HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - PDP210004 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 6 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPage 1 of 20
COMMENT RESPONSES:
RIPLEY DESIGN
HKS
DHIC
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
February 18, 2022
Sam Coutts
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Ave., Ste. 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Enclave at Redwood, PDP210004, Round Number 5
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 at 970-221-6695 or 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.
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
Page 2 of 20
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
RIPLEY DESIGN
RIPLEY DESIGN
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/14/2021
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING:
All "FOR HEARING" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving
forward with scheduling the hearing for this project.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/14/2022
**UPDATED INFORMATION:
Updated Development Review Fees became effective on January 1, 2022. The new
schedule includes a fee of $3,000 for Additional Rounds of Review on projects that
require 4 or more rounds of review. This project has met that threshold and the
additional fee will be assessed with the next round's submittal.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/14/2022
FOR HEARING. - Modification of Standard for Connecting Walkway
Please revise the request for Modification of Standards for the building orientation
and connecting walkway standard to identify buildings 7 and 8 exceeding 350', not
building 9.
Building 31 meets the walkway spine standard if a more direct sidewalk is added
from south door entrance to the wider path that parallels park.
Buildings 37 and 39 that face Suniga need a connecting walkway to that street
sidewalk to meet the walkway spine standard. See sheets L13, L29 that show a
paved drive for it appears to be a manhole maintenance access drive towards
Suniga, but a sidewalk connection from end of this drive to public sidewalk needs to
be added.
Response: Revised Modification Request has been provided with this submittal.
Additional walks have been added to NE corner, SW corner and near clubhouse to
ensure Connecting Walks and Major Walkway Spine lengths meet standards.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
FOR FINAL - Building AC Unit Screening
For any building foundation ground mounted AC units and other visible utility
services, please add a 3' screen wall to enclose these facilities.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
FOR HEARING - Parking
In the cover page parking table, for the 8-plex buildings the total required spaces is
203, not 147 and total for all buildings is 413, not 357 parking spaces. Please update
this table.
Response: Parking table has been revised accordingly
Comment Number: Comment Originated: 02/18/2022
INFORMATION ONLY:
Based on the number of unresolved comments by staff and need for revised plans
Page 3 of 20
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
RIPLEY DESIGN
and agreements, another round of review is needed. In coordination with the
applicant they anticipate submitting the next round materials on March 2, with a
preferred shorter two-week review and staff meeting on March 9. If it is determined
the standard 3-week review is needed the staff review meeting will be on March 23.
At that meeting a determination will made if the project is ready for the April 21
hearing date.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
02/11/2022: FOR FINAL:
On sheet 27 of the utility plan, the north arrow is facing the wrong direction. This is
not an instance where I am asking you to rotate the plan view -- I am indicating that
the north arrow is not oriented correctly with the direction of north on the plan view.
This needs to be fixed on the FDP utility plan.
01/11/2022: FOR HEARING:
Please see my redlines for changes that need to be made to the utility plans.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 02/11/2022
02/11/2022: FOR FINAL:
On the final plan roadway profiles, please refer to LCUASS Table 7-3 for vertical
curve criteria. Note that one of the vertical curves in Steeley Drive does not meet the
minimum K-value as it is currently designed.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 02/14/2022
02/14/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Engineering is ready for hearing.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
02/10/2022: FOR HEARING (UPDATED)
Would prefer to have regional trail alignment revised prior to hearing, but am willing
to accept it if the rest of staff is fine going to hearing. I would prefer to have some
discussion about whether the alignment could be completely on one side of the ditch
or the other. This would alleviate some of the major issues with the alignment that
the City has.
Response: Understood, all other departments have given the go-ahead to proceed
to hearing. Trail alignment and details will be finalized during FDP.
01/11/2022: FOR HEARING (NOT ADDRESSED)
I think there needs to be a focused meeting on this crossing as well as the trail
alignment/design in general, as several departments have issues with the proposed
trail. This needs to get ironed out prior to hearing.
