HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNION PARK - PDP230005 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPage 1 of 28
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
December 6, 2023
RE: Union Park, PDP230005, Round Number 2 – RESPONSE LETTER
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan tsullivan@fcgov.com 970-221-6695
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/21/2023: INFORMATION:
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any
questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process,
please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Include me in all email correspondence with other
reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you!
RESPONSE:Thank you
Comment Number: 2
03/21/2023: INFORMATION:
The proposed development project is subject to a Type 2 Review. The decision makers for your project will be the
Planning & Zoning Commission at a public hearing. For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property
owners within 800 – 1,000 feet (excluding public right-of-way and publicly owned open space). Staff will need to
agree the project is ready for Hearing approximately 4 to 6 weeks prior to the hearing. I have attached the P&Z
schedule, which has key dates leading up to the hearing.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Comment Number: 3
03/21/2023: INFORMATION:
A neighborhood meeting is required at least 10 days prior to formal submittal of your development review
application. For the neighborhood meeting, we will formally invite surrounding neighbors to attend the meeting.
Neighborhood meetings offer an informal way to get feedback from surrounding neighbors, identify any potential
concerns prior to the formal hearing, and are an opportunity for you to share your development proposal. The
City’s Development Review Liaison will facilitate the meeting. As your Development Review Coordinator, I will
assist with preparing the mailing and coordinating the meeting date with your team. Please reach out to me
when you are ready to schedule this meeting. Allow 4-8 weeks prior to the desired meeting date to accommodate
scheduling and notice requirements.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Page 2 of 28
Comment Number: 4
03/21/2023: FOR HEARING:
FOR HEARING:
All "For Hearing" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to
moving forward with scheduling the Hearing. Staff will need to agree the project
is ready for Hearing approximately 4 to 8 weeks prior to the hearing.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Comment Number: 5
03/21/2023: SUBMITTAL:
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this
document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a
different font color.
When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as
all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Comments requiring action
should NOT have a response such as noted or acknowledged. You will need to
provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of
why comments have not been addressed [when applicable].
RESPONSE: Thank you
Comment Number: 6
03/21/2023: SUBMITTAL:
Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming
Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic
submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888.
File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number.
Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd2.pdf
File type acronyms maybe appropriate to avoid extremely long file names.
Example: TIS for Traffic Impact Study, ECS for Ecological Characterization Study.
Reach out to me if you would like a list of suggested names.
*Please disregard any references to paper copies, flash drives, or CDs.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 7
03/21/2023: SUBMITTAL:
All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers.
Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from the
PDF’s.
AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set,
and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file.
The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove
this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and
newer) in the command line and enter "0".
Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti
cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-AutoCAD.html
RESPONSE: Thank you
Page 3 of 28
Comment Number: 8
03/21/2023: SUBMITTAL:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are preparing to resubmit your
plans, please notify me with an expected submittal date with as much advanced notice as possible.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Comment Number: 9
03/21/2023: INFORMATION:
Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the expiration of your project.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 10
03/21/2023: INFORMATION:
ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee of
$3,000.00.
RESPONSE: Understood
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ryan Mounce rmounce@fcgov.com 970-224-6186
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – RELATIONSHIP OF DWELLINGS TO STREETS
With the redesign of the northern half of the site, there are still a number of units
and buildings that do not meet street standards for relationships of dwellings to
streets. The particular units and buildings are clouded on the site plan redlines.
RESPONSE: Area has been redesigned with enhanced crosswalks
The intent of the standard is to have all primary entrances to face the street
and/or open on to a connection walkway that is 200-ft or less from a street
sidewalk without having to cross a drive-aisle/alley. Compliance with this
standard is likely to involve some combination of changes to the street/block
network serving the townhomes or introduction of major walkway spines.
RESPONSE: Enhanced crosswalks have been provided
A major walkway spine is indicated in several areas of the site but does not
currently meet the definition for a 5-ft walkway, less than 350-ft in length, that is
tree-lined and framed with landscaping with a minimum width of 35-ft.
RESPONSE: Because of the redesign and use of enhanced crosswalk we believe that a major
walkway spine is no longer needed
There are several units or buildings that may be able to achieve compliance
through a major walkway spine with some slight adjustments to sidewalk location and landscaping,
while the four townhome buildings encircled by alleys deviate the most from standards.
RESPONSE: RESPONSE: Because of the redesign and use of enhanced crosswalk we believe that a
major walkway spine is no longer needed
Page 4 of 28
Comment Number: 5
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING - STREET RELATIONSHIP FOR 4-UNIT DWELLINGS
The 4-unit multifamily units above garages are located adjacent to where a
private street ends and are on the line of meeting the definition for
dwelling/street relationship. Please ensure the nearest crosswalks to the
north/south private streets from these units are enhanced with raised
crosswalks/special paving to help ensure visibility and safety at these crossing points.
RESPONSE: Enhanced crosswalks have been provided
Comment Number: 7
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
There are several additional pedestrian crossing locations that should be
investigated to connect the southernmost walkway with the plazas leading to the
two amenity areas/parks. What is the possibility of a walkway connection to
Ziegler Road somewhere south of Hidden Pond. Appear lots of conflicts with
detention but beyond convenience a connection at this point could help the
second live/work building meet connecting walkway standards.
RESPONSE: Additional crosswalks / curb cuts have been provided
Comment Number: 10
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING - LANDSCAPING
Double-check the plant schedule on the landscaping plan. The tree list indicates
a total of 409 shade and canopy trees, however adding the list of individual
species indicates a total 265. The biodiversity calculations also appear incomplete.
