comment Number: 1 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The TIS has been received and reviewed. Please reference section 4.3.4 to see evaluation elements that need to be included in the Master TIS. Some areas that need to be developed include: Conformity with the adopted Transportation Master Plan including any adopted access control plans, Functional classifications, and anticipated typical sections for any new roadways, Multi-modal and TDM opportunities. The Master TIS should give an overall perspective of the transportation operations for this development when fully developed. Response: The Master TIS has been updated to include the above elements. Comment Number: 2 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: Regarding conformance with the Master Street Plan the Delozier connection was not included in the site plan, and not addressed in the study. If it is the applicants desire to not include the Delozier connection, the Master Street Plan will need to be amended. Response: The Delozier extension has been added to the PUD Master Plan Comment Number: 3 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The Master Street Plan also identifies a potential roundabout at the International and Greenfields intersection. We would like to explore the control type for this intersection, and this can be done with the Master TIS, or in subsequent PDP studies. The site planning should not preclude a roundabout in this location until the control type has been determined. Response: The included PUD Master Plan neither requires nor precludes a roundabout. Further information regarding this will be provided at the time of future PDP applications. Transportation Planning - Seth Lorson 970.416.4320 slorson@fcgov.com Comment Number: 1 05/10/2021: FOR HEARING: Develop a robust network of bike/ped paths in open space areas for off street movement throughout the site. It is imperative that residents of the neighborhood are able to comfortably walk or bike from home to the commercial amenities being proposed. This network should be shown on a separate transportation plan. Response: A more detailed transportation plan has been shown. All roads are being designed per LCUASS standards (including new standards) and will have bike lanes as required per street sections. Additionally, an extensive trail network is proposed, as well as major pedestrian spine that will link the property from north to south. All this information has been included within the updated PUD Master Plan. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Stormwater Floodplain - Claudia Quezada, (970)416-2494, cquezada@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: Portions of this property are located in the FEMA-Regulated, 100-year Cooper Slough floodplain/floodway and must comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. We are aware of this condition and will address as necessary in the development process. Comment Number: 2 05/10/2021: FOR HEARING: Please include the following notes on the PUD Master plan map and drainage/grading plan: “The Developer shall obtain a Floodplain Use Permit from the City of Fort Collins and pay all applicable floodplain use permit fees prior to commencing any construction activity (building of structures, grading, fill, detention ponds, bike paths, parking lots, utilities, landscaped areas, flood control channels, etc.) within the Cooper Slough floodplain limits. Storage of equipment and materials (temporary or permanent) is not allowed in the floodway. All activities within the floodplain are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.” “Critical facilities are prohibited in the 100-year floodplain. Critical facilities include essential services, at-risk population, hazardous materials, and government facilities.” “Construction of new structures, hard surface paths, walkways, driveways, walls, and parking areas is prohibited in the floodway unless no-rise conditions are met. Any construction activities in the regulatory floodway must also include a no-rise certification prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed in Colorado.” “An approved FEMA Elevation Certificate completed by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer showing that the building is constructed to the required elevation is required post-construction prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) being issued.” Please note: If any part of the building is within the floodplain boundary, then the entire structure is considered in the floodplain and the entire building envelope must meet the requirements of elevating to the RFPE. Response: This note has been added to the PUD Master Plan Document Comment Number: 4 05/10/2021: FOR HEARING: Please utilize floodplain checklist (see redlines) when preparing plans for resubmittal. Response: Added more discussion regarding floodplain. Using the most recent data in regards the Cooper Slough no longer provides BFE’s. Have provided a preliminary FIRM Map to show area and flood plain limits. Comment Number: 5 05/10/2021: FOR HEARING: Please show the boundaries of the floodplain and floodway on the utility drawings set. Contact Beck Anderson of Stormwater Master Planning at banderson@fcgov.com for floodplain CAD line work. Response: Added effective floodplain linework to set. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Stormwater Engineering - Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418 wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: The detention basins need to meet the City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards when the detailed grading is performed at PDP. Response: Comment noted. This information will be provided at the appropriate time. Comment Number: 2 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The eastern detention ponds closest to the Cooper Slough need to be naturalistic in shape with varying side slopes in order to be located inside the buffer zone. These ponds need to be landscaped per the guidance of Environmental Planning with native species. Also, the bottom of these ponds should have varying elevations with a low flow channel to promote different habitats. Response: Comments noted. The detentions ponds shown are included to show location and general sizing. The ultimate shape and location will be finalized at the time of the PDP where