HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - PDP210004 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS
Page 1 of 21
Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview
November 09, 2021
Sam Coutts
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Enclave at Redwood, PDP210004, Round Number 3
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Enclave at Redwood. If you have questions about any
comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your
Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970-221-6695 or via email at
tsullivan@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting processes. 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. To best serve you, please include me
in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any
phone conversations. Thank you!
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
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.
Page 2 of 21
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.
Files are to be named PLAN NAME_PROJECT NAME_REVIEW TYPE_ROUND NO.
Example: UTILITY PLANS_MY PROJECT_PDP_RD1.pdf
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
All "FOR HEARING" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to
moving forward with scheduling the hearing for this project.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review: Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180)
days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal
(or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan,
shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such
comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed
within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse
and become null and void.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
FOR HEARING: LUC Section 3.2.2 (l)
For the garages located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or
buildings, the driveway width should be increased to 28 feet.
Please include dimension callouts to show 28' building setbacks in addition to
the other callouts of 24' alley paving and Utility/Emergency Access easements
where applicable.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
FOR HEARING: Private Park
Please update plan set cover page to show 1.5-acre park size and clarify this is
a private park not public. The site and landscape plans with details need ot be
revised to show how the detention pond in park tract is usable space for park
operations including slope access, park amenities and lighting. When
integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this requirement,
the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict
with other recreational and civic purposes of the park.
This Park should be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout
and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear
yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50)
percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. Such parks shall consist of
multiple-use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches,
BBQ, or other features for various age groups to enjoy.
Page 3 of 21
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
FOR HEARING: Privacy Fence
Please show on site and landscape plan the 6' cedar privacy fence locations
that match detail. This fence should be along the west and north project
boundaries to provide screening from adjacent neighborhoods to proposed
paved drives, parking, and buildings.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/08/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)
I do not see the 9-foot utility easement along Redwood between Public Street C
and Suniga. Please add this.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)
I still do not see the utility easements along Redwood and Suniga frontages on the plat.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING
This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that
are necessary or required by the City for this project. Most easements to be
dedicated need to be public easements dedicated to the City. This shall
include the standard utility easements that are to be provided behind the
right-of-way (15 foot along an arterial, 8 foot along an alley, and 9 foot along all
other street classifications). Please add all adjacent roadway utility easements
(15-foot for Suniga, 9-foot for Redwood) to your plat.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/08/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)
Please use a pork chop style splitter island to prohibit left turns.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING
The Redwood St. and private drive A intersection does not meet City spacing
requirements and will need to be a 3/4 movement intersection. Please provide
a splitter island design that will prohibit left turns out of the site. It appears that
there will need to be a crosspan in that location as well, that is not currently
shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/08/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
Spencer's redlines from Round 2 were not fully addressed. Please see my
redlines for changes that need to be made in the utility plan.
09/15/2021: INFORMATION ONLY
Please refer to the current redlines for additional comments.
03/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLY
Please refer to the included redlines for additional comments. Please contact
me with any questions.
Page 4 of 21
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: FOR HEARING
Sheet 25 of the utility plan appears to indicate that Public Street B will have a
ROW width of 58 feet all the way up to the property line with Northfield. Just
beyond the property line, the ROW width tapers down to 57 feet. Will Enclave at
Redwood be constructing this offsite section of the street to connect smoothly with Northfield?
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/08/2021: FOR HEARING
The variance request has been reviewed by the City Engineer. We would like
the mitigation measures to be more clearly defined in the variance request
letter. Please see my notes on the letter. With the suggested revisions, the
variance request will most likely be approved.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING
The geometry of the intersection of private drive A and Steeley Dr. is very
problematic. It doesn't appear to meet our standards for angle of intersection
and doesn't appear to align very well from one side to the other. This will need
to be reconfigured to meet our standards.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING
The linework for proposed Suniga and the existing ROW of the Suniga frontage
does not appear to be shown correctly. You will need to coordinate with the
Northfield consultants and/or refer to the approved Nortfhield plans for the
correct Suniga roadway information. Also, please double-check what you are
showing for the existing ROW, etc. for the area. Also, on plan sheets showing
the proposed project.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)
Please show preliminary level information at least on this PDP that indicates
what is being constructed and where, for the ditch crossings.