RESPONSE: Biodiversity calcs have been added. Will double check the tree count for accuracy.
There also appear to be a few spots where additional ornamental trees could fill
in some of the gaps between shade trees and streetlights/fixtures, notably along
the Ziegler frontage south of Hidden Pond, and on the east side of the street
connecting north towards Paddington. Please coordinate with Forestry to see if
these are viable locations for additional street trees.
RESPONSE: Will add in more trees to these areas.
Comment Number: 11
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING - TRASH/RECYCLING
Prior to hearing staff will need to review the final floorplans, materials, and elevations for the
trash and recycling enclosures serving the multifamily units and commercial buildings.
RESPONSE: Trash and recycling enclosure floor plans and elevations have been provided on sheet A6.0
Page 5 of 28
Comment Number: 12
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING - PARKING
Project parking appears to be near the mid-point of current Land Use Code
requirements and proposed Land Use Code requirements. Provisionally, staff
is supportive of the modification request for this level of parking given other
recent projects have been approved at similar levels in anticipation of the new
Code standards.
It may be helpful to also be able to discuss at the hearing if there are any
back-up options for parking. For instance, the Land Use Code allows for shared
parking between residential/commercial -- is this a potential overflow situation
for overnight parking?
RESPONSE: We are comfortable with the amount of parking and not planning any shared
agreements. Shared parking will be available at the mixed use units.
For hearing, it may be helpful to also be prepared to discuss how project
characteristics are suitable for reduced parking (target market.
RESPONSE: Understood Thank you.
Comment Number: 13
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING - BIKE PARKING
The required number of total bike parking should be increased slightly to meet
minimums. One space is required per bedroom in the residential units (1,122
bedrooms) and an additional 13 spaces to cover requirements for the
office/retail/childcare for a project total of 1,135. For the office and retail
parking, 20% need to be enclosed/covered.
RESPONSE: Units have been reduced. Parking counts recalculated. See revised tables sheet 01
Can you also provide more information on the site plan tables about the
percentage of bike parking that meets enclosed requirements for the multifamily
portions of the project? How many covered spaces are located in multifamily
unit garages versus the overall site total of 596?
RESPONSE: Units have been reduced. Parking counts recalculated. See revised tables sheet 01
What will be the provided in-garage bike parking solution? Please include a
spec sheet for any hooks/racks/fixtures you’re exploring.
RESPONSE: Spec sheet has been included.
It is also recommended the covered bike parking enclosure for the multifamily
be split amongst several locations given the size of the site.
RESPONSE: We’d prefer to have the one building.
Page 6 of 28
Comment Number: 14
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING - SHADE/SHADOW ANALYSIS
Please submit full-size drawings or full size exhibit of the shade and shadow
analysis for the winter solstice for the portion of the site along the northern property boundary.
Staff needs to confirm any potential shading impact on the properties to the north.
RESPONSE: Although these buildnigs are only 3 stories additional enlarged shadow diagrams have
been provided on sheet SS 1.1.
Comment Number: 16
03/20/2023: FOR HEARING:
Please include a narrative/exhibit indicating how the project meets the ODP
plan notes related to solar on buildings, 4th floor size/dimensions. The LEED
buildings will likely need to carry forward as a PDP note since this certification
will take place during/after the building permit process. For demonstration of
compliance with 4-stories, outer building dimensions or floor plans of the third
and fourth floors are likely needed.
RESPONSE: A note has been added to the residential elevation sheets noting the requirement for the
solar energy system to be designed and installed. A fourth floor partial plan has been added to sheet
A4.2 to show setbacks with dimensions.
Comment Number: 17
03/20/2023: INFORMATION:
Has the location for mechanical equipment (A/C, condensers, meters, etc.)
been determined? Be mindful the location for such equipment must be
screened from public view through screen walls and landscaping and should not
detract from walkways and entrances.
RESPONSE: These have not yet been finalized. The amount of flux in the site design / buildings had
made it difficult to determine. We understand the importance and will follow up at Final
Comment Number: 20
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – LANDSCAPE SCREENING / PRIVACY
The landscaping between the northernmost row of townhomes and English
Ranch lots should be enhanced with additional layering to create a better
screening and privacy effect. Additional evergreen tree selections would help
enhance the year-round effect. There may be some interplay with this comment
and the major walkway spine serving these units as well which would require a
walkway with landscaping/tree-lining on both sides.
RESPONSE: Additional trees will be added as a buffer between English Ranch and townhomes.
Comment Number: 21
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – LANDSCAPING NEAR TRASH COLLECTION
Are there opportunities for additional landscaping plantings around/behind the
trash and recycling enclosures to help soften their appearance given their
location near pocket parks, plazas, and building entrances?
RESPONSE: Trees and shrubs will be added by the trash enclosures.
Page 7 of 28
Comment Number: 22
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – LIGHTING PLAN DETAILS
On the photometric plans, please include a total site lumen budget
table/calculation. The typical budget allowance for a mixed-use project would
be 1.25 lumers per square foot of hardscape area.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and used in design. See updated and revised Photometric Plans prepared
by new consultants.
The photometric plans will also need to include the BUG (Backlight, Uplight,
Glare) ratings for the selected fixtures and include catalog cut sheets for your selected fixtures.
RESPONSE: Added to Luminaire Schedule. See updated and revised Photometric Plans prepared by
new consultants.
It would also be helpful to color-code the fixtures on the photometric plans to
distinguish their locations from the other black linework.
RESPONSE: Changed the building fixtures to color. See updated and revised Photometric Plans
prepared by new consultants.
