The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJEROME STREET STATION - PDP210009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Page 1 of 23 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 May 13, 2022 Russell Baker Black Timber Land Company 417 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Jerome Street Station, PDP210009, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Jerome Street Station. 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 Responses: Ripley Design Northern Engineering Black Timber Group Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/25/2021 INFORMATION: 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: 06/25/2021 INFORMATION: Page 2 of 23 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. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/25/2021 INFORMATION: Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd1.pdf Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/25/2021 INFORMATION: Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are preparing to resubmit your plans, please notify me of the planned submittal date with as much advanced notice as possible. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/25/2021 Temporary Service Changes - City of Fort Collins Development Review In order to continue providing thorough reviews and giving every project the attention it deserves, the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has begun to impact the timeliness of our reviews. We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service level adjustments. Currently, one additional week of review time will be added to a ll 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 concerns. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/25/2021 INFORMATION: LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review: Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development appl ication shall automatically lapse and Page 3 of 23 become null and void. Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/10/2022: FOR THE MEETING: This Round 2 plan creates a number of problems and awkward relationships which lead to comments from several departments on interrelated topics. An example of an awkward relationship is the front doors along west side. That does not allow for required tree planting. The plan does show some trees along Building 2 right ON the property line. A related tree planting issue is the tree grates along the south connection. They appear to be 4' square, which is barely adequate - the City is getting away from that to larger grates, the larger the better. Staff assumes they are shown at the back of the walks because of vehicles backing out of garages but typically those are placed along the street to define a pedestrian space separately from the vehicle lanes. Ripley response: Stormwater infrastructure has been relocated away from the west side, allowing for additional tree planting and screening along the western boundary. Tree grates have been upsized to 5’x5’ and mo ved to be along the street. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/10/2022: FOR THE MEETING, AND THEN FOR HEARING: Please provide a context plan showing relationships to development on the west. A context diagram or plan should show the relationship to abutting development, esp. at the connections along the south drive. Include the fence along the car dealer to the north. Ripley response: context plan is now shown on overall site plan. See site plan enlargement sheet 6 for a more detailed look at the connection to the pawn shop property. Fence is now shown on western boundary Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 FOR HEARING -- BUILDING VARIATION: A Modification of a standard is needed for a standard, Section 3.5.2(C)(2), which requires that, in this case, no two similar buildings be placed next to each other along a street, distinguished by footprint size and shape. It also requires 3 different building designs that must be distinguished by unique architectural elevations and entrance features, which must not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. Staff recognizes the differences, but we need to carefully articulate them. RELATEDLY FOR HEARING -- DOORWAYS ON STREET-FACING FACADES: A doorway is required on the ends of buildings facing the adjacent streets. The standard is subsection 3.5.2(D)(2). Ripley response: Modifications have been provided for these two code sections. The modification for 3.5.2(D)(1)(a) was also updated and provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING -- SOME DETAILS: Building foundations at easements? Meter banks? AC condensers? Width of walkway along the SW Page 4 of 23 parking spaces - 5'-6" as shown is too narrow. Ripley response: Width of walkway along parking spaces has been updated to 6’-0” to back of curb. Black Timber response: Building foundations are set back off of easements by at least 1’. Meter banks will be accounted for at the end of the buildings while ac condensers are planned on the rear rooftop which should provide screening. . Northern Response: All building footers will be located outside of easements. Where possible, footers will be pulled away from easements to the extent possible in order to minimize disruption of soil surrounding the foundations in the event of an excav ation within the easement. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR MEETING DISCUSSION: We have discussed a ped bridge over the canal to get your trail to connect to College. The Powerhouse2 plan shows how it could work. Ripley response: Per conversations with Powerhouse II project and meeting with the City and the Powerhouse II team, this pedestrian bridge is not required and therefore not being proposed at this time due to lack of funding. If City or URA funds become available in the future, this design can be reevaluated. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/11/2022 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING: CAJETAN -- We need to confirm stubs to west based on that becoming a drive. For an access easement, and whateve r sidewalk construction we agree on. This is related to comment 2 above to have an exhibit showing adjacent context, or show some adjacent context in the plan set. I think we may already have something like this from our past discussions. Let's confirm in preparation for the hearing. Ripley response: Per direction received from Traffic and Engineering, Cajetan is now shown as a private drive only, with no vehicular stub connection to the west. Walks are stubbed to the western boundary for connection if/when Chippers redevelops. In lieu, Pascal is now shown as a public alley with ROW dedicated to the western boundary. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/11/2022 05/11/2022: FOR HEARING: -- SEGMENT WEST OF PASCAL: West of your property, there is a 24' access easement actually on the car dealer property north of the pawn shop. Also, there is 10' of space north of the easement outside of the car dealer property's fence that would be the physical space where a walkway could go. This doesn't have to be resolved in your plan, but we should clarify mutual understanding about that connection. Ripley response: Notes have been added clarifying intent around connection in this area to Site Plan sheet 6. The sidewalk is now shown to be provided as far north/west to this property boundary as possible to facility a future connection. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/11/2022 05/11/2022: Fence along west property line? Ripley response: A privacy fence has been added along the west property line. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Comments regarding the trail: - Please connect it to Jerome directly across from the existing trail on the other side of the street. - What does the westernmost access into the pawn shop parking lot look like? Will people be able to bike and walk over the property line? Future opportunities may allow for an easement to formalize the connection so it's important that it's Page 5 of 23 done well now. - Please plan for a connection from the south via a bridge from the Powerhouse 2 project. Ripley response: Trail connects to Jerome directly across from existing trail. West of the project property, there is a 24' a ccess easement on the car dealer property north of the pawn shop which the public alley connects to. The sidewalk on the north side of the public alley has been extended to the property line. See response to Planning Comment Number 5 for discussion on the brid ge connection to Powerhouse II. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Comment regarding Pascal St/Private Alley: - Please place the trees and grates along the outside of the sidewalk to function as a detached sidewalk. - Please bring the sidewalk to the property line to stub for future connection. Ripley response: Tree grates have been moved to outside of sidewalks where feasible due to utility conflicts. Sidewalk has be en extended to property line. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Create a connection across Cajetan St. for the sidewalk/trail on the west side of the property. The timeline for the completion of Cajetan St. is unknown as it will require redevelopment so in the interim the sidewalk should connect through the parkway with ramps. Ripley response: As discussed in our meeting with Staff and Powerhouse II group, the crushed fines path that runs along Lake Canal is not the regional trail. The Trail is proposed to cross Jerome Street from the east and head south parallel to Jerome Street to head towards the whitewater park. The crushed fines path is intended for use by the ditch for maintenance, however will be open for pedestrian access. Therefore, a connecting path has been provided along the western boundary to the Pascal Street extension. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Tim Dinger, , tdinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 Comment Number: 1 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Per recent internal discussions between City Departments, the City would like to see the extension of Pascal Street through the site to the west t o be a public road. The current street section can remain, but you will be required to submit variances for everything that does not meet LCUASS standards for a residential local street (for example, having a reduced ROW, adjacent head -in parking, no bike lanes or on street parking on Pascal, etc.). Once the design of the street is finalized, you will need to dedicate right -of-way for the road. Please visit The Engineering Development Review webpage (https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev ) or contact Tim Dinger (tdinger@fcgov.com, 970-221-6603) for more information. Northern response: Acknowledged, the design has been revised and we will work with Staff on the street section/variance. 06/22/2021: FOR NEXT SUBMITTAL What was proposed for the Pascal Street section seems to be pretty far from what Engineering could approve at this point. Some of the issues include: narrow attached walk on the south side, only one bike lane, bike lane buffer included in travel lane width, adjacent head-in parking (intended to be private?), walks not within public ROW or access easements, roadway alignment/geometry issues. When it was agreed that the City could allow a deviation from the access control plan and require just o ne public connection to Page 6 of 23 College Ave. and that it could be a variation from the Commercial Local street type, we intended for there to be follow-up discussion with the City to determine what the appropriate section may look like. Since I did not explicitly state this was required prior to submittal, I would like to make that comment now. We need to have some meetings to specifically go over this proposed section. Please work with the Development Review Coordinator to schedule a meeting on this issue with the City. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED There are still a few places where the overhang of the truck used in the model passes over a sidewalk ramp. This is a major concern for pedestrian safety. These turns should be modified so that the truck will not overhang the sidewalk on the turn. Ripley response: Autoturn exhibit has been updated. Truck does not overhang any sidewalks. 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING There appear to be several issues with the proposed emergency access easement alignment and the turning movement exhibit that were submitted (see redlines). It looks like the vehicle path goes into the covered parking at the north end of the site and also goes outside of the defined EAE in several locations. Please defined the EAE so it contains the full vehicle movement. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: This project will be responsible for a repayment for City roadway improvements of the local street portion of the Suniga Rd. frontage. The current cost per linear foot adopted by the City of Fort Collins is $264/LF. This repay would be due prior to issuance of any building permits. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Per the plat of Crowne at Old Town North (recorded in 2018, reception number 20180022970), the right-of-way (ROW) for E. Suniga Road is 115 feet. Please revise the plat and all the plans to display the correct width, both in plan view and in the label for this road. Northern response: Linework shows 115 foot ROW, the previous label was incorrect. This has been corrected. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: The proposed 15-foot Utility Easement will need to be moved to be adjacent to the new ROW line along E. Suniga Road. Please note that no structures can be built within the right-of-way or easement. Northern response: Utility Easement is in correct location per comment response above. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Per Matt Simpson’s comments on the round 2 utility plan that was initially rejected, the 20’ sewer easement on the west side of the property per plat of Old Town North should be upgraded to the current standard of a 30 -foot easement centered on the sewer line (15 feet on each side of the sewer). The new sewer easement should be dedicating 15 feet on the east side of the sewer, and 15 feet on the west side of the sewer. If there is not 15 feet between Page 7 of 23 the sewer line and the property line to the west, the easement should be dedicated up to the property line. The easement does not need to be dedicated on the offsite parcels for this development project. Northern response: Acknowledged, an additional 5’ has been dedicated on the east side. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Please see redlines for additional plan comments. Northern response: Acknowledged, redlines addressed. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Comments regarding the trail: - Please connect it to Jerome directly across from the existing trail on the other side of the street. - What does the westernmost access into the pawn shop parking lot look like? Will people be able to bike and walk over the property line? Future opportunities may allow for an easement to formalize the connection so it's important that it's done well no w. - Please plan for a connection from the south via a bridge from the Powerhouse project. Ripley response: See comment responses above to Planning and Transportation Planning comments regarding the trail, western access and bridge connections. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Comment regarding Pascal St/Private Alley: - Please place the trees and grates along the outside of the sidewalk to function as a detached sidewalk. - Please bring the sidewalk to the property line to stub for future connection. Ripley response: Tree grates have been moved to outside of sidewalks where feasible due to utility conflicts. Sidewalk has been extended to property line. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Create a connection across Cajetan St. for the sidewalk/trail on the west side of the property. The timeline for the completion of Cajetan St. is unknown as it will require redevelopment so in the interim the sidewalk should connect through the parkway with ramps. Ripley response: See comment responses above to Planning and Transportation Planning comments regarding the trail, western access and bridge connections. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Many of the buildings have no setbacks from the easements, which could create a problem during construction. Footings and foundation cannot be within the utility easement, because if they are, those parts of the buildings are using up some of the easement space that is meant for utilities. Eaves and overhangs from buildings are also not permitted to be over the easements. Black Timber response: Acknowledged, buildings have been setback 1’ minimum from easement to ensure footings and foundations are outside of easements. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: Stormwater drainage structures such as rain gardens cannot be within utility easements. Northern response: Acknowledged, rain gardens moved outside of easements. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6820, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 8 of 23 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING The opinion and preference of City staff is that the extension of Pascal through the site should be public, rather than private. We would prefer to approve the necessary Engineering variances required to allow the atypical cross section to be publicly maintained and owned. We will need to work with you on exactly how the ROW and easement linework should be configured to achieve this. Northern response: We will work with Staff to ensure the Pascal section is something that works (with a variance). Ripley response: Modified public alley section now shows 44’ ROW with 6’ utility easements behind. ROW includes 8’ attached walks w/ tree grates, and 28’ for travel. We can discuss with Staff what is the best design to split up the 28’ between bike/vehicle travel. The goal is to make this feel like a pedestrian oriented space first, that happens to allow for vehicles (similar to Old Town alleys or the paseo designed at Union on Elizabeth). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING Is the drive area near building 1 on the norths side of the site supposed to have emergency access to Jerome St.? See Redlines Northern response: Yes, emergency access to Jerome St. was previously proposed but has been removed due to the presence of a hammerhead turnaround. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING See redlines for various comments on the proposed trail and Jerome St. connection. Northern response: Responses added to PDFs. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING There is at least one driveway that doesn't meet driveway spacing standards in LCUASS (see redlines). This will need to be adjusted or a variance requested through Engineering. Northern response: Acknowledged. Driveway(s) adjusted as per comment. Ripley response: Driveway now meet spacing standards from Jerome Street Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FINAL PLAN Pedestrian ramps should be the directional style. Some of the proposed ones on your site are not. Northern response: Pedestrian Ramps revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FINAL PLAN Please extend the north sidewalk along the Pascal extension as far as possible to the west. If you could work with any applicable adjacent property owners to get it extended all the way to your west property line, that would be ideal. Northern response: Acknowledged. Sidewalk will extend with the intent to connect to College. Page 9 of 23 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING Please see TIS redlines for various traffic study comments. Please contact me to discuss if there are any questions, prior to resubmittal. Ripley response: No TIS redlines were provided, if edits are still required they can be made prior to hearing Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING I was under the impression that Cajetan would not be extended into this site as a public ROW. Is there a reason that it is? Ripley response: This was the original direction we had received nearly a year ago. Given the feedback received on this round of review, Cajetan is no longer public ROW. However, Pascal is now dedicated as a public alley with a modified street section. Department: Stormwater Engineering - Floodplain Contact: Claudia Quezada, (970)416-2494, cquezada@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/13/2022: FOR FINAL - UNRESOLVED: Plat is still showing incorrect floodplain linework. 