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
Page 4 of 20
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
developer.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Landscape Plan Comments - See Round 4 redlines. There are no major
comments here, but redlines should be addressed for FDP round 1.
11/09/2021:
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:
Please see update redlines for separation issues.
03/02/2021:
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
01/26/2022: FOR FINAL:
Thank you for making the recent grading updates to Pond 1. For Final Plan, please
continue to increase the landscaping aesthetic of this pond.
01/11/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: (addressed)
Pond 1 does not meet the City’s requirements for pond landscaping and aesthetics.
To meet this requirement, we suggest the following:
- Break up the retaining wall at ~100-ft increments.
- The retaining wall should not be located in the Utility Easement.
- Round off the pond corners
- Use boulders as architectural features.
- The long uniform slope on the north side will need some variation.
- *Also, the Pond 1 grading table (drainage report) and SWMM model do not
appear match with the contours on the grading plan.
09/14/2021: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: (addressed)
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: (addressed)
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-form
s-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria
Page 5 of 20
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
01/14/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Based on the 1/13/21 email. I understand this to be a typo. Thank you for the
clarification. Please update the report for FDP Round 1.
01/11/2022:
The drainage report states that “The maximum groundwater elevation around the
system is 4948.42, which is 2.0 ft above the invert of the system.” A) Please clarify
if this is correct or a typo. B) Please revise the design (if necessary) to provide 2-ft
of vertical separation from the bottom of the stormtech unit to the groundwater
elevation, and C) please confirm that all storm tech units and all detention ponds will
provide 2-ft of vertical separation from measured groundwater levels.
11/09/2021:
*revised comment*
The drainage report is stating that the UD2 detention system will be 1.66-ft from
groundwater, however the FCSCM standard is 2-ft minimum separation from
measured groundwater levels. Please revise your design to provide at least the
minimum separation. The Stormwater development review manager is not willing to
consider a variance on this.
09/14/2021:
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:
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.
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.
Page 6 of 20
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:
A3 Lateral comments:
The platted lot south of Suniga Road includes a master plan improvement for 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:
Maintenance access paths are needed for all detention ponds to provided access to
the outlet structures. This should be min 10-ft wide and 10% max slope.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Comments on stormwater quality calculations:
- You will need to provide the extended detention calculations and delineations.
- See redlines for comments on water quality and LID calculations.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
All Stormtech installations that are water quality only (isolator row) will need to have
a high flow bypass for flows above the WQ volume.
Page 7 of 20
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 01/14/2022
01/14/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
The final design of the Redwood Pond should be coordinated with Stormwater
Development Review and Stormwater Master Planning (Dan Evans,
daevans@fcgov.com). Specifically, the following items will need to be designed:
- WQ outlet structure
- Forebays at all inlets
- Bank protection on northern slope where Conifer overtops.
- Maintenance access to outlet structure, inlet structures, and pond bottom. This
should be a 15-ft wide path no steeper than 10%.
- Landscape irrigation system may be needed.
*We should meet before FDP round 1 to start discussing developer repay items and
agreements.
Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 01/26/2022
01/26/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
SWMM Modeling:
- The “Enclave_Pond4” appears to represent the rain garden at the NW corner of
the site. If this rain garden is for water quality and LID only, then it should be
excluded from the SWMM model. We do not want the LID facilities accounted for in
the 100-yr storm attenuation. This can be addressed for the FDP round 1 submittal.
- The Pond 1 invert in the model should be adjusted to match the design plans.
Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 01/26/2022
01/26/2022: Stormwater is ready for Hearing!
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/02/2021
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Landscape Plan Comments - See Round 4 redlines. There are no major
comments here, but should be addressed for FDP round 1.
11/09/2021:
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:
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: 17 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL – UPDATED – I have received the water service sizing
memo, but have not had time to review it yet.
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.
Page 8 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
HKS
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL:
**Irrigation Water Service and Irrigation Plan Requirements
The initial FDP submittal will need to include separate irrigation service(s) for the
site. Separate irrigation service is required as a result of recent changes to Fort
Collins Utilities Water Supply Requirements (WSR) and Plant Investment Fees
(PIF).