this level of detail is typically found. Comment Number: 3 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The City would like the storm water outfall for the northern drainage basins to enter the Cooper Slough as far north as possible to help with the hydraulic health of the slough. The northern most pond is right next to the slough to the east and the City would want the outfall to be in this location. Most likely, this would require an off-site drainage easement. Response: Currently in discussion to obtain drainage easement. Pond A shall outfall into Pond B until and if easement can been obtained. Comment Number: 4 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: Please discuss the LID options the PUD is considering and preliminarily show the major mitigation techniques on the ODP Drainage Plan. Grass swales do not meet the City's requirements for LID and these features cannot be located within the detention ponds. Response: LID discussion added to the text. LID exhibit prepared to show use of bioretention throughout the site. Comment Number: 5 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: This project needs to accommodate the Cooper Slough Master Plan improvement located at the southern boundary of the site. This consists of an overflow channel from Lake Canal to the Cooper Slough. Anything above and beyond a drainage channel, the Development would be responsible for financially including any piping or road crossings. Response: Acknowledged. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Number: 6 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: In regard to the "Mulberry PUD Alley Easement and Setback Variance", City Stormwater Criteria would need to be met for any drainage flows proposed in the alley. This would include freeboard form the 100-year water surface elevation to the lowest opening of any structure. Response: Noted, 100 year WSEL impacts will be analyzed within alleys and their respective structures. Comment Number: 7 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: Grading challenges could occur with the smaller size lots and their widths, especially along the side yard swales. Care should be taken to avoid steep slopes and non-user friendly yard situations. Response: Comment acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: Any public or private storm sewer will be required to meet the City's utility separation requirements which includes 10 feet of separation with other utilities and trees. Response: Acknowledged – to provide the min. separation. Comment Number: 9 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: The storm water outfall for the site just north of Mulberry Street needs more coordination with the Peakview project to the east and the City. The conveyance mechanisms for the outfalls and the City's master plan overflow channel have not been finalized and have had issues with fitting this all in the area that was proposed. Response: Currently in discussion with Peakview and the City regarding the Stormwater outfall north of Mulberry St. Erosion Control - Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801 bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 04/22/2021: INFORMATION: No Erosion and Sediment Control comments at PUD level. We will be expecting required materials to be submitted at PDP or FDP level. Response: Noted. Thank you. Light And Power - Tyler Siegmund 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/11/2021: PRIOR TO HEARING: Please provide utility servicing exhibits for all proposed residential lots that do not meet the typical 50ft minimum width to ensure utility separation requirements can be met. Please provide utility layout exhibits for any private drive and/or proposed road cross section that vary from the LCUASS approved road cross sections. Response: We have been working with utility provides and believe the proposed designs work for all providers. Comment Number: 2 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: City of Fort Collins Lights and Power currently does not have any facilities in the area of this project and the project area is currently served by PVREA. Coordination and timing will be critical to be able to serve this site. If appears that there are only two facilities powered by PVREA and those are the Water Colorado buildings and the Front Range Veterinary Clinic. Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 3 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: All utility easement and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, floodplain, etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained by the developer. Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 4 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: Any proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement or public right-of-way. Response: Electrical facilities shown. Comment Number: 5 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power and needs to be shown on the Utility Plans. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. When located close to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as defined in Figures ESS4 - ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans. Response: Transformer locations shown. Comment Number: 6 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: During utility infrastructure design, please provide adequate space of all service and main lines internal to the site to ensure proper utility installation and to meet minimum utility spacing requirements. A minimum of 10 ft separation is required between water, sewer and stormwater facilities, and a minimum of 3 ft separation is required between Natural Gas. Please show all electrical routing on the Utility Plans. Response: –Electrical layout shown per coordination discussions. Comment Number: 7 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: Streetlights will need to be installed along all public right-of-way. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com ornamental trees and streetlights. Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found below: https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/ch15_2007.pdf Response: Comment noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 8 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: The services to the multi-family buildings will be considered a customer owned service; therefore, the applicant is responsible for installing the secondary service from the transformer to the meters and will be owned and maintained by the individual unit owner. