Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2908 S TIMBERLINE RD MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS - PDP210011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com October 6, 2021 City of Fort Collins Mr. Jason Holland 281 N College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: 2908 S. Timberline Rd Multi-Family Dwellings Dear Jason, Thank you for providing comments on the 2908 Timberline Rd Multi-Family Dwellings which was received on September 17, 2021. Our team’s comment responses are detailed on the following pages. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions by phone, 970-409-3414 or by email, rmcbreen@norris-design.com. Sincerely, Norris Design Ryan F. McBreen Principal 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Summary: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970 221 6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com 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: Comment noted, thank you. 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, avoid responses like noted or acknowledged. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 3. Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd1.pdf Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 4. 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: Comment has been noted, thank you. 5. 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: Comment has been noted, thank you. 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 a number of key departments, which has begun to impact the timeliness of our reviews. We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service level adjustments. Currently, one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks). Lengths of subsequent rounds of review will be considered after each round of review. Also, Completeness Checks will be performed on all initial and Round 2 submittals during this time. Please reach out with any questions or concerns. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. Development: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 97-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. COMMENT CONTINUED -- FOR HEARING: Covered bike parking – need more specific information. Please indicate where and how the required bike parking spaces (as noted in the land use table) are provided on the plans. Please provide details with a typical bike rack, rack placement and quantities for the covered bike parking on the buildings at each location demonstrating that the bike parking quantities fit in these areas. For areas noted as meter/or bike parking, please coordinate this with the site plan so that the plans demonstrate that covered and uncovered (fixed) bike parking is provided in sufficient quantities for each building and conveniently distributed adjacent to the building entrances. For the required quantities of covered vs. fixed (uncovered) bike parking, staff’s interpretation is that covered parking can be substituted for uncovered (fixed) parking, but not the other way around – just FYI when determining the counts for each building. Lastly, please include with the general details the bike racks to be provided. A dashed line showing the covered overhangs on the site plan would be helpful. FOR HEARING: Typical designs should also show a detail for the bicycle parking layouts. Also, on the main site plan pages please show the building roof overhangs as dashed lines. Response: Additional detail has been provided for covered bike parking. The site plan (Sheet LS100) now includes quantities in the labels, the count on the cover sheet (Sheet LS- 001) has been updated and the detail and specification of the on-building vertical racks are provided on the architectural plans (Sheets A-1 to A-5). The site plan has been updated with roof overhangs as well (Sheet LS100). 2. 09/14/2021: COMMENT CONTINUED -- FOR INFORMATION: I will provide the special height review analysis in the staff report. Shadow analysis part is waived. I'll attempt to address the other criteria. FOR HEARING: Special height review is required for buildings that are taller than 40 feet per the criteria in LUC 3.5.1(G). Please provide a narrative and graphic as necessary to address the criteria and discusses how the building designs are compatible with the area in terms of massing, bulk, scale, articulation, human-scaled proportions, materials, and colors. The biggest concern is that a more muted color palette and with less contract between buildings may be a better compatibility approach and would better meet the Section 3.5.1(F) and 3.8.30(F)(3). Response: Thank you for Staff’s assistance in this item. 3. 09/14/2021: COMMENT CONTINUED -- FOR HEARING: Full Tree stocking: 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Per LUC 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) -- "full tree stocking" shall be required in all landscape areas within fifty (50) feet of any building. This requires a tree spacing of 40 feet around the buildings, and “Such landscape areas shall extend at least seven (7) feet from any building or structure wall and contain at least fifty-five (55) square feet of nonpaved ground area, except that any planting cutouts in walkways shall contain at least sixteen (16) square feet.” Parking lot islands that provide trees along the building face (withing 50 feet) can also satisfy the requirement. In several areas where the buildings face the parking lots, there significant gaps where trees are not placed along the buildings within 50 feet of the building. This would require an Alternative Compliance request (see LUC 3.2.1(N)). It doesn’t appear that alternative compliance is justifiable, and adding some additional tree spacing could be supportable along with an alternative compliance request. FOR HEARING: Tree stocking requirements around the buildings do appear to be met because there are gaps along the parking areas where there is no tree spacing that would meet the tree stocking criteria. Response: Per our discussion in the comment review meeting, parking islands were added in front of buildings on the plans to provide additional space for tree planting. These trees are now shown and an alternative compliance request is accompanying this submittal. 