Comment Number: 23
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – MULTIFAMILY BUILDING DESIGN / VARATION
The multifamily buildings contain three distinct footprint sizes/shapes (49 unit,
32 unit, 4 unit structures) but could benefit from some additional embellishment
on requirements for unique entrance features. For both the 32 and 49 unit
buildings, the two variations of entrance feature are similar to one another, and
on the 32 unit buildings are of the same size as other ground floor canopies
over windows that some of the primary building entrances could be emphasized more prominently.
RESPONSE: Entrances have been updated for variety and contrast
Comment Number: 24
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – MULTIFAMILY COLOR VARIATION
Multifamily units with more than 56 units require three color variations and one
additional color scheme will be needed. A color sample board should also be
provided prior to hearing. There is some concern over the Roycroft Pewter
color, at least on the colored elevations, appearing too dark/black, which would
be non-compliant with standards for more muted or earth-toned colors, or color
variations that match the surrounding neighborhood.
RESPONSE: No buildings have more than 48 units An additional color variation has been provided for
the 32 unit apartments
Page 8 of 28
Comment Number: 25
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – MULTIFAMILY GARAGE DESIGN
The maximum length for multifamily garages along a site perimeter is 60-ft. The
structures with dwelling units would be considered multifamily buildings and this
standard would not be applicable, however, they would need to meet design
standards for multifamily buildings and would likely need some additional
interest and treatment on their rear facades for the ground floor.
RESPONSE: We do not have any rear walls along or closer than 65 from an ROW.
Section 3.5.2(G).1.a Any garage located with its rear wall along the perimeter of a development and
within sixty-five (65) feet of a public right-of-way or the property line of the development site shall not
exceed sixty (60) feet in length. I don’t think we need the modification. Windows have been added to the
rear facades to increase interest.
Comment Number: 26
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – SFA BUILDING DESIGN / VARIATION
The multifamily building designs also contain three distinct footprint sizes and
shapes given the differences between the 3-unit live/work and different unit
counts of townhome and brownstone variations. Similar to the multifamily
structures the variation also requires unique entrance features variations. This
variation is needed across different buildings but could also benefit across
some of the larger buildings (e.g. 10 unit structure) to further differentiate
entrances to individual units.
RESPONSE: A new building product has been added with unique entrance elements between the units.
Comment Number: 27
09/29/2023: FOR HEARING – ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS / DETAILS
Several additional drawings or exhibits would be useful to include in future rounds of review and for
hearing:
-Color-coded site plan indicating building design/variations for the multifamily and SFA structures.
Alongside the site plan include a table of variation options between different buildings, such as
differentiation in color, roof forms, materials, etc.
RESPONSE: Site plan provided.
-Perspective views or renderings or the multifamily buildings and larger townhome structures.
RESPONSE: A supplemental set with multifamily building perspectives has been provided.
-Ground level cross-section or renderings of the plaza/landscaping conditions between the multifamily
buildings and the sidewalk. Goal here is to demonstrate a more urban street-like context even though
the
adjacent parking between the amenity space does not meet private street design standards.
RESPONSE: Modeling and rendering of the multifamily areas is ongoing and will be provided upon
completion.
Page 9 of 28
-Exhibit or additional information on size/likely placement of solar panels on residential buildings.
RESPONSE: A note has been added to the residential elevation sheets noting the requirement for the
solar energy system to be designed and installed.
-Exhibit or close-up of the 49-unit buildings demonstrating the 10-ft stepback of the 4th story on two
side. At a minimum, please dimension this stepback on the elevations.
RESPONSE: A fourth floor partial plan has been added to sheet A4.2 to show setbacks with
dimensions.
Comment Number: 28
10/06/2023: FOR FINAL - Any private streets should be placed in a separate Tract on the subdivision
plat.
RESPONSE: Many of the private streets are in essence shared driveways or parking lot drives. Rather
than dedicating multiple tracts, the two (2) private drives that are intended to allow through traffic are
dedicated as public access easements.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sophie Buckingham sbuckingham@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
10/02/2023: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
The comment response indicated that Tract A is being dedicated as a drainage
easement. This is does not resolve the issue of needing to retain the existing
easement until the storm drain is removed, because the existing easement
crosses several of the proposed lots, not just Tract A. While Affinity might agree
to vacate their easement by the plat, the City will not vacate the public easement
until the storm drain is removed. The easement will need to be vacated by
separate document after the plat has been recorded and the utility has been
removed, but before issuance of the first building permit. Please update the plat
to indicate that the public easement will remain.
03/20/2023: FOR HEARING:
The existing drainage easement cannot be vacated by the plat because the
easement needs to remain until after the storm drain has been removed. This
easement appears to be dedicated to both the City of Fort Collins and Affinity,
so Affinity will need to provide a letter of intent (LOI) for the removal or relocation
of the easement and the associated storm drain. The LOI will be a requirement
for this project to go to Hearing, and Affinity will need to sign the plans prior to
Final Approval. After the storm drain has been removed, the easement will need
to be vacated by separate document prior to issuance of the first building permit.
RESPONSE: Discussions are in process on how to best preserve/vacate this easement. Please
reference email dated 10/19/23 for current status.
Page 10 of 28
Comment Number: 5
10/02/2023: FOR FINAL:
Additional detail about ADA routes will be provided with the final plans.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
03/21/2023: FOR HEARING:
Engineering would like to be involved in additional conversations with Planning
and Traffic to optimize pedestrian circulation and ADA routes through the site.
