Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY & GREENFIELDS - PUD MASTER PLAN - ODP210002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com October 13, 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 #2 Dear Ms. Bethurem Harras Thank you for your Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan round #2 review comments which we received on September 17, 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 Topic: General 1. INFORMATION: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Response: Comment noted, thank you. 2. INFORMATION: As part of your resubmittal you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged. Response: Comment noted, thank you. 3. INFORMATION: Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_Mulberry & Greenfields PUD_Rd2.pdf File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names. Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization Study. Response: Comment noted, thank you. 4. INFORMATION: 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 noted, thank you. 5. INFORMATION: Temporary Service Changes City of Fort Collins Development Review In order to continue providing thorough reviews and giving every project the attention, it deserves, the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has 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 recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service changes. Response: Comment noted, thank you. 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: Comment noted, thank you. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 6. 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). Response: Comment noted, thank you. 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: Comment noted, thank you. We believe we have addressed all comments and would like to work towards a public hearing in December. 7. FOR HEARING: All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Response: Understood, thank you. We appreciate all of Staffs’ efforts to work through these comments with us. We believe we have more than adequately addressed all of Staffs’ comments. 8. FOR HEARING UPDATED: The Planning and Zoning Commission is currently meeting in person. Applicants have the opportunity to participate in person or virtually. Response: Comment noted, thank you. 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: Comment noted. Thank you. 9. REVISED: I have reached out to Alyssa to begin the scheduling of the 2nd Neighborhood Meeting. Response: We have our 2nd neighborhood meeting scheduled for October 13, 2021. FOR HEARING UPDATED: I am checking in on the 2nd Neighborhood Meeting. Scheduling is currently 4 8 weeks out. We do not schedule the same evening as other Development Review meetings. Please reach out to me once you are ready to begin scheduling this meeting. Response: This meeting is planned for October 13, 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. The Pete Wray and the City’s Development Review Liaison will help facilitate the meeting. Please contact me to assist you in setting a date, time meetings are still being held virtually at this time. Response: This meeting is planned for October 13, 2021. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 10. INFORMATION: LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review: Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. Response: Comment noted, thank you. 11. INFORMATION: All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers. Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from the PDF’s. AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set, and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" in the command line and enter "0". https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Drawing text appears as Comments in a PDF created by AutoCAD.html Response: Comment noted, thank you. We believe we have provided sheets in the manner as directed. Planning Services – Pete Wray Topic: General 12. FOR HEARING: PUD Design Narrative Development Standards (please add page numbers to all tablet documents). Response: Page numbers have been added, as requested. Rear setback (2') vs. 8'. General comment this may be a challenge of vehicle turning movement and lack of room for staging in front of garage leading to obstruction in alley. The 8' allowed for option to parallel park in front of garage. Side setback 3' this is also a challenge for access around units from the front to rear portion of lots. Response: Per our discussions with Staff since this comment has been received, we are proposing to keep the setbacks as proposed. For the rear setbacks, there are minimum alley width standards and also garage-face distance which should not negatively impact resident’s abilities to make turning movements. For the side setbacks, we feel there are alternative access to rear yards (through the home, through the alley, adjacent to walks and greenways, etc.) that will make this a non-issue for residents. 13. FOR HEARING: Design Experience General comment: this is ok to illustrate concepts in a separate document, but any proposed design standards need to be included in consolidated Master Plan or Design Guidelines document for easy to find standards location. Response: Understood, the “Design Experience” document is only intended to supplement the standards by providing schematic/graphic representations of what the standards are requiring. No standards are proposed within this document that are not located with the PUD Master Plan document or the Development Guide. Multi use sidewalk needs to be more continuous (not divided by leaf planting areas. Show extent of ROW and in narrative identify who will maintain this extended streetscape? How will utilities work in this area or outside of ROW? Response: The PUD is not designing this parkway, but rather the big idea and what might be. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Future development applications will take this design to the next step, including identified of how the utilities will work in this area. Please include and identify which housing types are existing and proposed. Again it is fine to illustrate concepts but please add list to standards document. Response: The proposed housing types are denoted red text within the Development Guide in the “Supplemental Standards – Mix of Housing Standards” section. This list of housing types do not determine type of review. Please add narrative that all housing types can be used for each District. Describe existing requirement for housing type mix, and benefit for not requiring minimum mix for each phase or project. Response: Per code, housing type does determine type of review. For instance, in current code for LMN zoning, a multi-family development proposing 50 or less units are subject to Administrative review, while a multi-family development proposing more than 50 units are subject to a Planning Commission review. Additional text addressing the unit mix type has been added to the narrative. Staff is not sure to support having all 4 primary entrances of homes in motor court open and face interior drive, vs. to the street. Consider flipping model design to have at least 3 of 4 if on corner connect directly to street, or if not on corner have only garages face court with entrances to sides connecting to street. Response: The standard has been revised so that homes with adjacency to streets shall have direct connection. Show comparison of existing parking standards and proposed reduced parking standard and justification. If all ADU's use guest parking, then where do guest park? Response: Within the “Design Experience” graphics booklet included with this submittal an exhibit depicting parking has been included that shows the variety of parking available to provide for all needs including ADUS, guests, etc. 14. FOR HEARING: PUD Master Plan SHEET 4 Show zoning context around PUD area. Response: This information has been added to sheet 4 as requested. 