HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHORELL PARK SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY JOHNSTON ANNEXATION) - PDP - PDP160032 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCity of
F&tColhns
March 17, 2017
Lonny Phelps
Phelps Engineering Services, Inc.
7200 E. Hampden Ave Ste 300
Denver, CO 80224
Community Development and
Neighborhood services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/developmentreview
RE: Thorell Park Subdivision (formerly Johnston Annexation), PDP160032, Round Number 2
Please seethe following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for
your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may
contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Pete Wray, at
970-221-6754 or pwray@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact.:,Marc Virata, 970-221-6667, mvirata(aD-fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: Carried over as unresolved.
11/04/2016: A letter of intent is also required from the ditch owner prior to a. hearing:
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: The response indicated "Noted". Please note that this is considered a
pre -hearing item to verify.
11/04/2016: The preliminary soils report indicates groundwater encountered at
depths of around 3 feet from existing grade. When groundwater is encountered
within 5 feet, LCUASS 5.6 requires that a subsurface groundwater investigation
report be conducted in order to address how to mitigate high groundwater with City
public streets. In addition, with the understanding that basements are being
contemplated for the project, any subdrain system for the basements would need to
have a suitable outfall that ensure the outfall point has a 100 year surface elevation
that is below the lowest level of any basements in the subdivision. The ongoing
maintenance of a subdrain system would be the HOA/property owners and not the
City..
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: The plat appears to show an irrigation easement, not a utility easement
behind the right-of-way. Please change this to indicate a utility easement:
11/04/2016: Red Willow Drive is a collector and requires the installation of a 5 foot
wide detached sidewalk and an 8 foot wide parkway from the face of curb and the
detached sidewalk. Right-of-way dedication to the back of walk is required, along
with the 9 foot utility easement from behind this new right-of-way.
Page 1 of 18
Comment Number; 7 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016,
03/10/2017: 1 wasn't able to coordinate review of the variance requests for a
Director decision in time. I will need to follow-up on this the week of the 20th.
11/04/2016: In general there are several instances of shallow storm lines crossing
public streets that do not meet our minimum cover over the roadway section. In
general, we require a minimum of 3 foot of clearance from the finished grade of the
roadway to the top of pipe. In several instances, much less that 3 feet is indicated
and is problematic. (LCUASS section 12.2. 2 specifies minimum depth, which
indicates 2 feet below scarified subgrade, and we then presume the pavement
section is 12 inches below finished grade, utilizing 3 feet as our guide in this
standard).
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017, Carried over as unresolved, there is still a irrigation pipe in right-of-way
based on what's depicted on the Sheet 16 of the civils.
11/04/2016` Irrigation crossings of public streets require an encroachment permit
through Engineering Inspection. Additional criteria such as sleeving of the pipe with a
steel casing in right-of-way is required (for ease of access/replacement without
needing to cut the street). Note however that the irrigation line shown along the west
side of Red Willow Drive may (with the required detaching of sidewalk along the
street and its corresponding right-of-way and utility easement dedication) actually be
under right-of-way which is not allowed for a private line to run parallel within
right-of-way.. This appears to be the case as well with the line at the north end of
Red Willow Drive and heading west, this area is shown to be right-of-way and is
problematic -- this area needs to be a tract that's not right-of-way.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: With no change in the drawings and a response of "Noted", I'm unsure
of the intention in response to the original comment.
11/04/2016: The McKusky Drive and Cranston Drive private drives have receiving
access ramps on the north side of Rosen Drive, but technically no ramps on the
south side of intersection that direct to these receiving ramps. In general, because
these are not public streets, there isn't a requirement for ramps that direct
north -south across Rosen Drive (only east -west across the driveway). I would
suggest that the connecting walkways between the units be the locations in which
access ramps be provided across Rosen Drive.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: Carried over as unresolved, the drives still look like public street
intersections with cross pans and no 707.1 or 707.2 detail.
