Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTSIDE HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PDP210020 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 1 of 15 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 April 29, 2022 Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Heartside Hill Residential Development, PDP210020, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Heartside Hill Residential Development. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970-221-6695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/28/2022 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: 01/28/2022 As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged. Page 2 of 15 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 Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are working to resubmit your plans, please notify me as much in advance as possible of the expected submittal date. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/28/2022 All "FOR HEARING" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the hearing for this project. Department: Planning Services Contact: Will Lindsey, , wlindsey@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 01/24/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: The Site Plan sheet 3 lists the Heart of the Rockies zoning as RL. Please correct this to reflect the current LMN zoning. Response: This has been corrected Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Upon further review since the private drive running north/south through the site does not qualify as a private street a formal modification for the block size requirement in 3.8.30(D) that specifies that no block may exceed 7 acres in size must be requested. Alternatively, additional treatments to push the private drive to a private street design may be proposed. These can include more pedestrian amenities, a wider sidewalk with trees in grates/wells, additional lighting, etc. Response: A modification is being requested for block size.. 01/24/2022: FOR HEARING: For the purpose of reviewing the PDP staff only finds that the central drive that runs north/south through the development qualifies as a private drive per the standards found in 3.6.2. The other access drives with parking areas are functionally parking lots, and will be reviewed as such therefore compliance with the standards in the following comments will need to be demonstrated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/24/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Please provide detail on how pedestrians and bicyclists will not share walkways on the site. It seems that at a minimum the walkway extending out to Lemay should be widened to the 8-foot width required for a shared walkway between bicyclists and pedestrians. How will the other internal walkways restrict bicyclists from conflicting with pedestrians on other walkways? Response: The walkway out to Lemay is now 8’. Page 3 of 15 01/24/2022: FOR HEARING: Per 3.2.2(C) pedestrian walkways within the site must be a raised or enhanced with a paved surface not less than 6 feet in width. The site plan currently shows some of the walkways as 5 feet wide. Due to the pedestrian-oriented nature of the project with its numerous walkways for accessing the primary streets it is important that they meet this minimum width. Furthermore, a minimum sidewalk width of 8 feet is required for walkways where bicyclists and pedestrians may share the walkways. Please increase the width of the currently proposed 7-foot and 5-foot sidewalks to meet these standards. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/22/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The maximum number of lumens as calculated on the plan is 96,000, but your total lumen calculation amounts to 111,546 based on the selected fixtures. Different fixtures will need to be selected to bring the total lumens into compliance with the limit. Response: Fixture schedule has been updated, and lumen calculation adjusted accordingly. 01/24/2022: FOR HEARING: Please provide a site lumen calculation using the Hardscape Area Method (Table 3.2.4-7). The total installed initial luminaire lumens are calculated as the sum of the initial luminaire lumens for all luminaires. Base Allowance: LC1: 1.25 lumens per SF of hardscape. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: The modification request lists Buildings 3 & 5 as the ones requiring the modification, but based on staff's measurements Buildings 1 & 6 need the modification as the rest of the buildings have their primary entrance within 200 feet of a street sidewalk. When amending the modification request please ensure that you're also addressing the part of the standard related to every building's front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit facing the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Response: Now that the design has changed, a modification will no longer be necessary. 01/24/2022: FOR HEARING: The two-multi-family dwellings internal to the site as well as the two buildings in the southeast corner do not appear to meet the requirement in 3.5.2(D)(1) for orientation to a connecting walkway. Per 3.5.2(D)(1), “Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200 feet from a street sidewalk and the address shall be posted to be visible from the intersection of the connecting walkway and public right of way. Additional walkway extensions that run in-between the buildings out to Trilby and Lemay can help meet this standard for some of the buildings, but a modification will need to be requested for the two internal buildings. Please provide that request with the Round 2 submittal for staff to review. Page 4 of 15 Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING - Buildings containing 4+ dwelling units must have an entrance/doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than an arterial or has on-street parking. Staff's evaluation of this standard is that it only applies to Building 2 as it is the only building with a façade that faces Brittany St. However, please note that if you decide to enhance the private drive to a private street standard than Buildings 4 & 5 would need to meet this standard. If an entrance cannot be added than a modification must be requested. Staff will evaluate that request upon resubmittal. Response: A modification request is included for Building 1. