HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP210018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Page 1 of 19
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
December 03, 2021
Sam Coutts
Ripley Design Inc
419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Sanctuary on the Green, PDP210018, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Sanctuary on the Green. If yo u 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.
Ripley Design Inc. Response
NE Response
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
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: 2 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
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
Page 2 of 19
been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged.
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: 3 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are preparing to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with as much advanced notice as possible.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
Temporary Service Changes - City of Fort Collins Development Review
To best provide thorough reviews and give 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 level adjustments.
Currently, one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd
round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks). Lengths of subsequent
rounds of review will be considered after each round of review. Also,
Completeness Checks will be performed on all initial and Round 2 submittals
during this time. Please reach out with any questions or concer ns.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Jenny Axmacher, , jaxmacher@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
12/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Confirm Building #36 complies with 3.5.1.C, 3.5.1.D, and 4.5.E.4.d. Consider
switching the building out for a two-story building type instead.
Ripley: Buildings #35 and #36 have been shifted north to provide a landscape buffer between existing single family. There is now
over 40 feet from the proposed building to the property line, and nearly 80 feet of separation between the existing single fa mily and
the proposed building. We did investigate placing a 1-2 story townhome product there, however the footprint was too large for the
space. Building 36 does step down to have a 2 story unit on the end closest to the existing single family. This is inline with the
approach shown in Figure 7b of 3.5.1.C. Additionally, LUC 4.5.E.4.d doe not apply to this building as it is a single family attached
building, not a multifamily building.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/02/2021
12/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Page 3 of 19
A modification for 3.5.2.C.2 Single-family attached buildings will be needed due
to the similar buildings (Buildings 11 and 14 and 2 and 3) placed next to each
other along a street or street-like private drive. Alternatively, you could consider
varying the building types in these locations in lieu of a modification.
Ripley: 2 additional building elevations have been provided in order to vary buildings 11 and 14, and 2 and 23. See architectural
elevations sheets A8 and A10
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/02/2021
12/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
For the Two Family Attached Building Type, please reduce the overall height to
2.5 stories (or less), otherwise please confirm that the building elevations comply with
4.5.E.4. In general, staff would prefer to see building ele vations and massing for this building
type that looks more like two attached duplexes instead of a single four -plex.
Ripley: Per discussions with planning department, two-family attached buildings have been changed back to single -family attached
due to multi-family design standards constraints. A modification has been provided with this application to request for a reduced
number of housing types.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/02/2021
12/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Add the number of stories proposed to the building type label on the overall site
plan (sheet 2 of 22). Alternately, you could add the story information on the
legend in the building type labels.
Ripley: Overall site plan labels updated with number of stories.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING:
The temporary interim asphalt trail out to Laporte Avenue will need verification
on whom is the responsible party to maintain. It is assumed that the
developer/development will be the responsible party as an offsite improvement.
At time of final plan, a design of the ultimate street improvement should be
provided as evidence that the future improvement can work with the project's
establishing of the street system to the north.
NE Response: Developer will be responsible for interim trail. Acknowled ged, we will provide ultimate street connection at Final.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING:
An underdrain system is called out on the plans, appearing mainly in the detention
pond. Is this underdrain system acting to deal with existing groundwater? That along
with groundwater found at 5 feet requires a subsurface hydrology report.
NE Response: Per groundwater and street separation exhibit emails with Marc V, a subsurface hydrology report is no longer being
requested. The underdrain is intended to mitigate seepage into the channel, not to be implemented with the restoration of Soldier
Creek.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING:
It appears that New Mercer Ditch and Larimer Canal No. 2 are impacted ditches with
the project and letters of intent from the ditches should be provided prior to hearing.
NE Response: Per meeting with ditch company on 1/17, they are comfortable with us proceeding to Final. Ditch company
Page 4 of 19
secretary to email Todd with this notice.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR FINAL:
The box culverts will need design for review and will be required to be designed
and built to LCUASS requirements.