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. We will address during future applications at the appropriate point in the process. Comment Number: 9 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: All single family attached services or single family detached service requests above 200 amps are considered a customer owned service; therefore, the applicant is responsible for installing the secondary service from the transformer to the meters and will own and maintain those services. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. We will address during future applications at the appropriate point in the process. Comment Number: 10 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: PER LIGHT AND POWER’S ELECTRIC SERVICE STANDARDS: 8.1.10. The builder is required to install the electric meter socket(s) on the same side as the electric service ‘stub’. 8.1.11. Builders are also encouraged to install the natural gas meter(s) on the opposite side of the house from the electric service. 8.1.12. The electric service trench must be a minimum of 3 feet from the natural gas service trench, and the electric and gas services shall not cross each other. Response: Thank you for the information. Comment Number: 11 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: All multi-family buildings/units, single family attached, and Carriage Houses will need to be individually metered. Please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda Response: Thank you for the information. Comment Number: 12 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone service. Contact Brad Ward with Fort Collins Connexion at 970-224-6003 or bward@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Number: 13 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com). https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go-renewable Response: Comment noted. Thank you. We will review this information and reach out as needed. Comment Number: 14 05/11/2021: 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 investment development fees Response: Comment noted. Thank you. As development moves forward, we will reach out as needed. Environmental Planning - Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/10/2021: FOR HEARING: Multiple natural habitats and features are present on site and/or have buffers that extend on site, of which the Cooper Slough (Slough) is the most sensitive and unique. The Slough has been classified by CPW as warm water slough and is partially fed by springs as well as surface runoff. Unfortunately, the Slough has been impacted by past developments, namely by a decrease in perennial flows. A two-pronged approach is recommended for this project to provide a public service as a PUD and to satisfy the stipulation in the Metro District [Exhibit B(I)(B)(4)(d)(i)]: 1) to increase flows as much as possible and as far north as possible to the Slough, and 2) to design detention basins as naturalistically as possible on the eastern margin of the site. In order to meet 1) above an additional discharge point to the Slough would be required. Ideally, Pond A in drainage basin A (as depicted in the Master Drainage Report) would be disconnected from Pond B in drainage basin B and discharge to the Slough off site. Coordination with adjacent landowner would be necessary. Also, the possibility of connecting drainage basins D and E to basins B and C would also increase flows further north. In order to meet 2) above, detention ponds A, B, and C should exceed the stormwater criteria manual requirements. Detention ponds are an allowable use within Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (NHBZs) and given the amount of space available in the NHBZ, very achievable. Features like varying slopes, curvilinear margins, variable depth bottoms, and substantial native plantings should be explored. This would require close coordination between the applicant team, City Stormwater, and Environmental Planning. Response: Final grading for the areas north of the railroad tracks will be completed when final design of that area is completed. For pond A worst case of connecting to Pond B is shown. If an easement is obtained Pond a should be able to outflow higher. D and E have been rerouted to the location of the Pond C outfall. This will be confirmed with the hydraulic design in the FDP documents. Comment Number: 2 05/10/2021: FOR HEARING: Thank you for providing the draft ECS. As discussed earlier additional fieldwork will be required to finalize the ECS, and this can happen soon now that the growing season has arrived. I HIGHLY recommend that your ECS consultant 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com contact me so that we can finalize the scope of remaining field work, such as final wetland delineations, vegetative composition, noxious weed surveys, and exploring restoration options for appropriate design NHBZs. Response: Thank you for the comment. We have included additionally information and our project consultant has been working with Staff. Comment Number: 3 05/10/2021: FOR HEARING: According to Section 2.3.2(H)(5) of the Land Use Code, "the overall development plan (ODP) shall show the general location and approximate size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the applicant's proposed rough estimate of the natural area buffer zones as required pursuant to Section 3.4.1(E)." The plans will need to include approximate buffer zones for the Cooper Slough, Lake Canal, and any other wetlands or natural features present on the site. Therefore, please include the following note on the ODP: “This Overall Development Plan shows the general location and approximate size of all natural areas, habitats, and features within its boundaries and the proposed rough estimate of the natural area buffer zone as required by Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(E). Detailed mapping of a site’s natural areas, habitats, and features will be provided at the time of individual PDP submittals. General buffer zones shown on this ODP may be reduced or enlarged by the decision maker during the PDP process.” Response: This information has been included and this note