Additional information will be needed on the grading plan to show ADA
compliant ramps. In my redlines, I have provided some suggestions for
improving pedestrian connectivity and some locations where ramp slope information is needed.
RESPONSE: Additional crosswalks / curb cuts have been provided
Comment Number: 8
10/03/2023: INFORMATION - REVISED:
Since the streets will be private, the cul-de-sac does not need to be removed.
03/24/2023: FOR FINAL:
If the internal east-west street becomes public, the developer may need to
reconstruct a portion of Corbett Drive to remove the existing cul-de-sac.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 9
10/02/2023: FOR HEARING:
There are three parking spaces that are too close to the Corbett Drive
right-of-way, based on the setbacks outlined in LCUASS Figure 19-6. Please
see my redlines for the exact location and remove these proposed spaces.
RESPONSE: Parking spaces have been adjusted to provide setback
Comment Number: 10
10/02/2023: FOR FINAL:
Please include the LCUASS standard notes in the civil plan set.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11
10/02/2023: FOR FINAL:
On the Horizontal Control Plan, please show the patches for the street cuts for utility tie-ins.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist sgilchrist@fcgov.com 970-224-6175
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
10/2/2023: FOR HEARING UPDATE: The TIS, Narrative, and Modification
Page 11 of 28
Request should all reflect the approval of the Major Amendment to the ODP for
this project which does not include a signal or "lighted" intersection at Ziegler.
Subsequent comments are also provided for the TIS to incorporate some of the
approved changes that will be needed.
RESPONSE: Please see updated TIS
03/20/2023: FOR HEARING: The Transportation Impact Study has been
received and is being reviewed. Subsequent comments will be made
regarding content. The finalization and acceptance of the TIS cannot be made
until the outcome to the Major Amendment to the Overall Development Plan is
made. Changes may be needed depending on that outcome.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 2
10/2/2023: FOR INFORMATION: As stated previously, this TIS is basically covering the entire
development rather than the individual phases. If future phases come in for submittal, a Traffic Memo
may be required to determine if that individual phase conforms to the ODP.
RESPONSE: That is correct Understood
03/20/2023: FOR HEARING: This submittal gives an overview of the entire
development but does not provide a detailed narrative outlining the proposed phasing.
A phasing plan would be beneficial to this project and should be reflected in the Transportation
Impact Study. What infrastructure will be build with this first submittal? What areas of housing will
be built first? Are any of the retail, office, or daycare facilities being built in the initial phase? Or
are you planning this all in one phase?
RESPONSE: Please reference phasing plan within the utility plan set.
Comment Number: 3
10/2/2033: FOR HEARING UPDATE: We would like to discuss this further with
the approval of the Major Amendment. This site will likely generate less cut
through traffic now that a signal is not planned at Hidden Pond and no connection is being
made at Edwards at this time. It should be noted that if a connection is made, this will likely
generate traffic from the adjacent neighborhood and the requirement to maintain these street
will be solely on the neighborhood if built as private streets. It may be good to try and estimate
amount of cut through traffic this will generate now, and potentially in the future.
RESPONSE: Please see updated TIS
03/20/2023: FOR HEARING: Please provide further clarification on the amount
of traffic you are attributing to Affinity and Front Range Village that will be
utilizing the internal street network to access the traffic signal at Ziegler. There
are still questions on whether or not this should be a public or private street.
Based on section 3.6.2.1.M.1 of the Land Use Code this would more than like
not qualify as a private street network and would need to be a full public street.
"(1) When Allowed. Private streets shall be allowed in a development, provided
that their function will be primarily to provide access to property within the
development. Private streets shall not be permitted if (by plan or circumstance)
such streets would, in the judgment of the City Engineer, attract "through traffic"
Page 12 of 28
in such volumes as to render public streets necessary as connections between
developments, neighborhoods or other origins and destinations outside of the development plan."
RESPONSE: Please see updated TIS
Comment Number: 6
10/2/2023: FOR HEARING UPDATE: In looking at the redlines from other
departments there is still some work to do to address the pedestrian
connectivity through this site. We would like to be part of those conversations.
There are also areas within the Utility Plans where the concrete sidewalks do
not match the legend. Please update for clarity, Sheet 5 and 6.
RESPONSE: Additional crosswalks / curb cuts have been provided
03/20/2023: FOR HEARING: In coordinating with our Engineering Department
the internal pedestrian network has a lot of holes and dead end sidewalks. We
would like to work with you to address this. In line with that comment, at the
intersections along Street-03 the east/west sidewalk on the north side is set
back from the intersection quite a ways. These should really be more in line
with the roadway and direct them in a straight path crossing the intersection that
leads to the adjacent sidewalks. At Street-06 sidewalk should be extended to
connect east/west across this intersection, it is shown on one page of the plans but not others.
RESPONSE: Additional crosswalks / curb cuts have been provided
Comment Number: 7
03/20/2023: FOR FINAL PLAN: Signing and Striping will be reviewed in FDP.
It may be a good idea to start planning the appropriate signing in PDP, especially within the
Landscape Plans where stop signs will need to be identified, and trees should not be planted
within 50 feet on the approach to them.
RESPONSE: Understood
The plans also indicate bike lanes on the east/west street approaching Ziegler. This is not typical
considering there are no other bike lanes throughout this development. Would like to discuss further.
RESPONSE: The bike lanes at the intersection with Ziegler are intended to be receiving lanes for bikes
coming off of Ziegler. Once bike enter further into the site, the drive lanes are shared between vehicular &
bicycle traffic.
