HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN'S EDGE (FORMERLY 2430 OVERLAND TRAIL - RESIDENTIAL) - PDP - PDP160045 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (5)•
City of
Fort Cc�llin�
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College AvFnue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. comide velo pmen tre vie w
October 27, 2017
Kristin Turner
TB GROUP
444 MOUNTAIN AVE
Fort Collins, CO 80513
RE: Mountain's Edge (formerly 2430 Overland Trail- Residential), PDP160045,
Round Number 3
Please see the 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summarv:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4344, muhlman@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 18
•
Comment Originated: 10/25/2017
10/25/2017: Along Overland Trail, the landscape retaining walls need to be set
back a minimum of 2' from the sidewalk.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/25/2017
10/25/2017: Is the overhead electric pole on the north of the property (near the
driveway for the drive-in-theatre) being relocated? It is in the path of the
sidewalk and needs to be a minimum of 2' setback.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 10/25/2017
10/25/2017: Please provide a detail of the curb and gutter transition and
sidewalk slopes along Overland Trail near the driveway for the drive-in-theatre.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/25/2017
10/25/2017: Additional comments provided in redlines.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 10/25/2017
10/25/2017: Is the overhead electric pole that is being undergrounded(west
side of Overland Trail) on private property or in an easement?
Comment Num• 23 �mment Originated: 10/27/2017
10/27/2017: Please dimension the distance after the curb stops to the property
line. This will be used to calculate a payment in-lieu for later construction.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: During Staff Review meeting 10.25.2017 verify what is the
completely delineated natural habitat buffer zone "�NHBZ"� shown on plans
and corresponding square footage and acreage.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Once NHBZ in its entirety is confirmed, ensure NHBZ remains
clearly delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plans.
Appears in this third round PDP submittal NHBZ left out of utility plan.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: By first round of FDP will need to see photometric plan and ensure
no light spillage into NHBZ.
Comment Number: 29
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Proposed soft trail seems rather close to top of bank of creek — is
this intentional? (see site plan sheet 2 of 7).
Comment Number: 30
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Once NHBZ boundary is finalized and calculated (e.g. following the
property line or not) then Environmental Planning is ready for Hearing. All other
NHBZ design details (no light spillage, planting plan etc.) can be completed at
Final Development Plan (FDP) review.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/19/2017
10/23/2017:
Continued street tree spacing from lights comment from 8/15/17 - carried
through until FDP.
8/15/2017:
Continued:
Street tree spacing from lights should be 40�. Forestry will confirm 40� spacing
is shown at FDP.
03/02/2017:
Continued:
Accurate street light locations need to be shown with trees placed at the
separation standard.
01 /19/2017:
Show locations of water and sewer service lines for all lots. Adjust tree locations
to meet the utility-tree separation standard of 6 feet (between any water or
sewer service line).
2
� �
Show locations of all front-entry driveways and adjust street tree locations to be
8 feet from driveways.
Show street light locations and proper tree separation: Shade trees: 40-feet separation
and Ornamental trees: 15-feet separation
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2017
10/23/2017:
Thank you for incorporating Red Barron Crabapple and Spring Snow
Crabapple in place of Prairiefire Crabapple on the Plant List. In regards to
Drake Road, please confirm that irrigated turf exists on Drake Road. Add a
note to Sheet 7 of the landscape plans that states existing conditions on Drake
Road.
8/15/2017:
Continued:
Forestry generally does not recommend Prairiefire Crabapple due to disease
issues. Please use Red Barron Crabapple or Thunderchild Crabapple as
replacement options for these trees. Please provide irrigated turf in the parkway
along Drake Road and Overland Trail.
03/02/2017:
Continued:
Forestry generally does not recommend Prairiefire Crabapple due to disease
issues. Please use Red Barron Crabapple or Thunderchild Crabapple as
replacement options for these trees.
01 /19/2017:
Along Drake Road, please provide street trees in the parkway in a similar
fashion to what has occurred east of this project�s location. Because of
overhead electric lines, species selection should include Red Barron and
Thunderchild Crabapples.