11/04/2016: The private drives intersecting public streets are required to be
designed and built to LCUASS detai1707.1 or 707.2. Note that single family attached
is considered multi -family for the purposes of LCUASS requirements, and would call
for a 24 foot minimum width instead of 20 feet for the portion 'in right-of-way.. A 15
foot radius is required per Table 8-1 for the driveways onto local streets (most
cases). A 20 foot radius is required for the Junior Drive driveway out to Red Willow
Drive with Red Willow Drive being a collector.
Page 2 of 18
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: Carried over for reference given the applicant's response of "Noted".
11/04/2016: There's a general note on the street sheets indicating that transitions
are not needed on crowned sections. Public street road designs are more
thoroughly reviewed at time of final plan, but it should be noted that transitions are
required for roadways at intersections per LCUASS details 7-27 and 7-28 (with and
without crosspans).
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: The response indicated that the striping has been removed, but this still
appears on the plans. If Traffic Operations is OK with these, I won't object.
11/04/2016: Sheet 4 depicts several striped crosswalks. I'll defer to Traffic
Operations on whether any of these would be acceptable.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: With no change in the drawings and a response of "Noted", I'm unsure
of the intention in response to the original comment.
11/04/2016: The plat can indicate the use of street names on private drives that are
intended to be named.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated.: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: Carried over for reference.
11/04/2016: Private drives will not be reviewed for their street design, being private.
The information on the public streets at time of final will require left and right flowline
profiles. It appears there may be issues with K values in some conditions meeting_
LCUASS requirements.
Comment Number- 20 Comment Originated: 11/04/20,16
03/10/2017: The civil plans are showing these shaded areas, but they are not being
dedicated on the plat, please coordinate. If these are intended to be established,
then they should be dedicated as "sight distance easements" on the plat and have
the note added referenced previously below.
11/04/2016: The site distance easement triangles are not necessarily viewed as
required by Engineering. If desired however, we have specific sight distance
easement language on the plat that should be added as follows:
ight Distance Easement 4 The sight distance easement is an easement required by
the City at. some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight
for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their
vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that
may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in
height with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct
the line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are
trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet
above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of
sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of
sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same
degree of visibility.
Page 3 of 18
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: Carried over for reference given the applicant's response of "Noted'.
11/04/2016 Lot 18 through 45 abut the existing Prairie Hill Drive. These lots in
accordance with 24-42 of the City Municipal Code would now inherit responsibility of
maintenance of the existing sidewalk as well as the existing parkway (unless some
sort. of agreement is worked out with the HOA for Linden Park to keep them
maintaining the sidewalk and parkway). Discussion with the Linden Park HOA
should be considered. The City will have language in the development agreement for
this project providing notice to Lots 18-45 of their abutting maintenance
responsibilities for Prairie Hill. Drive's abutting sidewalk and parkway under 24-42.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: Carried over as unresolved, as it appears information will be provided
at a later date.
11/04/2016: 1 didn't see a building elevation plan to understand show the units would
be designed to meet parking needs for the project.. Are all the units one car garages
(based on the 11' x 24' indication for the garage) along with a carport, to provide two
parking spaces per unit/lot? Will these units also have a rear door access off of the.
garage/carport area to meet PFA addressing and access needs?
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: Carried over for reference.
11/04/2016: Additional comments may be made upon any further refinement of the
site design and engineering components.
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: I'm confused as to what the three parallel lines are that run along
several roadway alignments (west side of Shawn Drive, south side of Rosen Drive,
south side of Stephen Drive, etc.)
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: The plat isn't specifying street names for the private drive, which is
needed in order to name private drives. Note that I don't think it would supported to
have Beachmont Drive and McKusky as two different street names on the same
alignment.
Topic: Variance Request
Comment Number 6
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/10/2017: 1 wasn't able to coordinate review of the variance requests for a
Director decision in time. I will need to follow-up on this the week of the 20th.