03/02/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN
Please be aware that the roadway connections into the Northfield development
will not be made right at the property line as your profiles infer. The Northfield
developer is constructing the roadways short of the ditch on their side. This
project will be responsible for constructing the ditch crossings to tie into their
section. Your plans should show this. You don't need final level details, but you
need to be indicating generally what is happening in these locations.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 03/03/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING (UNRESOLVED)
03/03/2021: FOR HEARING
Per recommendations of your TIS, please show a preliminary design/layout of
the southbound right turn lane on Redwood St. approaching the Suniga intersection.
Page 5 of 21
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING
I have some concern with the proximity of some of the buildings to the private
alleys. There may be issues with sight distance in some locations. I believe the
alley width in general is still a concern of other departments with respect to utility
separations, fire access, etc.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
09/14/2021: FOR FINAL
We will want to see bridge designs for the ditch crossings as early as possible in the FDP
process. These plans will be reviewed by our Capital Projects engineers concurrently with
the FDP. The bridge design will be included in the FDP utility plan set.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING
The parcel on the south side of Suniga will need to have roadway improvements
constructed with this project (sidewalk, parkway, etc.) to the City's standard
“Collector - With Parking” street section. It appears that the needed
improvements will fit within the existing ROW, although the bike lane and
parking width may not be to current standards.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING
I think there still needs to be some more design detail looked at during PDP for
the proposed regional trail crossings of the ditch and the public roadways. I think it
would make a lot of sense to incorporate the trail section into the Steely roadway section
where it crosses the ditch. If it is separate, it will require a separate bridge structure
which may not be desirable for several reasons for the City and the developer.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING
At this point I am wondering what the reason is for wanting some of the internal
roadways to be private. The private street section is now shown being the
same as the public section. What is the benefit to the project of having some of
these roads be private if the section is physically the same?
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
What is the reason for the one enhanced pedestrian crossing shown on the site
at Street A/B intersection?
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING
Per discussions previously about the City's willingness to consider a variance
for the angle of intersection of Street A and Street B, there will be stop signs on
the minor legs of the intersection and there would be some evaluation of
potential traffic calming of Street A near the transition from Enclave at Redwood
to the existing residential neighborhood to the west.
Page 6 of 21
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
Please see updated redlines for separation issues between trees and storm
inlets. 10-ft clear (min.) needs to be provided from all storm drains and inlets to trees.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
Please see update redlines for separation issues.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Show all wet and dry utilities on the Landscape Plan and provide the minimum
required separations to trees and shrubs.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
Ponds 1-3 do not meet the requirements for pond landscaping and aesthetics.
These ponds will need to provide undulated sideslopes and varied planform.
Pond slopes may not exceed 4:1 and will need to include a stabilized
maintenance access path to the outlet.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
The detention pond landscaping and grading does not meet our aesthetic
requirements. The side slope needs to vary and articulate more than
presented. Please see requirements in the Grading Chapter (Chapter 8,
Section 3.1) of the FCSCM and also the Landscape Design Standards and
Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities in Appendix B.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f
orms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
The drainage report is stating that the UD2 detention system will be 1.66-ft from
groundwater. This would require a formal variance and may or may not be
acceptable. I will provide follow-up after my group discusses.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
I see the geotechnical reports provided in the appendix. For simplicity, please
add to the drainage report body a comparison of the measured groundwater
elevations with the proposed detention pond invert elevations. Confirm there is
2-feet minimum vertical separation provided. Please note the date(s) the
groundwater measurements were taken.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Groundwater issues:
-Please confirm there will be a minimum of 24-inches of vertical separation
between the bottom of all stormwater facilities and the seasonally high
groundwater level (July-Sept). Groundwater elevation data must be determined
from piezometer data taken during high groundwater months.