Please provide irrigated turf in the parkway along Drake Road.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017
10/23/2017:
Continued:
Please address comment from 8/15/2017.
8/15/2017:
Continued:
The mature canopy of a tree needs to be a certain distance from PRPA
powerline � 40 to 50 feet seems like a safe distance. Please also consider the
mature height of a tree � so that if a tree was to fall toward the powerlines, it
would clear the lines. Please make these calculations to be sure this level of
clearance is provided. It appears from the landscape plans that trees should be
moved further to the north.
Please contact Matt Curtis (PRPA) to discuss how far away the parkway trees
need to be planted from powerline poles. Should we follow the separation
distance that was previously established to the east on Drake?
3
03/03/2017: � �
Please contact Platte River Power Authority to set up an on-site meeting with a
PRPA representative and Forestry to review tree placements near powerlines
along Drake Road. Scott Rowley has been a good PRPA contact in the past; he
will likely assign a field person to take a look at the site (rowleys@prpa.org).
Wider spacing between trees may be required, as well as keeping trees a
defined distance away from transmission line towers. Please arrange for this
meeting to occur prior to next submittal.
Comment Number: 10
10/23/2017:
Continued:
Comment Originated: 03/03/2017
Comment from 8/15/2017 continued. Please address concerns.
8/15/2017:
Continued:
Thank you for showing the additional mitigation trees on the plans. However,
only 51 trees are accounted for in the Plant List on Sheet 3. Please show the
required 53 mitigation trees and label them as upsized at 3� caliper on the
Plant List.
03/03/2017:
It appears as though only 50 mitigation trees are accounted for on the plans.
Please be sure to label the required 53 mitigation trees on the plans.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcqov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended.
Current adopted codes are:
2015 International Building Code (IBC)
2015 International Residential Code (IRC)
2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2015 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2015 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the
fcgov.com/building web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 129vu1t or 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2015 IRC Chapter 11 or
2015 IECC.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: State statute CRS 9-5 requires this project to provide accessible
units. This project has 111 units and will need to achieve at least 48 points.
4
Department: Light And Po�r
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11
�
Comment Originated: 10/27/2017
10/27/2017: Be sure that curb stops and clean-outs are located in the back of
the utility easement and not in the middle. Otherwise, there is no area
remaining for installation of electrical conduit and natural gas piping.
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: Light and Power has single phase electric facilities along Blugrass
Dr that can be extended into the site to feed this development. Will 3 phase
power be needed?
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: 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 or visit the following website for an estimate
of charges and fees:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light &
Power. 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: 4
Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: Meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power.
Please show proposed meter locations on the site and utility plans. It is
recommended to gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite
gas meters.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: Secondary electric services for multifamily units will be the
responsibility of the Developer to install and maintain from the transformer to the
meters.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: Streetlights will need to be installed along public streets and
coordinated with Light & Power. Shaded trees are required to maintain 40 feet
of separation and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of
separation from street lights. A link to the City of Fort Collins streetlighting
requirements can be found below:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/G MARdStds/Ch 15_04_01 _2007.pdf
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approved site plan,
utility plans, and landscape drawings before design of the electric facilities will
begin.
5
Comment Num�er: 8
�omment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18/2017: Multifamily buildings are billed as commercial services.
Commercial Service Forms (C-1 forms) and one line diagrams must be
submitted to Light & Power for each building. The C-1 form can be found at:
http:/Izeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated:
01/18/2017: Light and Power will need to extend primary electric lines into the
site and through the private drives to feed the transformers. 10ft minimum
separation from all utility mains is needed. Additional utility easements may be
needed in the private drives to meet separation requirements.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated:
01/18/2017: 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
01/18/2017
03/03/2017
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.orq
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/21/2017
10/21/2017: PLAT LABELING
> Tracts F, G, I& J, are labeled as Access Easements on page 2 of the plat.
These tracks still need to be labeled as Emergency Access Easements on the
Land Use Table.