15. Sheet 6. I think we need a separate transportation sheet that shows all existing and proposed transportation elements (See Engineering comments on this). Include MSP design for existing and proposed systems, 660' street connectivity stub outs, intersection improvements (2 roundabouts) regional trail context off site. Response: The PUD Master Plan is showing connections that will be made as part of the Mulberry & Greenfields Master Plan and anticipated future development of the neighborhood. We understand the City’s requirements for the 660’ street connectivity standards and are showing those connections that can be made. We are not showing those connections that are not possible/feasible to make including crossing the railroad tracks and additional connections to Vine Dr where grading precludes such connections. At the City’s request, potential future crossing locations have been shown along the railroad ROW, and the developer’s intent is to clarify in the Development Agreement that it is not responsible for their construction. We understand that there are alternative compliance opportunities that could address these connections at the development application stage, but we feel this PUD is the appropriate mechanism for determining where connections will be made, as opposed to showing connections that meet code but are not feasible. We believe this would just be an issue that would slow down the PDP/FP process and future applications. As we have it proposed, we believe we are preventing 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com inconsistencies between this PUD and future development applications that may give future decision makers pause. We believe it’s important to establish these connections now. We added the requested information, except as noted above, and left everything on one sheet as we felt that all information would be better together to show the full picture. The issue of the 660’ spacing primarily applies to Vine Dr. and the local extension of International east of Greenfields, In the case of the latter, an access arrow has been shown connecting to the Hunting Club parcel, located in Larimer County. We believe this resolves this issue. In the case of Vine, there are four existing roads in the Trailhead subdivision that make connections to Vine. The westernmost, Three Forks Dr., is located such that we do not believe a tangent and minimum curve radius could be accommodated between the Vine ROW and the railroad ROW. Additionally, the City will have a 50’ trail easement on the north side of the tracks that further reduces the ability to connect to Vine in this area. The other three roads, Wagon Trail Rd., Greenfields Dr., and Campfire Dr. are all directly affected by existing and proposed grading. Meeting minimum design criteria for Greenfields Dr. brings it approximately 650’ into the Bloom site before the first intersection. Grading this slope means that Wagon Trail Rd. and Campfire Dr. at Vine sit approximately 12’ and 14’, respectively, above the finished grade of the lots within Bloom. Please refer to the grading sheets in the Bloom Filing 1 PDP Utility Plans for additional information. In light of these existing conditions, we believe that only the Greenfields Dr. connection should be shown in the PUD at Vine Dr. Previous conversations also included discussions about east-west connections though the affordable housing site, however since Delozier ROW will have to be provided with the Filing 1 PDP, we believe that this is no longer an issue. 16. Sheet 7 Development Standards. See above on comment for 3' side yard setback in District 1 4. Staff is concerned of any front setbacks that preclude enough space for foundation planting areas and full tree stocking standards around buildings. Response: Re: Side Setbacks - As per our discussions with Staff, we believe that 3’ side setbacks shall remain and we believe we have provided options that reduce negative impacts that may occur due to these reduced setbacks. Re: Front Setbacks - As discussed with Staff the idea behind the reduced front setbacks is to bring homes closer to the street in instances where there is no need for a gas line in the utility easement. This tighter design is consistent with the urban design and attainability principles driving the smaller cottage product. Schematic graphics are included that show how landscaping may work in these situations. Motor Courts. Staff is concerned with all homes facing internal court, not street. Please consider redesign so most building entrances face and connect directly to street. Response: Standards have been updated to require primary entrances where homes are adjacent to streets. 17. FOR HEARING: PUD General Standards Table Notes MOTOR COURTS Front entry facing street or opens to and connects directly to street (not just feature). Response: The standard has been revised so that homes with adjacency to streets shall have direct connection. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Staff is supportive of maintaining buffer standards. Please include existing building and project compatibility standards, for building over three stories in height need transition and buffer to existing and future single family development. Response: We believe that our standards are still supportive of buffer standards, but we also envision homes up to 3 stories being intermixed and requiring extra setbacks or buffering because one home is 2.5 stories and another 3 stories, doesn’t allow for a cohesive design or development experience. We believe there will be no issues with buffering between the existing adjacent community (Mosaic) and our proposed developed, as there is a wide easement along this shared property line that will necessitate a wide landscape buffer, in fact wider than current code would potentially require Please include NHBZ standards in PUD. Response: We intend to follow all NHBZ standards currently in Fort Collins Land Use Code and do not intend to amend them. We have notes, per a request from Environmental Planning, that reference these sections of code, and since we are not proposing any deviations, we would prefer to defer to Fort Collins Land Use Code. Front porches. For SFD and SFA have same minimum porch size of 6' x 8'. Response: We are not proposing any changes to the front porch standards. 