Please ensure the project submittal includes:
- Preliminary Irrigation Plan (PIP) – plan requirements can be found at:
www.fcgov.com/WCS.
Please contact Eric Olson (eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704) with questions
regarding the required PIP.
- Water budget (annual usage) and peak flow (gallons per minute) for each
irrigation service. Note: this information should be included on the PIP.
- Landscape Plan including hydrozone table updated with 2022 values – 3, 8, 14,
and 18 gallons/square foot/year for very low, low, medium, and high zones,
respectively.
- Water Need Form – form is available soon.
Please contact Utility Fee and Rate Specialists (UtilityFees@fcgov.com or
970-416-4252) with questions regarding the Water Need Form.
- Irrigation service(s), including curb stop and meter location, shown on the Utility
and Site Plans. Irrigation service location(s) must match information on the PIP.
On Oct. 5, 2021 Council adopted changes to Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply
Requirements and Plant Investment Fees. In general developments that use more
water may pay more and developments that use less water may pay less. These
changes are to be implemented 1/1/2022; more information can be found at:
www.fcgov.com/wsr-update
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: 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.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
02/15/2022: FOR HEARING UPDATED:
The updated water main layout is still not a configuration that the water department
wants to take on for O&M as a public utility. We want a water system that provides
for efficient delivery of water with the least amount of water main length and is also
configured in a manner that is maintainable for both the City and future property
owner. The following concerns will need to be addressed before Hearing:
- Reduce the amount of redundant water main.
- Improve the water main and service routing for both the City (water mains) and
final owner (services).
- Remove the water main from Alley C, a portion of Street AA, and the south side of
the park.
- Add a water main to Alley D and E. (These alleys would need to be widened
10-feet)
- **Please see redlines for more detail and specifics**
- After you have had time to consider this, please set up a meeting with me to
discuss.
01/26/2022: FOR HEARING UPDATED:
The Utility Plan update from 1/21/22 does not address the concerns by adding a few
services to the proposed 600-ft dead-end main. The Utility has authority to accept
Page 9 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
DHIC
DHIC
or deny a dead-end water main. We do not want this corner of the site designed
with a dead end water main. As indicated in the prior comment, please find a way to
a) move this fire hydrant and remove the dead-end main, or b) loop this water main.
**We have proposed an alternative water main configuration on a redline of the utility
plan. This will involve some shifting of buildings, but will be much cleaner from a
water utility perspective.
01/11/2022: FOR HEARING:
The dead-end water main along the very northern end of the site, serving only 1-fire
hydrant will not be acceptable. Please revise the location of this fire hydrant, think of
a way to provide a shorter lead for a fire hydrant, or provide a looped water main for
this hydrant with domestic services attached.
Response: Per converstation with Matt Simpson on 2/23/2022. The decision was made to
keep the water line within private street AA. The loop within private alley C and D was
removed. A dead end main is provided to serve a hydrant and buildings 7, 8, & 9. A markup
for concensus was sent over on 2/23 and confirmed by the City on 2/24.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL:
Sanitary Sewer Line D will need to meet the City’s minimum slope requirements,
0.40% for 8-inch or 0.28% for 10-inch. The profile will also need to include drops at
manhole junctions.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
02/15/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN :
Follow up on Comment 15 – RE: Water Services
The water service routing has improved over the past several submittals. At this
point I think the water service configurations are at a point where this can go to
Hearing – with the clear understanding that we would like to see further refinement
made during FDP. See redlines for more information.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
02/15/2022: FOR HEARING:
Follow up on comment 16 – RE letters of intent for offsite sewer easement:
Per the Lake Canal email on 2/11/22, the Ditch Company has stated they are not
willing to accept a sewer main running parallel to the ditch within the Lake Canal
“prescriptive easement” / “prescriptive right” area. The City’s position on this is that
ultimately, we do not want to interfere with the Ditch’s ability to operate and maintain
their canal, whether or not we would completely agree with their rational. (See City
email on 2/11/22).
