Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZIEGLER - CORBETT ODP MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA220004 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS  Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 ‑ fax fcgov.com/developmentreview February 23, 2023 Chris Beabout Landmark Homes 6341 Fairgrounds Ave., Suite 100 Windsor, CO 80550 RE: Ziegler ‑ Corbett ODP Major Amendment, MJA220004, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Ziegler ‑ Corbett ODP Major Amendment. 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 INFORMATION: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. 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. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Comment Number: 2 SUBMITTAL: 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. Comments requiring action should NOT have a response such as noted or acknowledged. You will need to provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of why comments have not been addressed [when applicable]. Comment Number: 3 SUBMITTAL: 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_Rd2.pdf File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names. Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization Study. Reach out to me if you would like a list of suggested names. *Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs. Comment Number: 4 SUBMITTAL: All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers. Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from the PDF’s. AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set, and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and newer) in the command line and enter "0". Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing‑text‑appears‑as‑Comments‑in‑a‑PDF‑created‑by‑Aut oCAD.html Comment Number: 5 SUBMITTAL: Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut‑off for routing the same week. When you are preparing to resubmit your plans, please notify me with an expected submittal date with as much advanced notice as possible. Comment Number: 6 INFORMATION: Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the expiration of your project. Comment Number: 7 INFORMATION: ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee of $3,000.00. Department: Planning Services Contact: Ryan Mounce, 970‑224‑6186, rmounce@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 12/13/2022: INFORMATION: Development review staff is working with Neighborhood Services on an approach to collect additional input from neighbors for the location of a potential stoplight (Hidden Pond or Paddington) and connectivity scenarios. We're currently planning for an early January in‑person meeting that can also serve as the required meeting for the ODP major amendment. Staff is looking for this input and direction in order to help finalize ODP details before scheduling the hearing with P&Z. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Jim Bertolini, 970‑416‑4250, jbertolini@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/07/2022: (Note: HP comments copied from PDP 11‑17‑2022; Historic survey requirement remains outsdanding) INFORMATION: Since this project was reviewed in May 2022, the project footprint has changed to include the current site of 4109 Ziegler. This property is Unevaluated for historic status and must complete historic survey prior to submittal for PDP to determine if the property qualifies as an historic resource. If not, demolition is permitted and no historic preservation review is needed for the project. If it is an historic resource, LUC 3.4.7 (renumbered to 5.8.1 in new LDC eff. Jan 1, 2023) requires the resource to be retained or adaptively reused unless a Modification of Standards is successfully requested for demolition and alternative compliance. Comment Number: 2 12/07/2022: PRESUBMITTAL: At conceptual review, the applicant is responsible for working with City staff to determine if any structures on the development site and, when relevant, within 200 feet of the development site, are designated historic resources or are eligible for historic designation [LUC 3.4.7(B)(2)]. Structures subject to this requirement must be at least 50 years old. This process involves ordering historic property surveys if no such documentation has been produced for the property in the last five years. Comment Number: 3 POTENTIAL FEE: Any historic survey that is required to provide documentation and a determination of eligibility of properties that contain buildings more than 50 years old, within 200 feet of the development site, will require an $850 fee per property/resource, paid by the applicant. Please contact Historic Preservation to receive an order form for survey at HYPERLINK "mailto:preservation@fcgov.com" preservation@fcgov.com Comment Number: 4 CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES ON AND NEAR DEVELOPMENT SITE: If any resources on the development site are identified as historic resources through the survey and records review process, the project must include a rehabilitation and adaptive reuse plan for those structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B), to the maximum extent feasible, or satisfactorily meet the requirements for a modification of standards following the requirements of Division 2.8 of the land use code. If there are any currently designated historic resources on the State or National Register of Historic Places that undergo a status change due to an updated determination of eligibility through the above survey process, public monitoring of the change in status will also involve sharing the new survey results with the public at the next available Landmark Preservation Commission meeting. If no structures or other features on the development site are historic resources (based on the information provided by the surveyor), Historic Preservation review of your proposed development would be limited to section 3.4.7(E), which provides various standards regarding architectural compatibility with abutting and nearby historic properties within 200 feet. The purpose of the design compatibility standards is not to force derivative architecture, but rather to establish a few points of commonality and create a fundamental harmony between the old and the new. Those requirements are designed to create an appropriate design relationship between new construction and nearby historic resources. They cover building massing and design features and, for larger developments, are applied only to the new construction that is closest to the identified historic structures, i.e. the “historic influence area.” This is illustrated in 3.4.7(B)(2). If an abutting property is a historic resource or there are historic resources on the development site, the design compatibility requirements are typically met relative to that property, even if there are other historic resources within the 200‑foot boundary. Comment Number: 5 PLAN OF PROTECTION: A plan of protection for all nearby historic resources is required to be submitted to Historic Preservation. This plan will need to detail the particular considerations and protective measures that will be employed to prevent short‑term and long‑term material damage and avoidable impact to identified historic resources within the 200‑foot area of adjacency from demolition, new construction, and operational activities, as well as any additional requirements for rehabilitation, long‑term stabilization and interpretation of historic resources. Comment Number: 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: The applicant is required to seek a recommendation to the decision maker for development sites that contain historic resources or have historic resources within 200 feet. The recommendation addresses compliance of the development with Section 3.4.7 of the land use code. Staff has the discretion to waive that requirement and provide staff comments that note that all requirements have been met and the project has only minor or no impact on historic resources. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 02/17/2023: FOR HEARING ‑ UPDATED: Please update the variance request to reference the January 2023 traffic study and any updated findings of the traffic study. We can coordinate offline to get the updated variance request approved prior to the hearing. 12/12/2022: FOR HEARING: Thank you for submitting a variance request to propose a signalized intersection aligned with Hidden Pond, roughly 430 feet south of Paddington Road. At the moment, Engineering, Traffic, and Planning are working with Neighborhood Services to organize additional outreach to the English Ranch neighbors. They will need to have an opportunity to weigh in on the location of the traffic signal. Due to the need for additional outreach and coordination, we are not ready to approve the variance request at this time, but we are happy to continue the conversation with you. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970‑224‑6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 02/17/2023: UPDATE: While the City's ultimate desire would still be to have this development take access off of Paddington and Ziegler, it is our understanding based on the outreach completed that the option to provide a full vehicular connection from this development to Paddington Road was not desired. Thus, the only connection being provided at this time will be the bike and pedestrian connection to Paddington, with a traffic signal to be installed at the main access along Ziegler that aligns with Hidden Pond. 12/12/2022: FOR HEARING: The City is still looking to explore an option that provides a vehicular connection to the north along Paddington. Given the history of the development in this area and this proposal that would potentially need a traffic signal at Hidden Pond, we would like to see further outreach to the English Ranch neighborhood to discuss this, with the understanding that if this project moves forward with a traffic signal at Hidden Pond, the Paddington intersection is unlikely to ever be signalized. This outreach should really be completed before we fully consider this change to the ODP as this could be a determining factor on whether or not the City will support the signalization of the Hidden Pond intersection, or just proceed with the channelized T intersection. Comment Number: 2 02/17/2023 FOR HEARING UPDATE: The updated traffic study has been received and reviewed. The general conclusions are accepted and the City agrees with the recommendation for the developer to install a traffic signal at the development access on Ziegler as it aligns with Hidden Pond. We would however, like to look at the ultimate geometry of the eastbound movement. The City's preference would be to have a dedicated left turn lane, with the through and right turns sharing a lane. 12/12/2022: FOR HEARING: The traffic memo has been received and reviewed, see additional comments regarding the content and findings. We may need to meet to discuss further. Comment Number: 4 02/17/2023: FOR HEARING UPDATE: It is the understanding of the City that the developer will be responsible for the traffic signal at the access along Ziegler that aligns with Hidden Pond based on the general conclusion that warrants are met for the signal. 12/12/2022: FOR HEARING: The findings of the Traffic Memo do not give a clear indication of the recommended improvements the developer is committed to making with the changes to this ODP. The study only suggests that consideration be made to the signalization of the Hidden Pond intersection, but does not provide any evaluation on what the LOS would be with the signal. Is the developer committing to providing a traffic signal if the City approves this ODP. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970‑222‑1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 12/06/2022: INFORMATION: No Erosion and Sediment Control materials needed for ODP Major Amendment. Project will be reviewed at PDP/FDP level. Department: Light And Power Contact: Cody Snowdon, 970‑416‑2306, csnowdon@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/05/2022: FOR INFORMATION: Light & Power has no concerns/comments with the ODP Major Amendment. Department: Forestry Contact: Carrie Tomlinson, , ctomlinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/12/2022: No comments at this time. If you have any questions about tree requirements for PDP please email HYPERLINK "mailto:ctomlinson@fcgov.com" ctomlinson@fcgov.com Department: Park Planning Contact: Missy Nelson, , mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Parks Department Planning staff can help with any questions you may have regarding these comments. Please contact Missy Nelson | mnelson@fcgov.com regarding the Parks’ Department’s interest. Comment Number: 2 There are no trails, trail connections or parks according to the Trail Master Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan. However, please provide internal multi‑modal connections to function as safe routes to school, etc. towards the NW, Linton Elementary and English Ranch Park and other important connections within and out of the subdivision. Comment Number: 3 The project site includes roads designated to be/as arterial streets. Please reference the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards https://www.fcgov.com/planning/streetscapedesign.php and coordinate with the Parks Department for the design and management of streetscapes and other areas that will be turned over to Parks for management. Parks Department Planning staff can help with any questions you may have regarding these standards. If the parkways along Ziegler will not be maintained by Parks, please make it clear on the landscape plan notes. Comment Number: 4 The City of Fort Collins provides a variety of resources to help with xeriscaping. City’s new online vegetation database, recommended plant list: https://www.fcgov.com/vegetation/ Xeriscaping resources: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/water‑efficiency/xeriscape/in centive‑program/resources Comment Number: 4 The Parks Department will need to review any taps/new irrigation that will be handed over to Parks for management. Irrigation plans will need to be reviewed and comply with Parks irrigation standards; https://www.fcgov.com/parks/files/fc‑ipt‑final‑report‑with‑standards.pdf?161729 5249 . Further irrigation, hydrozone, water allotments, water budgets, etc. details will be reviewed when the project is submitted. Department: Internal Services Contact: Lauren Wade, 970‑302‑5962, lwade@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 11/25/2022: GIS has no comments at this time. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970‑221‑6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/12/2022: INFORMATION ONLY: We have no comments, but will need to see any future submittals.