2. PUD should consist of PUD Master Plan sheets 1 13. Will this in FDP include and incorporate all other development standards in guidelines, or will there be two separate documents? Response: For the review, the standards will be provided within the PUD Master Plan document as well as in the Development Guide. If Staff would prefer the standards to be combined, we are happy to oblige, and will continue to work with Staff as this application moves closer to completion. List of public benefits: include all transportation infrastructure improvements. Response: The public benefits have been listed within the narrative and supporting documents. Additionally, information has been added. Please describe in narrative how will PUD implement proposed solar energy systems on building rooftops. Response: The solar benefits to be provided by this project, per the PBA, are planned only to be delivered through rooftop solar systems. No ground mounted solar arrays are plans. 18. FOR HEARING: Development Guide USES. It appears no new uses are proposed in PUD. With list of uses, any changes to review process must include how changes satisfy criteria (a) through (d) in LUC 4.29 (E) (2). Staff is still assessing the proposed changes to the review process for list of uses. Relying mostly on BDR review lacks opportunity for public comment and hearing. The proposed BDR review conflicts with LUC purposes. See above staff comments for land use table and recommended review. Response: We believe we have worked with Staff to address this comment since it was issued, as denoted in the land use table we are proposing that all BDR and Type I reviews will require neighborhood meetings which will allow for additional public input above and beyond what is typically required. F. Staff supports existing standard for 660' street connectivity unless alternative compliance is used for bike/pedestrian connections in lieu of street. The example of Mosaic with multiple street stub outs to PUD, it meets the 660' connectivity street connections, and proposed ped connection in between street connections staff supports as part of alternative compliance. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: The PUD Master Plan is showing connections that will be made as part of the Mulberry & Greenfields Master Plan and anticipated future development of the neighborhood. We understand the City’s requirements for the 660’ street connectivity standards and are showing those connections that can be made. We are not showing those connections that are not possible/feasible to make including crossing the railroad tracks and additional connections to Vine Dr where grading precludes such connections. At the City’s request, potential future crossing locations have been shown along the railroad ROW, and the developer’s intent is to clarify in the Development Agreement that it is not responsible for their construction. We understand that there are alternative compliance opportunities that could address these connections at the development application stage, but we feel this PUD is the appropriate mechanism for determining where connections will be made, as opposed to showing connections that meet code but are not feasible. We believe this would just be an issue that would slow down the PDP/FP process and future applications. As we have it proposed, we believe we are preventing inconsistencies between this PUD and future development applications that may give future decision makers pause. We believe it’s important to establish these connections now. We added the requested information, except as noted above, and left everything on one sheet as we felt that all information would be better together to show the full picture. The issue of the 660’ spacing primarily applies to Vine Dr. and the local extension of International east of Greenfields, In the case of the latter, an access arrow has been shown connecting to the Hunting Club parcel, located in Larimer County. We believe this resolves this issue. In the case of Vine, there are four existing roads in the Trailhead subdivision that make connections to Vine. The westernmost, Three Forks Dr., is located such that we do not believe a tangent and minimum curve radius could be accommodated between the Vine ROW and the railroad ROW. Additionally, the City will have a 50’ trail easement on the north side of the tracks that further reduces the ability to connect to Vine in this area. The other three roads, Wagon Trail Rd., Greenfields Dr., and Campfire Dr. are all directly affected by existing and proposed grading. Meeting minimum design criteria for Greenfields Dr. brings it approximately 650’ into the Bloom site before the first intersection. Grading this slope means that Wagon Trail Rd. and Campfire Dr. at Vine sit approximately 12’ and 14’, respectively, above the finished grade of the lots within Bloom. Please refer to the grading sheets in the Bloom Filing 1 PDP Utility Plans for additional information. In light of these existing conditions, we believe that only the Greenfields Dr. connection should be shown in the PUD at Vine Dr. Previous conversations also included discussions about east-west connections though the affordable housing site, however since Delozier ROW will have to be provided with the Filing 1 PDP, we believe that this is no longer an issue. 19. FOR HEARING: Narrative Development Review Point of clarification housing types do not determine type of review. Adding new housing types reflects innovative design and additional housing choice. See staff comments on Land Use Table for recommendations for review type. Response: We have worked with Staff and the Land Use Table and subsequent review standards have been reviewed and are consistent with discussions with Staff and now include additional requirements for neighborhood meetings depending on the type of review required. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com General comment, staff may need more time to assess any changes to the type of review. A project reviewed as part of the PUD is no different than any other project review citywide. If a new use is proposed, then a corresponding type of review also needs to be identified and meeting 4.29 criteria. BDR review is intended for small, less complex and less controversial projects. Response: Thank you. We believe the Type of Review standards included in the PUD reflect discussions with Staff and a consensus direction between Staff and the Applicant. 