Moving forwards, to proceed to Hearing the development project will need to either:
a) work further with the ditch company to address their concerns, or
b) figure out another sewer route with all necessary LOIs from property owners
along that route.
Response: Sewer routing to cross perpendicular to the Canal and connect to Lemay St
through the Northfield site per Lake Canals 2/11 Email. Please see attached LOI’s from single
family owners as discussed in the 2/23 interim meeting and 2/24 email correspondence.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
02/15/2022: FOR HEARING:
This is a summary of items to be addressed before approval to proceed to Hearing:
a. LOIs for offsite sewer along whichever route you want to proceed with.
(comment 28, follow up on comment 16)
Page 10 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
HKS
HKS
b. Onsite water main routing on the east side of the site needs further work (see
comment 23)
Response: Sewer routing to cross perpendicular to the Canal and connect to Lemay St
through the Northfield site per Lake Canals 2/11 Email. Please see attached LOI’s from single
family owners as discussed in the 2/23 interim meeting and 2/24 email correspondence. Todd
Sullivan and Heidi Hansen have been copied on all correspondence as well for their record.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
02/15/2022: FOR HEARING/ 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.
Response: Redline comments from 2/15 have not been provided to the applicant.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
02/15/2022: FOR HEARING:
Due to the ongoing issues with the water main routing and the offsite sewer, I think it
would be best if this project does not make another PDP submittal until an
acceptable solution has been arrived at. Please work with me directly before
making another submittal.
Response: See comment 23 response.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/15/2022: Updated For Final - Unresolved: It is unusual to have a mix of
single-phase and three-phase feeding the units. Also, the addition of transformers to
feed the site, for instance, two vault transformers right next to each other, is
probably not necessary and not a very efficient design. As for your ask, coordination
of this can take place during FDP but keep in mind that due to separation and
clearance requirements, Site Plan, Landscape and other Utility adjustments may be
necessary to accommodate the electric facilities.
01/07/2022: Updated FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: Between last round and
Round 4, the applicant has changed from single-phase to 3-phase load for the entire
site. The majority of proposed transformer locations are considered out of access,
especially considering the much larger transformers. Also, some proposed
transformer locations are not meeting separation requirements from wet utilities.
Transformer locations will need to be adjusted to meet the 10 foot max access
requirement.
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.
Page 11 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
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. 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
02/15/2022: Updated For Final - Unresolved: The Utility Plan is showing a mix of
single-phase vault transformers, pad mount transformers, and three-phase
transformers which is unusual for this kind of development. Major coordination is
needed on the electrical layout, transformer types, number of transformers,
additional vault locations for three-phase, and streetlighting. At your ask, I will
change this to "For Final" with the condition that changes may be necessary to the
Site plan, Utilities, and Landscape plan once the electric is figured out.
01/07/2022: Updated FOR HEARING-UNRESOLVED: Many of the transformer
locations will be moving. Once these locations get finalized we can determine the
vault and streetlight locations to be shown on the plan set. All of these things can
effect the landscape plan.
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.
01/07/2022: Updated For Final: Applicant did submit a C-1 Form, thank you. That
being said, most of the needed information on the form was blank. Also, a C-1 Form
is required for each transformer being set. This, along with the One-line diagram
tells us the size of cables, number of runs, number of conduits, loading information
for each service. This information is required for final but depending on the above
information can effect the site plan if more transformers or vaults are needed to feed
the site.
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: 16 Comment Originated: 01/07/2022
02/15/2022: Updated For Final - Unresolved: Changing this to "For Final" with the
condition that all transformers will be labeled and C-1 forms will reflect the
appropriate transformer once the electric layout and transformer locations are
coordinated.
01/07/2022: For Hearing: Please label the proposed transformers on the plan set.
For example, Trans#1 or #1, just some way to differentiate which transformer is
which. This will make it a lot cleaner and easier when filling out the C-1 Forms for
each transformer and when we are discussing the proposed transformer locations.
