HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN'S EDGE (FORMERLY 2430 OVERLAND TRAIL - RESIDENTIAL) - PDP - PDP160045 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (4)�
C�ty Of
Fort Collins
•
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/developmentrevrew
October 27, 2017
Kristin Turner
TB GROUP
444 MOUNTAIN AVE
Fort Collins, CO 80513
�
S
�
��s �.a� �,�
J S
`��} �r��,
�,o
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, Tetl Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4344, muhlman c(D.fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originatetl: 10/25I2017
10/25/2017: Along Overland Trail, the landscape retaining walls need to be set
back a minimum of 2' from the sidewalk.
RESPONSE: The site plan has been updated to show the walls at least 2' from the sidewalk.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Oriqinated: 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.
RESPONSE: No. this power pole is off-site and on private property. This powerpole serves the drive-in
theater and will remain in place with this development.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10125I2017
1012512017: Please provide a detail of the curb and gutter transition and
sidewalk slopes along Overlantl Trail near the tlriveway for the drive-in-theatre.
RESPONSE: The sidewalk will end before the property line. Due to the grading constraint at the Drive-in
theater and lack of ROW at that location, we will be escrowing for the rest of the improvements (asphalt, curb gutter, sidewalkl.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10I25/2017
1
•
10/25/2017: Additional comments provided in redlines.
RESPONSE: A.cknowledged.
�
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10I2512017
10125/2017: Is the overhead electric pole that is being untlergrounded(west
side of Overland Trail) on private property or in an easement?
RESPONSE: This powerpole serves the house on the Mountain's Etlge property Since the overhead
utility wil! be removed, this power pote can be removed too. The existing conditions plan was updated to show this.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/27/2017
1012712017: 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.
RESPONSE All c�rb sto�s are located within the lots, they are located at ±he back of the utility easement.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak(�a,fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 10/2312017
10/23I2017: 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.
RESPONSE: The boundary was verified during the Staff Review meeting.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated; 10/2312017
10123/2017: 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 28
Comment Originated: 10/23I2017
10/23/2017: By first round of FDP will need to see photometric plan and ensure
no light spillage into NHBZ.
RESPONSE: Acknowletlged.
Comment Number: 29
Comment Originated: 1012312017
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).
RESPONSE: Per an email from Stephanie Blockowiak, this comment is resolved.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 10/23I2017
10123I2017: Once NHBZ boundary is finalized antl 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.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche fc o�
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3
10123/2017:
Comment Originated: 0111912017
�
►�J
�
Continued street tree spacing from lights comment from 8115/17 - carried
through until FDP.
RESPONSE: We believe the spacing of alt street trees is 40' from Gghts Per Forestry's comment on
8 15 17, this will be confirmed by Forestry at 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.
01/1912017:
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).
Show locations of all front-entry driveways and adjust street tree locations to be
8 feet from driveways.
Show street light locations antl proper tree separation: Shade trees: 40-feet separation
and Ornamental trees: 15-feet separation
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01119/2017
10/23I2017:
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.
RESPONSE: There is existing turf located in the tree lawn along Drake Road. The foliowing note has been adtled to sheet
3(General Lantlscape Notes #23) that states `DRAKE ROAD HAS AN EXISTING, IRRIGATED TREE LAWN. TREE LAWN
IS PROPOSED ONLY IN AREAS WITHOUT AN EXISTING TREE LAWN.'
8I15I2017:
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 Overlantl Trail.
03/02/2017:
Continuetl:
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.
01119/2017:
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
overheatl electric lines, species selection should include Red Barron and
Thunderchild Crabapples.
3
�
�
Please provide irrigated turf in the parkway along Drake Road.
Comment Number: 9
10/23I2017:
Continued:
Please address comment from 8I1512017.
Comment Originated: 03103/2017
RESPONSE: We reachetl out to PRPA regarding the plans. Plans were sent to him to review. He
approvetl the tree selection and did not believe a site visit was necessary. I have confirmed, per his
comments that there are no trees located within their easement (outside of the ROW).
8I1512017:
Continued:
The mature canopy of a tree needs to be a certain distance from PRPA
powerline � 40 to 50 feet seems like a safe tlistance. 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 tliscuss 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?
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 from 8/15I2017 continued. Please address concerns.
RESPONSE: Sheet 3 has been revised.