NE Response: Box culvert design will be provided at Final.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR FINAL:
Street patching to full bike lane width and at right angle to travel lanes. This
would apply to both the work in Laporte and the storm lines across Taft Hill Road.
NE Response: Proposed sawcuts modified to cover bike lane width and remain orthogonal with road centerlines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
FOR FINAL UPDATE: We'll need to work with you on final signing and striping plans.
NE Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: INFORMATION ONLY
The RRFB's on LaPorte at Impala and Barton are not currently funded within the
City Budget and will be the responsibility of the development.
NE Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR FINAL
We may need to work on the size of the opening in the protection along LaPorte
for driveways - depending on the design vehicle, it may need to be larger.
Please dimension each opening width on the plans. The protection (curbing )
will also need delineators on top every now and then. Include a detail in the plans.
NE Response: Please further clarify what you mean. We will provide at Final.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR FINAL
The right of way for Street A is proposed for a 51 -foot, Residential Local Street which is
designed to be used for residential local streets providing access to single -family detached
dwelling with driveways. This standard may have change since the initia l submittal but in
order to keep this roadway width, parking will need to be removed along one side of the roadway.
Please show the appropriate no parking signage along the north side of Street A
NE Response: Signage added along north edge of Street A.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION ONLY
I am still reviewing the revised TIS and will provide comments as soon as I am
able to. I do not anticipate any comments that would impact the project and site
layout, since the traffic generation is lower than the previous plan and the
general site and access layout, improvements, etc. are not significantly different.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Page 5 of 19
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/22/2021
11/22/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the
erosion control requirements located in the Stormwater Design Criteria,
Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion
Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets
one of the other triggering criteria (sensitive area, steep slopes, or larger common
development) that would require Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted.
NE Response: A SWMP report and other erosion control materials will be submitted with Final.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/22/2021
11/22/2021: FOR FINAL:
Please submit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3)
Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans provided include a individual
sequence sheets in accordance with (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3.2)
Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and Reports include
phasing requirements (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5)
Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the
accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5)
Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4)
NE Response: Erosion control plans and report to be submitted with Final.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/22/2021
11/22/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:
The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2
was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections.
As of January 1st, 2021, these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections.
The Erosion Control fees are based on; the number of lots, the total site
disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be active and the
Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number of LID/WQ Features that
are designed for on this project.
Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are
assuming 212 lots, 41.39 acres of disturbance, 5 years from demo thr ough
build out of construction and an additional 4 years until full vegetative
stabilization due to seeding, which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $11072.54.
Based on 8 bioretention/level spreaders, 5 extended detention basins, and 2
underground treatment systems, the estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ
Inspection fee is $ 4,600.00
Page 6 of 19
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the
above-mentioned values change the fees may need to be modified. I have
provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at these estimates for your review.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/22/2021
11/22/2021: FOR FINAL:
Please address all comments provided on the redlined Erosion and Sediment Control Plans.
NE Response: Redlines addressed, please clarify comment regarding protection for channel west of detention pond 2 for Final.
Department: Stormwater Engineering - Floodplain
Contact: Claudia Quezada, (970)416-2494, cquezada@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR FINAL:
Please see redlines for clarification and minor comments to address.
NE Response: Redlines addressed, see attached responses.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR FINAL:
Please address the previous comments on the floodplain report, modeling, and mapping.
NE Response: Redlines addressed, notes added to floodplain exhibit , see attached responses .
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/01/2021
12/01/2021: FOR HEARING:
Please provide an updated "Letter of Intent" for all required offsite drainage
easements and for the outfall from Larimer County No. 2 Ditch Company.