11/04/2016: Stephen Drive and Junior Drive's access onto Red Willow Drive along
with the private drive on Crown on Timberline across the street aren't meeting our
115 foot separation requirement between driveways and would require a variance
request for review and evaluation. Note that at staff review it was discussed that the
Junior Drive access to Red Willow Drive would be emergency access only which
would negate the need for a variance for Junior Drive. In some regards, Engineering
would rather consider the variance for Junior Drive and have it open for access vs.
the operational management and design of Junior Drive as emergency access only
(we suspect that residents would look to have this opened to full access) and PFA
has indicated that they do not need this to be emergency access only. If the
applicant's engineer is comfortable with making an argument that the separation
requirements are not a safety issue, then the opening of Junior Drive should be
considered.
Page 4 of 18
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2626, reverette(a-fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016t Thank you for providing a thorough Ecological Characterization Study
for this project. The study satisfies the requirement in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the
Land Use Code.
However, it does not appear that any efforts have been made to protect, enhance,
buffer or mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat features on the site, as required by
the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project will impact approximately 0.5 ac of
aquatic area, 0.2 ac of wetland, wet meadow areas, and significant tree groves. As
noted during conceptual review, the development plan must be "designed and
arranged to be compatible with and. to protect natural habitats and features." As
proposed, the project neither protects not adequately mitigates for the loss of any of
the natural features identified by Ecological Characterization Study.
Please contact me to arrange a separate meeting to discuss how the standards in
section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code will be met with this project. The Ecological
Characterization Study proposes a number of mitigation options, some of which
may be acceptable to staff if they adequately compensate for the habitat value
proposed to be eliminated on the site.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/03/201.6
11/03/2016: UTILITY PLANS: The demolition plan needs to show all trees proposed
to be removed with this project.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016, UTILITY PLANS: Please add the following note to the demolition plan to
minimize adverse impacts to sensitive natural habitat features: "Pond area may only
be drained and filled during the period of August 1 to January 31 to avoid impacts to
migratory birds during the active nesting season."
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016:: UTILITY PLANS: Please vary the grading of the detention areas to
create a more naturalistic, undulating landform. Side slopes should vary and range
from 4:1 to 20:1, per the Stormwater Standards and Guidelines.
hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/siie specifictu ploads/Detention_Pond_Landscapi
ng_Standards.pdf
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: LIGHTING: Please submit a photometric plan and manufacturer cut
sheets for all Lighting fixtures proposed. As discussed during Conceptual Review,
please consider a warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or less) for any
LED light fixtures. Please also consider fixtures with dimming capabilities so that
light levels can be adjusted as needed to ensure compatibility with adjacent
residential areas. Site light sources shall be fully shielded and down -directional to
minimize up -light; light spillage and glare.
03/14/17; Photometric plans and Lighting fixture cut sheets needed Prior to Hearing.
Several departments within the City of Fort Collins have been working together to
address this issue; they are referred to as the City's Night Sky team. Results of the
team's work can currently be viewed on the City's Public Records website in
Resolution 2016-074, a summary of City of Fort Collins City Council Intent and
General Policy Regarding Night Sky Objectives. For further information regarding
health effects please see:
http://darksky. org/am a-report-affirms-hu man-health-impacts-from-leds/
Page 5 of 18
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: LANDSCAPE PLAN: A tree mitigation plan needs to be included with
the landscape plan set. As discussed at Conceptual Review, an on -site meeting
needs to be arranged with the City Forester and City Environmental Planner to
determine mitigation and protection requirements for existing trees on the property.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: LANDSCAPE PLAN: Please add the following note to the landscape
plans:. "All tree removal shown shall be completed outside of the songbird nesting
season (Feb 1 - July 31) or a survey will be conducted of the trees to be removed to
ensure that no active nests are present."
03/1.4/17: Add songbird nesting note on landscape plans to read: NO TREES
SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY
1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR
WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY
ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE
SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE
FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL
REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.6
Reminder: NO tree removal or tree work (beyond healthy pruning) is to occur until a
Development Construction Permit (DCP) is issued for an approved project.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016:. LANDSCAPE PLAN: A detailed planting plan needs to be included in
the landscape plan set to ensure that all landscape requirements have been met.