-The previous development planned at this location included an extensive
underdrain system to hold groundwater levels down. Can you confirm if you will
be needing a groundwater system? Currently the plans do not show one.
Page 7 of 21
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
In Public Street B the sanitary profile (San Line D) shows a vertical conflict
between the storm and sewer mains.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
Please profile the A2 lateral. Please provide profiles of storm lines up to the
furthest crossing with sewer, I have highlighted these sections in the redlines.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Provide profile drawings of all storm mains.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL – UPDATED:
Per our discussions this can be provided at FDP.
09/14/2021:
The onsite SWMM model will need to be added site to NECCO model (Existing
condition or “LOMR model”.) If you are unsure about which model files, please
contact Dan Evans at DaEvans@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL - UPDATED:
Please consider if there is a need for a cut off wall between the Lake Canal
Ditch and the underground detention systems. Provide a response regarding
your decision and the basis for it.
09/14/2021:
Detention ponds must be 20-feet or greater from irrigation ditches. This is measured
from top-of-slope to top-of-slope. Please review the grading for detention pond 2.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATED –
Surface overflow paths from the 3 underground detention areas need to be
identified and shown on the plans.
The spillway for Pond 1 (above ground) is acceptable.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:
Overflow spillways must be designed at 0.5-ft flow depth max per the FCSCM.
Please update designs and show spillway locations on the grading plans. If any
spillways will discharge into the Lake Canal, this will require an agreement with
the ditch company and a Letter of Intent before Hearing.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
- Thank you for providing the easements on the southern parcel.
- For Final Plan - please review the drainage patterns and confirm there are
easements for offsite flow paths.
- In addition, since this parcel is being dedicated as NHBZ, this parcel will never
develop further, as a result we need to consider if any further drainage master
plan improvements on the southern parcel will be required of this project. - I am
planning to wait until Final Plan to look into this further. Please let me know if you
need clarification sooner.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:
A3 Lateral comments:
The platted lot south of Suniga Road includes a master plan improvement for
Page 8 of 21
the “NECCO A3 Lateral.” Since you are not proposing improvements or
entitlement on this lot, the A3 lateral construction will not be required at this time.
However, the following are required on this lot for the development project:
- Provide existing ground topo.
- Show existing storm and other utilities.
- Provide 30-ft drainage easement along the Lake Canal for the future A3 line.
- Provide drainage easement along the flow path for all offsite flows that cross this parcel.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
The underground detention will require:
- 2-3 inspection ports on each water quality chamber
- Maintenance access ports must be provided so that all chambers may be
accessible by a vacuum truck.
- Access paths need to be provided so that all maintenance manholes are
accessible by a truck.
- Underdrain for each system
- Surface overflow identified for each underground system.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
I am concerned about the overall functionality of the large underground water
quality chambers. Maintenance access and ports will need to be provided to
facilitate cleaning – please discuss with ADS what is needed for an installation
this large. I am also concerned about the potential for large amount of trash and
debris loading and am wondering if there should be some sort of pre-treatment
component such as a large forebay or sump for regular maintenance. Please
consider this and respond with FDP round 1.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
An access path is needed for maintenance access to the above ground
detention outlet structure.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
On the detention pond summary table (Table 2 in drainage report), please add columns for:
a) Total Volume required (WQ + Detention), and
b) Volume Provided.
Please double check the sizing of your detention and WQ facilities, I think UD2
is slightly low (~3400-cf) but not concerning.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
Please clarify the contributing area for “standard” water quality in Pond 1 (areas
not treated by an LID) and present a calculation for the WQCV in Pond 1. (note,
areas treated with LID do not need to be included in the extended detention calculation).
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
In the SWMM model, the Redwood pond outlet has stability problems (see the
hydrograph), please review the modeling methods and revised to improve
stability at this location.