Comment Number: 8
10/02/2023: FOR HEARING: The Transportation Impact Study should directly reflect what is
approved in the ODP study with the Major Amendment. This study can reference the Addendum
to the ODP Study, but the narrative and conclusions should be updated to indicate the change in
operations at Ziegler and Hidden Pond. The bike and pedestrian LOS should also reflect the lack of
connectivity to the north/east, without a signal/crossing in this area. Further evaluation may be needed to
address the potential cut-through traffic now and in the future. We can meet with the Delich's to discuss.
RESPONSE: Please see updated TIS
Page 13 of 28
Comment Number: 9
10/02/2023: FOR HEARING: Given the changes to the overall site plan with the
approval of the Major Amendment, we will need to verify the number/type of
units that are proposed, and the resulting trip generation. Have these changed
since the first round PDP was submitted, and the site plan was updated?
RESPONSE: Please see updated TIS
Comment Number: 10
10/02/2023: FOR HEARING: In order to meet the Multi Modal Level of Service
requirements now that a signal at Hidden Pond is not being installed, this
project is expected to pay a 25 percent cost share for a future pedestrian signal
at Paddington. If this intersection eventually meets the requirements for a full
traffic signal, the proportional share provided for the pedestrian signal would be
applied toward the full traffic signal. Estimated costs will be forthcoming. This
should be noted in the TIS.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 11
10/02/2023: FOR HEARING: Given the amount of neighborhood concern with
a potential connection in the long term, it would be beneficial to include in the
TIS an estimate of the amount of traffic that will be using the neighborhood
streets if a connection is made. This may require further discussion.
RESPONSE: Please see updated TIS
Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion Control
Contact: Andrew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
03/03/2023: "Information Only:
This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the erosion control requirements
located in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those
requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion .
This project was evaluated based upon the submittal requirements of FCSCM.
Based upon the provided materials we were able to determine a total disturbed area.
Based upon the area of disturbance or this project is part of a larger common development, State
permits for stormwater will be required should be pulled before Construction Activities begin.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
03/03/2023: For Approval or Final Plan:
Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or
meets one of the other triggering criteria (sensitive area, steep slopes, or larger common
development) that would require Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted.
Please provide an erosion control plan for 'Final Plan or Approval Submittal'.
This project disturbs 5 or more acres so erosion control phasing materials will need to be provided in the
erosion control plans, reports and escrow. Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans, Escrows, and
Reports include phasing requirements (FCSCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3, 6.1.4, & 6.1.5)
Page 14 of 28
Based upon the supplied materials, site disturbs more than 1 acre or is part of a larger common
development that requires Erosion and Sediment Control Report to be submitted. Please
submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.4) at time of Final Plan
or Approval Submittal. Based upon the supplied materials, an Erosion Control Escrow Calculation will
need to be provided. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the
accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria (FCDCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.5) at time of Final Plan or
Approval Submittal.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3
03/03/2023: Next Submittal:
Based upon the provided materials we were not able to determine if erosion
control materials need to be supplied due to proximity to a Sensitive Area. Is the project within 50 ft of a
sensitive area? Please provide a map showing the distance to the nearest sensitive area.
Sensitive Areas: Areas that typically include floodplains, slopes, riparian corridors, lakes, irrigation
ditches, or other features subject to natural areas buffer requirements. Refer to the Land Use Code
Section 3.4.1.Based upon the provided materials we were not able to determine if erosion
control materials need to be supplied due to the steep slopes on site. Does your project area have any
steep slopes? Please provide a ratio of the steepest slope for next submittal. Definition of Steep slopes:
Any slopes that have a steeper incline than three to one (3H: 1V).
RESPONSE: The project is not within 50 ft of a sensitive area..
Comment Number: 4
03/03/2023: Fees:
The City Manager’s development review fee schedule under City Code 7.5-2
was updated to include fees for Erosion Control and Stormwater Inspections. As of January 1st, 2021,
these fees will be collected on all projects for such inspections. The Erosion Control fees are based on;
the number of lots, the total site disturbance, the estimated number of years the project will be
active. Based on the proposed site construction associated with this project we are assuming
47 lots, 32.78 acres of disturbance, 5 years from demo through build out of construction and an
additional 3.00 years till full vegetative stabilization due to seeding. Which results in an Erosion Control
Fee estimate of $6,489.24 .
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values
change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at
these estimates for you to review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed
estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be
provided at the time of erosion control escrow. The Stormwater Inspection Fees are based on the number
of LID/WQ Features that are designed for on this project. Based on the plans we identified 0 number of
porous pavers, 0 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 0 number of extended detention basins, and 2
number of underground treatments, results in an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be
$ $830.00 .
Please note that as the plans and any subsequent review modifications of the above-mentioned values
change the fees may need to be modified. I have provided a copy of the spreadsheet used to arrive at
Page 15 of 28
these estimates for you to review. Please respond to this comment with any changes to these assumed
estimates and why, so that we may have a final fee estimate ready for this project. The fee will need to be
provided at the time of erosion control escrow. "
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7
09/20/2023: Information:
Thank you for acknowledging the erosion comments from round one. We
understand the fluid nature of design during the preliminary stages and that
plans change e to meet other development requirements. We will look for an
Erosion Control Plan with sequencing , Erosion Control Report and Erosion
Escrow Calculation Sheet at first round Final Development Plan submittal.
RESPONSE: To be detailed during Final Development plans
:
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque wlamarque@fcgov.com 970-416-2418
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
10/02/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING-UPDATED:
The western pond is now closer to meeting the intent of the City's Detention
Pond Design & Landscape Standards. The two (2) eastern ponds need more
discussion on meeting these standards and would like to set up a meeting to discuss.