NE Response: Per meeting with ditch company on 1/17, they are comfortable with us proceeding to Final. Ditch company
secretary to email Todd with this notice.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/01/2021
12/01/2021: FOR INFORMATION ONLY:
The City does not require a 20% increase of water quality volume for a 12 -hour drain time
which includes rain gardens and underground filtration, like Stormtech chambers. This is
required for extended detention and other 40 -hour water quality drain times.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/01/2021
12/01/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN:
There are a few locations where trees are too close to storm sewers. Please
provide 10 ft of separation. The storm sewer in Street A looks to be around 9 ft
from the parkway trees at some locations. This situation is OK with Stormwater Utility.
Ripley Response: Will address at final.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Page 7 of 19
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING:
The City would like to discuss reducing some of the water main in the southeast
area of the development near the cul -de-sac on Street B. A meeting may be best to discuss.
NE Response: Updated water/sanitary layout for street B cul-de-sac in coordination with Wes via email.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION:
It does not appear that the changes to your site plan will have a dramatic effect
on your electric design. I look forward to solidifying the design at FDP.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR FDP:
Multifamily buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a (C 1) form
must be filled out and submitted to Light & Power Engineering along with
one-line diagrams. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of
the developer and their electrical consultant or contractor.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION:
Light and Power would like to remind you that all of our facilities must have a ten
foot clearance away from all water, wastewater, and storm sewer facilities. We
also require a three-foot clearance away from all other utilities with the exception
of communication lines.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION:
Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification
charges necessary will apply to this development.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION:
You may contact Austin Kreager, project engineering if you have questions.
(970) 224-6152. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service
Standards at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar
ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you
Page 8 of 19
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR PDP APPROVAL
The grading and stormwater infrastructure within the NHBZ is not reflective of a
naturalized aesthetic. Please vary the grading within the NHBZ so that it does
not look engineered. This is particularly the case on sheet C3.04.
NE Response: Updated grading to look more naturalistic.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR PDP APPROVAL
It looks as though the NHBZ boundary reflects the old PDP submittal site plan
and has not been updated to reflect site plan changes. Please review the NHBZ
boundary to ensure that it makes sense from a long -term maintenance and
documentation perspective. Also, curious if rain gardens can be included in the
NHBZ? I am happy to meet and work through this with you if you would like.
Based on changes, L-46 will have to be updated, along with the NHBZ in all
utility, grading, site plan and landscape plans
Ripley Response: We have had success with rain gardens located in NHBZs as well as detention in the past. Rain gardens help
contribute to the overall success of the surrounding natural habitat by providing a new ecology type to the buffer.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR PDP APPROVAL
The trees being removed on the tree mitigation plan will need to be reviewed
based on the current grading plan. There are a few trees that will now be
removed based on updated grading and utility plans. Mitigation values will have
to be addressed on the landscape plans. Along those lines, the demolition
plans will have to be updated as well. I have provided redlines for ease of review.
Ripley Response: Grading and trees were reviewed with forestry. There were several trees proposed to be removed tha t were
mistakenly shown in the grading plan. Tree mitigation plan and grading plan have been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR PDP APPROVAL
Please indicate the NHBZ on utility and grading plans. Once I am able to look at
the proposed grading and utilities within NHBZs I may have additional comments.
Thank you.
Ripley Response: We apologize, this comment slipped through the cracks. We will send a separate exhibit for you to review.
Department: Parks
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION ONLY
Parks Department 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 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
Page 9 of 19
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING
The Parks Department has ownership stake in the New Mercer Ditch and
utilizes this ditch for raw water irrigation for several parks and cemeteries. The
development would appear to require modifications and crossings to the New
Mercer Ditch (ditch), which is owned and used by The Parks Department (Parks)
and other water users. The development would also deliver stormwater into this ditch.
These aspects of the development thus trigger the need for an agreement with the ditch
company. Please provide a signed Letter of Intent from the ditch company.