Page 9 of 21
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING:
Please confirm you are intending to proceed with the underground detention option.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING:
There are multiple locations that trees need to be adjusted or removed from the
plans to provide 10-ft minimum separation to fire hydrants and pipe as well as
6-feet to water services and fire services. Please check this before you resubmit.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Show all wet utilities on the Landscape Plan and provide the minimum required
separations from trees and shrubs. This includes 10-ft min. from trees to all
W/WW/SW mains, 6-ft min. from trees to W/WW services, and 4-ft min. from
shrubs to all W/WW/SW lines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
In Public Street B the sanitary profile (San Line D) shows a vertical conflict
between the storm and sewer mains.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
Please provide profiles of sewer mains up to the furthest storm crossing. I have
highlighted these sections in the redlines. Include the offsite sewer main profile with this plan set.
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Provide profile drawings of all sewer mains.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL – UPDATED:
Thank you for making the adjustment to the site plan to provide 15-ft minimum
separation to buildings from the sewer mains. However, upon further review of
the profiles, I was surprised to see the sewer 12-13 feet deep at locations. We
are not comfortable granting the reduced easement width (24-ft) for any
locations deeper than 9-ft. For locations deeper than 9-ft the standard 30-ft
sewer easement will need to be provided.
*Please contact me to discuss if this creates significant site plan issues.
09/14/2021:
The site plan shows 14-ft separation between sewer mains and buildings. This
does not meet the minimum requirement of 15-ft separation from sewer mains
to buildings. There are 2 options to proceed with this:
1. Revise the site plan to provide 15-ft minimum separation from sewer mains
to buildings, or
2. We could approve a variance for 14-ft minimum separation if an exclusive
sewer easement is dedicated along these alleys. This means no other public or
private utilities (telcom, electric, gas etc.) may run parallel in these easements.
Crossings of the exclusive sewer easement would need to be located in a
specific utility easement paralleling the crossing utility.
Page 10 of 21
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
Thank you for the LOIs from the Ditch Co. and the Ballet Co. You will also need
an LOI from the City of Fort Collins – please contact (xxxx) to discuss an LOI for
these City owned parcels. – see Final Comment letter on Friday for update to this comment.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:
Please provide Letters of Intent (LOIs) for all necessary offsite easements. This
includes crossings of Lake Canal (water and sewer) and sewer across the
Northfield and Schlagel properties. For final approval easements and
agreements will need to be executed.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING UPDATED –
Following up on the previous comments – these items have been addressed -
but additional concerns have been created at location where there are more
than 3 water service lines in a joint trench (approx. 1-foot separation between
services in joint trench). This is more than I anticipated with allowing the
separation requirements to be relaxed on the customer side of the meter and
raises the following questions:
- How do you anticipate these being built?
- I am concerned that this is not maintainable long-term. How would one line
be excavated to repair a future leak?
- Has the MEP sized these yet? These long service runs will have large pressure losses.
- Does any other criteria apply here - such as Building code?
- Can any of the mechanical rooms be relocated to shorten services?
These concerns need to be addressed to demonstrate the site plan is workable
before Hearing – and demonstrated that the design is constructible/
maintainable before final approval.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:
Please address the following items regarding water and sewer services:
- Separation to storm must be 10-ft min.
- Domestic water taps must have 3-ft minimum separation. Fire line taps
should have 5-ft separation. (See Water Wastewater Stormwater Construction
Standards, section 02646, 3.02)
- Will the buildings need fire service lines? If so, please show on the plans.
- Private water services should not run parallel to ROW in the utility easement.
Along Public Street A there are 2 services that need to be relocated. (see redlines.)
- Water services need to be perpendicular to the water main until the water meter.