20. FOR HEARING: Narrative 4.29 Criteria You mention the inclusion of solar energy development, as part of innovative design, but where do you anticipate these facilities locating? Response: Solar fields are not envisioned as part of this neighborhood, so solar will be located on building rooftops. The language in the narrative has been updated to clarify this. Add relevant policy/objectives from the Housing Strategic Plan. Response: Additional text addressing this has been added to the narrative. District 1: For proposed building above 3 stories keep existing building and project compatibility standards adjacent to existing single family development. Response: This has been modified as requested. 4.29 2b consider adding ADU's to list of innovative development. Response: ADUs have been added as suggested. Thank you. 21. FOR HEARING: Narrative Public Benefits Please clarify public benefits part of Metro District Agreement and other public benefits as part of PUD. Other potential public benefits to consider include new housing types, community gardens, constructing ADU's with initial development phases, rooftop solar etc. Response: This information has been updated in the narrative as suggested. 22. FOR HEARING: PUD MP Development Standards Sheet 8 Land Use Table Uses. Districts 1 4 The proposed review process for the PUD should not be any different than the LUC Review Types listed in each Zoning District based on type of land use. As mentioned previously staff is concerned that proposed additional reliance on BDR review for larger projects contradicts purpose of LUC for example. Staff is supportive of allowing more flexibility for certain development standards, but the type of review should be consistent with the LUC. This is not an area of code to think of additional flexibility. BDR review does allows for minimal public feedback and no hearing. Food truck rally not permitted in District 1 2. Retail supply with outdoor storage not permitted in D4. Type II review decision by Planning and Zoning Commission, not Board. Response: We have worked with Staff and the Land Use Table and subsequent review standards have been reviewed and are consistent with discussions with Staff and now include additional requirements for neighborhood meetings depending on the type of review required. 23. FOR HEARING: Development Guide Supplemental Standards Staff supports keeping existing (B) general standard for building and project compatibility for new development adjacent to existing development. Proposed taller building on edges of PUD should transition in height to be compatible with existing two story homes. Response: The language has been revised to reflect the intent of development within this neighborhood. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Mixed use commercial buildings all facades should include to "maximum extent feasible" base and top treatments. Response: The language has been revised as suggested. For MF dwellings, remove new standard that buffer standard does not apply located across street, unless building compatibility design is applied (see above). Response: The language has been revised as suggested. Mix of Housing Standards. Staff supports District 1 (4 housing types), District 2 change to 3. Show existing minimum parking requirements and proposed. Off street parking should be maximized, then include on street parking in calculations. Response: Housing type requirements have been revised to require 4 types in District 2. Parking requirements are included within the development guide. Engineering Development Review – Marc Virata Topic: General 1. FOR HEARING UPDATED: There are typical road sections in the civil plans that do not reflect the increase in the sidewalk and parkway widths. It is suggested that the road sections information be removed from the plans since these are not for construction. Response: These have been removed, as discussed with Staff. 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: We believe our PUD reflects the revised street sections. 2. FOR HEARING UPDATED: There is a depiction now of the Delozier Road extension being fully within the property to the west of the development and not either within this development or shared between the two properties. We would need some sort of acknowledgement from the property owner to the west accepting the planned alignment fully through their property before scheduling this for a hearing. Response: Delozier is now shown as straddling the west property line between International and Donella. FOR HEARING: The PUD Master Plan isn't 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: Delozier has been realigned from International to Donella. 3. FOR HEARING UPDATED: The response indicates the TIS addresses the status of the Greenfields and International intersection. If I'm interpreting it correctly, it appears to show this intersection operating acceptably as a stop control 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com intersection long term, but I'm unable to verify what are the road networks that are in place as part of this conclusion. Is this based on an assumption that International is extended to the west, which it does not currently? What are also the implications if Delozier is extended through as identified on the Master Street Plan? Are the extensions of these streets part of the analysis? It would be helpful to interpret Figures 7 1, 7 2, and 7 3 if the roads are shown that are assumed to be in place that is used to base how these forecasts are made. Response: The TIS has been updated to provide greater context to the forecasts provided in the Figures found in section 7. 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 in order to be consistent with the intent of the Master Street Plan. Response: It was the intent of the Master TIS to show that a conventional intersection was the desired design for International and Greenfields. At this time no forecasts were identified or provided that showed a signal being warranted at International and Greenfields so no roundabout/signal is anticipated. 4. FOR HEARING UPDATED: I'm noting that there are now indications of potential access points with the indication that the final access to be determined as part of a future final plan application. Given that the application has been submitted, it seems these can be better defined and then considered as part of the master plan. Response: Access points shown are consistent with the Phase I PDP application. 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 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: Connectivity to the neighboring communities has been shown on the PUD Master Plan and aligns with existing streets as applicable. Potential internal connectivity has been schematically shown on exhibits included as part of the PUD Master Plan submittal package. 