NE Response: We are working with the ditch company on necessary approvals. Per meeting with ditch company on 1/17, they are
comfortable with us proceeding to Final. Ditch company secretary to email Todd with this notice.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING
Please show and label a 20 ft Ditch Maintenance Access Easement from the
top of bank on both sides of the ditch. Lab el the 20 ft offset: "20 ft Ditch
Maintenance Access Easement" and show on Site, Landscape and Utility
Plans. Please coordinate with the Parks for ingress/egress points and specifications.
NE Response: As discussed with ditch company, they only need access road on the north side as that is all they have ever
historically used.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING
Please also include the following note on the plans and other documents: “The
New Mercer Ditch is owned by numerous individuals as well as the City of Fort
Collins (through the Parks Department) who use the ditch to convey irrigation
water. Approval from the irrigation ditch owners is required prior to any work on
the ditch or in its easement, as well as before any stormwater can be discharged,
or planned to be discharged into the ditch. Please contact Jill Wuertz (970 -416-2062),
413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest.”
NE Response: We are working with the ditch company to obtain necessary approvals and Crossing Agreements once further details
are produced during Final Plan. Per meeting with ditch company on 1/17, they are comfortable with us proceeding to Final.
Ditch company secretary to email Todd with this notice.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION
The Stormwater Department maintains the Soldier Creek Trail. Maintenance
consists of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing 2
to 3 ft. 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. Please coordinate with
Parks Planning on required typical trail cross sections for the proposed connection.
Ripley Response: Understood, these details will be figured out at final plan
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION
If there is a need to close a section of the Soldier Creek Trail for any reason, a
traffic control plan is required to be submitted and approved through Traffic
Control. The Stormwater Department will sign off on it once approved. Please
keep the closures to the shortest amount of time depending on work scheduling and flow.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
Page 10 of 19
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING
Please label the 8 ft. Wide trail through the project as “Private Trail/Privately
Maintained, Publicly Accessible” on all applicable plan sheets for clarity. Parks
does not allow signage limiting access (i.e., No Trespassing) or modes of transportation.
There is a speed limit factor that can be posted for E-Bikes and Scooters.
NE Response: Please coordinate this comment with Park Planning as we received conflicting direction on
how to label the trails.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1.21 Comment Originated: 12/03/2021
12/3/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED:
Continued:
Please review Forestry redlines and adjust tree-utility separations as needed.
5/24/2019: FOR FDP
There are various tree/utility separation conflicts. See redlines for examples
(L24) and adjust accordingly. Sewer and water lines should be approximately
10’ from shade trees.
Ripley Response: Understood, per conversations with Forestry these will be addressed at Final
Comment Number: 2.24 Comment Originated: 12/03/2021
12/3/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED
Continued:
There are still areas where trees are less than 7-ft from walkways. Please adjust
all tree locations as needed.
Ripley Response: Understood, many trees have been corrected although final adjustments will be made at final.
5/24/2019: FOR HEARING
Trees should be approximately 7 feet from walkways. There are several
instances of proposed trees being too close to walkways. Please see redlines
and adjust accordingly.
Comment Number: 3.30 Comment Originated: 12/03/2021
12/3/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UDPATED
Continued:
Please review Forestry redlines and review areas where trees need to be
adjusted away from storm drains and main lines.
Ripley Response: Redlines were reviewed, comments will be picked up at Final Plan
8/26/2019: FOR FINAL
Please see redlines for examples for where proposed trees do not meet
stormwater separation requirements.
Comment Number: 4.33 Comment Originated: 12/03/2021
12/3/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UPDATED
Continued:
Please review Forestry redlines and adjust tree-utility separations as needed.
Ripley Response: Redlines were reviewed, comments will be picked up at Final Plan
Page 11 of 19
7/21/2020: FOR FINAL
Tree/utility separation to be verified at final.
Please note that there are several electric vaults that are in direct conflict with
proposed trees. Please provide 10’ of separation between street trees and electric vaults.