8115/2017:
Continued:
Comment Originated: 0310312017
Thank you for showing the adtlitional 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.
0310312017:
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(a�fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
4
� •
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originatetl: 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 Cotle (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/builtling web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICCIANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Loatl Live Load: 30 PSF / Grountl 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowietlged
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/23/2017
10/23I2017: 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.
RESPONSE: This will be addressed at FDP.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepardna,fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/27/2017
10127/2017: 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.
RESPONSE: Curb Stops are 1' inside back.of utility easement, per FC typical water service tletail.
Cleanouts are located 1' inside back of utility easement.
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsieqmund a(�.fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
0111812017: Light and Power has single phase electric facilities along Blugrass
Dr that can be extentletl into the site to feetl this development. Will 3 phase
power be neetled?
RESPONSE: Phase 3 electric is not expected for this site.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originatetl: 01I18/2017
0111812017: Electric capacity fees, tlevelopment fees, builtling site charges
and any system motlification 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:
5
• �
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/18/2017
01/18I2017: Transformer locations will neetl 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.
RESPONSE This will be coardinated at FDP.
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.
RESFONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 01118/2017
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 01118/2017
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 requiretl 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/enpineerinp/GMARdStds/Ch 15_04_01 _2007.pdf
RESPONSE: See response from TBG to Forestry comment.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 0111812017
01 /18/2017: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approvetl site plan,
utility plans, and landscape drawings before design of the electric facilities will
begin.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. CAD files will be provitled after approval of plans.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 01/1812017
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://zeus.fcqov.com/utils-procetlures/fileslEngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.ptlf
RESPONSE: Acknowleged.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 01/1812017
01I18I2017: 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.
RESPONSE: A totai of 40' of utility easement is provided by this plan.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/0312017
0111812017: 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-antl-developers
RESPONSE Thank you
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler(cipoudre-fire.orq
Topic: General
Comment Number: 15
10/21/2017: PLAT LABELING
Comment Originated: 10/21/2017
> Tracts F, G, I& J, are labeletl 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.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 16
10/21/2017: TURNING RADIUS
Comment Originated: 10121I2017
> Curve Table, C-85 requires a 50' minimum outside tum 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.
RESPONSE: Inside tuming radius at Tract I are at least 25'. Outside radius of 37' at C85 actualiy provides
more turning room for fire apparatus truck, as such we are proposing to leave the turning radius at 37'. See exhibit emailed
separately
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/21/2017
10121/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
Please atld 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.
RESPONSE: Signage will be providetl at FDP
Comment Number: 18
10/21/2017: ADDRESS POSTING PLAN
> Address posting plan to be provide as part of FDP submittal.
RESPCNSE Acknowdedged.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard(�a.fcgov.com
Comment Originated: 10/21/2017
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/1812017
1012312017: Carried Over: Regarding the response to comment number 5, for
the six-foot high, solitl 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.
01118/2017: 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 indivitlual 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.
RESPONSE: Site Plan Notes #16 has been revised to state the following: ` A 6' WOOD FENCE WILL BE
PROVIDED ALONG THE BROWN FARM PROPERTY LINE WITH MASONRY COLUMNS TO BE
LOCATED AT EACH BROWN FARf�9 LOT CORNER.'
3/01/2017: Carried Over: Staff recommends that the proposed six foot privacy
fence along the east property line be upgraded in ortler 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
10/2312017: Carried Over: For the public hearing, the tree mitigation plan is
typically resolved as per Section 3.2.1(F).
RESPONSE: Revisions have been sent to Forestry.
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 Overlantl 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 antl
proposed disposition of these trees. Hopefully, a significant number of these
trees can be preserved.
3I0112017: Carried Over: Planning defers to the City Forester on this issue.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated; 01118/2017
1012312017: Carrietl Over: As noted above, the tree mitigation plan needs to
be resolved prior to public hearing.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been sent to Forestry.
01/18/2017: The existing trees that are totally on private property and are
slated to be removed will neetl to be itlentified and mitigated per Section
3.2.1(F) in conjunction with a site inspection by the City Forester. Then, the
s
�
�
Landscape Plan needs to intlicate the extent of the tree removal, 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: 01118/2017
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 tlriveways and buildings is very faint on sheets 5— 7.
Please make this hatching darker or use heavier line weight.