5. FOR HEARING UPDATED: The civil set that was created (as well as the Design Experience Document and the Drainage Study) still has some detailed cross sections with right of way and road widths that are either not standard LCUASS cross sections (Road C's 96' ROW width, Road B's 81' ROW width indicated in the Design Experience and Drainage Study) or are now outdated with the LCUASS updates and the requirement that the local/connector streets have a minimum 5 foot sidewalk and 8 foot parkway. Assuming there isn't an intent to vest these widths in the PUD, please have all the dimensions removed for these non-standard cross sections. Additionally, the intent of the civil set for the PUD should be considered illustrative and not for construction, please remove the City signature block as this wouldn't constitute as a construction plan set. Response: Sections removed per discussion with the City. All streets are planned to follow updated 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com LCUASS standards. 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: This has been updated. 6. INFORMATION UPDATED: Carried over to the extent that coordination of the review of Peakview with the County is still ongoing. It should still be noted that as part of any PDP for this overall project, should the Peakview plans be approved and be built, the developer will be required to mill and overlay Greenfields to remove the interim striping that would be established on the Peakview plans. Additionally, it's still unclear based upon the level of information provided on the plans, whether the ultimate roadway is being established on the plan set due to a lack of a westerly flowline design being indicated from which the road is being designed and constructed towards. Response: Coordination is ongoing with City & Peakview per Discussion with City, County and developer. 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 proposed 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: Final section and striping will be provided with FDP submittal. 7. INFORMATION UPDATED: Carried over to the extent that more detailed soil information was provided in the PDP that shows depth to groundwater closer to 6 feet in some areas. The applicant may want to consider absent of exploring an underdrain system, how will dwellings be able to discharge a sump pump system in a manner that doesn't impact the right of way, neighboring properties, and/or becomes a maintenance/nuisance condition for the affected residents. Response: Noted. Thank you. INFORMATION ONLY: Comments under the Peakview review expressed concern that information on soil conditions didn't 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 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 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: Noted. Thank you. 8. 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. Setbacks along private alleys are not evaluated through Engineering and would be more assessed through Planning and Zoning. Response: All alleys are planned to be private, making this variance request unnecessary. 9. FOR HEARING: The traffic study indicates that "The connections of A Drive and Delozier Drive as well as the ultimate extension of International Drive are dependent on neighboring properties to be completed." I believe it would be correct to characterize that Delozier connecting across the Lake Canal to the existing Delozier is dependent on neighboring properties, however Delozier south of International Drive could be entirely accommodated within this overall master planned PUD and wouldn't truly be dependent on neighboring properties to implement between International Drive and Lake Canal. The report should be amended with this in mind. Response: The TIS and plans have been amended to provide ROW and a temporary trail for Delozier south of International Drive 10. FOR HEARING: The traffic study forms a conclusion on the eventual need of a signal at Sykes and Timberline. The traffic study should be considering the implications on a future extension of International Boulevard east of Timberline to the development, and whether the signalized intersection would be at International Boulevard instead. Response: The TIS has been updated to discuss the connection of Timberline and the future extension of International. 11. FOR HEARING: The Pedestrian Parkway Experience section of the Design Experience document indicated the use of a rain garden that appears to be in public right of way. The placement of rain gardens in right of way wouldn't be allowed to meet LID requirements for a site, as the right of way cannot be used to meet requirements on private property. If the rain gardens are intended to treat public street right of way drainage as additional treatment beyond LID requirements, the design of these would need to be further investigated with a PDP. When we've allowed these, they are designed with underdrain systems beneath the rain garden to reduce the impact to adjacent pavement/subgrade. Additionally, the maintenance of these rain gardens and their accompanying underdrain system would not be the responsibility of the City. Response: Noted. This will be address as part of future PDP/FDP applications, as applicable. 12. FOR HEARING: There are references to "alleys" throughout the Master Plan and the various documents including the development guide. Please add a note to the cover sheet of the Master Plan as well as in the Development Guide that would indicate that all alleys within the development are privately owned and maintained, and not City right of way. Response: A note to this effect has been added to the cover page of the PUD Master Plan. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 13. FOR HEARING: The northwest corner of Sykes Drive and Greenfields Drive is identified as a Park on the Concept Bubble Plan on Sheet 13 of the PUD Master Plan. Note that on the civil set for the PUD it is identified as proposed detention, and this is further confirmed in the PDP itself as a detention pond. It would seem that this depiction should change at this time given that an application has been made for a PDP on the property. I'm noting in the District 1 Standards that there is an indication that instead of the standard language in the LUC, that it is being modified to indicate a public or privately owned park that is a minimum of 5 acres. Is the language proposed to be modified consistent with the depiction in the plans? Response: The park shown will be a private developed, privately maintained, publicly accessible park for the immediate neighborhood as well as the greater community. It is correct that there will be detention in this park, but it is intended to also serve as re-use water storage so there will be consistent body of water that will serve as an amenity for the park and its users. Graphics have been updated to be clearer about this. 14. FOR HEARING: Please remove all the indication of "(By Others)" with respect to the future crossings of the BNSF. The City has no identified funding to accomplish these potential future crossings and the only likely manner in which these can be accomplished in the future is by abutting development/redevelopment within the PUD. Response: This label has been modified as requested. 