This should include quantities for the shrubs, grasses and perennials listed on the
planting list.
Comment Number: 9
Comment. Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: A Fugitive Dust Control Permit must be obtained from Larimer County
Environmental Health for development involving:
- land clearing of 5=25 acres;
- land development creating more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or
exceeding 6 months in duration
Contact: Stephanie Blochow ak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak(&-fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10
Comment. Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: All Environmental Planning comments delivered for CDR160041
meeting on 05.16.16 and for PDP160032 Round 1 meeting on 11.02.16 remain with
the exception of the ECS request. The Ecological Characterization Study (ECS)
was received 10 days prior to PDP submittal and reviewed by staff.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: The letter from applicant submitted for this round of review and dated
02.15.17 to Pete Wray, Re; Thorell Park PDP 2nd Submittal/Response to 1 st
submittal comments includes within it only the first comment delivered from
Environmental Planning during the PDP Round 1 review, with the following
response: WE ARE PROPOSING MITIGATION MEASURE INCLUDING CASH IN
LIEU.
As of 03.14.17, Environmental Planning has received no mitigation plan submittal,
nor has an on -.site coordinated meeting been scheduled between Applicant,
Environmental Planning and Forestry to discuss required mitigation measures to be
incorporated into site design per LUC 3.2.1 and LUC 3.4.1.
Page 6 of 18
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Unsure how currently proposed site design can meet the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code Divisions 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection Standards
and 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features Standards.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Currently the proposed project site design does not meet the standards
outlined in LUC Divisions 3.2.1 or 3.4.1. If the proposed project is to continue in the
development review process, the aforementioned Code sections will need to be
addressed before the project goes to a Public Hearing. Please set up a separate
meeting with myself, Project Planner Pete Wray and a representative from Forestry
Department..
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: If the proposed project proceeds in the development review process
the total acreage of open space including the delineated natural habitat buffer zone
(NHBZ) will need to be included in the Land Use Breakdown table.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: The Landscape Plan needs to include a water budget chart.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017` Several species are listed on the plant list but are not actually
incorporated into plan design. Remove species entirely from Plant List if the quantity
on plans is zero. Plant List should match exactly what is shown in design on plans.
A reminder: all landscaping is inspected for compliance with approved plans prior to
issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for a site.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: While species diversity is appreciated and valued, it seems unlikely
the currently proposed site design would adequately accommodate all species
listed on the plant list; More landscape plan specifics and clean up should be
provided as soon as possible if the project moves forward in the development.
process.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: For this proposed project, the following needs to be established Prior to
Hearing:
A. A detailed mitigation plan for the 0.5 acre aquatic feature and 0.2 acres of fringe
wetlands on the site. Mitigation ratio for these features is 1:1.
B. A detailed tree mitigation plan. For any trees to be removed that are greater than
6 inches in diameter -at -breast -height the appropriate number of mitigation trees will
be required to be planted on -site. In addition., mitigation measures include tree
groves that provide cooling effects and habitat cover, whether the tree groves are
native or non-native tree species (thus includes species such as Russian olive or
Siberian elm). Habitat mitigation of tree groves should be included in natural habitat
buffer zone design.
C. Detailed design of natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) and the NHBZ is delineated
on all site, grading, utility and landscape plans. Establishment of natural habitat
buffer zones can be done quantitatively using the standard buffer table or through
the nine performance standards [LUC 3.2.1(E)].
i. Note: with respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code,
Section 3.2.4(D)(6), requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be
protected from light spillage from off site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking
areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the natural habitat buffer areas.