RESPONSE: HDS
03/08/2023: BEFORE NEXT SUBMITTAL:
The Site layout does not include detention ponds that meet the City's Detention
Pond Landscape Standards. Currently, the storm water design is creating
detention ponds that are too deep in relation to the area and with retaining walls
that include most of the perimeter. The detention ponds need to be revised to
meet these standards. This could create substantial site design changes. The
City requests a design charrette to discuss design options as there are multiple
options to achieve the goal of these pond design standards.
RESPONSE: HDS
Comment Number: 8
10/02/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
Please document the off-site flow path to ensure the 116 cfs enters the
northwest detention pond and is attenuated before passing through the site.
RESPONSE: HDS
Comment Number: 9
10/02/2023: FOR FINAL PLAN REVIEW:
Documentation is needed to show how the offsite flows pass through the site
safely while meeting all conveyance/street criteria.
RESPONSE: HDS
Page 16 of 28
Comment Number: 10
10/02/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING: Further explanation on how the flows from
Basin D2 and Basin D3 enter the Stormtech chambers. It appears the system is connected to the
outfall system of Pond D1, which this should be disconnected.
RESPONSE: HDS
Comment Number: 5
10/02/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING-UPDATED:
The western pond is now closer to meeting the intent of the City's Detention
Pond Design & Landscape Standards. The two (2) eastern ponds need more
discussion on meeting these standards and would like to set up a meeting to discuss.
03/08/2023: BEFORE NEXT SUBMITTAL:
The Site layout does not include detention ponds that meet the City's Detention
Pond Landscape Standards. Currently, the storm water design is creating
detention ponds that are too deep in relation to the area and with retaining walls
that include most of the perimeter. The detention ponds need to be revised to
meet these standards. This could create substantial site design changes. The
City requests a design charrette to discuss design options as there are multiple
options to achieve the goal of these pond design standards.
RESPONSE: The eastern ponds have been adjusted to provide wider landscape space between tiered
walls. The pans along the both of the ponds is intended to be soft bottom pans and landscaping is
providing seeding & plantings within the bottom of the pan that riparian related.
Comment Number: 8
10/02/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
Please document the off-site flow path to ensure the 116 cfs enters the
northwest detention pond and is attenuated before passing through the site.
RESPONSE: Please reference the drainage plan and the annotation that delineates the location of the
off-site flow path. This location is in reference to the Affinity plans and also the asbuilt curb/walk
elevations along the east side of the Affinity site.
Comment Number: 9
10/02/2023: FOR FINAL PLAN REVIEW:
Documentation is needed to show how the offsite flows pass through the site
safely while meeting all conveyance/street criteria.
RESPONSE: Please reference the drainage plan for intended offsite flow path.
Comment Number: 10
10/02/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING: Further explanation on how the flows from
Basin D2 and Basin D3 enter the Stormtech chambers. It appears the system is connected to the
outfall system of Pond D1, which this should be disconnected.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated configuration and exhibits within the preliminary drainage
report demonstrating the design intent of managing flow into and out of the galleries.
Page 17 of 28
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque wlamarque@fcgov.com 970-416-2418
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
For the 24-inch SD and 30-inch SS along the west side of Ziegler Rd, the
manholes need to accessible for maintenance and can not be located within the
slope for the detention pond. It is unclear if these are within the slope due to all
the linework in the area. Also, additional access may be required for maintenance once it
is determined the exact distance from the pavement, sidewalk width/thickness, etc.
RESPONSE: The existing sswr manholes are located immediately off the side of the existing sidewalk.
Access is maintained with the proposed grading design. Please reference the drainage plan.
Comment Number: 4
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
The proposed water main along the northern property boundary can not be
placed under a sidewalk. All publicly owned mains need to be under a drivable
surface with a width of 12-15 ft. Also, mains need to be a minimum of 15 feet
from any part of a building. Please revise.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout.
:
Comment Number: 5
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
Along Street-01, the sanitary sewer is 12 feet from the buildings and 15 feet is
required. Also, there is a conflict with Inlet-10 and part of the storm sewer.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout.
:
Comment Number: 6
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
The proposed water main along the pedestrian spine between Street-01 &
Street-02 can not be placed under a sidewalk. All publicly owned mains need
to be under a drivable surface with a width of 12-15 ft. Also, mains need to be a
minimum of 15 feet from any part of a building. Please revise.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout.
Comment Number: 7
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
Along Street-02, the sanitary sewer is 12 feet from the buildings and 15 feet is
required. Also, there is a conflict with Inlet-08 and part of the storm sewer.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout.
Page 18 of 28
Comment Number: 8
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
All sewer services need to enter the main directly to the pipe and not into a manhole.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated utility layout.
Comment Number: 9
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
The City will look at the wet utilities layout and make comments based on
efficiency with the goal of minimizing main lines. This may change how several
of the buildings will be serviced.
- Bldg A7 can be serviced for sewer from Street-07.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout. Please also reference the proposed
phasing plan.
Comment Number: 10
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
There are many locations where the water or sewer mains are 12 feet to a
building where 15 feet is required.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout.
Comment Number: 11
10/03/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
How is Building R1 being served for water and sewer? Also, the SS main
extending north from Street-04 near Inlet 13, most likely to serve Building R1,
can not be located within a pedestrian and green space area.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout.