15. FOR HEARING: Within the PBA conformance letter, there is the following indication: "As has been discussed with staff, the PUD shows Delozier Dr. curving west offsite from its current terminus and then curving south to connect with the existing off set alignment of the road below the ditch. The applicant’s intent is to entitle this alignment with the ODP." I'm not aware of any discussion that would suggest the City would support or encourage this alignment of Delozier off site. The City could be open to exploring this general alignment but it would be predicated on initial support from that abutting property owner which would have the road fully within its boundary. Response: The intent of the response was to indicate that we have added Delozier as requested by Staff, not necessarily that the alignment has been suggested by Staff. Regardless, the Delozier alignment has been further modified, and now straddle the property line, and is consistent with the transportation master plan alignment. Traffic Operation – Nicole Hahn Topic: Traffic Impact Study 1. FOR HEARING – UPDATED: In general we need a better overall understanding of all master level components of Traffic Study and general transportation network. We need to identify what improvements will happen to support the overall full build out of the project. This study focuses on key operations, but lacks the big picture perspective of the full buildout transportation network. Completing phase 1 study alongside the overall study will require identifying phasing for the list of improvements. Response: The TIS has been updated. 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. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: The TIS has been updated. 2. Continued Coordination Needed: 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 TIS has been updated to include the ROW for Delozier. 3. Continued Coordination Needed: 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 TIS has been updated to add the operations of this intersection. Transportation Planning – Seth Lorson Topic: General 1. 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: There is extensive open space, trails connections and a hierarchy of trails is now shown on the plan. We prefer to show all the transportation on one sheet as is shows how the overall transportation plan (trails, streets, etc.) interact with each other and provide a well-connected transportation network for the neighborhood. 2. FOR HEARING: Please provide cross sections and descriptions of the following facilities noted on the transportation plan:  Spur Trail Corridor  Parkway Corridor  Pedestrian Corridor Response: The intent is for trail sections to meet City standards, and the ultimate designs will occur at the time of future development applications, as appropriate. Schematic imagery is included to show some of these features within the supplemental graphics. Additionally, the project narrative mentions an "extensive trail corridor and pedestrian network". Please outline where and how this will be implemented. What kind of facilities will create the network? Response: Trails will be provided as shown within PUD Master Plan, additionally, internal trails and connectivity will be developed during future development applications. Language within the narrative has been added to further clarify the intent. 3. FOR HEARING: According to the Master Street Plan, a roundabout is planned for the intersection of Greenfields and International. Please work with our transportation team to evaluate the implementation of a roundabout. Response: This has been addressed as part of the TIS. Stormwater Floodplain – Claudia Quezada 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Topic: Floodplain 1. Please see redlines for minor comments to address. Response: These comments have been addressed in the resubmittal documents. Stormwater Engineering – Wes Lamarque Topic: General 1. FOR HEARING UPDATED: Please add a note on the Grading and Drainage Plans that the detention ponds are schematic and actual shape and size will be determined at future PDPs. Response: This note has been added. 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: Understood, at the time of future development applications the final grading will be developed. Grading shown within this PUD Master Plan is schematic. 2. FOR HEARING UPDATED: More discussion needed on this item. Response: Understood. 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: Pond A is outfalling South of Railroad Tracks as no easement has been obtained. Ponds A,B,C,D, and E outfall at the same point South of the Railroad Tracks to the East. 3. FOR HEARING UPDATED: Please dedicate a 30 foot wide drainage easement exclusively for this overflow channel. The overflow channel can also be used as an outfall for detained flows. Response: Easement shown, Grading shown further coordination will occur across the PDP and FDP submittals. 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: Peakview coordination is ongoing. Await final design and approval. 4. FOR HEARING UNRESOLVED: Response: Peakview coordination is ongoing. Await final design and approval. 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 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com overflow channel have not been finalized and have had issues with fitting this all in the area that was proposed. Response: Understood. Peakview coordination is ongoing. Await final design and approval. Light and Power – Tyler Siegmund Topic: General 1. FOR HEARING: Exhibits were not provided with the 2nd round submittal. These will need to be received prior to hearing. Please also include street tree(s) requirements, window wells (if applicable), air conditioning pads (if applicable) in the exhibits to ensure there is enough room to service residential lots that are not a minimum of 50ft wide. 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. Response: An exhibit has been provided as part of the design experience indicating how it might work. Ongoing coordination through PDP and FDP with all utility providers will continue. 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: No roads are proposed that do not meet current standards. If any variations are proposed in the future they will be reviewed and developed as part of future applications. This PUD Master Plan is not proposing to vest any updated street sections. 2. 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: Comment noted. Thank you. 3. INFORMATION: All utility easement and crossing permits (railroad, ditch, floodplain, etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained by the developer. Response: Understood. 4. 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: Understood and this will be addressed at the PDP/FDP step in the development process. 5. 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. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: CADD and PDF’s provided for coordination. 