- Sewer services should be perpendicular to the sewer main within the ROW.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING:
More detail is needed for the offsite sewer main (RE: alignment and profile) to
evaluate if this is a constructible option. Specifically:
a. Access needs to be provided to all manholes for maintenance. This is a 15
-ft wide path that can support 40-tons. It may make sense to discuss stabilized
turf options for manholes in the open space areas.
b. LOIs will be needed for all offsite easements – including the City of Fort
Collins parcels… TBD
Page 11 of 21
c. All utilities in the area need to be located and shown on the plan and
profiles. Specifically, the following items need to be added to the drawings:
- Storm system on the south and east side of the North Lemay Avenue Plaza
PUD parking lot.
- City of Fort Collins electric duct bank (roughly along north side of Lake Canal)
- Lake Canal Bridge crossing.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
For FDP, all water services will need to be sized following the AWWA M22
method. Please submit a service sizing summary memo with calculations attached.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
***Comment about WSR requirements for Final Plan - to be updated
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL
Fire service lines should have a shut off valve at the connection point to the
water main and not a curb stop (General comment).
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
Please see the included redlines for more comments related to final plan. The
redlines also include more information about written comments needing to be
resolved before Hearing.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
Please update the wastewater utility report to show flow calculations broken
down by each trunk main (Redwood and Lemay) that the site is going to connect to.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021
11/09/2021: Updated: Many of the proposed transformers are still considered
out of access. The requirement is 10' from an all-weather drivable surface.
Some of the transformers are 15' - 20' behind the curb line. On the private
drives, the pad mount transformers could be placed in the parkway. On the
public ROW this is not allowed. Additional transformers and/or vaults may be
necessary once the load information is available.
09/09/2021: Updated: Some of the transformer locations are considered out of
access and are not in the most suitable locations. The number and location of
transformers will be determined by the load and the number of service runs into
the transformer. The transformers are limited to a maximum of 8 runs with a
maximum cable size of 350kcmil.
03/01/2021: For Hearing: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated
with Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 feet of a drivable
surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also
have a front clearance of 10 feet and side/rear clearance of 3 feet minimum.
Page 12 of 21
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.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021
09/09/2021: Updated: Once transformer / vault locations are firmed up, Light &
Power will work on a streetlight layout to be shown on the plan set.
03/01/2021: For Hearing: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. 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.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021
11/09/2021: UPDATED: Leaving this one active as this information will determine
the amount of transformers and vaults needed for the design which could affect the site plan.
09/09/2021: UPDATED: This would be helpful earlier on in determining the
number and locations of transformers on the site.
03/01/2021: FOR FINAL: A customer owned service information form (C-1 form)
and a one-line diagram for all electric meters will need to be completed and
submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to
the C-1 form is below:
http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: For Hearing: Please label the customer owned secondary
services differently from the Light & Power primary cable. This will make it much
easier to distinguish between the two. Thank you.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: For Hearing: Please field locate and show the existing off-site
electric infrastructure where you are proposing the off-site sanitary sewer
alignment so we can see if separation is being met or if there are any conflicts.
There is a major electric duct bank running east west along the north edge of the
property from Redwood to Lemay.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
03/02/2021: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A development agreement
and security for the installation, materials, and monitoring of the NHBZ will be
required prior to DCP issuance.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING: Environmental Planning is supportive of this
alignment but additional detail is needed to fully understand the expected
impacts from this new iteration of sewer main on the south side of the
stormwater pond, offsite to the northeast. NHBZ-standard restoration will be
required as the proposed alignment is within the wetland buffer.
Page 13 of 21
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING: Additional discussion is required regarding
locating underground chambers within the NHBZ. Points of discussion (and
further clarification, additional detail, etc.) include the depth of the chambers, the
frequency and kind of required access for maintenance, access locations(s)
and extent, the landscaping that can be utilized on the surface (i.e., shrubs?),
and the extent to which the project would alter the hydrology/moisture regime above it.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING: Since the southern NHBZ parcel is being used to
satisfy buffering requirement, it should be dedicated/monumented as
non-developable on the site plans to prevent its sale or development in the future.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Prior to issuance of the Development
Construction Permit (DCP), and prior to prairie dog removal, please submit the
results of a burrowing owl survey completed by a professional, qualified wildlife
biologist, and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards if
removal is between March 15 and October 31. Note the timing requirements of
these surveys are between March 15 and October 31, as no burrowing owls are
expected to be present between November 1 and March 14.
Prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP), please
submit a letter explaining how and when prairie dog removal occurred at the site
and in accordance with the Division of Parks and Wildlife standards.
If trapping and donating is not pursued, then a payment in lieu fee will be
required. Payment in lieu fees are set by the Natural Areas Department and
currently is set at $1,637/acre if CO/PERC methods are not used, or $1,337 if
CO/PERC methods are used.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All plant species specified to be used in
the NHBZ, whether grass, forb, tree, or shrub, must be native to the area. The
following tree species are called out for use in the NHBZ but are not native:
Texas red oak, catalpa, Austrian pine, gingko, and Kentucky coffee tree. There
are some native tree species and a plethora of shrubs that could be used. I am
happy to coordinate further with the applicant team and Forestry if desired. I
commend you for your use of the Patriot elm.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The straight species of native
chokecherry is of greater value to wildlife (both invertebrates and vertebrates)
than the suckerpunch chokecherry cultivar. Please substitute the suckerpunch in
the NHBZ with the straight species.
Page 14 of 21
Department: Forestry
Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/09/2021 FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED
There are multiple tree separation issues with stormwater utilities, sewer lines,
water lines, structures, and other trees. In some situations, the separation
requirements between trees are not absolutely necessary, such as in detention
areas where trees have plenty of room and will not compete as much with each
other. However, conflicts with utilities must be ameliorated. I have submitted
some redlines for these issues, but there may be more that I missed.
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights
15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING
Continued:
When looking at the site plan, which includes utilities, compared to the
landscape plan, there are multiple separation issues that would eliminate very
high numbers of proposed trees. Please work with stormwater to find new
locations for utilities, so that trees can be planted along the parkways. I have
included submitted some redlines, but they are not exhaustive since the utilities
are not shown on the landscape plan.
Please include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not
limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, streetlights,
and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility
separation.
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights
15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights
11/13/20: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP
Please include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not
limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, streetlights,
and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility
separation.
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights
15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights
Page 15 of 21
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/09/21: FOR HEARING - UPDATED
Thank you for providing street trees along Suniga just east of Redwood. After
having discussions with Stormwater Utilities, I was made aware that the stormwater
drain on the north side of Suniga is extremely significant for is flood water drainage
and is the backbone drainage pipe for NECCO. Due to the importance of the integrity
of this pipe, please change the species along this area to ornamental trees.
03/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR HEARING
Thank you for providing street trees along Redwood and the north side of
Suniga. The Northfield development is responsible for constructing Suniga Dr.
and is therefore providing trees in the median just east of Redwood. The parcel
south of Suniga, however, is on the plat for your development. Please provide
street trees on the south side of Suniga Dr. as well at the north side.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
03/02/2021: FOR HEARING
Please include the trees just west of the Enclave boundary south of Conifer in
the tree inventory table. Although these are technically offsite, due to the
proximity of these City trees, mitigation should be recorded just in case.
Department: Parks
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021 FOR HEARING
There are no public parks shown at this location in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/. Please label the Park as
'Private Park/Privately Maintained, Publicly Accessible'.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING
Related to the above, if this area is going to be a combined park and a
detention facility, please specify how you plan to keep play or passive
recreational facilities from flooding and posing safety issues for park users.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Please adjust the trail alignment at both the northeast and southwest
connections to the regional trail planned for the Northfield development. Per
LCUASS Section 17, the minimum radius is 95 feet for 20 miles per hour. If a
substandard radius must be used, please take into account that curve warning
signs and supplemental pavement markings will be needed. Please also
consider widening the trail at these locations to partially offset the substandard
curves or attaching sidewalks to make additional room to accommodate better trail radii.