RESPONSE The shrub bed hatch has been darkeneu� for better legibility. Please n�+e Buildings 18 ard
19 do not have sufficient area for lantlscape areas betweeK � driveways.
01/18I2017: In the private alleys, with the garages arranged as proposed, staff
recommends a landscape strip between driveways. Such lantlscaping should
be sufficiently dense antl 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 atldetl 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
10124/2017: 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 neighborhootl 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.
RESPONSE: Per the discussion at Staff Review, this comment is no longer applicahle sir:ce each of the
building types are called out on the site plan.
01118/2017: Regartling 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: 01/18I2017
10I2312017: 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 I detention
�7
.
Comment Number: 28
pond (Tract C). In ortler to be effective as a central green, these slopes should
be as shallow as possible.
RESPONSE: A note has been added to the Dry Stack Stone details.
310112017: Carried Over: Please provitle a detail of the retaining wall.
and stone, slab benches
•
Comment Originated: 0111812017
10/23I2017: 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 etlge 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.
RESPONSE: A gathering area has been added to the plans in this location. We envision a soft surface
There will be adtlitional planting beds and trees in this area as well.
3/01I2017: 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 resitlents of Brown Farm to use the roadway to gain
access to the open space without trespassing.
Comment Number: 30
Comment Originated: 03101/2017
10I2312017: Carried Over: Regartling 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 intentletl 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.
RESPONSE: Revised.
03I0112017: 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 adtl 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 behintl 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: 03103/2017
10/23/2017: Carried Over: Regarding the response to comment number 36,
10
��
•
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.
RESPONSE: Fence details have been added to the plans. The 4' split rail fence includes information on
wire mesh.
03/03/2017: Regarding Comment Number 5, having had further discussion with
the tlesign 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 antl
the eastern property line of the project site, This tract is specifically intended to
be ownetl and managed as a common area for the purpose keeping the tract
exclusive for tlrainage conveyance and not to be encumbered by sheds,
gartlens, patios, play equipment, or any other appurtenances associated with
private backyards. As a result, it may be necessary to provide a common fence
along the rear property line of the lots as well as the six foot privacy fence along
the projecYs 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 shoultl 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: 10/23I2017
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 tletached lots, not 28, and 121 single family attached, not
120, and 20 single family attached builtlings, not 19. Also the Land Use
Statistics table needs to be updated. Please include the breakdown between
the two housing types.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 38
Comment Originated: 10I23I2017
10/23I2017: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.
RESPONSE: This information has been added to tne modification.
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 antl Crown View
that do not exceed 200 feet. Also Building 2 complies with a walkway out to
Blue Grass that does not exceetl 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.
RESPONSE: I have removed buiiding 10 and 2 from the modification request. I also removed buiidings 18
antl 19. There is a walk located between the 2 builtlings which allows for 200' or less connection to
Bluegrass. I didn't see any of your measurements in that area so I believe it was missed whe� yo�a
reviewed Please let me know if this is inaccurate and I can revise the modificat�or„
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 10/23I2017
10123/2017: 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
11
•
�
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.
RESPONSE: A walk has been shown in that location since our first submittal but I added a label to clarify.
The modification has been labeled Number One.
Comment Number: 41
Comment Originated: 10123/2017
10I2312017: Regartling 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.
RESPONSE: The modification has been revisetl.
Comment Number: 42
Comment Originated: 10/2312017
10123/2017: 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.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Comment Number: 43
Comment Originated: 10123/2017
10/23/2017: Has any consitleration 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.
RESPONSE: Landscape has been situated along the fence to heip soften the look and provitle visual
breaksl interest.
Comment Number: 44
Comment Originated: 10I2312017
1012412017: 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 tlwelling 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 adtling a third housing type.
In this case, has the applicant considered introducing a third housing type such
as either a two-family dwelling (tluplex 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.
RESPONSE: A motlification request has been provided.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmoqen a(�.fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01117/2017
10/24/2017: It is currently unclear how detention pond 4 and rain garden 2
12
�
�
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.
RESPONSE: Drainage basins were revised to further detail the limits of LID treatment in Basin D
Additionally, a sidewalk chaselweir is shown to convey the water from Rain Garden 2 to the Detention Pond 4.
02128/2017: Additional information is needed to determine if LID requirements
are currently being met. Please see redlines and contact me for discussion.