6. 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: CADD and PDF’s provided following coordination meeting. SAN was ok with 4’ separation on tight products 7. 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 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: Noted. Complete street light and tree placement will be indicated in future development applications. 8. 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: Understood. Thank you. 9. 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: Understood. Thank you. 10. 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: Understood. Thank you. 11. INFORMATION: All multi family buildings/units, single family attached and Carriage Houses will need 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/ElectricServiceStandards_FINAL_18November201 6_Amendment.pdf Response: Understood. Thank you. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 12. 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: Thank you for this information. 13. 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: Thank you. We will review these fees and pay at the appropriate time. Environmental Planning – Scott Benton Topic: General 1. FOR HEARING UNRESOLVED: 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. Response: Pond A is outfalling South of Railroad Tracks as no easement has been obtained. Ponds A,B,C,D, and E outfall at the same point South of the Railroad Tracks to the East. 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: Pond A is outfalling South of Railroad Tracks as no easement has been obtained. Ponds A,B,C,D, and E outfall at the same point South of the Railroad Tracks to the East. 2. FOR HEARING UNRESOLVED: 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: Hartford is working with the Lake Canal and will provide this information prior to the hearing. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 3. INFORMATION: 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: Understood. At the time of design during future applications we will be sure to work with Staff on this. 4. FOR HEARING: Environmental Planning's main concern at this point relates to finalizing a satisfactory solution to what is the main public benefit natural resources wise, which is routing stormwater drainage in a way that will restore flows to the Cooper Slough as far north as possible. I recognize the difficulties with obtaining offsite easements, etc., but this issue is really the only 'above and beyond' proposal of this PUD. Close coordination with the Stormwater department will be required in future conversations. Working through this issue at the PUD Master Plan level will help facilitate the review of the Bloom PDP. Response: Pond A is outfalling South of Railroad Tracks as no easement has been obtained. Ponds A,B,C,D, and E outfall at the same point South of the Railroad Tracks to the East. 5. FOR HEARING: Please display the American plum patch on all applicable plans (overall map showing all natural habitats and features, utility plans, landscape plans, etc.). Response: This information has been added to the Master Plan document. Forestry – Nils Saha Topic: General 1. FOR HEARING: 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. Response: Noted, Thank you. It is the intent of the project to coordinate with Forestry to improve the diversity and cover of Fort Collins’ urban tree canopy. 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. Response: Noted, Thank you. Parkways are designed to meet the new 8’ minimum. City staff has discussed potential modifications to setback requirements where feasible. Please continue to coordinate with city staff on subsequent designs proposals. Response: Noted, Thank you. 2. FOR HEARING: There has been a lot of coordination on anticipated utility layout. Will typical utility layouts be provided in the PUD review process? 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Response: A schematic exhibit has been included as part of this application that shows how utilities and landscape can would in a non-traditional housing option. It is intended that more fine grain detail will be provided during future development applications, as necessary. 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. 1. Canopy shade trees should be planted at 30 40’ spacing (LUC 3.2.1 (D)©) along street frontages. 2. Street Light/Tree Separation: o Canopy shade tree: 40 feet o Ornamental tree: 15 feet Response: Canopy shade trees and ornamental trees will be spaced per requirements where lot density and utility clearances allow. See response to item #2 above, the additional schematic exhibit illustrates how the trees and utility clearances will work in non-traditional housing areas. 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. Response: Noted, thank you. This level of detail will be provided in future development applications. 4. Driveway/Tree Separation: At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys. Response: Noted, thank you. This level of detail will be provided in future development applications. 5. Utility/Tree Separation: o 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines o 6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines o 4’ between trees and gas lines o 10’ between trees and electric vaults Response: A schematic exhibit has been included as part of this application that shows how utilities and landscape can would in a non-traditional housing option. It is intended that more fine grain detail will be provided during future development applications, as necessary. Parks – Aaron Wagner Topic: General 1. INFORMATION UPDATED: Parks Department and PP&D Planning staff can help with any questions you may have regarding these comments. Please contact Jill Wuertz (jwuertz@fcgov.com), 970 416 2062, or Parks Planning Technician, Aaron Wagner (aawagner@fcgov.com) 970 682 0344, 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 or PP&D's Senior Trails Planner Kyle Lambrecht (klambrecht@fcgov.com) regarding PP&D or the Parks’ Department’s interest. Response: Noted, thank you. 2. INFORMATION: Please review the comments supplied by PP&D to the development team for the first submittal review. The 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com trail comments still apply; PP&D and Parks need to see the trail easement(s), alignments, and other details reflected on the ODP as well as the PDP phases 1 and 2. Please coordinate with PP&D and the Parks Dept. for trails related issues. Response: Noted, thank you. Additional clarification has been provided indicating trail intent, per discussions with PP&D. 3. FOR HEARING: Please label the slopes for the proposed trails at the Underpass, At grade rail road crossing and approaches to confirm that they meet Accessibility Standards. Response: This information will be provided at the time of the appropriate development application. We don’t believe this information is appropriate to provide at the time of the PUD Master Plan as this detail has not been worked through and the PUD Master Plan. 4. INFORMATION: Please clarify what is to be constructed for this development. Will both the Regional Trail and internal pedestrian walk be constructed? The Landscape Plan is showing both trails, overlapping and the eastern portion of the trail, underpass and RR crossing are not shown in their entirety. Please coordinate with PP&D on the timing of the regional trail construction. Response: The PUD Master Plan does not show this level of detail. This type of detail will be provided during future development applications. Park Planning – Suzanne Bassinger Topic: General 1. 