4. 09/14/2021: COMMENT CONTINUED -- FOR HEARING: FOR HEARING: Parking lot interior landscaping – please provide separate calculations for each parking lot and update the cover page. Please see sheet LP100 for parking lot interior lines. Per LUC 3.2.1 ix (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas. Please also confirm that the interior area of each parking lot includes the following trees: “Maximized Area of Shading. Landscaped islands shall be evenly distributed to the maximum extent feasible. At a minimum, trees shall be planted at a ratio of at least one (1) canopy shade tree per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of internal landscaped area with a landscaped surface of turf, ground cover perennials or mulched shrub plantings.” (this would be calculated based on the required interior landscaped area, and not the area if exceeded). FOR HEARING: Interior parking lot landscaping: Please provide calculations showing that the parking lot interior percentages are met for each parking lot. This would be the interior landscape areas from the back of the main sidewalk and include interior and end island areas. Response: Calculations for interior parking lot landscape have been separated by lot and demonstrate that percentage requirements are met. These updates are provided on Sheets LP100 and LS100. 5. 09/14/2021: COMMENT UPDATED FOR FINAL LETTER -- FOR HEARING: FOR HEARING: On the overall site plan and overall landscape plans sheets, please label each parking lot A, B, C, D for discussion purposes (See redline LP100). For parking lots A and B (See redline LP100), please add wood fencing to screen vehicle headlights from the Willow development. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com For the parking lot perimeter screening, the code provision that applies reads as follows: 3.2.1(E)(4): "Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from abutting uses and from the street. Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights." FOR HEARING: Headlight screening would appear to be a compatibility issue. I’d recommend an intermittent wood screen fence, and this could have offsets/staggered placement to add design intersect with a simple fence design and selective ground level plantings to anchor the fence. Response: Parking lots have been labeled as requested. After further discussions and a site visit from planning, it has been determined that screening will only be needed for parking lot B. The remaining parking lots are adequately screened with landscape. In addition, the proposed lots on this property do not abut the neighboring property and have a drainageway and detention pond to help separate the two uses. Sections have been provided to demonstrate this. These updates are provided on Sheets LP100, LS103, LS106. The fence details are shown on LS107. 6. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Lighting plans – the 0.1 max horizontal illuminance level is exceeded in several locations. There appear to be several issues with the plans demonstrating compliance with the new lighting code (Section 3.2.4). Please see redlines. Need distances listed for poles from adjacent property lines. Also appears to be a footcandle light level issues along the NHBZ and near several abutting property lines. Light Trespass Limitation: LC1 context area; 0.1 max horizontal illuminance; calc points no further than 10’ apart; “For property boundaries that abut public rights-of-way, private streets, private drives, public alleys, and public and private parking lots, the backlight rating, glare rating and illuminance values provided in Tables 3.2.4-2, 3.2.4-4 and 3.2.4-5 respectively, shall be measured ten (10) feet from the property boundary. For all other property boundaries, values shall be measured at the property boundary.” Response: See revised photometrics on sheets SL101 and SL102. 7. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Lighting plans – please coordinate with environmental planning staff –There appears to be issues with the light levels at the buffer zone. I believe this needs to be zero -- Demonstrate no light trespass onto Natural Areas, Natural Habitat Buffer Zones or River Landscape Buffers as defined in Section 4.16(E)(5)(b)(1)(a). Response: See revised photometrics on sheets SL101 and SL102, illustrating the 0.0 footcandle compliance required in NHBZ. 8. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Lighting plans: The site lumen limit appears to be exceeded. Using the Hardscape Area Method (Table 3.2.4-6). The total installed initial luminaire lumens are calculated as the sum of the initial luminaire lumens for all luminaires. Base Allowance: LC1: 1.25 lumens per SF of hardscape. Cover page: 3.9 acres drives and parking; 2 acres hardscape/other = 5.9 acres = 257,004 SF x 1.25 = 321,255 overall lumen budget Lighting plan indicates: 442,207 total lumens which does not comply. Response: See revised photometrics, reduced fixture wattages and table calculations on 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com sheet SL103. 9. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Lighting plans – Glare rating: FOR HEARING: Lighting plans: Glare rating must be at least 1, 2 is proposed. G1 is allowed if the distance from the PL's is more than 36' for the 18' poles and 24' for the 12' poles. G2 is not allowed on MMN. Additionally, several of the poles need to have glare rating of G0, please see redlines. Appears that a shroud may be available for the lights which could fix the issues. All lighting which is not perpendicular (90 degrees) with the property line behind the fixture is considered “not ideally oriented”. Response: See revised specifications for reduced glare on sheet SL103. See revised photometrics on sheets SL101 and SL102. 10. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Lighting plans – for the above comments, it would be help to add to the lighting table information to confirm compliance with the code language. Response: See revised notes on pages SL101 and SL102 to ensure compliance. 11. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Just a suggestion, not a requirement -- Architectural screening of HC units is recommended, and recent projects have done this with wood screens in tighter areas. We have recent design examples if you’d like to pursue this option. This would seem to be most important for bldgs. 5, 6 and 7. Also, the tightest areas where grasses are shown in front of the HC units, sometimes this doesn’t work well in these tight areas – all of the grasses don’t do well, get pummeled by the large rock mulch or snow. The landscaping could work fine, depends on the installation. Response: This comment is noted, thank you. For now, screening will occur using landscape material, however the owner understands the concern with plant material and will consider wood screens as we progress with the design in CDs. 12. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Building Color Variation – since this is the main variation proposed – please consider a way to indicate on the plans how the color variation will be placed on the plans or clarify and note on the plans that the same buildings colors will not be placed next to one another. Response: A key plan describing the location of each color scheme has been included. 13. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Land Use table – net density calcs – please revise table per the redlines. Response: The net density calculations have been updated on the coversheet per the redlines (Sheet LS001). 14. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Handicap Parking – per 3.2.2(K)(5) – There appear to be issues with the quantity of HC spaces provided with each parking lot, please see redlines. Response: The site plan has been revised to include the required number of handicap and van accessible stalls per lot. Parking Lot A includes 2 ADA stalls, Parking Lot B includes 2 ADA stalls, Parking Lot C includes 3 stalls, Parking Lot D includes 3 stalls, and Parking Lot E includes 2 stalls. 12 total ADA stalls are provided. These updates are shown on Sheets LS100, LS101, LS102, LS103 and LS104. 15. 09/14/2021: MODIFICATION REQUESTS: Because the project can’t provide a public or private 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com street, there are additional Modifications that will need to be included with the P&Z submittal. The following is a consolidated/updated list of the 6 modifications: Multi-family standards: 1) 3.8.30 (C) – Access to a park, access to Stewart Case Park – Park criterion not met: (distance as measured along a street). RECEIVED. Due to the size of the project being less than 10 acres, the requirement per this section is slightly reduced from a 10,000 SF park to a 5,000 SF park. The modification to use Stewart Case Park to meet this standard is supportable. 2) 3.8.30(F)(2) – Variation Among Buildings. Process with PDP. RECEIVED. This is supported based on the project’s goal of providing “affordable” housing. While the project isn’t guaranteeing affordable housing per the City’s affordable housing definitions and deed restrictions, staff is comfortable that the applicant intends to follow through with their partnership with CSU to provide affordable housing. Response: Comments have been noted. The applicant team appreciates the support of these modification requests. 16. 09/14/2021: With the following Modifications, these can continue to be bundled into one modification request and one justification/staff findings with the PDP staff report, as these all relate to the project’s inclusion of a private drive and not a public or private street. Please update Modification #2 to include all of the following, and remove 3.8.30.(D)(3): 3) 3.5.2 (D)(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. (PLEASE ADD TO REQUEST #2) Process with PDP. The applicant proposes a 6’ sidewalk on one side of a private drive. This design doesn’t meet the City’s requirement that the residential building entrances be within 200 feet of a “connecting walkway” -- which is a term associated with a public or private street (or also with the past version of the code also associated with a “street-like private drive”, which is no longer an option to meet the requirement). This Modification is supportable by staff because the site plan provides alternative walkways – both the 6’ walkway along the private drive and the 8’ walkway along the east side of the development – which provide a reasonable alternative that is equal to or better than a street sidewalk system. Response: This code section has been added to the Modification Request #2 letter provided with this submittal. Modification Request #1 and 3 that were submitted with round 1 are also provided with this submittal. 4) 3.5.2 (D)(2) Street-Facing Facades. (ALREADY INCLUDED WITH REQUEST #2) Process with PDP. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking. This standard requires street-facing facades, with at least one building entry for each building also facing the street. A Modification to this standard is required because the buildings face a private drive and not a public or private street. This Modification is supportable by staff due to the existing configuration of the site representing a hardship – retrofitting a full street section through the site (either public or private) is unrealistic and unnecessary. Additionally, the sidewalk system provided – both the 6’ walkway along the private drive and the 8’ walkway along the east side of the development – which provide a reasonable alternative that is equal to or better than a street sidewalk system. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. The applicant team appreciates the 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com support of this modification request associated with the Modification Request #2 letter. 5) 3.8.30.(B)(4) Lot pattern. The lot size and layout pattern shall be designed to allow buildings to face toward the street. (ALREADY INCLUDED WITH REQUEST #2) Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. The applicant team appreciates the support of this modification request associated with the Modification Request #2 letter. 