:
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Cody Snowdon csnowdon@fcgov.com 970-416-2306
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
10/03/2023: FOR FINAL:
Light & Power is currently looking into the Utility Locates. There is some
question on whether the electric line located outside of the existing easement is
Light & Power's facilities or if that is another utility provider. Once we have that
information, we can schedule a meeting to discuss options.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Coordination is active with CenturyLink & Xcel to confirm location in
relationship to easements.
03/21/2023: FOR HEARING:
If any existing electric infrastructure needs to be relocated or underground as
part of this project, it will be at the expense of the developer and will need to be
relocated within Public Right-of-Way or a dedicated easement. There appears
to be facilities that need relocating along Ziegler Road, please coordinate these
relocations with Light and Power Engineering and show on the Utility Plan.
Page 19 of 28
Comment Number: 3
03/21/2023: FOR HEARING:
In having private alleys, we would encourage a Utility Coordination meeting very
early in the process to ensure the widths will provide adequate separation for all
utilities required for this project.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout. Current CAD files have been
emailed for preliminary layouts. Due to the congestion within alleys/private drives, dry utilities may have
to be located along the front side of the buildings.
Comment Number: 4
03/21/2023: FOR HEARING:
In having alley within this project, Light and Power will require the primary lines
to be shown on the Preliminary Development Plans and secondary and service
lines, as well as structures to be shown on the Final Plans. Please show
primary lines on both sides of the private drives.
RESPONSE: Please reference the updated site plan & utility layout. Current CAD files have been
emailed for preliminary layouts. Due to the congestion within alleys/private drives, dry utilities may have
to be located along the front side of the buildings.
Comment Number: 5
03/21/2023: FOR FINAL:
Since the private drives are proposed to be illuminated, the streetlights are
considered private and will need to be privately metered. Please show all
private streetlights and private meters on the plans.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6
10/03/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
Please document the existing services and services sizes to receive credits on
the capacity fees required for this project. This will not be included on the C-1
Forms as those forms are only for the proposed services and will need to be
documented by your electrician.
RESPONSE: Will do, thanks.
03/21/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
Please document the size of the electrical service(s) that feeds the existing
property prior to demolition of the building to receive capacity fee credits.
Comment Number: 8
03/21/2023: FOR HEARING:
Any existing and/or proposed Light and Power electric facilities that are within
the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement or public
right-of-way.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. It appears that any existing utilities are the City’s and coordination is in
process with CenturyLink and Xcel
Comment Number: 10
Page 20 of 28
03/21/2023: FOR FINAL:
This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric
meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering.
Residential units will need to be individually metered. Please gang the electric
meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. Reference
Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A
link has been provided below.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 11
03/21/2023: FOR FINAL:
A Customer Owned Service Information Form (C-1 Form) and a one-line
diagram for all commercial meters will need to be completed and submitted to
Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 Form is below:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/c-1_form.pdf?1597677310
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 12
03/21/2023: FOR FINAL:
On the one-line diagram, please show the main disconnect size and meter
sequencing. A copy of our meter sequencing can be found in our electric
policies practices and procedures below.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 16
03/21/2023: FOR INFORMATION:
Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system
modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development.
Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and
fees related to this project:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees
RESPONSE: Understood
Page 21 of 28
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Scott Benton sbenton@fcgov.com (970)416-4290
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
09/29/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: As the design of the stormwater
detention basins settles down, some landscaping and habitat improvement
features can be discussed along with the Stormwater Department.
RESPONSE: Detention basin seed mix discussed with Environmental Planning. Pollinating plants will be
added along the retaining walls in these areas.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Carrie Tomlinson ctomlinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
10/03/2023: UNRESOLVED:
Please coordinate any possible tree removals with Forestry. Code requires any
removals to be determined as feasible before they can be removed. Please
email Forestry at forestry@fcgov.com prior to your next submittal. There is a conflict between the
property owner to the south as to the landscaping here that needs to be resolved.
RESPONSE: Columar evergreens will be used as a buffer between the garage buildings and the south
property line.
03/21/2023: FOR APPROVAL
Please consider preserving existing trees around the farm house that are within
the area near the detention area north of the main entrance.
RESPONSE: Unfortunately, due to grading of the detention basin, we will not be able to save any trees
around the farm house.
Comment Number: 2
10/03/2023: UNRESOLVED:
This comment refers to needs on the landscape plan all utilities have not been included.
RESPONSE: Utilities are now shown on the landscape plan.
03/21/2023: FOR APPROVAL :
Please include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not
limited to water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, streetlights,
and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation.
Street Light/Tree Separation:
Canopy shade tree: 40 feet
Ornamental tree: 15 feet
Stop Sign/Tree Separation:
Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted
at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with
regulatory traffic signs.
Page 22 of 28
Driveway/Tree Separation:
At least 8 feet from edges of driveways and alleys.
Utility/Tree Separation:
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4
10/03/2023: RESOLVED:
03/21/2023: FOR APPROVAL:
After any changes related to street modifications related to other comments,
please increase the size of the tree grate and planter areas in the sidewalks to
a minimum of 5x7 or 4x8 size per code. Also please consider using Silva Cells
or structured soil to support rooting volume this area.
RESPONSE: Tree grate sizes have been revised.
Comment Number: 6
10/22/2023: UNRESOLVED:
Please contact Forestry concerning any removal of existing adjacent Target
trees. Mitigation numbers will need to be determined by city forestry staff.
Please contact choltz@fcgov.com or fhaberecht@fcgov.com.
RESPONSE: There are 93 mitigation trees required on-site. We will be planting 594 new trees on site.
This should satisfy the mitigation requirement for the removal of these trees.