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING: Please provide screening around the ground mounted A/C units and other ground utilities. A combination of plantings and physical screening such as latticing can achieve this. Response: Additional screening has been added to the landscape plans. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Dave Betley, 970-221-6573, dbetley@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 4/25/2022: FOR HEARING: As a condition of approval the plans should include a note stating that future right of way needed for the relocation of the traffic signal. The Final Development Plans will need to include the final design of the intersection configuration and agree to dedicate any additional right-of-way needed with the final design. the dedication will more than likely occur by separate document. This additional right of way will be needed to address the utility configuration at the northwest corner of Lemay and Trilby. 01/24/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The applicant will need to address future right of way that may be needed at the intersection of Trilby and Lemay. The analysis should address any right-hand turn lanes needed. The traffic study addresses the need for some right-hand turn lanes. Please coordinate with traffic and engineering on the requirements needed for the intersections. Any additional right of way will need to be dedicated with the plat. Projects beyond the project frontage may qualify for TCEF funding. Additional conversations will need to take place to discuss this issue. HDS Response: Please reference the note added to the cover sheet and the Lemay/Trilby sheet. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 4/25/2022: FOR FINAL DESIGN: The sidewalk along Brittany Way will an addition access easement as noted on the plat. As agreed in the PDP review the tree lawn/parkway will be expanded to meet the current criteria. 01/24/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The sidewalk location along Brittany Way will need to be coordinated with forestry and the existing trees to be sure the root Page 5 of 15 system is not impacted for the existing trees. HDS Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 4/25/2022: FOR HEARING: This comment has not been adequately addressed. There is no bike lane on the north side of Brittany. There may need to be bike lanes in the opposing lane of Brittany to accommodate bike traffic in the opposing lane. This may require elimination of parking on Brittany Way on the south side of the street and restriping of the roadway to accommodate. At this time it is not certain what the cross section would look like if required. The response to the comment does not address the issue. 01/24/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The existing right of way for Brittany seventy feet. The roadway section is 50 feet. The current section has a bike lane on the southern portion and parking. The applicant should address the striping and the parking on the street. There should be a discussion of bike lanes and parking and striping patterns that best fit the development for Brittany Drive. There may need to be a separate meeting with Traffic, FCMoves, and Engineering to discuss options. HDS Response: Please reference the existing and proposed striping on the Horizontal Control Plan (Sheet 3) Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/25/2022 4/25/2022: FOR HEARING: In measuring the chord of this drive, the distance measures 160 feet. This I believe is beyond the 150 feet per PFA criteria. Please coordinate with PFA. 01/25/2022: FOR APPROVAL: The onsite drive for lots 1 through 4 is more that 150-feet long. This length will need to be coordinated with Poudre Fire Department. HDS Response: Comment resolved as of 5/2/22 meeting. For clarification, the length of drive is added to the Horizontal Control Plan (Sheet 3). Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/26/2022 04/26/2022: FOR HEARING: The current design still has an impact on the fifteen-foot utility easement. The applicant will need to address that this utility is still accessible and useable in the current design. a design of the roadway would help address the issue but the designer has decided not to approach this issue before approval. Please feel free to give Engineering a call to discuss this topic. HDS Response: The dedication of the 15’ Drainage & Utility Easement beyond the proposed additional right-of-way provides equal uses of the existing 15’ Drainage & Utility Easement that will be succumbed by the additional right-of-way. It is acknowledged that site design adjustments may needed based on potential utility access/installation needs. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 6 of 15 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING: The 3/4 turn interim movement condition for the Trilby Rd. access needs to be included in the TIS. Please update the study accordingly and be sure to show the changes to the Eagle Tree access on the south side of Trilby as well. I heard that the applicant has reduced the number of proposed units. We would like to see this reflected in the TIS as well. We will want to have the revised TIS prior to the hearing. Please coordinate with the City Planner (Will Lindsay) on deadlines for hearing packet materials. HDS Response: As discussed, the revised TIS will be provided by Final. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING: Residents in the neighborhood have expressed concerns with potential sight distance issues for the west leg of the intersection looking north at Brittany/Lemay. It may be helpful for the discussion if it comes up at the P&Z hearing to have an exhibit that shows the sight line to the north at this intersection. Can the applicant's engineering consultant please put something together and submit directly to staff? HDS Response: A sight distance exhibit will be provided prior to hearing (working on it now). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/27/2022 04/27/2022: FOR FINAL: It looks like the proposed median in Trilby is shown differently on the utility plans compared to the site plan. Please make sure all plans are consistent. HDS Response: The future median has been removed from the site plan and is only shown on the ultimate Trilby/Lemay plans in the utility plan set. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/27/2022 04/27/2022: FOR HEARING: It appears that there may be some utility concerns the involve the horizontal location of utility lines along Lemay adjacent to the site. The location of the future southbound right turn lane at Lemay/Trilby will impact this. I did not see the required turn lane lengths indicated in the TIS, as they typically are. It would be good to have that information in the TIS and it is definitely needed to be able to see where the turn lane will be located. An exhibit separate from the PDP set that shows the future Lemay roadway geometry adjacent to this site, between Trilby and Brittany would be helpful for the City to be able to evaluate the potential utility issues. HDS Response: Please reference Sheet 6 showing the ultimate build-out for Lemay/Trilby. The decel/taper lengths shown are in reference to LCUASS. Due to the proximity of Brittany Street, space was not available for additional storage. Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Page 7 of 15 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/19/2022 01/19/2022: 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) For Final: 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) For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4) No erosion control provided assume the acknowledged response is for providing an erosion control report, plan, and escrow at time of FDP. HDS Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/19/2022 01/19/2022: For Final: 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 85 lots, 8.84 acres of disturbance, 3 years from demo through build out of construction and an additional 3 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control Fee estimate of $4892.2. Based on 0 number of porous pavers, 1 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 1 number of extended detention basins, and 0 number of underground treatments, results in an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $565. 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 you to review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be provided at the time of erosion control escrow. HDS Response: Acknowledged. Page 8 of 15 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/21/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED: I did not see in the drainage report that either item below was addressed. Please revise the rain garden WQCV calculations to provide 120% as required by the FCSCM. Please add a detention pond table to the body of the report. See redlines for more information. 01/21/2022: FOR HEARING: In the drainage report please address the following items a. Add a detention pond summary table to body of report. b. Check that the WQCV for the rain garden provides 120% of the WQCV. HDS Response: Pond summary table added to body of report, RGs updated to provide 120% of WQCV Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/21/2022 01/21/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A maintenance agreement and/or amended development agreement will be required to establish maintenance responsibilities for the joint stormwater facilities (rain garden and detention pond). This will include an agreement between the church property owner and this development for these stormwater facilities. HDS Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/21/2022 04/25/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN UPDATED: I have seen your response and understand that you are intending to provide specific easements around the drainage facilities at FDP. Please let me know if I am mistaken 01/21/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please address the following items regarding drainage easements: a. I would prefer the rain garden and detention pond to have a specific easement around each of them instead of a blanket drainage easement in Tract A. b. The offsite flow from Heart of the Rockies lots will need to be contained within an easement on this site. The Tract A blanket drainage easement does cover this technically; however, I would prefer to have specific drainage easements around these flow paths instead. HDS Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: FOR HEARING and FINAL PLAN: See redlines of Utility Plans and Drainage Report for clarification of written comments and smaller items. *The Landscape Plans redlines can be considered "For Final Plan." HDS Response: Redlines addressed within utility plans and drainage report. Page 9 of 15 Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: For Hearing - Updated: No response given. 01/24/2022: For Hearing: For the detached single-family lots along Brittany, Light & Power will need to install infrastructure adjacent to these lots along Brittany. With the existing street trees in the parkway, it may be necessary for L&P to install primary and vaults behind the proposed detached walk. Another option would be to install the primary and transformers behind the single-family detached homes with access from the private drive behind. Please coordinate the best location for primary and equipment with L&P and show on the plan set. Will these homes have gas, or will they be all electric? HDS Response: As understood, these comments have moved to FOR APPROVAL as demand requirements have not been determined. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: For Hearing - Updated: Transformer locations have been shown for the multifamily buildings. Thank you. The transformer locations shown may need to be modified and/or shifted depending on load requirements, single-phase vs three-phase and whether these will be all electric units. 01/24/2022: For Hearing: Transformer and meter locations must be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering and shown on the plan set. Transformers must be located within 10 feet of an all-weather surface accessible by a line truck. Please show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plan. Please adhere to all clearance requirements in the Electric Service Standards at the following link. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations HDS Response: As understood, these comments have moved to FOR APPROVAL as demand requirements have not been determined. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: For Hearing - Updated: No response given. 01/24/2022: For Hearing: Will the multi-family buildings need 3-phase power or single-phase power? Will the buildings be all electric or will gas be brought into the site to feed the buildings? HDS Response: As understood, these comments have moved to FOR APPROVAL as demand requirements have not been determined. To be determined based off IDAP energy modeling analysis and upcoming cost estimation analysis. Our assumption at this point is that gas will be brought into the site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: For Hearing - Updated: Please provide an electric running line behind the walk in front of all of the multifamily buildings and along Brittany St. in front of the single-family dwelling units. 01/24/2022: For Hearing: Please provide adequate space along the private Page 10 of 15 drives to ensure proper utility installation and to meet minimum utility spacing requirements. A minimum of 10 feet separation is required between water, sewer and storm water facilities, and a minimum of 3 feet separation is required between Natural Gas. Please show all electrical routing on the Utility Plans. HDS Response: As understood, these comments have moved to FOR APPROVAL as demand requirements have not been determined. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: For Hearing - Updated: Streetlight placed where tree will be removed, thank you. Just note, while I do not have a definite location at this time, additional streetlights will be needed along the Trilby frontage and along Lemay frontage. 01/24/2022: 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. HDS Response: As understood, these comments have moved to FOR APPROVAL as demand requirements have not been determined. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 04/25/2022: For Hearing - Updated: Please provide an electric running line behind the single-family units maintaining all separation requirements from wet utilities. 01/24/2022: For Hearing: The proposed utility easement behind the single family homes may need to align with the curb line to allow for electric facilities to go in the easement to feed the single family from the rear. HDS Response: As understood, these comments have moved to FOR APPROVAL. Electric line alignments will be coordinated during final development plan preparation. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: Information Only: A right turn lane on Lemay/Trilby was discussed at a Traffic Coordination meeting. It would mean moving quite a bit of electric infrastructure on the corner. This second round does not indicate any turn lane on the plan set. Any relocation or modification to these facilities would be very expensive and the responsibility of the developer. HDS Response: Acknowledged. Fee responsibility is TBD as the turn lane is a regional improvement. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: For Hearing: Will any power requirements be needed for a future community building on Lot 1 that will need to be installed with this project? HDS Response: As understood, these comments have moved to FOR APPROVAL as demand requirements have not been determined. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Burrowing owls are known to use Page 11 of 15 inactive prairie dog colonies, therefore should this project achieve approval and proceed to construction, a burrowing owl survey, in accordance with Colorado Parks and Wildlife standards shall is required prior to issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP). The survey must be completed by a qualified wildlife biologist and a brief report is required detailing the methods, date, time, results, etc. Department: Parks Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 01/24/2022: FOR INFORMATION 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. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 01/24/2022: FOR HEARING FOR HEARING: Parks would like to confirm that the arterial tree lawns will be maintained by the HOA in perpetuity. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/24/2022 01/24/2022: FOR HEARING FOR HEARING: Please label the proposed park as ‘Private Park to be privately maintained/Publicly Accessible’ Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/25/2022 4/26/22: FOR APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED Continued: This comment has not been addressed. Please include this information, including the inventory and mitigation table to the utility plans at final plan review. There are also some trees shown to be removed on the utility plans that are supposed to be protected according to the landscape plan. These trees have been identified on Forestry’s redlines. 1/25/2022: FOR HEARING Please include the tree inventory and mitigation information to the utility plans. The plans should show existing trees, proposed tree removals with locations clearly noted (X over the symbol is an easy identifier), and the mitigation table provided by City Forestry. Please remove symbols for trees to be removed from the proposed site/landscape plan and civil drawings. Only existing trees proposed to be preserved should be shown on the proposed drawings. In addition, please include the City of Fort Collins tree protection notes to the demo plan and the sheet that contains the inventory information within the civil set. Thank you! Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/25/2022 4/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please include the following note to the landscape AND utility plans: DURING Page 12 of 15 SIDEWALK INSTALLATION ALONG BRITTANY DRIVE, PLEASE HYDRO-EXCAVATE/POTHOLE SIDEWALK EDGE CLOSEST TO EXISTING TREES. HYDRO-EXCAVATION SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, SIGNIFICANT ROOTS MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE NEW SIDEWALK. PLEASE CONTACT CITY FORESTRY (FORESTRY@FCGOV.COM) PRIOR TO HYDRO-EXCAVATION AND AFTER WORK IS COMPLETED TO REVIEW CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA. ANY ROOTS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. CUTTING OF ANY ROOTS 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND GREATER, THEY MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY FORESTRY. TBG Response: Note added on landscape and utility plans. 1/25/2022: FOR HEARING In order to preserve and protect the root systems of existing trees, please shift the proposed sidewalk along Brittany Street outside of their critical root zones. Critical root zone spreads out from the trunk at a distance that equals one foot per diameter inch of the tree. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/25/2022 4/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL – UPDATED Continued: Please review updated Forestry redlines and adjust trees/utilities as needed. 1/25/2022: FOR HEARING Please review Forestry redlines and adjust tree/utility locations to meet separation requirements. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/26/2022 4/26/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please remove tree #86 from the plans to accommodate the proposed street light. The streetlight should be 40-ft from the two bordering existing tree #85 and #87. TBG Response: Tree #86 has now been designated for removal on landscape plans. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/28/2022 4/27/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please provide at least 7-ft between private trees and sidewalks (both public and private walks). This separation distance will allow more space for trees to grow and hopefully decrease future issues of heaving/cracked sidewalks from roots. TBG Response: Trees adjacent to sidewalk have been shifted to allow 7-ft separation. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/28/2022 4/27/2022: FOR APPROVAL Please do not propose lindens in parking lot islands or along Trilby/Lemay. They don’t do well in areas that are treated with deicing salts. TBG Response: Linden species in landscape islands and along arterial street have been switched out to different species. Page 13 of 15 Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/21/2022 04/25/2022: UNRESOLVED 01/21/2022: FOR FINAL FIRE LANE SIGNS The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing and add detail to Utility Plans. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire inspection. HDS Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/21/2022 04/25/2022: UNRESOLVED 01/21/2022: FOR HEARING TURNING RADII - IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. The proposed corners of the private drives and roundabout do not meet this standard. HDS Response: Please reference email correspondence from 5/4/22 & 5/5/22 along with the PFA turning exhibit included in the submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/21/2022 04/25/2022: UNRESOLVED 01/21/2022: FOR HEARING FIRE LANE WIDTH Fire lanes established by dedicated EAE shall maintain 20 foot unobstructed width. The roundabout lanes are 13 feet to 16 feet in width and do not meet the code requirement. HDS Response: Please reference email correspondence from 5/4/22 & 5/5/22 along with the PFA turning exhibit included in the submittal. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/26/2022 04/25/2022: UNRESOLVED 01/26/2022: FOR HEARING FIRE LANE The private drive through the center of Tract A is noted as Fire Lane on site plan but not dedicated EAE on Plat. Response: The center drive has been removed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: FOR FINAL ADDRESS POSTING - LOCAL AMENDMENT - IFC 505.1.7: Address shall be clearly visible on approach from any street, drive or fire lane that accesses the site. Buildings, either individually or part of a multi-building complex, that have fire lanes on sides other than the addressed Page 14 of 15 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. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/25/2022 04/22/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 01/25/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. HDS Response: Please see included plat Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/25/2022 04/22/2022: The Plat submitted for Round 2 was the same as Round 1, so no review was done. Please revise the Plat based on the Round 1 redlines. *Updated plat provided by applicant and will be reviewed prior to final comments. 01/25/2022: 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 HDS Response: Please see included plat Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/18/2022 04/18/2022: FOR HEARING: Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Matt Organ, morgan@pvrea.coop The existing overhead line along Trilby is PVREA’s. There was an agreement signed between the City and PVREA in 1985 regarding this line. Do you have a copy of this agreement. I can send you one if you need it. The location that the plat shows this line being installed will not work as shown. Please have the developer contact us to discuss this line. HDS Response: If I understand correctly, this comment has been moved to FOR FINAL. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/21/2022 Page 15 of 15 04/21/2022: FOR FINAL Fort Collins Loveland Water District, Trevor Crane, PE, tcrane@fclwd.com Please see redlines. HDS Response: Acknowledged.