Page 7 of 18
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche(cDfcciov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/17/2017
03/17/2017:
Please provide a landscape plan that meets Land Use Code and 3.2.1
requirements. The following is a partial list. of things that need to be displayed on the
plan. Please show locations of these features:
o Separation of street trees from water and sewer service lines (6' separation
required). Show locations of all water and sewer service lines.
o Stop signs and street tree separation of 20'. Show locations of stop signs.
o Street lights and street. tree separation of 40' for canopy trees, and 15' for
ornamentals., Show locations of street lights.
o Driveways and tree separation of 8'.
o Intersections for visibility
o Provide minimum species diversity
o Select canopy shade trees via the City of Fort Collins Street Tree List
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/17/2017
03/17/2017:
Please provide the current General Landscape notes, Street Tree notes, and Tree
Protection notes if there are existing trees on site. These notes are available through
the project planner or the City Forester.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/17/2017
03/17/2017:
If there are any existing trees within the property lines, please contact the City
Forester for an onsite meeting to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information for
landscape plans. Existing significant trees should be retained to the extent
reasonably feasible.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/17/2017
03/17/2017:
Does the project have an assigned Landscape Architect? Typically plans of this
complexity are prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund(a-fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Light and Power has single phase and 3phase electric facilities East of
the site that can. be extended to feed this development.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Electric capacity fees, development fees; building site charges and any
system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this
development. Multifamily units are now billed WA fees: Once power requirements
are known please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of the
electrical charges and fees:
http://www.fcgov.com./utilities/business/bu ilders-and-developers/plant-investment-de
velopment-fees
Page 8 of 18
(A
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Due to recent code changes, multifamily buildings are billed and
treated as commercial services; therefore commercial service forms (C-1 forms)
and one line diagrams must be submitted to Light & Power for each building. All
secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer to install and
maintain from the transformer to the meter bank. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov. com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Transformer locations will need to be. coordinated with Light & Power
and shown on the plans. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable
surface for installation and maintenance purposes. Transformers must also have a
front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum.
Comment.Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01%2016: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and
Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. If you
wish to gang the meters on one side of the building please place on the opposite
side of the gas meters
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Streetlight placement will need to be coordinated with Light & Power.
Shaded trees are required to maintain 40 feet of separation clearances and
ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of separation clearances from
street lights. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting_ requirements can be
found below:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Chl5 04 01 2007.pdf
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016; Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approved site plan, utility
plans, and landscape drawings before design of the electric facilities will begin.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if you
have any questions at 970.416,2772. Please reference our policies, construction
practices, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilynxwiler(a�poudre-fire.ocp
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment. Originated: 03/11 /2017
03/11/2017: WATER SUPPLY
Hydrants are required on 800ft centers in residential areas and within 400ft of any
individual residential building. The current Utility Plan does not meet minimum code
requirements for hydrant separation distance. Per PFA Redlines, deleting one
hydrant and relocating two other hydrants will satisfy min.imu.m requirements. Code
language provided below.
> IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: Within the Urban
Growth Area, hydrants to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure; spaced not
further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter.
Page 9 of 18
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/11/2017
03/11/2017: FIRE ACCESS
As previously noted, fire access is required to within 150ft of all exterior portions of
every structure as measured by an approved route around the perimeter. As such,
the Site Plan indicates that many building are out of access.
> In order to mitigate this code deficiency, every private drive shall become a
dedicated fire lane. Fire lanes shall be dedicated as Emergency Access Easements
(EAE) and labeled as such on the plat and future plans.
> Lots 3, 8, 15, & 16 on the west side remain out of access by up to 70'; however,
as all buildings will be equipped with residential fire sprinkler systems, the out of
access condition is considered acceptable and no modification is being requested.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/11/2017
03/11/2017: PRIVATE DRIVES
> Parking is not allowed at any time within the limits of the 20' wide, private
drives/fire lanes.
> Fire lane signage will be required throughout the length of all dedicated fire lanes.
> A sign detail should be added to the Signage & Striping Plans. See Larimer
County Urban Streets Standard Diagram 1418 for Beta"il.