Comment Number: 5.37 Comment Originated: 12/03/2021
12/3/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Please bold stop-sign symbols on the plans and ensure 50-ft separation between street trees.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged, comments will be picked up at Final Plan
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: The Park Planning & Development Department is
available to discuss these comments in more detail. Please contact Kyle
Lambrecht, PE at 970 416 4340, klambrecht@fcgov.com.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section
3.4.8 “Parks and Trails” addresses compliance with the 2021 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan indicates the general
location of all parks and regional recreational trails. Parcels adjacent to or
including facilities indicated in the Master Plan may be required to provide area
for development of these facilities. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is
available at https://www.fcgov.com/parksandrecplan/.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan
(“Trail Master Plan”) was adopted by City Council and provides conceptual
locations and general trail design guidelines for future regional recreational
trails. The Trail Master Plan is available at https://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/plans and policies .
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(“LCUASS”), Chapter 16 Pedestrian Facilities and Chapter 17 Bicycle
Facilities provide additional design guidelines for multi-use recreational trails.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: Grade separated crossings of arterial roadways
and major collectors are required (LCUASS Chapter 17.3) and provide safe
trail connectivity. Additional easement area for underpass/overpass approaches
may be required in locations of potential grade separated crossings for the trail.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
Page 12 of 19
11/30/2021: 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 both Park Planning and Development and Traffic Operations.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: Multi-purpose trails do not function as widened
sidewalks adjacent or within street rights-of-way.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: The 2006 Northwest Subarea Plan, Chapter 4,
presents conceptual alignments for multi-purpose trails which not only connect
neighborhoods within the plan area but also provide connectivity to regionally
significant trails. Thank you for already recognizing this subarea plan, and
please continue to reference it as this development is located within the plan’s subarea.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: Park Planning and Development must approve the
trail alignment and design.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged, comments will be picked up at Final Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING: The width of the internal multi -purpose trail shall
be 8’. Trail width call-outs on the utility plans identify both an 8’ and 6’ trail
(sheets C2.01, C2.02, C2.04). Please update the utility plan sheets to reflect a
consistent 8’ wide multi-purpose trail width. Please reference redlined drawings.
NE Response: Updated labels for 8’ multi-use trail.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING: Please update the utility plan sheets to identify the
8’ multi-purpose trail as a multi-purpose trail. There are numerous instances
where the trail is identified as a sidewalk. Please reference redlined drawings.
NE Response: Updated labels for 8’ multi-use trail.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: Please provide clarification as to how the trail will
tie into Laporte Avenue.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged, comment will be picked up at Final Plan.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING: The City discourages heavy equipment using the
trail to access and maintain utilities. At a minimum, please relocate manholes
that fall within the trail. If an alternative alignment for the utilities or trail cannot
be provided, please provide a cross sectional design for the trail ensuring the
trail can handle additional loading. Please reference redlined drawing for locations.
NE Response: Relocated manhole outside of trail path.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: FOR HEARING: The internal 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/pedest rian
system should be provided at limited and defined access points. Currently, 14 lots are showing direct
Page 13 of 19
connections to the internal multi-purpose trail.
Ripley Response: Per discussions with Park Planning, internal access will be allowed onto the trail so long that trail is designed with
this kind of traffic in mind. Trail has been widened from 5 to 8 feet throughout plan. Additional d esign details will be provided at final
plan.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: Please plan to develop a trail plan and centerline
profile design. This shall include engineering design for any grade separations
associated with the filing. If an underpass is designed, minimum box size shall
be 12’ wide and provide at least 10’ of clearance. Please show proposed
easement needs associated with the trail on the plan sheets. 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%. Trail cross
sections shall also be developed and included with the plan and profile design.
NE Response: Acknowledged, we will ensure that these criteria are met during detailed grading at Final Plan.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: If the site is indicated for a future park the plat
must dedicate a tract as a “Future City Park Site”.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: Tracts dedicated as a “Future City Park Site” shall be
7to10 acres and will be reserved for future purchase and development by the City. Until
the site is purchased by the City the landowner is responsible for all maintenance o f the tract.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: 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.