Thank you.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com
Page 12 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
DHIC
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: 25 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL (REPEAT): 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.
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – RESTORATION PLAN (REPEAT): A
condition of approval will be necessary to ensure that a robust and feasible
restoration plan is provided at the FDP phase given the complexity and amount of
restoration and revegetation required by this proposal. The restoration plan needs to
encompass all areas within the NHBZ as well as off-site improvements, including
the Redwood Pond, the existing wetland adjacent to Redwood Pond, and Evergreen
Pond. Standard matters need to be addressed: appropriate soil handling and
stockpiling, weed management before, during, and after construction, soil
amendments (if needed), seeding practices, seed mixes, etc. Additionally, with
Redwood Pond, a substantial establishment plan needs to be provided that
addresses expected water/moisture levels at the various elevations, expected length
of inundation and/or soil saturation, any flow control mechanisms, specific weed
management in wet areas, etc.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL (REPEAT): Is there any reason why shrubs
can’t be included in the NHBZ where underground storage is present? If not, either
include shrub species in the seed mix or add planted shrubs.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/11/2022
01/11/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS (REPEAT):
Additional detail will be necessary to ensure a feasible plan exists to prevent altering
hydrology for the underground chambers depicted in the NHBZ.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
02/15/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The Water Use Table calculations are
incorrect - the 'Very Low' category was not included in the calculations. Total annual
water use should be 8,419,405 gallons which translates to 11.4003 gallons/sf.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 02/15/2022
02/15/2022: FOR HEARING:
The proof of coordination between DR Horton and Lake Canal only displayed DR
Horton's emails; responses from Lake Canal were not included. Therefore Lake
Canal's responses are still unclear. In particular, I need to know 1) if Lake Canal is
Page 13 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
RIPLEY DESIGN
amenable to the proposed seed mixes and restoration activities within the NHBZ
(the condition of their access road would change little ultimately), and 2) if access
both ditch and developer access south of Evergreen pond can be consolidated.
Additionally, a different seed mix that can tolerate more frequent traffic is
recommended for this area, but that can be addresses at Final Plan.
Response: Previous approvals from Lake Canal have been directly sent to the City.
Project Coordinator Todd Sullivan has been in direct coordination with Melissa
Buick on requirements and Heidi Hansen have been copied on all correspondence
as well for their record. Lake Canal has provided no objection to the proposed
native seed mix. As noted in the comment below alternate seed mixes can be
addressed at time of Final Plan.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/14/22: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL - UNRESOLVED
01/11/22: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL
Now that there are tree removals proposed, please submit an “Existing Tree
Removal Feasibility Letter” for City Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove
significant existing trees must provide a justification letter with specific details of the
reasons for removal. For example, tree X removed due t grading; grading proposed
to enhance storm water flow in this section of the development. This is required for
all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale
of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the
project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant
tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits
of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the
extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings, and lot layouts shall be designed to
minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees.
(Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable
efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of
compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would
unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been
undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from
noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain
significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the
applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/12/2022
02/14/22: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL - UNRESOLVED
01/12/2022: INFORMATION ONLY FOR FINAL
Of the 13 City trees that are proposed for removal in the storm detention area,
please consider transplanting the 10 trees that are small enough to move (trees 31
– 40). If transplanted onsite, they would not have to be mitigated for.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/09/2021
11/09/2021 FOR HEARING
Page 14 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
RIPLEY DESIGN
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'.
Response: Park has been labeled as described above.
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.
Response: All programmed play elements are located outside of the ponding
area. An ADA access (combined maintenance access) has been provided on the
north side of the pond and an accessible concrete path is proposed around the
basin of the pond for passive recreational use.
Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com
Topic: General
01/13/22: FOR FINAL PLANS
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.
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.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
01/13/22: FOR FINAL PLANS
Please remove the manholes from the Regional Trail. If necessary a separate utility
access or alternate stormsewer alignment might be required to access the line and
manholes. Further coordination is required. Please set up a meeting with PP&D,
Environmental Services, and Utilities to discuss constraints and options.