Code language provided below:
> IFC D103;6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads
shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with
Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18
inches high and have red_ letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be
posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section
D103.6.1 orD103.6.2.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/11/2017
03/11/2017: ADDRESS POSTING & LOCAL AMENDMENT
> Every residence will require the unit. address to be posted on BOTH the front and
rear of the structure,
> Units fronting Stephen Drive, Prairie Hill Drive, & Red Willow Drive which are also
accessible from a priate drive, will require the address to be posted on the front of
the building (publics . treet side) and their address posted along with the FULL
STREET NAME on the rear of the building. A plan for address posting shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to final plans approval.
Code language provided below:
> IFC 505.1.8: Buildings that are addressed on one street; but are accessible from
other streets, shall have the address numbers AND STREET NAME on each side
that is accessible form another street.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 03/11/2017
03/11/2017: FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITY
Poudre Fire Authority is currently looking to temporarily acquire the use of a vacant
single family residence slotted for demolition, to use for a major emphasis drill (attic
fire) during June 1-5 of 2017. The training is intended to be marginally invasive by
nature with a series of 1" holes punch through the roof structure, a fog nozzle
inserted into the attic through the puncture, and. with the intent to flow some amount
of water. The training evolution will then be repeated over and again as needed so
as to provide opportunities for multiple class participants. Please contact me if your
site may be willing to pursue a discussion along this line and I will put you in touch
with our training division chief. Thank you. Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Pete. Wray, 976-221-6764, pwrayCaDfcaov.com
Page 10 of 18
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Building elevations are not readable and do not reflect proposed
housing type for this review. I need detailed color elevations showing materials,
colors and design treatments for different building types and models (min. 3
models). Staff recommends more than one housing type, and exceed number of
housing models given the layout initially proposed.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 03/17/2017
03/17/2017: The R2 staff review meeting is complete. Since the applicant did not
attend, please let me know when you are ready to resubmit plans for R3. Most staff
noted previous comments and redlines were not addressed from R1. When you
are ready to pick up redlines let me know.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017;. Need more information on Landscape plans to show design for all
walkways with turf and trees. Walks can be curved more to support tree placement.
Major walkway spines should be turf, not dryla.nd seed mix. Show design on space
between lots 16 and 17. Update planting legend, notes, details.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated:. 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Need to show landscape design for common areas, detention area and
other amenities for users.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Need more detail for lighting design in common areas, walks, fixture
legend with details if different than street lights.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Update planning block on cover page as mentioned above.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Update planning approval signature block to say "Director of
Community Development and Neighborhood Services".
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Update site plan notes. I will send format. Include full site plan table on
cover page to show general land use data, lot size, coverage, building types,
density, solar oriented lots, parking.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Need to show typical lot layout with building including setbacks, front
porch and entrance area, garage access and rear door with addressing visibility,
rear stoop or patio space. Sidewalk connections should not all be rectilinear, to use
curving design to create interest. Need walk connection between lots 5 and 6. Need
to comply with LUC Section 3.5.2 (D) Relationship of dwellings to streets and
parking, max. distance 200' to street sidewalk, or 350' for major walkway spine, and
definition of connecting walkway. How are units 17 - 45 connecting to street? Need
to see where buildings are located on site plan or separate plan sheet. Need to
show property line more pronounced on all sheets.
Page 11 of 18
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 03/15/2017
03/15/2017: For lots 17-45, property line is separated from back of walk along
Prairie Hill Drive. How will this work for connecting building entrances to street?
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard(a)-fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: Lots 1 — 17 appear to arranged such that fronts of units will face west,
along the railroad tracks with the garages fronting on Shaw Drive. Staff is
wondering if this orientation will be accepted by the marketplace. Has any thought
been given to having these lots front onto Shaw Drive instead?