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: Thank you for this information. 2. FOR HEARING UPDATED: Please label the ‘Park’ space as ‘Private Park/Privately maintained, Publicly Accessible’ Response: This label has been updated as requested. 3. 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: Understood. Thank you for this information. 4. 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: Thank you. This information will be referenced at the time this is developed. 5. 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 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 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: Understood. At the time this trail is ultimately designed during future development applications we are committed to working with Staff on its design. 6. FOR HEARING UPDATED: Please show and label the Regional Trail Easement alignment on the Overall Development Plan per comment from the previous submittal. A kick off design meeting needs to be scheduled with PP&D’s new Senior Trails Planner Kyle Lambrecht (klambrecht@fcgov.com) as soon as possible to facilitate the trail alignment, underpass, and at grade RR crossing for Bloom Phase 1. Response: The Regional Trail is not proposed to be designed as part of Phase 1. 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. 7. 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: Understood. These will be referenced at the appropriate time in the design/development process. 8. 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: Understood. 9. INFORMATION: Recreational trails do not function as widened sidewalks adjacent or within street rights of way. Response: Understood and this application is not proposing this condition. 10. 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: Understood. Discussions about these connections will be made with Staff at the appropriate time during future development applications. 11. 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: Understood. This will be designed during future development applications and the applicant is committed to working with Staff on this item 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 12. 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: Understood. Thank you. 13. 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: Understood. This will be considered as trails and connections are developed as part of future applications. 14. 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: Understood. This will be designed during future development applications and the applicant is committed to working with Staff on this item. 15. 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%. Construction documents should include trail profiles and cross sections to demonstrate the ability to meet ADA standards. Response: Understood. This will be designed during future development applications and the applicant is committed to working with Staff on this item 16. 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: Understood. The Applicant is committed to continuing to work with Staff on the trail. 17. 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: Understood. This will be designed during future development applications and the applicant is committed to working with Staff on this item. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 18. 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: Understood. 19. 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: Understood. This will be designed during future development applications and the applicant is committed to working with Staff on this item. GIS – Lauren Wade Topic: General 1. INFORMATION: Waiting for final street names for A and B Drive. Other existing names are fine. Response: Noted. The east-west road, known as A-Drive will be Donella, with the suffix yet to be determined. The name for the north-south pedestrian street has not been selected yet. Technical Services – Jeff County Topic: Construction Drawings 1. 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: This has been updated. 2. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: All benchmarks must match on all sheets. Response: This has been updated. 3. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION 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. 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 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. 4. FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED Please change International "Drive" to International "Boulevard" on all sheets. Response: This has been updated. 5. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please change International "Drive" to International "Boulevard" on all sheets. Response: This has been updated. 6. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been updated. 7. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been updated. 8. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: There are matchline issues. See redlines. Response: This has been updated. Topic: General 1. FOR FINAL APPROVAL - UNRESOLVED: MASTER PLAN: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: This has been updated to be consistent. 2. 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: This has been updated to be consistent. 3. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: Please make sure all Ordinance numbers are added prior to recording final plans. Response: Understood. We can’t input until approval. 4. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: This has been addressed and updated. 5. FOR FINAL APPROVAL: MASTER PLAN: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: This has been addressed and updated. Urban Renewal Authority – Clay Frickey Topic: General 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com 1. FOR HEARING UPDATED: Thank you for amending the cover sheet of the PUD Master Plan to reference the Public Benefits Agreement. Could you please add language about the Resolution Council passed to adopt this Public Benefits Agreement? This will allow future reviewers to easily find the Public Benefits Agreement. The Resolution number is 2021 030. Response: The resolution # has been added to the cover sheet as requested. 2. 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: This has been added as requested.