NE Response: Acknowledged, we are working with the ditch company and will apply for any necessary Crossing Permits during
Final Plan.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: As this segment of multi -purpose trail is not
considered a component of the regional trail system, the Developer is
responsible for the construction of the trail within the development and as
identified on the plans. Construction of the trail improvements must be
complete and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: The Developer is responsible for the long -term
maintenance of the multi-purpose trail within the development. Maintenance
consists of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional seasonal mowing
2-3’ adjacent to the trail surface, repairing/replacing surface damage of the trail,
and all other landscaping maintenance within the easement.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/30/2021
11/30/2021: INFORMATION: Although this trail will be privately built and
maintained, the trail will be available for public use as authorized with a blanket
Page 14 of 19
access easement identified for Tracts Y and N.
NE Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/02/2021
12/02/2021: FOR HEARING: Please adjust the trail connection at Taft Hill Road
to have a more perpendicular approach into the ramp. In addition, please
increase the radii of the two 90 degree bends in the trail to improve user
experience. 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.
NE Response: Increased trail radii to as much as possible and widened trail at corners. Warning signs will be provided as needed.
This section of trail is adjacent to Taft Hill, which will require a stop condition. Therefore, it is unlikely that cyclists (or others) will be
going 20 mph in this location.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/24/2021
11/24/2021: FOR HEARING
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
Buildings over 30' in height trigger additional fire lane requirements in order to
accommodate the logistical needs of aerial apparatus (ladder trucks). The
intent of the code is to provide for rescue operations and roof access via ladder
trucks when ground ladders cannot reach upper floors. Aerial access should
therefore, be available on at least one long side of the building, located within a
minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building or as otherwise
approved by the fire marshal. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a
minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate
vicinity of the building or portion thereof. Dead end access roads shall have a
minimum width of 30 ft.
-Building 7 is located further than 30 ft from the public road. The rear alley is
within an appropriate distance to be considered for aerial access but it is only
20 ft wide. It will need to be a minimum of 30 ft wide for a dead-end access road
used for aerial access.
Building 33 is located further than 30 ft from the public road and less than 15 -
feet from the rear alley. The front elevation does not provide enough access
points to be considered the only side of aerial access.
Building 34 only has access from the side and rear alley of the building and -
both are located closer than 15 ft to the building.
-Building 35 and 36 only have access from the rear alley but the site plan shows
the alley is unobstructed at only 20 ft wide. It will need to match the plat and/or
be minimum 26 ft wide to be considered for aerial access.
Ripley Response: Rear alley of building 7 widened to 26’ for aerial access. Dead end drive is less than 150’ in length, and is able to
be backed out of. Can widen to 30’ in final if needed. Rear alley for building 35 and 36 widened to 26’. Building 33 is located within
Page 15 of 19
30 ft of the public road and building type has been switched to provide required access points. Building 34 type has been switched
to a style with lower eave and roof ladder for access. See architectural elevations sheet A4.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/24/2021
11/24/2021: FOR HEARING
FIRE ACCESS ROADS
A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to
the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any
new fire lane must meet the following general requirements:
-Fire lanes established on private property shall be dedicated by plat or
separate document as an Emergency Access Easement.
-Maintain the required 20-foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum
overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20 feet in width, the full width
shall be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ.
- Access roads with a hydrant are required to be 26 ft wide.
-Additional fire lane requirements are triggered for buildings greater than 30' in
height. Refer to Appendix D105 of the International Fire Code.
-Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons.
-Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved turnaround area for fire apparatus.
-Dead-end roads shall not exceed 660 feet in length without providing for a
second point of access.
-The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum
of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted pl ans.
-Dedicated fire lanes are required to connect to the Public Way unless
otherwise approved by the AHJ.