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
If Lots 1 - 17 end up fronting on Shaw Drive, please be aware that garages must be
recessed four feet behind either the front facade of the ground floor living area
portion of the dwelling or a covered porch (measuring at least 6 x 8 feet). Also
garage doors must not comprise more than 50% of the ground floor street facing
Linear building frontage. [Section 3.5.2(F)]. Also, please be sure to account for
street trees at intervals no less than 40 feet.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: The south property lines of Lots 16 and 17 adjoin the north (side yard)
property line of 6227 Golden Willow Drive. Please note that this property line will
need some form of treatment in order to establish compatibility.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/0.2/2016: Wherever dwelling units front on a public street, there must be
connecting walkways that link the building entrances to the public sidewalks. These
can be provided as one per unit or in any combination or consolidation or any variety
that may add interest. Perhaps introducing a curvilinear form would be beneficial.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: Section 3.5.2(C)(2) requires that single family attached buildings
containing more than two units, and where there are more than five buildings, there
must be at least three distinctly different building designs. And, there must be no
two similar buildings placed next to each other along a public street. Building
designs shall be considered similar unless they vary in significantly in footprint size
and shape.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2`016: Since it is highly unlikely that the building envelopes will vary
significantly in footprint size and shape, the individual design of the three distinctly
.different buildings will bear the burden of complying with this standard. In this case,
with 35 buildings, the applicant and design team are encouraged to exceed the
minimum requirement of three. Character elevations will be required to be
submitted and reviewed prior to the public hearing.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: It would be helpful to provide a detail that 'illustrates the relationship
between the structures and their lot.. For example, similar to a dimensioned Plot
Plan that is required for Building Permit, it would be useful to see a typical unit, yard,
garage and driveway, along with the setbacks, for both interior and corner buildings.
A series of "Lot Typicals" could be provided for the units that.front on the public
streets and those that front on the central greens.
Page 12 of 18
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: We learned at the review meeting that basements are being
considered. Please be aware of the requirement for egress windows; and window
wells, for basement living areas, particularly bedrooms. In addition, depending on
the amount of floor area that is not devoted to mechanical rooms and storage, an
additional window may be required, although this window may not need to be
capable of providing the required egress. Obviously, for the interior units, egress
windows will be limited to the front elevation only and rendering the secondary
non -egress window impossible. Staff recommends that the applicant and
consulting team meet with Russ Hovland, 970-416-2341 to review these Building
Code requirements.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: Also, be sure that egress windows and window wells are considered in
the utility coordination meeting and must be coordinated with the requirement from
the Fort Collins Loveland Water District for meter pits that must be located in
non -traffic and non -pedestrian areas.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: Please revise the parking table as we do not count tandem spaces. In
other words, if there is a two -car driveway and a two -car garage, that is counted as
two spaces, not four. If there is a two -car garage and no driveway, that is counted
as two spaces. We are not sure what is meant by "carport" as this term has
various meanings. Finally, regarding on -street parking, Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(b),
parking on an internal street fronting on lots containing single family attached
dwellings may be counted to the meet the minimum parking requirement but only so
long as the street is determined not to connect into an adjoining neighborhood. In
this case, on Shaw Drive would apply.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: Regarding Shaw Drive, it appears that, as designed, the east side will
include 10 driveways within a distance of 360 feet. Be sure to allow for adequate
space for street trees which must be planted at no greater than 40-foot intervals.
The same comment applies to the west side of Shaw Drive.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: In general, and reflecting on earlier comments, staff is concerned about
the arrangement of lots in the southwest corner. Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17 appear to
be platted in a manner that is somewhat forced. While geometrically, on paper,
these lots may look feasible, in the field, and after construction of the houses and
garages, these units will look jammed -in and out of character with the balance of the
project. It is difficult to see how these lots will be served with water, sewer, electric
and gas with all their necessary separations. In Staffs opinion, this area should be
opened up, or feature fewer units, to account for the challenges of the shape of the
parcel in this location. Has the applicant and design team considered creating view
corridors in this area? It seems that with a layout that features narrow lots, attached
dwellings and a strong rectilinear lay out, the overall character of the neighborhood
would be improved with an urban design element, such as a common view to the
mountains, versus placing dwelling units on awkwardly -shaped lots.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam(a�fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Page 13 of 18
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/11/2016
10/11/2016 The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft., therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted do
not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control
Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based upon the area of
disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since the site is over an
acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are
any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(a�fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
03/10/2017: Reminder Comment.