> The detail pages that follow (pages 3, 4, & 5) need to show EAE added to the
tract labels.
Comment Number: 16
10/21/2017: TURNING RADIUS
Comment Originated: 10/21/2017
> Curve Table, C-85 requires a 50' minimum outside turn radius per code
(radius currently shown at only 37').
> Inside turning radii at Tract I connections to Bluegrass Drive shall provide 25'
inside turning radii.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/21/2017
10/21/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
Please add LUCASS details #1418 ֋ for sign type, placement, and
spacing.
"By Order of the Fire Marshal" shall be replaced with appropriate directional
arrows on all signs. Fire lane sign locations shall be provided with FDP.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/21/2017
10/21/2017: ADDRESS POSTING PLAN
> Address posting plan to be provide as part of FDP submittal.
0
Department: Planning Se�es
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
•
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: Regarding the response to comment number 5, for
the six-foot high, solid wood fence along the east property line, the labeling on
the plan sheets should include the addition of the masonry columns (General
Note Number 16) at the rear-yard property corners of either the lots in
Mountain's Edge or Brown Farm 7th Filing. The intervals and locations of the
masonry columns need to be established. Staff recommends placement at the
Brown Farm lot corners as this fence is separated from the Mountain's Edge
lots by the 10-foot wide drainage easement.
01/18/2017: Similarly, the plans are not clear as to whether or not the project will
construct a common rear-lot privacy fence along the east property line. Is a
common fence proposed or will rear yard fencing be left up to each individual lot
owner? Or, does the developer plan on relying upon the neighbors� existing
fencing? This issue will likely be a topic at the upcoming neighborhood
meeting. In comparable projects, staff has seen a unified common rear yard
fence, with masonry columns at the property corners, offered as the successful
solution to this design issue.
3/01/2017: Carried Over: Staff recommends that the proposed six foot privacy
fence along the east property line be upgraded in order to promote
neighborhood compatibility. Since there is a likelihood that the Lots 12 through
28 may be placed at a different grade than the existing homes in Brown Farm,
the role of the fence takes on an important role as the sole transition between
the two projects. This fence should be upgraded to include masonry columns
and other wood fence design features so that the fence adds to the quality of life
for both existing and new residents. In a similar project recently approved and
now under construction, masonry columns were placed at the property corners
of the existing lots. Pleases provide a detail of this fence.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: For the public hearing, the tree mitigation plan is
typically resolved as per Section 3.2.1(F).
01/18/2017: The aerial maps indicate that there are a significant number of
trees along the west property line that may be in the existing Overland Trail
public right-of-way. What is the status of these trees after the 7.5 feet dedicated
for additional public right-of-way and the 15 feet dedicated as a utility
easement? These trees are not addressed either in the project narrative or on
the Landscape Plan. Please provide a detailed response as to the status and
proposed disposition of these trees. Hopefully, a significant number of these
trees can be preserved.
3/01/2017: Carried Over: Planning defers to the City Forester on this issue.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: As noted above, the tree mitigation plan needs to
be resolved prior to public hearing.
01/18/2017: The existing trees that are totally on private property and are
slated to be removed will need to be identified and mitigated per Section
3.2.1(F) in conjunction with a site inspection by the City Forester. Then, the
Landscape Plan`R�eds to indicate the extent of the tree remo�reason for
removal and tree mitigation both in table form and on the Plan. As we have
required on other projects, a separate Tree Mitigation Plan sheet may be
needed.
3/01/2017: Carried Over: Staff defers to Forestry on this issue.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: Regarding the response to comment number 11,
please note that landscaping between driveways and buildings for Lots 18 and
19 will be needed as well. Also, the hatching that indicates landscaping in the
private alleys between driveways and buildings is very faint on sheets 5— 7.
Please make this hatching darker or use heavier line weight.
01/18/2017: In the private alleys, with the garages arranged as proposed, staff
recommends a landscape strip between driveways. Such landscaping should
be sufficiently dense and vertical to prevent informal parallel parking from
spilling over onto the neighboring driveway. This landscaping will also improve
the overall aesthetics of the private alleys.