6) 3.8.30(F)(4) Entrances. (PLEASE ADD TO REQUEST #2) Process with PDP. “Entrances shall be made clearly visible from the streets and public areas through the use of architectural elements and landscaping.” Staff comments: supportable. Entrance orientation towards streets is not proposed and staff supports the modification. Response: This code section has been added to the Modification Request #2 letter provided with this submittal. 17. 09/14/2021: FOR INFORMATION: PROCESS WITH ODP/PDP: These additional “street and block oriented” code sections will be addressed with the ODP/PDP by staff with an infeasibility analysis. Per the code, nothing is required from the applicant, such as an infeasibility request. At the hearing, the ODP will be considered first, and then if approved, the PDP will be considered. Infeasible: 3.8.30(D) Block Requirements. All development shall comply with the applicable standards set forth below, unless the decision maker determines that compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature: Staff overview: More fundamental and formative than the Connecting Walkway standard is the City’s block requirement, which envisions a town-like pattern of City streets arranged in blocks (similar to Rigden Farm). Process Infeasibility with the ODP because the resulting multi-family block would be +/-10 acres due to natural features and existing development --- it is infeasible to create a 7 acre block for the multifamily area, (and the remaining church land would still be 21 acres with a new street added). Infeasible: 3.8.30(D) (1) Block Structure. Each multi-family project shall be developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). (See Figures 16A through 16F below). Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block. Infeasible, process with ODP. Infeasible: 3.8.30(D) (2) Block Size. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres. Infeasible, process with ODP. Even if a street was added, the resulting multi-family block would be 10 acres due to natural features and existing development. Not applicable: 3.8.30(D) (3) Minimum Building Frontage. Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the block faces of the total block shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. (PRIOR SUBMITTAL INCLUDED A MODIFICATION REQUEST, THIS IS NO LONGER NEEDED.) Staff comments: Infeasible/not applicable. They are 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com proposing to orient the buildings to a private drive (which is a Modification). If this Modification is approved, then this standard is inapplicable because the multifamily project does not contain street facing blocks. Additionally, if the block structure is infeasible, then the building frontage is infeasible because there is no block face or block frontage. “Block face shall mean the portion of a block that abuts a street.” “Block shall mean a unit of land bounded by streets or by a combination of streets and public lands, railroad rights-of-way, waterways or any barrier to the continuity of development, but shall not include in the calculation of the block size measurement the barriers creating the boundary.” Response: Comment has been noted, thank you for the information. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham, sbuckingham@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: Existing utility easements cannot be vacated until all new easements have been dedicated and all proposed utility line relocations have been completed. The only exception would be if the newly dedicated utility easements include the area covered by existing utility easements. In other words, the new easements would expand the area contained within utility easements but would not remove easements from any of the area currently covered by easements. 06/21/2021: The applicant will need to dedicate new utility easements and complete the proposed relocation of utilities before vacating the existing utility easements. The dedication of new utility easements can be done with the proposed plat, and the vacation of easements will need to be done at a later time. For drainage easements, vacation and rededication can be done simultaneously with the plat. Response: See Sheets C950 and C951 for additional information regarding easements and specifically the temporary easements. 2. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: The boundaries of the easements to be dedicated are not clear. Please clarify the boundaries of the new easements to ensure that all new and existing utility lines are within easements, even utility lines that are planned to be abandoned. 06/21/2021: Please indicate the boundaries of the easements to be dedicated. The applicant must ensure that all existing and new utility lines are within easements. Response: See Sheets C950 and C951 for additional information regarding easments and specifically the temporary easements. 3. 08/26/2021: FOR FINAL - UPDATED: With the FDP, please fill out and submit the Information for Development Agreements form, which can be found at https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php 06/21/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: A Development Agreement (DA) will be recorded once the project is finalized. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 4. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING: Please see my redlines on the Preliminary Plat and the Civil Construction Plans, and make changes as necessary. Response: Preliminary Plat has been updated. 5. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING: The emergency access easement (EAE) shown on the plat does not match the EAE shown on sheet C900 of the Civil Construction Plans. In addition to clarifying the dimensions on the plat and on sheet C900, please show the EAE dimensions on the private drive cross-section to make the alignment clear. On the plat, please also dedicate EAE in all locations requested by Poudre Fire Authority. Response: Preliminary Plat has been updated. 6. 09/15/2021: INFORMATION ONLY - REVISED: Engineering would encourage dedicating all new easements on the plat, rather than by separate document. Additionally, when dedicating by separate document, the City of Fort Collins charges $250 for each easement dedication. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970 224 6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. 09/13/2021: FOR INFORMATION: Based on the findings within the TIS the future access to Timberline should be planned as a right-in, right-out access only. Response: Noted for future access to Timberline. Topic: Traffic Impact Study 2. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATE: The Traffic Impact Study for the Multi-Family project still assigns traffic to the future access that is not being built with this proposal, but with the subsequent development of the CSU properties. The study will need to be adjusted to show the appropriate distribution of traffic without this connection in the short term. How will other church access be affected by this change? Response: The Traffic Study has been updated to reflect the elimination of the future access. Original Comment: 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING: The Traffic Impact Study has been received and reviewed. Based on conversations with the project's Traffic Engineer this project will not be utilizing a new potential access off of Timberline, but will be sharing the existing access with the Timberline Church. The TIS will need to reflect those changes and evaluate the existing and anticipated traffic/trips for that intersection. It is also our understanding that there will be an Overall Development Plan for this entire church site, which is typically submitted prior to an internal project. The Traffic Impact Study for the ODP need to show how this site will be incorporated into that plan. Further review of the transportation impacts will be needed. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970 416 2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre fire.org Topic: General 1. 06/21/2021: FOR HEARING TURNING RADII IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Please show these dimensions on the site plan. 9/13/2021: Turning radius between the fire access drives on building 2 and 3 does not meet this section of code. Please correct with 25' inside radius or provide an autoturn exhibit to verify truck movement. Response: See Sheet C951 for turning radii annotations. AutoTurn exhibit has been included for the parking lot between Buildings 2 and 3. 2. 06/21/2021: FOR HEARING EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS Any private alley, private road, or private drive serving as a fire lane shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement (EAE). Please provide this information on the plat. 9/13/2021: Will the proposed easements be dedicated by separate document? Response: All emergency access easements will be dedicated by plat. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970 416 2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING: Please show the drainage easements on the Plat for all proposed drainage infrastructure. This would include all LID features, storm sewers, etc. Response: See Sheet C950 for layout of drainage easments. Department: Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970 416 2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING: The City is reviewing the new configuration for the sewer main and will inform the Applicant during the week of September 20th if this new alignment is acceptable by the City. 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING: The sewer configuration at the southern end of the development needs some discussion and revisions. A meeting is suggested to determine what the best layout will be for this area. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 2. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING: The watermain is less than 10 feet from the proposed electric line. 10 feet of separation is required. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: Electrical line at north of the site changed to maintain minimum 10 foot separation. This information is located on Sheet C500. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. 06/22/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Electric system modifications will likely be needed to serve the proposed building. Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and system modification charges will apply at owners’ expense. Please see the Electric Estimating Calculator and Electric Service Standards at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Please feel free to call me for an estimate of the fees that will be associated. Response: Thank you for the additional information and resources. We have been in contact with Fort Collins Electric Utilities and will continue to coordinate with the City of Fort Collins as development of the project continues. Dan Wroblewski C&E 2. 06/22/2021: FOR APPROVAL: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one-line diagram will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-guidelines-reg ulations Response: Thank you for the additional information and resources. One-line diagrams and a completed C-1 form shall be completed for final construction documents and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review and interconnection coordination. Dan Wroblewski C&E 3. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: Can you please confirm that all electric lines and transformers are in an utility easement? If so L&P is ready for hearing. Response: Confirmed. All primary electrical lines and transformers are located within a utility easement. The utility easement can be identified on the Proposed Utility and Drainage Easement plan, C900. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. 06/22/2021: FOR PDP Please provide a conceptual plant list for the natural habitat buffer zone. Response: This has been provided on sheet LP102. 2. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING The NHBZ boundary is a little wonky and would be difficult to differentiate in the field over time. Additionally light is spilling into the buffer zone from developed areas. It might make more sense to delineate the large stormwater detention pond as the NHBZ and leave the southwest corner out from a practical standpoint. I am happy to work with you on the boundary so that it achieves your aesthetic and lighting needs while meeting code requirements for buffer zones. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: Per our conversation and the exhibits provided, the parking lot east of building 7 has been re designed to minimize encroachment into the natural habitat buffer. In addition, the proposed revision to the natural habitat buffer has been revised to only include the detention pond; the buffer will not change in the SW corner of the site. This information is provided on Sheets LP100 and LP101. 3. 09/13/2021: FOR HEARING Some trees that were inventoried are not being mitigated by forestry. Those trees will have to get mitigated by Environmental Planning. Please see the redlines. Response: This comment is noted, thank you. The inventory has been revised per the redlines received and the trees will be mitigated. This information is provided on Sheets LP004 and LP005. Department: Parks Contact: Aaron Wagner, aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. FOR HEARING: Please label the 8 ft trail you are proposing as ‘Private Trail / Privately Maintained but Publicly Accessible’ on all applicable sheets. Parks will not maintain the trails you are proposing. Response: This has been labeled. Noted. 2. FOR HEARING: Parks prefers to have the trail connection to be doweled into the Rendezvous trail to reduce the potential differential settling. However, any damage to the trail will need to be corrected by the contractor, at the time of the damage, at no cost to the city. Please include this as a note on the Site plan set for reference. Response: Park trails will be constructed in accordance to standards provided by the City of Fort Collins Parks Department including pavement thickness, jointing, reinforcement, and connection details. Contractor will be responsible for any damage to the existing trail, or traffic control as required to make connections or repairs. Section and joint details, as provided by the City of Ft. Collins, will be included on final plans. The note above has been added to sheet C101 for reference. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224 616 1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. FOR HEARING Trees #13-17 appear to be outside of any future buildings. There appear to be opportunities to preserve and protect these trees. Response: These trees are located where we are proposing a rain garden. Due do the grading that will occur in the area, the trees will not survive. The rain garden needs to be located here to treat water coming off of the parking lot before entering the detention pond. 2. FOR HEARING 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com For all trees that were noted at Transplantable but are shown to be removed, please create a plan to transplant these trees back on-site. The project will receive mitigation credit for each transplanted tree. #8, 9, 10, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 Response: As discussed in our meeting, transplanting 9 trees is not financially feasible for this attainable housing project. The construction costs are already coming in higher than budgeted and the cost of transplanting existing trees is significantly higher than providing mitigation trees. At this time, the owner would like to provide mitigation trees but understands that this is a concern and would like to consider it later as the design progresses and as other cost savings may be found later. Please see the updated tree removal letter provided with this submittal. 3. FOR HEARING Please include the tree inventory and mitigation information to the civil plans. The plans should show existing trees, proposed tree removals with locations clearly noted (X over the symbol is an easy identifier), and the mitigation table provided by City Forestry. Please remove symbols for trees to be removed from the proposed site/landscape plan and civil drawings. Only existing trees proposed to be preserved should be shown on the proposed drawings. Response: Tree inventory and mitigation information have been provided in the PDP set with the information noted. Symbols for existing trees to be removed have been removed from site/landscape/civil plans. Exiting trees to remain are only shown on the landscape plan with other proposed plant material. 4. FOR HEARING The plant list should include species, size, quantity, and method of transplant (B&B), and species diversity percentages. Mitigation trees should be noted in a separate column and labeled on the plans with a bolded M or a callout that states “mitigation tree”. Please include unique symbols for all trees species and label trees with an abbreviate of the genus and species (ex: Honeylocust – Gleditsia triacanthos – GL TR). Please note that it is extremely helpful to provide these details early in the design review process. Response: This comment is noted, thank you. Detail for trees as far as species call outs, individual symbols, quantities, and mitigation have been provided. As discussed, detail of this level in the first or second round of review is difficult to provide given the fluidity of the site design. 5. FOR HEARING Please provide species labels on the landscape plans. Response: This has been provided. 6. FOR HEARING Please adjust tree locations OR the storm main line layout in order to meet 10-ft separation requirements. Trees and transformers need to be 10-ft apart. Response: Utility offsets have provided as required. Department: Technical Services 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Contact: Jeff County, 970 221 6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General 1. Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 09/15/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 06/22/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: Comment noted. Thank you. 2. Comment Originated: 09/15/2021 09/15/2021: FOR HEARING: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com Response: Preliminary Plat has been updated, thank you.