11/01/2016: Off -site drainage easements are required for the outfall of the
north-western detention pond. Before the public hearing, a letter of intent is required
from the off -site property owner to the north.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
03/10/2017: At PDP stage, we require a rough outline of the grading and, if required,
any retaining walls shown on the grading plan. This is to ensure enough land area is
being provided to achieve all the objectives with the detention basin.
11/01/2016: The detention ponds need to meet the City's Detention Pond
Landscape Standards. This includes variation in pond side slopes and varying the
overall shape. Retaining walls can be used, but can not be around the entire
perimeter and still need to provide for maintenance access.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
03/10/2017: Documentation is required at the POP stage to show that the site is
meeting the LID requirements. This would include an illustration of what areas of
the site are being treated and all sizing calculations for the specific LID technique.
11/01/2016: The development is required to meet the City's LID standards.
Currently, the design does not meet these requirements. Rain gardens, sand filters,
and porous pavers are options that have been used in Fort Collins.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
03/10/2017: The areas that can not physically drain into the detention ponds will
need to be subtracted from the release rates of the detention ponds.
11/01/2016: The current design has 5 basins that free release the site and do not
enter a detention pond. These flows will need to be analyzed to see if they can exit
the site without causing a negative impact to adjoining properties. In either case,
these flows needs to be subtracting from the detention pond release rate so the
overall site release rate meets the 2-year historic flows.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated:. 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: Any storm drainage inlets in public streets are required.to flow into a
public storm sewer. A city maintained public storm sewer can not be located behind
the sidewalk, and must be in the street. Public storm sewers can be located within
a tract, as long as the City's access requirements are met.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: The private storm sewer on Lot 70 must be within a tract, not a lot.
Page 14 of 18
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: Back yard swages on single family lots can not drain onto other lots if
the number is 3 or more lots draining onto another lot. A tract would be required at
the rear of the lots to convey the drainage if 3 or more lots drain onto another lot.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/10/2017
03/10/2017: Please show the proposed porous pavers within the Utility Plan set.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6.588, jcountyCa�fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: Unless this Basis of Bearings is clearly shown in the plans, please
remove the wording as marked. See redlines.
11/04/2016: Please revise the Basis Of Bearings as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
11/04/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Page 15 of 18
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum,, and as of January
1, 2016, all projects are required to be on NAV088 datum. Please provide the
following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown
below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM.
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE
FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88
- X.XX4.
11/04/2016 The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of January
1, 2015, all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please provide the
following information for the. Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown
below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM.
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED FOR
THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE
FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED = NAVD88
- X.XXj,.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Plumber, 13 Comment Originated; 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180°. See redlines.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/17/2017
03/17/2017: New redlines were not provided, as many of our comments were not
addressed. Please correct previous comments, then we will do a thorough review.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Page 16 of 18
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
11/04/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines..
11/04/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: 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.
11/04/2016: 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.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: Please remove "Subdivision" from the title. See redlines.
11/04/2016: Please remove "Subdivision" from the title. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Please property description shown on sheet 1 is not necessary. The
title & sub -title serve as a legal description. If you choose to leave it on the sheet,
please make sure it matches the legal description on the Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
03/17/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
11/04/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 03/17/2017
03./17/2017: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are
going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn(cDfcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/14/2017
03/14/2017: Please have your traffic engineer provide synchro files for the
Timberline Zephyr intersection. We would like to look into how the LOS B is being
achieved in the short range total.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson(a-fcQov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated- 10/31/2016
10/31/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit.
The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of
the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric
Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Page 17 of 18
Page 18 of 18