-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.
-In Block 6 between lots 34 and 35, the center access road is only 20 ft wide.
This access leads to an aerial access road and will need to meet the aerial
access requirement of 26 ft.
-In Block 5 between lots 4 and 5, the center access road is only 20 ft wide. This
access leads to an aerial access road and will need to meet the aerial access
requirement of 26 ft. Block 4 between lots 18 and 19, is not currently used for
aerial access unless it is provided for buildings 33 and 34 from the alley.
- On the side access road of building 7, the width is only 24 ft. This will be used
as aerial access so it will need to be 26 ft wide.
The intermediate hammerhead between building 4 and 5 is only 20 ft wide.-
This is part of an aerial access road and will need to be 26 ft wide
-Many of the alley access entrance corners do not meet the required turning radius.
Ripley Response: Block 6 access road between lots 34 and 35 and Block 5 access road between lots 4 and 5 widened to 26’. Side
access road of building 7 widened to 26’. In regards to the hammerhead between building 4 and 5, per IFC code section D 105.1,
Page 16 of 19
‘Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus
access roads shall be provided’. In this case, the units directly adjacent to the hammerhead are two story units and fall below the 30
foot requirement. See provided autoturn exhibit demonstrating PFA trucks can adequately navigate these radii. Any potential
conflicts with cab overhang have been mitigated by providing no to low-height planting.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/24/2021: FOR HEARING
ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS - An approved access walkway leading
from fire apparatus access roads to the main egress door of the building shall
be provided for all buildings. Any structures that do not face a public street or
access road shall provide an intermediate walkway between buildings and the
end of buildings. Please provide details on site plan for the access walkway.
Ripley Response: Additional walkways have been provided per meeting with PFA. See site plan enlargement sheets for details
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR FINAL
WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy. A fire hydrant capable of providing 1500 (1000) gpm at 20 psi
residual pressure is required within 300 (400) feet of any commercial
(residential) building as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. It
appears that the proposed hydrants meet these distance requirements. It is up
to the developer to verify hydrant flow.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR HEARING
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS
Fire access is required to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of any building,
or facility ground floor as measured by an approved route around the perimeter.
The Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center is out of access but appears to have a
fire line noted on the Utility Plans. What is the proposal for this building?
Ripley Response: This building will be fully sprinklered as required by IBC, therefore increased perimeter access is allowed and
achieved.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR FINAL
PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING
Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in
wayfinding. Addresses shall be posted on each structure and where otherwise
needed to aid in wayfinding. Code language provided below.
- IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted
with a minimum of eight-inch numerals on a contrasting background. 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. An addressing plan shall be submitted by
final plan to review how units facing the green spaces will be identified.
Ripley Response: Understood. Wayfinding and addressing details will be provided at final plans.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
Page 17 of 19
11/29/2021: FOR PERMIT
KEY BOXES REQUIRED
- IFC 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy P-13-8.11: Poudre Fire
Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in an
approved, exterior location (or locations) on every new or existing building
equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The box shall be
positioned 3 to 6 feet above finished floor and within 10 feet of the front door, or
closest door to the fire alarm panel. Exception can be made by the PFA if it is
more logical to have the box located somewhere else on the structure. Knox
Box size, number, and location(s) to be determined at building permit and/or by
time of final CO.
All new or existing Knox Boxes must contain the following keys as they apply to the building:
- Exterior Master
- Riser room
- Fire panel
- Elevator key if equipped with an elevator
The number of floors determines the number of sets of keys needed. Each set
will be placed on their own key ring.
- Single story buildings must have 1 of each key
- 2-3 story buildings must have 2 of each key
For further details or to determine the size of Knox Box required, contact the Poudre Fire Authority.