06/22/2021: FOR FINAL: The Whitewater Park LOMR’s effective date is June 25, 2021. Please update floodplain line work on plat and utilities plan set to reflect this map change. Northern response: Floodplain linework has been reviewed to ensure most recent is shown throughout. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/13/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Still waiting for latest model from Anderson. Comments will be provided separately. Northern response: Anderson should have submitted model separately for this submittal. 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING: Currently the floodplain memo indicates that there is a 0.01 ft. rise based on the proposed grading, which requires a CLOMR. Prior to hearing, City Staff must be confident that design can work without impacting adjacent property owners and that no-rise conditions are met. If the grading is adjusted to mitigate this rise, a norise with model must be submitted - to the City ahead of pursuing a LOMR. Ripley response: Updated floodplain memo has been provided with this submittal Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING: Parking in the 100-year floodplain does not meet the floatable materials requirement. Floatable materials including trash dumpsters, vehicles, trailers, equipment, supplies, outdoor furniture (i.e. benches, tables), etc. are prohibited in the 100-year floodplain. All floatable materials, must be stored inside a building, be anchored per an approved engineered design or be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. No overnight parking of vehicles is allowed. Please discuss options to show compliance with floodplain staff. Northern response: Acknowledged, these requirements will be included as part of the DA. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/13/2022: FOR HEARING - UPDATED: Please include this information in Drainage report, per checklist. 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING: Page 10 of 23 Please provide more information regarding the building foundation. Will all buildings be slab on grade? Black Timber response: Buildings are planned on crawl spaces. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/25/2021 06/25/2021: FOR HEARING: The ground water levels need to be documented 2 -feet below the bottom of the stormwater facilities (stormtech and others). These levels need to be taken during the high groundwater months (July – Sept). Northern response: Acknowledged. Stormtech chambers have been removed from the design. GW levels will be provided. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/25/2021 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: 06/25/2021: FOR HEARING: Any work in the Lake Canal easement (such as the underground stormwater facilities) will require a letter-of-intent from them before Hearing. For final approvals, Lake Canal will need to sign the plat and plans. *Please also add a Lake Canal approval block to the UT Plans and the Plat. Northern response: Approval Block will be added at Final. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: See redlines for comments. Northern response: Acknowledged. Responses to redlines are contained in the PDF files. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: The configuration of water, sewer, storm, and services at the Pascal and Alley intersection needs significant clean up. We have provided some suggestions in the redlines. Please review and contact me to discuss any questions. Northern response: Acknowledged. Intersection utility layouts have been revised from previous submittal. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: The rain garden, at the southwest corner of Jerome and Pascal, may not be located in the public utility easement. Northern response: Rain Garden has been adjusted to be outside the UE. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Explain more about why detention pond DP1 is necessary. It appears to me that pond DP2 has sufficient volume for the full development. Please review and clarify or revise. Northern response: DP1 allows for overflows from the adjacent rain garden, and allows us to throttle the flows going into DP2 in an effort to match the original OTN release rate and maintain a smaller pipe size which helps us achieve cover along the alignme nt. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Page 11 of 23 Please review and explain how street flows in Jerome Street will be intercepted and routed into the rain garden and detention pond DP2. How will site flows that surface discharge directly to Jerome St get intercepted and routed into the rain garden and detention pond? The Jerome Street storm drain inlet appears to be “on-grade” and not “sumped” – as such it will not be able to intercept 100% of the flows. Please review and explain or revise the design. Northern response: Jerome Street flows are captured just south of the Pascal intersection in the existing sumped sidewalk chase. We will analyze the capacity to confirm it can carry all required flows. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Check that the WQCV calculations include 120% as required by the FCSCM . Northern response: WQCV has been calculated at 120% as shown in the Drainage Report. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970) 416-2754, Civil Engineer III Topic: General Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: The easement around the existing sewer main needs to be updated to current standards. See redlines on UT Plans and Plat. Northern response: This easement is updated. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: See redlines for comments - Including comments on Landscape Plan. Northern response: Acknowledged. Redline comment responses contained in the PDF. Ripley response: Redlines have been addressed and tree separations double checked Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Any existing trees within 10-ft of the existing sewer mains may not be replaced in the future. Ripley response: Understood. No existing trees will be replaced wit hin 10ft of existing sewer mains. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Please serve all buildings with the ‘private combination’ water service approach. This will clean up the water serving in several areas and will make the utilities design consistent throughout the site. Northern response: All buildings are using the private combo water service except Building 1 where it is impossible to meet separation requirements with a private combo service app roach. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: - The onsite sewer mains must be within a 30-ft utility easement or ROW. - The utility easement for Water + Sewer must be minimum 35-ft. Or 10-ft outside of water to 15-feet outside of sewer. Northern response: Acknowledged, easements reflect these dimensions. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: Page 12 of 23 All fire services require valves by the water main. Northern response: Valves added to all fire services. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: The configuration of water, sewer, storm, and services at the Pascal and Alley intersection needs significant clean up. We have provided some suggestions in the redlines. Please review and contact me to discuss any questions. Northern response: Acknowledged, redlines have been reviewed and design adjusted to reflect as is feasible. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: The private combination water services will need to be sized for FDP round 1. Northern response: Acknowledged, the services will be sized for FPD R1. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: The initial FDP submittal will need to include separate irrigation service(s) for the site. Separate irrigation service is required due to 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 Irrigation Development Review (irrigation@fcgov.com) 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 at: www.fcgov.com/WFF 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 were implemented 1/1/2022; more information can be found at: www.fcgov.com/wsr-update Northern response: Acknowledged, separate services for irrigation will be added for FDP. Ripley response: Hydrozone table has been updated with current values. PIP will be provided at Final plan Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 05/09/2022: FOR HEARING: The developer for the adjacent site to the south wants to relocate a sewer main onto this site. This will have Utility Plan and Landscape Plan impacts. Please coordinate with them. Northern response: Acknowledged. Any design changes that occur will b e reflected in future submittals. Ripley response: Sewer line has been coordinated with project to the south. Page 13 of 23 Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 06/22/2021: SITE SPECIFIC: Light and Power has conduit stubbed under Jerome St at the (3) road connections from the east that can be extended to feed the site. The utility plans show proposed electric crossing Jerome St just south of Vine. We currently do not have a crossing in place at this location. Northern response: L&P layouts have been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 05/09/2022: SITE SPECIFIC: See new redlines. 06/22/2021: SITE SPECIFIC See redlines of proposed electric facilities. To feed building A proposed transformer electric will need to extend along the west side of Jerome St frontage from our existing conduit crossing at Osiander St. Northern response: L&P layouts have been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 06/22/2021: INFORMATION: Light and Power will need to trench new electric facilities along the west side of Jerome St in the parkway area. It appears that the (2) concrete drive approach's for the site have been installed. Additional concrete will likely need to be removed for electric facilities installation. Northern response: Acknowledged, we will retain our design and coordinate as necessary for this installation. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 06/22/2021: SITE SPECIFIC: It appears that the proposed transformer for building D does not separation requirements from a meter pit. The proposed transformer for building C in on the proposed gas main. Northern response: Acknowledged, design revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 06/22/2021: SITE SPECIFIC: All new primary electric facilities will need to be located within utility easements. It appears that the easement along the building B frontage will need to be extended to encompass the primary electric run into the site. Northern response: Acknowledged, easements have been revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/24/2021 06/22/2021: INFORMATION: Electric meter locations and customer owned electric service locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Please show proposed meter and private electric service locations on the utility plans. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. Please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. All residential units larger than a duplex and/or 200 amps is considered a customer owned service, therefore, Page 14 of 23 the owner is responsible to provide and maintain the electrical service from the transformer to the meters Northern response: Acknowledged and revised. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/24/2021 06/22/2021: INFORMATION: All utility easements and required permits (crossing agreements, flood plain, etc.) needed for the development will need to be obtained and paid for by the developer. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/24/2021 06/24/2021: INFORMATION: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me to discuss development fees or visit the following website f or an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/24/2021 06/22/2021: INFORMATION: For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com). https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go renewable Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/24/2021 06/24/2021: INFORMATION: Please contact Tyler Siegmund with Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric service standards, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders -and-developers Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/09/2022 06/22/2021: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video and phone service. Contact Brad Ward with Fort Collins Connexion at 970 -224-6003 or bward@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs and bulk agreements. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2869, marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 5/4/2022: UPDATED FOR HEARING The turning exhibit has overhang in the new hammerhead turnaround area in front of Building 1. The access to Jerome will need to be included on turning exhibit and will need more information on these access lanes. It appears to be partial turf grass which is not permitted as fire lane. Ripley response: Updated turning exhibit has been updated. EAE on to Jerome on the north end of the site has been removed. Th e parking islands which the cab swing overhangs have a rollover curb per PFA’s request. Page 15 of 23 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING The turning exhibit indicates some overlap in the carport areas. It appears that the fire apparatus will hit the carport support columns in the northern turnaround. This area may need to meet similar dimensions of a cul -de-sac. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 06/22/2021: FOR FINAL PLAN -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. Northern response: All the buildings are ground level – there are no carports in the new design. Curb and gutter has been revised to be rollover to accommodate the turning radius. Black Timber response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/04/2022 6/23/2021: FOR FINAL ADDRESS POSTING - M-F - LOCAL AMENDMENT -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 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. Black Timber response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/05/2022 05/05/2022: FOR FINAL HYDRANT LOCATION The hydrant located on the dead-end portions of the alleys/streets between buildings 1/2 and buildings 4/8 should be relocated to the corner of the intersection. The dead-end location is not considered an accessible location Northern response: Hydrant locations revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/05/2022: FOR HEARING EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT If the Pascal extension is a private drive, it shall be dedicated EAE on the plat and provide unobstructed 20-foot width. If it does not connect to College Ave, it must also be provided with a turnaround. Ripley response: Pascal is now shown as public ROW and dedicated to the western boundary. West of the project property in this area, there is a 24' access easement on the car dealer property north of the pawn shop which the public alley connects to whi ch provides PFA access through the site to College Avenue. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Scott Benton, (970)416-4290, sbenton@fcgov.com Page 16 of 23 Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (UPDATED) FOR HEARING: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to be delineated and labeled on the grading, utility, and photometric plans. UPDATE: The civil plans still need to depict the NHBZ boundary. Northern response: NHBZ added to relevant sheets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (UPDATED) FOR HEARING: Please add the following note on all sheets of the site, landscape and utility plans that show the Habitat Buffer: "The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future. UPDATE: The civil plans still need to include the note. Northern response: Note added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (UPDATED) FOR HEARING: My apologies for the confusion and thank you for your patience as I learn more about Forestry's practices, but Forestry considers hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) to be naturalized and thus is good to be used in NHBZs. Please replace the following non-native species indicated within the NHBZ with species native to the Fort Collins area: northern catalpa (Catalpa speciosa), Chinkapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), and thornless cockspur hawthorn (Crataegus crus-gali). Ripley response: Thank you for the clarification, these species have been replaced within the NHBZ Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (UPDATED) FOR HEARING: A draft prairie dog mitigation and removal plan is required for Hearing. The plan needs to calculate the area of the active colony on site, an analysis of viable removal options (including passive relocation, active relocation, trap and donate, and euthanization), proof of communication with various entities regarding relocating and trap and donate options, anticipated timeline of removal activities, burrowing owl survey methods, and methods to prevent recolonization of the site. Note that Rocky Mountain Raptor Program (https://www.rmrp.org/, 970-484-7756) accepts prairie dog donations year-round. A copy of RMRP’s donation standards will be supplied to the DRC for you to pass on to the prairie dog consu ltant. Note that the payment-in-lieu fee is set by the Natural Areas Department (NAD) and is currently $1,637/acre for non-CO/PERC methods and $1,337/acre for CO/PERC methods. Final per acre rate will be verified with NAD at time of DCP issuance. Black Timber response: We are preparing a draft and will have it for review prior to hearing Page 17 of 23 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (REPEAT) FOR DCP: 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. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (REPEAT) FOR DCP: 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. Also, field surveys demonstrating proof of efficacy of treatment will be required. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (REPEAT) FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A restoration plan will be required that encompasses weed management, appropriate soil handling during disturbance, and revegetation in the NHBZ. Iterations of this plan can be submitted to Environmental Planning at any time to ensure that the quality of the restoration matches the same kind of standard as Passivhaus design does for the built environment. Ripley response: Understood this will be provided at Final Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/10/2022: (REPEAT) FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DCP: Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this project. A security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to the FDP approval please provide an estimate of the landscaping costs for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zo ne, including materials, labor, monitoring, weed mitigation and irrigation. We will then use the approved estimate to collect a security (bond or escrow) at 125% of the total amount prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit. Ripley response: Acknowledge, will provide at final. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: One the Site and Utility Plans, please show the top of bank of Lake Canal and the edge of riparian forest canopy. Showing the line of both features will provide clarification as to which extent is greatest, thus determining the buffer extent. Also, please change the label on the Site Plan from 'Ex isting Top of Slope and Edge of Vegetation' to 'Lake Canal Top of Slope' and 'Edge of Riparian Forest Canopy'. OR, change the note language to mirror the notes on the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Plan page of the Site Plan. Ripley response: Both lines for the top of slope and edge of riparian forest are now shown and labeled on site and landscape plans Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 Page 18 of 23 05/10/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please replace Native Seed Mix note #7 with the following: "AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS. PLASTIC-BASED EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS (I.E., PLASTIC-WELDED BLANKETS) SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER AS THESE MATERIALS HAVE PROVEN TO CAUSE WILDLIFE ENTRAPMENT ISSUES." Ripley response: Note has been updated. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: The standard upland native seed mix is depicted for use in the detention pond. Was that the intention? A more mix designed for a more moist condition would be appropriate. The standard detention basin mix could be used or a something more tailored could be used as well. Additionally, a rain garden is proposed in the NHBZ. Good vegetative establishment is critical for appropriate rain garden function and this can be accomplished with a seed mix or th rough plantings. Both methods have their pros and cons. Please involve Environmental Planning in the design of the rain garden. Ripley response: Understood, current plan is to establish rain gardens with plantings at Final Plan. We will reach out prior to design to ensure it is designed adequately Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING: The Utility Plan shows most of the trees on the north side of Lake Canal being removed, but the tree mitigation plan shows them staying. Please rectify the Utility Plan. Northern response: Revised. Department: Parks Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 06/22/2021: GENERAL 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: 7 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 5/10/2022: UPDATED FOR FINAL Irrigation plans are required to be reviewed and approved by Final. Please coordinate early with the Parks Dept. re: the turn over of the irrigation system to the development. Parks can provide As-Builts for the irrigation system upon request. Ripley response: Understood, irrigation plans will be provided at Final 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING Please be advised there is an active irrigation system immediately adjacent to the development along Suniga Rd. Please show the existing irrigation tap, mainline, backflow, and potential tie in points for the Suniga Rd. streetscape on Page 19 of 23 the site and landscape plans. The City of Fort Collins Parks Dept. designed and installed the Suniga streetscape irrigation with the intent of handing off this section of streetscape over to the development. We are anticipating that a new tap will be required to tie into the existing irrigation infrastructure. The applicant will need to coordinate the hand off of the irrigation in the parkway with the City of Fort Collins Parks Dept. Parks will need to review the irrigation plans to ensure proper disconnect from the existing system on Suniga and receive as-builts for this section of Suniga. Ripley response: This was discussed in our Staff Review meeting and determined that it could be handled at Final once we have our irrigation designer on board. A note has been provided on the landscape plans to ensure this is the intent for PDP approval. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/22/2021 5/10/2022: UPDATED FOR FINAL Please coordinate with the Parks Dept. when water service is expected to transition. Parks will be at the DCP meeting and we would like to have an idea from the development team as to the timing of this transition. Ripley response: Understood 06/22/2021: FOR HEARING Please coordinate with Parks for the disruption of irrigation service to the streetscape. If service is going to be disrupted, please let us know: a. The dates of disruption, b. Anticipated length of time for the d isruption c. Any impacts to the irrigation infrastructure (i.e. main line cut, valve box removal, controller disconnection etc.) Department: Forestry Contact: Christine Holtz, , choltz@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/11/2022: FOR HEARING – UPDATED The northernmost parking lot has two parking lot cutouts that are large enough to accommodate shade trees. Please add shade trees or larger ornamentals to both cutouts to mitigate the heat island effect. Ripley response: Per comments from other departments (utilities and PFA) these islands will not be able to accommodate trees due to utility separations and fire truck cab swings. 06/21/2021: FOR HEARING There are a few parking lot islands that are missing trees. Each landscaped island should include one more canopy shade trees (LUC 3.2.1 (E.5.3)). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/11/2022: FOR HEARING – UPDATED Instead of the previously proposed it appears that approximately 6 tree grates are proposed. What size tree grates are proposed? Forestry requests either 6 x 6 or 4 x 8 to ensure enough room for the tree to grow without restriction. Ripley response: 5’x5’ tree grates are now shown in these areas per discussion with forestry. If 4’x8’ are preferred, we can accommodate that change at Final. 6’x6’ is not a suitable solution for an 8’ wide walk. 06/21/2021: FOR HEARING Along the north side of Pascal St, there are five trees in planters that are Page 20 of 23 approximately 5’x5’. Is it possible to expand these planters, ideally to 6’ x 8’? Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/11/2022 05/11/2022: FOR HEARING Tree/utility separation will be verified during following rounds and prior to hearing. Ripley response: Understood, plans have been checked for tree/utility separation Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/11/2022 05/11/2022: FOR HEARING Page 3 of the Utility plan shows the removal of approximately 13 existing trees. The landscape plan shows the preservation of these trees. Please update the utility plan to show the trees to be preserved. Northern response: Revised. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/11/2022 05/11/2022: FOR HEARING There is room to increase the tree stocking. For example along the West of building 6 and 11, and around the proposed detention pond. Please increase the tree planting schedule and fill in those areas. Ripley response: Utilities have been redesigned, allowing for more tree stocking. See updated landscape plans Department: Park Planning Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 05/10/2022: INFORMATION - UPDATED: The Park Planning & Development Department is available to discuss these comments in more detail. Please contact Kyle Lambrecht at klambrecht@fcgov.com. 06/23/2021: The Park Planning & Development Department is available to discuss these comments in more detail. Please contact Suzanne Bassinger at sbassinger@fcgov.com, or Aaron Wagner at aawagner@fcgov.com Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: As acknowledged in your comment response, please plan to work with Park Planning and Development staff to finalize all necessary access easements to accommodate the regional trail and other trail spurs. Ripley response: See comment responses above to Planning and Transportation Planning referring to the regional trail alignmen t. 06/23/2021: Park Planning and Development (PPD) requires the dedication, without fee, of Public Access and Trail Easements to accommodate our regional multi-use trail system, as conceptually indicated in the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan. PPD will work wi th the applicant to determine the alignment and extent of required easements and trail improvements. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 06/23/2021: The trail easement may co -exist within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone if approval is obtained from Environmental Planning. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 Page 21 of 23 06/23/2021: A trail easement may not be located within a ditch easement unless the applicant provides written approval for the trail easement within the ditch easement from the ditch company. The paved trail surface cannot function as a ditch access road if heavy equipment will use or cross the trail to maintain the ditch. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 06/23/2021: The typical paved recreational regional trail cross -section is constructed as a 10’ wide concrete trail, widened to 12’ in areas of high traffic area or other areas of potential user conflicts. A 4 -6’ wide soft (gravel) path is located parallel to the paved surface, separated by 3-5’ of vegetated area; there shall be 3’ wide level shoulders on both sides of the trail, providing 3’ of horizontal clearance from vertical obstructions such as trees, transformers, fences and/or walls. Modifications of the typical cross -section must be approved by Park Planning & Development. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 06/23/2021: The construction schedule for the recreational trail on this site has not been determined and typically will not occur until funding becomes available. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: INFORMATION: Is it feasible to realign the trail spur to remove manholes from the trail? Ripley response: The trail only occurs along Jerome Street, where there are no manholes proposed within the trail. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please plan to coordinate the Park Planning and Development staff on the transition from the trail spur connection to the regional trail. I am concerned that users may consider the trail spur to be the regional trail. Additional signage may be necessary. Ripley response: As discussed, this is not a trail spur and is only a crushed fines path (mainly for ditch maintenance access). The change in material and width is designed to deter the assumption that this is a regional trail. However, if pedestrians do en d up taking the path, it leads to Pascal Street extension towards College Ave. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/10/2022 05/10/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please plan to coordinate with the development to the south of Jerome Street Station (Powerhouse II Development) to ensure regional trail connectivity. Ripley response: We have been coordinating with the Powerhouse II team on trail alignment and will continue to do so as each project moves through the development review process. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 05/10/2022: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please plan to coordinate with Park Planning and Development, Parks, and Stormwater staff for the final material of the trail spur shown adjacent to the Lake Canal west of Jerome Street. Will a crusher fines path hold up to utility equipment that will occasionally need to access storm and sanitary sewer? Ripley response: Final material selection will be confirmed at Final Plan 06/23/2021: The site shall accommodate the extension of the Lake Canal Trail from its existing terminus on the east side of Jerome Street, on the north side of the Lake Canal ditch, and provide an easement to continue the trail on the west side of Jerome Street to the south property boundary. The regional trail as shown in the Trail Master Plan does not continue west parallel to the Lake Canal ditch. Page 22 of 23 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 06/23/2021: The required Public Access and Trail easement width is 50’, although a minimum easement width of 30’ may be acceptable for short distances upon approval by Park Planning & Development. The location of the easement must be approved by Park Planning & Development. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 06/23/2021: Recreational trails do not function as widened sidewalks adjacent or within street rights-of-way. The Public Access and Trail Easement can be located parallel to the west Right-of-Way of Jerome Street. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/23/2021 05/10/2022: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED: A “Public Access and Trail Easement” shall be dedicated on the west side of Jerome Street, beginning directly across from the existing trail on the east side of Jerome Street and extending south to the south property boundary. Northern response: This easement will be added for the next submittal. 06/23/2021: A “Public Access and Trail Easement” shall be dedicated on the west side of Jerome Street, beginning directly across from the existing trail on the east side of Jerome Street and extending south to the south property boundary. Department: Internal Services Contact: Lauren Wade, 970-302-5962, lwade@fcgov.com Topic: GIS Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/25/2022 04/25/2022: GIS recommends continuing Pascal St through the private alley since there is an opportunity for the road to connect to College Ave in the future. Ripley response: Pascal is now shown as dedicated ROW and connects to the existing access easement east of College Ave Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 06/21/2021: It not clear from the site plan/plat if this is to be property line townhomes or multi-family buildings. Please clarify. Ripley response: These are individual (fee simple) lots to create townhomes, not multifamily buildings. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/05/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: Page 23 of 23 Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 06/21/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/21/2021 05/05/2022: FOR 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. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com Northern response: Adjustments made as marked. 06/21/2021: FOR 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. :