Page 16 of 21
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Please try to minimize manholes in the regional trail. Currently, there are
numerous manholes shown to be in the trail.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
As the trail will be near access points to residential units, please provide clarification
on how the trail will be separated from the numerous residential access points.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Local street at grade intersections with a recreational trail are to be avoided.
When necessary, the location of a future recreational trail at grade crossing
must be coordinated with Traffic Operations.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Park Planning and Development must approve the trail alignment and design.
The developer will be required to develop a centerline profile and cross-sections for
the trail as part of the site design.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
A trail easement may not be located within a ditch easement unless the
applicant provides written approval for the trail easement within the ditch
easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface cannot function as a
ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the trail to maintain the ditch.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INOFRMATION
Grading within the designated recreational trail easement is required to occur
during 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 and 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.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Park Planning and Development (PPD) would like to explore constructing the
regional trial in conjunction with the development of the site. There is no current
schedule for City construction of this portion of the trail. Construction is
scheduled as funds become available. Partnerships for cost-sharing between
the site developer and the City for trail construction along with site
improvements may allow construction to occur in a timely and cost-effective
manner. Park Planning & Development would be interested in developing such a partnership.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Landscaping within the recreational trail easement shall be provided in
accordance with all applicable City codes and will remain the responsibility of
the underlying landowner. Landscaping must provide acceptable clearances
from the trail surfaces as specified in the Trail Master Plan. Spray irrigation, if
Page 17 of 21
required, shall be designed, and maintained to avoid spray on the trail. As there
are currently substandard curves shown on the trail, please show that adequate
sight distance for trail users is accommodated.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Please plan to coordinate with Park Planning and Parks on the long term
maintenance determination for this segment of trail. If the trail is publicly owned,
the Parks Department will maintain. If the trail is private, the developer will
maintain. Maintenance consists of snowplowing of the paved surface,
occasional seasonal mowing 23’ adjacent to the trail surface and
repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail. The underlying property owner
shall be responsible for all other landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance within the easement.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2021
UPDATED 11/09/2021 FOR HEARING
Thank you for showing the enhanced pedestrian crossings for the regional trail
street crossings immediately west of the Lake Canal street-crossing (Public
Streets ‘A’ & ‘B’). Please label them as well on all applicable sheets for clarity.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING
Please show and label an enhanced pedestrian crossings for the regional trail
street crossings immediately west of the Lake Canal street-crossing (Public Streets ‘A’ & ‘B’).
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021
03/01/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Fire lane identification
Fire lane to be identified by red curb and/or signage, and maintained
unobstructed at all times. Fire lane sign locations or red curbing should be
labeled and detailed on final plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for
sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021
03/01/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Address Posting
New buildings shall have approved address numbers placed in a position that is
plainly legible, visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a
minimum of eight-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Address shall be
clearly visible on approach from any street, drive or fire lane that accesses the
site. Buildings that have fire lanes on sides other than the addressed street
side, shall have address numbers on the side of the building fronting the
roadway from which it is addressed. Buildings that are addressed on one
street, but are accessible from other drives or roads, shall have the address
numbers AND STREET NAME on each side that is accessible from another
drive or road. Where access is by means of a private road and the building
cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means
shall be used to identify the structure and best route.
Page 18 of 21
I would advise an earlier meeting with GIS to address concerns with buildings
facing greenspace that are only accessible by an alley.
11/01/2021: The note added to the plan indicates 1/8-inch numerals. Please
correct to 8-inch numerals.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021
03/01/2021: FOR HEARING:
Access to Buildings
Front doors onto a greenbelt or other landscape feature shall be provided with
an approved sidewalk to the front door that connects to with fire access roads
or lanes so as to provide direct and efficient access to any individual unit.
Some of the units are out of compliance and will need to provide this access.