Ripley Response: Understood. Knox boxes will be provided at time of permit.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR PERMIT
FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS
Fire alarm systems and smoke detection shall be installed as required by IFC
Section 907.2.1 through 907.2.23. and provide occupant notification in accordance
with IFC Section 907.5
Ripley Response: Understood.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR INFORMATION
PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL
When you submit for your building permit though the City of Fort Collins please
be advised Poudre Fire Authority is an additional and separate submittal. The
link for Poudre Fire Authority’s plan review application can be found at
https://www.poudre-fire.org/online-services/contractors-plan-reviews-and-permit
s/new-building-plan-review-application.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR INFORMATION
CODES AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: This project was reviewed under the
2018 IFC and local amendments. Adoption of the 2021 IFC and local
amendments is expected in early 2022.
- Copies of our local amendments can be found here:
https://www.poudre-fire.org/programs-services/community-safety-services-fire-p
revention/fire-code-adoption
- Free versions of the IFC can be found here: https://codes.iccsafe.org
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Katy Hand, , khand@fcgov.com
Page 18 of 19
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: TOWNHOMES:
1.FOR FDP: Provide a site-wide accessibility plan in accordance with state
accessibility requirement CRS 9-5 (Title 9). Show how required points will be
met (preliminary is fine). On the site plan show:
a.Which units will be accessible?
b.What type/level of accessibility?
c. How accessibility points are being achieved?
d.Plan grading accordingly for accessibly main door entrance.
e.Accessible/adaptable units provided should be dispersed across the
development and in different building types.
2.Attached single-family and two-family townhomes are required to be fire
sprinkled per local amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and
provide fire rated wall per R302. Determine what water line size will be provided
to dwellings so the fire-sprinkler system can be designed.
3.provide 3ft setback from the furthest projecting element to property line or
provide fire rated walls/ projections and openings, must be limited/fire protected
per chap 3 of the IRC
4.(2) 1hr walls (i.e.) 2hr fire barriers constructed between townhomes should
be continuous to the roof deck and furthest projecting element per current IRC
and local amendments (this includes covered patios and decks).
5.Gas lines cannot run through the interior building to adjacent units.
6.New homes must provide PV ready. Townhomes with attached garages
must be EV ready – (conduit in place).
7.Bedroom egress windows or doors (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms.
8.Each townhome unit will require an separate air tightness test for certificate
of occupancy passing at 3ACH. Consider air barrier details between units for
the building design.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged, comments will be picked up at Final Plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES:
1. Roof overhangs located closer than 5ft to the property lines must be fire
protected per current code.
2. Homes must be PV ready. Homes with attached garages must be PV ready.
3. Dwellings and garages must be located 5ft min to property line or be
constructed with fire rated walls with limited/no openings.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: FOR BUILDING PERMIT:
Please visit our website for current adopted codes, local amendments, and
submittal requirements. Note: 2021 Building Codes will be adopted early 2022
https://www.fcgov.com/building/application.php
https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php
https://www.fcgov.com/building/energycode
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: INFORMATIONAL:
Page 19 of 19
A licensed general contractor and licensed subcontractors are required .
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021: INFORMATIONAL:
Each detached structure requires a separate pe rmit, this includes carports, bike
shelters, trellises, pergolas and garage buildings, and shade structures,
maintenance buildings and play structures.
Ripley Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/02/2021
12/02/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
NE Response: Acknowledged, thank you.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2021
12/02/2021: FOR HEARING:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
NE Response: Plat updated per redlines.
Department: Outside Agencies
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2021
11/29/2021:
New Mercer Ditch and Larimer Canal #2, Melissa Buick, melissahbuick@gmail.com
The plans do not contain enough detail for comment and approval at this time.
Any ditch crossing or encroachment of the ditch easement will require an
agreement with the ditch company. We request developers provide a list of
ditch crossings, relocations, and requests for discharge, including plans and
details for each crossing/encroachment to begin the permit process and will
request a meeting with the engineers.
NE Response: Understood, we will continue to work with you at Final Plan to develop details and obtain necessary Crossing
Permits.