3/01/2017: Carried Over: The strips between driveways have been added but
now need to be landscaped with vertical plants to break the monotony and
repetition. Evergreens that are suitable to the space, and achieve a measure of
verticality (no Carpet Junipers), must be mixed in and emphasized so that there
is year-round interest. This is especially important along Private Alleys A E
where townhome garages face single family detached lots. Simply relying on
tall grasses would be insufficient. This has been done with success in
comparable projects such as within portions of Rigden Farm.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
10/24/2017: Carried Over: Regarding the architectural elevations and
compliance with Section 3.2.5(C)(2)(b), please note that at Final Plan, we will
need to see the distribution of the three styles to ensure that the project
achieves the overall objective of creating a neighborhood that is varied and
demonstrates visual interest. For example, with two five-plexes next to each on
both Overland Trail and Crown View, please make sure that no two similar
styles occur in sequence.
01/18/2017: Regarding the architectural elevations, staff would like to discuss
with the design team on how best to introduce a higher level of variety among
buildings so the project does not seem overly monotonous.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: Regarding the response to comment number 21,
please clarify that the "Dry Stack Stone Wall" on sheet 5 of 7 will be natural
stone and not a concrete, "stone-like" product.
01/18/2017: Please describe the side slopes of the central green / detention
pond (Tract C). In order to be effective as a central green, these slopes should
be as shallow as possible.
3/01/2017: Carried Over: Please provide a detail of the retaining wall.
0
Comment Number: 28
(;omment Originated: 01/18/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: Regarding comment number 28, this is carried over
for Final Plan consideration. Based on the information provided at the review
meeting, Staff has learned that the edge of Asphalt on Downs Way will feature a
vertical concrete curb. Staff recommends that a neighborhood attribute could
be achieved by adding an urban design component as this private alley
terminates with a view to the open space and beyond creating an opportunity for
an aesthetic feature that will encourage walking, dog-walking, etc. It seems that
the potential to add a qualitative feature to the project is being overlooked.
01/18/2017: If not a public street to the southern terminus, then a public access
easement needs to be provided for public access to the open space.
3/01/2017: Carried Over: Let's further discuss. The private roadway will need
an access easement for because it acts in lieu of a street. The purpose of the
comment is to allow residents of Brown Farm to use the roadway to gain
access to the open space without trespassing.
Comment Number: 30
Comment Originated: 03/01/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: Regarding the Lot Typical for Single Family
Detached, please graphically depict that the recessed garage must be four feet
behind the front building line and in no case shall the driveway be less than 20
feet in length as measured from the back of walk.
Regarding the Lot Typical for Single Family Attached, please add a note that
garages are intended to be attached to the dwelling unit. Also, please
graphically depict that along the private alleys; there will be areas between
driveways and buildings for landscaping. Also, please delete Alley Load Only
as the graphic captures the two public street conditions. For those units that
face a common area, simply state that the front setback varies.
03/01/2017: The Lot Typical for the single family detached lots should be at the
same scale as the plan sheet. Also, for practical purposes, please locate the
building envelope at the minimum required front setback line as this seems to
be a common construction practice. Also, be sure to add a front porch that is
no less than 6' x 8' (but can be larger) and add a garage that is no less than
four feet (but can be greater) recessed behind the front porch. Please include
the street tree. Since the Lot Typical will be at the 40 scale, please add
dimensions.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated
10/23/2017: Carried Over: Regarding the response to comment number 36,
please add note that a wire mesh may be applied to the split-rail fencing for
residents who may need to confine their pets. Also, be sure to add a detail for
both types of fences to the Landscape Plan.