11/01/2021: INFORMATION
Please remove the manholes from the Regional Trail. If necessary a separate utility
access or alternate stormsewer alignment might be required to access the line and
manholes. Further coordination is required. Please set up a meeting with PP&D
and Utilities to discuss constraints and options.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
01/13/22: FOR FINAL PLANS
Park Planning and Development must approve the trail alignment and design. Final
alignment, trail width, and trail section shall be coordinated with utilities and
environmental setbacks.
Page 15 of 20
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/01/2021
HKS
01/11/22: FOR FINAL PLAN
The applicant will develop a centerline profile and cross-sections for the trail as part
of final plans.
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.
01/11/22: FOR FINAL PLAN3
The applicant will develop a centerline profile and cross-sections for the trail as part
of final plans.
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: 17 Comment Originated: 01/13/2022
01/13/2022: INFORMATION
The Developer is responsible to construct the section of regional trail within the
development. Thank you for partnering with PP&D to design and construct this trail
segment.
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
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.
Response: Additional crossing labels have been added to the Utility plan sheets.
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.
Page 16 of 20
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.
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 tot he plan indicates 1/8 inch numerals. Please correct
to 8 inch numerals.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2021
03/01/2021: FOR FINAL: UPDATED
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 sides of the buildings or
between all alley access only buildings. Buildings 8,9,10,11,24,27,31,33,34, 38,40
and 41.
1/3/2022: Access walkway will need to be provided between buildings 41, 36, 32, 30,
14 and 7 as well. I would also like to see a connection at the end of the
hammerhead between buildings 29 and 27.
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
Page 17 of 20
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.
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: General
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/12/2021
11/12/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please name alleys D, E, F, and H for
addressing purposes.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
02/10/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
01/11/2022: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
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:
Page 18 of 20
DHIC
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
02/10/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
A review was started, but we found that many redlines were not addressed, so we
will do a full review next round. Please see the 1/11/2022 redlines & make all
changes prior to your next submittal.
01/11/2022: 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
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
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: Outside Agencies
Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/10/2021
LAKE CANAL - MELISSA BUICK melissahbuick@gmail.com
02/11/2022: UPDATED FOR HEARING:
The Board of Directors of the Lake Canal Company find the current proposal by DHI
Communities to run a sanitary sewer line within the ditch easement as shown on
the plans unacceptable. Lake Canal Company is certainly willing to continue to
work toward a perpendicular crossing of the ditch for this sewer line.
Response: Sewer routing to cross perpendicular to the Canal and connect to Lemay St
through the Northfield site per Lake Canals 2/11 Email. Please see attached LOI’s from single
family owners as discussed in the 2/23 interim meeting and 2/24 email correspondence. Todd
Sullivan and Heidi Hansen have been copied on all correspondence as well for their record.
01/25/2022: UPDATED FOR HEARING:
Good afternoon Gentlemen, the Board of Directors of the Lake Canal Company
reviewed the attached plans and have the following comments:
The Board would entertain a request for a perpendicular crossing of the ditch for the
sanitary sewer line, but not having it run within the ditch easement. It appears this
crossing could be included in or near the crossing for the bike path. The ditch
easement for the Lake Canal is 50 from the centerline of the ditch, or 50 feet on
each side of the ditch, which is not what is shown on the plans. There is also a ditch
Page 19 of 20
access road along the ditch that will need to remain open and unobstructed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information at this
time.
11/09/2021: FOR HEARING:
Lake Canal's Easement is 50 feet from the centerline of the ditch; any crossing or
encroachment of the ditch or ditch easement will require an agreement with the
company prior to any work taking place, access to the ditch and or ditch easement
needs to remain unobstructed, existing trees impacting ditch operations or the flow
of water may need to be removed.
Lake Canal requests the developer provide this office with a list of ditch crossings
involved with this project so they may be addressed.
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