11/01/2021: Please provide sidewalk connection on side of building or
between all alley access only buildings. Buildings 8,9,10,11,24,27,31,33,34,
38,40 and 41.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/03/2021
9/03/2021: FOR HEARING:
Required Fire Access
Fire access is required to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of any building
as measured by an approved route around the perimeter. If the building is
equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the distance can be
extended to 200 ft. Where this distance cannot be achieved from public streets,
private drives required for access shall be required to serve as fire lanes and
constructed to minimum standards. Fire lanes established on private property
shall be dedicated by plat or separate document as an Emergency Access
Easement. At this time, it is unclear where fire lanes are located as the plat
does not indicate an Emergency Access Easement.
11/01/2021: The Emergency Access Easements on the plat do not align with
the site plan. The hammerhead in front of building 34 shall be dedicated EAE as well.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/03/2021
09/03/2021: FOR HEARING:
GROUP R SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Comment response and narrative indicate a 13D sprinkler system installed in
all dwelling units. This type of system is only permitted in single family
dwellings. As these buildings will appear like single family attached (R3), they
will be considered multi-family buildings (R2).
New multi-family buildings shall be provided with NFPA13 (full protection) fire
suppression systems.
-Exception 1: M-F units with six (6) or fewer dwelling units per building will be
allowed to install 13-R fire suppression systems provided the units are
separated by one-hour construction (walls & floors).
-Exception 2: M-F units with seven to twelve (7 - 12) units per building will be
allowed to install 13-R fire suppression systems provided the units are
separated by two-hour construction (walls & floors).
Page 19 of 21
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/07/2021
09/07/2021: FOR HEARING:
WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy. A fire hydrant capable of providing 1500 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure is required within 300 feet of any commercial/multifamily building as
measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. For the purposes of this
code, hydrants on the opposite side of arterial roadways are not considered
accessible to the site.
An exception to this rule pertains to buildings equipped with a standpipe system
which require a hydrant within 100 feet of any Fire Department Connection (FDC).
11/01/2021: Hydrant location is measured by hose lay from fire apparatus
route. Buildings 7,8,32,33 and 34 are greater than 300 feet from the nearest hydrant.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Katy Hand, , khand@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: NOTICE: Locate buildings 10ft from property lines and 20 feet
from other buildings or provide fire rated walls with parapets with limited openings
(i.e. reduced doors and windows). The following buildings are closer than 20ft apart:
- 20 & 21
- 19 & 20
- 25 & 28
- 23 & 26
- 27 & 24
- 11 & 10
- 12 & 13
- 39 & 37
- 38 & 40
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: NOTICE: City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require
a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system in multifamily units. Exception: NFPA 13R
systems in buildings with no more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12
dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2 hour fire barrier with no more
than 6 dwelling units on each side).
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: NOTICE: Accessible parking and access aisles must be provided
in covered and open parking areas per current including van spaces where required by code.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: NOTICE: 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in
place) including accessible parking. Accessible parking should be provided in
the garages as where required by code.
Page 20 of 21
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: NOTICE: Accessibility is required per IBC, ICC-A117.1 and state
law CRS 9-5 (title 9) Plan grading accordingly and disperse accessible unit
types across the site (not all in one building) - submit a site-wide accessibility
plan showing how points will be met at time of building permit pre-submittal meeting.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: INFORMATIONAL: Each detached structure requires a separate
permit, this includes carports, bike shelters, trellises, pergolas and garage
buildings, maintenance buildings shade structures and pools.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: Multi-family Residential located within
1000ft of rail tracks, 500 of highway, or 250ft of a 4-lane road must provide
exterior wall composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/08/2021
11/08/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: A City licensed commercial general
contractor is required to construct any new multi-family structure
Contact: Lauren Wade, 970-302-5962, lwade@fcgov.com
Topic: GIS
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/13/2021
09/13/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: In addition to street names, please
name alleys which will be used for addressing buildings that are not adjacent to streets.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/08/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
09/15/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
03/02/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
11/08/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
No changes have been made to the Plat. All of the previous rounds of redlines
have been provided.
09/15/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
Page 21 of 21
03/02/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/24/2021
08/24/2021: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com