03/03/2017: Regarding Comment Number 5, having had further discussion with
the design team, I became aware that there is to be a separate drainage tract
located between the rear property line of the single family detached homes and
the eastern property line of the project site. This tract is specifically intended to
be owned and managed as a common area for the purpose keeping the tract
exclusive for drainage conveyance and not to be encumbered by sheds,
gardens, patios, play equipment, or any other appurtenances associated with
03/03/2017
�7
private backyar� As a result, it may be necessary to provi�common fence
along the rear property line of the lots as well as the six foot privacy fence along
the project's property line. Staff recommends that this fence be no more than
four feet in height so as to not create a canyon between the fences. Further, this
fence should feature an open rail design so there is no temptation to throw
grass clippings into the conveyance channel. If there is a concern about
keeping dogs in the yard, the fence can include hog wire to keep the open feel.
Comment Number: 37
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Regarding all three Modifications, please update the Background
section with the current building and unit counts. For example, at this time, I
count 14 single family detached lots, not 28, and 121 single family attached, not
120, and 20 single family attached buildings, not 19. Also the Land Use
Statistics table needs to be updated. Please include the breakdown between
the two housing types.
Comment Number: 38
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017:Regarding the Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(1)(b) — Connecting
Walkway, please provide the range of distances for the non-complying units that
are not within 200 feet of a public sidewalk so we can see the extent of the
divergence.
Comment Number: 39
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Also please note that contrary to the narrative, Building 10
complies with walkways out to all units to both Overland Trail and Crown View
that do not exceed 200 feet. Also Building 2 complies with a walkway out to
BIue.Grass that does not exceed 200 feet. Also, Building 18 partially complies
with units 1 and 2 and Building 19 partially complies with units 4-7. Please
adjust the narrative as the extent of the divergence from the standard is
reduced.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: In order for units 4-7 in Building 19 to comply, there must be a
4-foot wide walkway along the eastern edge of the building that directly
connects to the public sidewalk on Blue Grass. This walkway is not labeled on
the Site Plan. Also, please add a heading that this is Modification Number One
as the Modification will be an attachment that needs to correspond to the Staff
Report.
Comment Number: 41
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Regarding the Modification to Section 3.5.2(E)(2) — front yard
setback from a non-arterial street — it appears that this applies only to Building
12 which has a setback that is 14.7 feet setback from Crown View. If this is the
only case, and with only .3-foot divergence, the justification should be Section
2.8.2(H)(4) which allows for Modifications where the extent of the divergence is
"...nominal and inconsequential...". Also, please add a heading that this is
Modification Number Two.
Comment Number: 42
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Regarding the Modification to Section 3.6.2(E), please update the
Requested Modification as Street F has now been named Crown View Drive.
Also, please add a heading that this is Modification Number Three.
io
Comment Numb• 43
�mment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23/2017: Has any consideration been given to softening or adding features
or articulation to the six-foot high fence along the north property line? This fence
is slightly over 380 feet in length and faces 17 units. If so, please include a
detail.
Comment Number: 44
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/24/2017: In L-M-N, per Section 4.5(D)(2)(d) — Mix of Housing, the standard
requires that a single housing type shall not constitute more than 80% or less
than 5% of the total number of dwelling units. Please note that with 121 total
units, and with 107 single family attached and 14 single family detached, the
percentages are 88.5% and 11.5% respectively. Compliance would be
achieved by reducing the number of single family attached to 97 units,
increasing the number of single family detached, or adding a third housing type.
In this case, has the applicant considered introducing a third housing type such
as either a two-family dwelling (duplex with each unit on its own lot) or two family
attached dwelling (two duplexes attached with each duplex on its own lot)? By
adding a third housing type, a Request for Modification would not be necessary.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmoqen@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 01/17/2017
10/24/2017: It is currently unclear how detention pond 4 and rain garden 2
located in Basin D5 work in conjunction with each other. How are flows that
reach the rain garden detained? And how do flows the reach the detention
pond receive treatment in the rain garden?
Please review LID treatment provided as it appears that some areas listed to
receive treatment do not reach a LID feature - namely Basin 61 and D5.
02/28/2017: Additional information is needed to determine if LID requirements
are currently being met. Please see redlines and contact me for discussion.