has been added to the overall ODP Comment Number: 4 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: Note that there is an internal Natural Habitat Buffer Zone applied to the Lake Canal (50 feet from top of bank on both banks). Please ensure that requirement is reflected uniformly across all documents and plans. Response: The Natural Habitat Buffer is reflected uniformly across all documents and plans. Comment Number: 5 05/11/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Section 3.2.4(D)(6), requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources." Thus, lighting from parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over into any natural features or natural habitat buffer areas. Response: Comment noted. This level of detail will be provided during future specific development applications, as applicable. Comment Number: 6 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: Please add the following note on all sheets of the site, landscape and utility plans that show the Habitat Buffer: "The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future. Response: This note has been added where appropriate. Comment Number: 7 05/11/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please add an Environmental Planner signature to all plans that show the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Response: This information has been added as requested. Comment Number: 8 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Prior to Hearing, provide a copy to City Environmental Planner of request sent to Army Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination and permitting. Current site layout with road crossings appears to impact wetlands under federal regulation (along Cooper Slough, Lake Canal, and railroad) thus a jurisdictional letter from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) needs to be submitted. Prior to Final Plan Approval a copy of the USACE jurisdictional determination letter must be submitted to the City Environmental Planner. Refer to LUC 3.4.1(O)(1) Proof of Compliance: If a proposed development will disturb an existing wetland, the developer shall provide to the city a written statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan fully complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations established in the federal Clean Water Act. Response: This information will be provided once obtained. Comment Number: 9 05/11/2021: FOR HEARING: Prior to hearing, please provide documentation of coordination with the ditch company to determine whether any easements or restrictions apply for the ditch. Response: This information will be provided as applicable. Comment Number: 10 05/11/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Please include Environmental Planning on discussions with Parks Planning Department related to the regional trail if the trail will be located in a NHBZ. Response: Noted. Thank you. We will reach out at the time this is designed. Forestry - Nils Saha nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/11/2021: Thank you for coordinating with city staff in the PUD submittal process. The Fort Collins community places a high value on our urban forest and all the associated social, economic, and environmental benefits that it provides. From Forestry’s perspective, the PUD proposal provides some unique opportunities in the Mulberry-Greenfields development, primarily in terms streetscape design, that allow for a thriving urban tree canopy for decades in the future. One of the main challenges of successfully establishing an urban tree canopy is limited space in the parkway. The current LUCASS standards require a minimum parkway width of 5.5’ (not including the curb) on local streets. We have long known that this width is not adequate for long term tree growth without eventual conflicts with infrastructure (ex: raised sidewalks). The city is currently reviewing proposed revisions to the LUCASS standards that would require a minimum 8’ parkway on local streets. It is anticipated that these revisions will be adopted in July. Given the timeline of the PUD proposal, we ask that you consider adhering to these newer standards for parkway width in your design. City staff has discussed potential modifications to setback requirements where feasible. Please continue to coordinate with city staff on subsequent designs proposals. Response: This PUD adheres to the new LCUASS standards 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Number: 2 05/11/2021: There has been a lot of coordination on anticipated utility layout. Will typical utility layouts be provided in the PUD review process? As we have discussed previously, the placement of utilities and tree/utility separation requirements have a significant impact on street tree placement. In utility layout exhibits, please show street trees adhering to the LUC requirements below. Forestry would like to review whether landscaping standards can be met in subsequent proposals. Canopy shade trees should be planted at 30-40’ spacing (LUC 3.2.1 (D)©) along street frontages. 2.Street Light/Tree Separation: Canopy shade tree: 40 feet Ornamental tree: 15 feet 3. Stop Sign/Tree Separation: Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted at least 50 feet from the face of the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs. 4.Driveway/Tree Separation: At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys. 5. Utility/Tree Separation: 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines 10’ between trees and electric vaults Response: Information is being provided as part of the accompanying Bloom – Phase 1 PDP. Park Planning - Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340 sbassinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The Park Planning & Development Department is available to discuss these comments in more detail. Response: Noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 2 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.8 “Parks and Trails” addresses compliance with the 2021 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan indicates the general location of all parks and regional recreational trails. Parcels adjacent to or including facilities indicated in the Master Plan may be required to provide area for development of these facilities. Response: Comment noted. We believe this PUD Master Plan meets and/or exceed these standards. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Number: 3 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The Park and Recreation Master Plan does not include the location of a future city-owned neighborhood park within this proposed development. Two future neighborhood park sites are located in proximity to the site. These include a neighborhood park planned for the Eastridge neighborhood, and to the north in the Trailhead neighborhood (currently under construction). Response: Comment noted. Thank you. We are planning to include internal parks and trails as indicated on the PUD Master Plan. Comment Number: 4 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan (“Trail Master Plan”) was adopted by City Council and provides conceptual locations and general trail design guidelines for future regional recreational trails. The Trail Master Plan is available at https://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/plans-and-policies. Response: Comment noted. We have worked with Staff and believe the proposed alignment for the future regional trail is consistent with future planned as noted within this document. Comment Number: 5 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: A regional trail is planned within the proposed project, generally parallel to the existing railroad Right of Way and acceptable as shown on the PUD Master Plan. Preliminary plans for development of the site will be required to show at least a conceptual design of a 10-foot-wide paved trail surface with a 4-foot-wide parallel soft path. Park Planning and Development must approve the final alignment and conceptual design of the trail. Response: Comment noted. At the time this trail is designed we will work with Staff to ensure its design meets City requirements. Comment Number: 6 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: Park Planning and Development requires the dedication, without fee, of Public Access and Trail Easements to accommodate our regional multi-use trail system, as conceptually indicated in the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan. Response: Comment noted. This dedication will occur at the appropriate time in the development process. We are committed to working with Staff through this process. Comment Number: 7 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (“LCUASS”), Chapter 16 Pedestrian Facilities and Chapter 17 Bicycle Facilities provide additional design guidelines for multi-use regional recreational trails. Response: Comment noted. At the time the trails are developed this material will be referenced to ensure conformance. Comment Number: 8 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The Public Access and Trail easement width is 50 feet and cannot be located within or partially overlapping a ditch or railroad existing Right of Way or easement. The location of the easement must be approved by Park Planning & Development. The trail easement may co-exist within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone if approval is obtained from Environmental Planning. Response: Comment noted. We believe the proposed corridor meets this requirement and will work with Staff to ensure there are no conflicts. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Number: 9 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: Recreational trails do not function as widened sidewalks adjacent or within street rights-of-way. Response: Comment noted. This condition is not planned or preferred. Comment Number: 10 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: Local street at grade intersections with a recreational trail are to be avoided. When necessary, the location of a future recreational trail at-grade crossing of private, local or minor collectors must be coordinated with Park Planning and Development and Traffic Operations. Response: Comment noted. These crossings will be coordinated with Staff at the appropriate time in the development process. Comment Number: 11 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: A grade separated crossing (underpass) of the regional trail at Greenfields Drive located south of the railroad will be required as well as an underpass of Vine Drive. Additional easement area for underpass/overpass approaches may be required in locations of potential grade separated crossings for the trail. Response: Comment noted. We will continue to work with Staff on these items as development applications are made in the future that impact these areas. Comment Number: 12 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: An at-grade crossing of the railroad for the regional trail is acceptable and shall be permitted with the railroad and Public Utilities Commission by the developer at the time the railroad crossing of Greenfields Drive is permitted. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 13 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The future trail alignment cannot be used to provide internal pedestrian circulation and cannot provide direct access to buildings. Internal access to the recreational trail from the internal bike/pedestrian system should be provided at limited and defined access points. Response: Comment noted. Future applications will address this item as appropriate. Comment Number: 14 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The typical paved recreational regional trail cross-section is constructed as a 10-foot-wide concrete trail, widened to 12 feet in areas of high traffic area or other areas of potential user conflicts. A 4-to-6-foot wide soft (gravel) path is located parallel to the paved surface, separated by 3 to 5 feet of vegetated area; there shall be 3 foot wide level shoulders on both sides of the trail, providing 3 feet of horizontal clearance from vertical obstructions such as trees, transformers, fences and/or walls. Modifications of the typical cross-section must be approved by Park Planning & Development. Response: Comment noted. Future applications will address this item as appropriate. Comment Number: 15 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: Grading within the designated recreational trail easement should be completed along with overall site grading. Plans must indicate that the final grade within the easement can provide a trail alignment that meets the American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for cross slopes between 1-2% and a maximum centerline profile grade of 5%. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Construction documents should include trail profiles and cross sections to demonstrate the ability to meet ADA standards. Response: Comment noted. This information will be provided at the appropriate time in the development process. Comment Number: 16 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The construction schedule and funding for the recreational trail on this site have not been determined and may not be available for several years after development has occurred. Partnerships between Park Planning and Development and the site developer may be an option to fund the construction of the trail concurrent with site development. Developer-only funding of construction of the trail along with or prior to site development would represent a valuable public amenity. Response: Comment noted. We will continue to work with Staff on this item, as necessary Comment Number: 17 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: Additional public amenities would be to provide extensive trail spur connections between the regional trail and along Greenfield, International and or Sykes Drives’ and potentially in the natural area bordering the Cooper Slough, to provide connectivity from the trail to the future neighborhood park in the Eastridge development, and north to the neighborhood park located north of Vine Drive in the Trailhead development. Spur trails should optimally be located outside of the street Right of Way and consist of a 10-foot-wide paved surface. Response: Extensive trail connectivity is proposed as part of this PUD Master Plan. Additionally, the Bloom – Phase 1 PDP has been submitted and further detail on trail connectivity within the Phase 1 boundaries is provided. Comment Number: 18 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: The Parks Department will maintain future regional recreational trails. Trail spurs are not maintained by Parks except by specific agreement. Maintenance consists of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 2 to 3 feet adjacent to the trail surface and repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail. The underlying property owner shall be responsible for all other landscaping and maintenance within the easement. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. Comment Number: 19 05/10/2021: INFORMATION: Landscaping within the recreational trail easement shall be provided in accordance with all applicable City codes and will remain the responsibility of the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide acceptable clearances from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master Plan. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be designed and maintained to avoid spray on the trail. Response: Comment noted. We will work with Staff at the appropriate time to ensure that design meets City standards. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com PFA - Marcus Glasgow 970-416-2869 marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/07/2021: INFORMATION: PFA has no comments for the ODP. Response: Noted. Thank you. Building Services - Russell Hovland 970-416-2341 rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 04/19/2021: 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) 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 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). Response: Comments noted. These items will be addressed at the time of future development applications as appropriate. STOCK PLANS: When the same 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. Response: Comments noted. These items will be addressed at the time of future development applications. BUILDING PERMIT PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING: Please schedule a pre-submittal meeting for any new commercial or multi-family building with Building Services for this project. 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. Response: Comments noted. These items will be addressed at the time of future development applications. Technical Services - Jeff County 970-221-6588 jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: These has been updated. Comment Number: 2 5/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below: PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. Response: This has been updated as requested. Comment Number: 3 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please change International "Drive" to International "Boulevard" on all sheets. Response: This has been updated. Comment Number: 4 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been updated. Comment Number: 5 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been updated. Comment Number: 6 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are match line issues. See redlines. Response: These have been updated. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: These have been updated. Comment Number: 2 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: Please make sure all Ordinance numbers are added prior to recording final plans. Response: Comment noted. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Number: 3 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: These have been updated. Comment Number: 4 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been updated. Comment Number: 5 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: Please change International "Drive" to International "Boulevard" on all sheets. Response: These have been updated. Comment Number: 6 05/10/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: These have been updated. Department: Outside Agencies Boxelder Sanitation District - Heidi Jenson (970) 498-0604, heidij@boxeldersanitation.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: Please see attached. Response: Thank you for the information we will continue to work with Boxelder. East Larimer County Water District - Randy Siddens (970) 493-2044, randys@elcowater.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 05/11/2021: INFORMATION: ELCO has no objection to the project. See attached for a few comments on the plans as submitted. Response: Comment noted. We will continue to work with ELCO as this project progresses.