RESPONSE: The LID exhibit was updated per the meeting with Stormwater. The site currently shows
treatment of 49.3°�0 of the site impervious area.
0111712017: 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.
RESPONSE: Grass buffers were removed with previous submittals Please update this comment as
resolved
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/1712017
10I24/2017: The maximum allowable slope within detention ponds is 4:1.
There are currently proposed slopes steeper than this; please revise
accordingly.
RESPONSE: Pond 3 was revised to verify the 4:1 slope.
02/2812017: 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.
RESPONSE: This commer�t was atldressed with previous submittais. Please update this comment as
resolved
01/17/2017: Please review the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines
for Stormwater and Detention Facilities and atljust proposed landform and
slopes to help improve aesthetic qualities.
RESPONSE: This comment was addressed with previous submittals. Please update this comment as
resolved
Comment Number: 8
10/2412017: Please see updated redlines (PDF).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
02I28I2017: Please see updated redlines.
RESPONSE Ackr.ow4edged
01/17/2017: Please see retllined plans and drainage report.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 01I17I2017
Comment Originated: 1012412017
10/2412017: Please note that drain time compliance will be requiretl with final
plans.
Please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance with drain
13
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:l/tinyurl.comlComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at
(970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this
requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet.
•
w
RESPONSE State compliance wili be achieved with these ponds Spreadsheets are provided with this
submittal
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 1012412017
10124I2017: It is unclear why rational 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.
RESPONSE: Per City comments, the entire site was modeled with SWMM.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 10/24/2017
10124/2017: 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 eas#ern section located east of the manhole on
the east side of the road.
RESPONSE: Plans are updated to shown private ownership.
Comment Number: 14
10124/2017: Prior to hearing, please address:
- CID requirements.
- Detention pond slopes, sizing, and space allotted.
- Site release rates.
RESPONSE Updated.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970•218-2932, jschlam(�fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10I2412017
Comment Originated: 01117/2017
03/01/2017: Repeat, I saw the response note that materials will be submitted at
FDP.
01117/2017: 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 Sch�am 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam(a�fcqov.com
RESPONSE: This wili be provitled at FDP.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty(a�fcqov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/2012017
14
.
�
10/2612017: This will be verified at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknawledged.
03/03I2017: No plans were provided for review, so we cannot verify this was
addressed.
0112012017: Please change the title to match the other plan sets.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10126/2017: This will be verifietl at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
0310312017: This has not been corrected.
01I20/2017: Please change the Basis Of Bearings statement to match the
revised Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
1012612017: This will be verified at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
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
Subtlivision Plat.
01120/2017: 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: 01/2012017
10126/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
03/03/2017: There are text over text issues. See retllines.
01/20/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017
10/26/2017: This will be verified at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
03/03/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
01120/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated; 03103/2017
1012612017: This will be verified at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
03103/2017: There are text over text issues. See retllines.
15
�
�
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/2012017
10I26I2017: This will be verified at FDP.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
03/03I2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
0112012017: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03101/2017
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
RESPONSE: The redlines were returned with the previous submittal.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 10I20/2017
10120/2017: What is the purpose of the Downs Way stub out? Is this roatlway
expected to extend in the future?
RESPONSE: The roatlway is not expected to continue in the future.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 10/2012017
10I20/2017: 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.
RESPONSE: 174 garage spaces 26 driveway spaces, 19 visitor spaces, 26 on-street parallel parking (this
excludes any parking along Bluegrass). 245 total spaces provided, 210 spaces required.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originatetl: 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson(�a,fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01117/2017
01/1712017: TRANSFORT
The Transfort Strategic Operating Plan calls for bus service to this area. Please
install a Type I I bus stop pad along Overland Trail in front of Building K(see
Figure 10 in Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guitlelines:
http:llwww.ritletransfort.comlimg/site_specificluploads/Final_Design_Stantlartl
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.
RESPONSE: A bus stop is shown on the plans in the location that has been approved by Transfort and
Planning.
16
•
�
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/23I2017
02/2312017: 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.
RESPONSE: A bus stop is shown on the plans in the location that has been approved by Transfort and
Planning
Departmenf: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson(a�fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2017
01I1012017: 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 a(�.fcqov.com
RESPONSE: Acknowiedged
17