01/17/2017: Please review acceptable Low Impact Development (LID)
methods and show that LID requirements are being met. Grass buffers do not
meet the requirement as they are not volumetric, quantifiable treatment.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/17/2017
10/24/2017: The maximum allowable slope within detention ponds is 4:1.
There are currently proposed slopes steeper than this; please revise
accordingly.
02/28/2017: The altered grading is an improvement and is more in line with the
guidelines. Additional landscaping (trees, shrubs, boulder features, etc) would
further improve aesthetics and feel of these areas.
01/17/2017: Please review the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines
for Stormwater and Detention Facilities and adjust proposed landform and
slopes to help improve aesthetic qualities.
11
Comment Num�er: 8
10/24/2017: Please see updated redlines (PDF).
02/28/2017: Please see updated redlines.
01/17/2017: Please see redlined plans and drainage report.
Comment Number: 11
�omment Originated
Comment Originated
01/17/2017
10/24/2017
10/24/2017: Please note that drain time compliance will be required with final
plans.
Please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance with drain
times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). More information on this
statute is available at http://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a
spreadsheet to show compliance is available for download at
http://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at
(970j224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this
requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 10/24/2017
10/24/2017: It is unclear why rationai method is being used to size the
detention ponds and release rates, but SWMM is used to justify the overall
release rate. Please use either rational method or SWMM for detention volume
and flow rate calculations.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 10/24/2017
10/24/2017: With the current configuration of the bypass pipe in the northern
tract, the City will not own or maintain. Please call out private
ownership/maintenance for the eastern section located east of the manhole on
the east side of the road.
Comment Number: 14
10/24/2017: Prior to hearing, please address:
- LID requirements.
- Detention pond slopes, sizing, and space allotted.
- Site release rates.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Originated: 10/24/2017
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017
03/01/2017: Repeat, I saw the response note that materials will be submitted at
FDP.
01/17/2017: 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. 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
12
Department: Technical Se�'Jfces �
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountv@fcqov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
03/03/2017: No plans were provided for review, so we cannot verify this was
addressed.
01/20/2017: Please change the title to match the other plan sets.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
03/03/2017: This has not been corrected.
01/20/2017: Please change the Basis Of Bearings statement to match the
revised Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
03/03/2017: Some of the right of way descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
01/20/2017: Some of the right of way descriptions shown are incorrect. If they
are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the
Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
03/03/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
01/20/2017: There are text over te� issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
03/03/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
01/20/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
03/03/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
03/03/2017: There are line over te� issues. See redlines.
01/20/2017: There are line over te� issues. See redlines.
13
Department: Traffic Ope�on �
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017
10/20/2017: Can you return the striping redlines to us? That way we can verify
the changes. We'll need to finalize signing and striping at final.
03/01/2017: Please see striping redlines.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 10/20/2017
10/20/2017: What is the purpose of the Downs Way stub out? Is this roadway
expected to extend in the future?
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/20/2017
10/20/2017: How many parking spaces are available in the development for
visitors (not including garages)? This is a consistent question from the public,
and it would helpful to know the answer.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/20/2017
10/20/2017: The TIS has been reviewed and utilized to identify the required
improvements - including the improvements to Drake and Overland, and the
accelerations lane for NB traffic on Overland. These conclusions are accepted.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/17/2017
01/17/2017: TRANSFORT
The Transfort Strategic Operating Plan calls for bus service to this area. Please
install a Type II bus stop pad along Overland Trail in front of Building K(see
Figure 10 in Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines:
http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standard
s.pdf). A fee-in-lieu can be paid for the amenities (bike rack, bench, and trash
can) until service is started to the area.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/23/2017
02/23/2017: TRANSFORT
The previous comment is still relevant. The bus stop pad location for Mountain's
Edge was discussed in the Fixed Route Service work session. The group
evaluated Drake as an alternative but felt that it would not be satisfactory
operationally due to traffic safety and secondly, due to its poor proximity to
proposed units.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
01/10/2017: 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
01/10/2017
14