03/22/2023: FOR APPROVAL
Please coordinate with Forestry on which trees have been planted for Target
that are now on your property for replacements. The trees planted for the
screening for Target will need to be maintained or mitigated.
Comment Number: 7
10/03/2023: Please include your landscape plan in future rounds the required
tree removal feasibility letter and mitigation plan.
RESPONSE: Updated tree feasibility letter and mitigation plan will be included with next submittal.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/21/2023: UPDATED FOR HEARING
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS – IFC Appendix D105 Amendment
Buildings over 30' in height trigger additional fire lane requirements in order to
Page 23 of 28
accommodate the logistical needs of aerial apparatus (ladder trucks). The
intent of the code is to provide for rescue operations and roof access via ladder
trucks when ground ladders cannot reach upper floors. Aerial access should
therefore, be available on at least one entire long side of the building, located
within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. Aerial
fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26
feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion
thereof. Dead end access roads shall have a minimum width of 30 ft. Parapet
heights greater than 4' in height do not support ladder truck operations.
Brownstone Townhomes: The 4 unit townhomes do not provide enough areas
30 feet or less and will be required to provide aerial access or provide more
areas that are 30 feet or less. The live work units are 4 stories and will require aerial access.
Building 20 unit: Elevation B front does not provide enough roof access areas
within the range required for aerial access.
10/04/2023: The 3 unit Brownstone townhomes still do not meet aerial access requirements.
RESPONSE: These are now 3 story w/ eaves less than 30’
Comment Number: 5
03/21/2023: UPDATED
FOR INFORMATION/ PERMIT
GROUP R SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
New multi-family buildings above 4 stories or with floor levels 30 feet above fire
department vehicle access shall be provided with NFPA13 fire suppression systems.
New multi-family buildings 4 stories or less or with floor levels 30 feet and below
fire department vehicle access shall be provided with minimum NFPA13R fire
suppression systems and Attic Protection as amended in 903.3.1.2.3
-Exception 1: M-F units with six (6) or fewer dwelling units per building provided
the units are separated by one-hour construction (walls & floors).
-Exception 2: M-F units with seven to twelve (7 - 12) units per building provided
the units are separated by two-hour construction (walls & floors).
The Community Center, Commercial, Daycare and Mixed use buildings will
require a NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler System if the fire area exceeds 5,000 square feet.
Comment Number: 6
03/21/2023: UPDATED FOR HEARING
WATER SUPPLY - IFC section 507.5.1.1
Buildings equipped with a standpipe system shall require a hydrant within 100
feet of any Fire Department Connection (FDC).
The buildings that are 4 story or have a habitable floor 30 feet above grade
require a standpipe. Many of these buildings show an FDC beyond 100 feet from the nearest hydrant.
10/04/2023: The 4 story Brownstone townhomes require a hydrant within 100 feet of the standpipe.
Page 24 of 28
RESPONSE: Hydrants are within 100 ft of the 4 story apartment buildings
Comment Number: 7
03/21/2023: UNRESOLVED FOR FINAL
FIRE LANE LOADING - IFC APPENDIX D102.1 Amendment
Fire lanes shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable
of supporting 40 tons. Private drives shall be designed to handle fire truck
loading. A note shall be added to the civil plans.
Comment Number: 8
03/21/2023: UPDATED FOR FINAL
FIRE LANE SIGNS - IFC APPENDIX D103.7 Amendment
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined. Fire lane sign locations should be
indicated on future plan sets. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign
type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all
signs. Posting of additional fire lane signage may be determined at time of fire
inspection. 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 or D103.6.2.
SIGN PLACEMENT
- IFC D103.6.1; ROADS 20 TO 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as
specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus
access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide.
- IFC D103.6.1; ROADS MORE THAN 26 FEET IN WIDTH: Fire lane signs as
specified in Section D103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus
access roads more than 26 feet wide and less than 32 feet wide.
10/04/2023: Additional fire lane signs will be required throughout the site.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 9
10/04/2023: FOR FINAL
LIVE WORK TOWNHOMES
Live work townhomes are classified as R2 Occupancy per IBC 508.5.2. The
proposed 3 unit Brownstone townhomes are proposed 4 story and will require a
Class III standpipe system per IFC 905.3. These townhomes are also required
to meet IBC 508.5 through 508.5.11
RESPONSE: These are now 3 story w/ eaves less than 30’
Comment Number: 9
10/04/2023: FOR FINAL
EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT
The EAE shown on the plat does not align with the site plan. Please revise to show correct width.
RESPONSE:Plans have been updated
Page 25 of 28
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Katy Hand khand@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
03/17/2023: INFORMATIONAL:
Current Building Codes and local amendments can be found here
https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.
Please note that is project is subject to State statute CRS 9-5 Accessibility. A
and a site- wide accessibility map is required.
Stock plans review is a process available for some building types that are
replicated. Learn more here: https://www.fcgov.com/building/stockplans
RESPONSE:Thank you
Comment Number: 2
03/17/2023: INFORMATIONAL:
Each detached structure requires a separate permit (unless specifically permit
exempt), this includes carports, bike shelters, trellises, pergolas and garage
buildings, and shade structures, and covered mail kiosks.
RESPONSE: Thank you
Comment Number: 3
03/17/2023: TOWNHOME COMMENTS
• 3ft setback required from the furthest projecting element to property line or
6ft between buildings (or provide fire rated walls & overhangs and limited openings per chap 3 of the
IRC)
•Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms.
•For buildings using electric heat, heat pump equipment is required.
•Attached single-family townhomes and duplexes are required to be fire
sprinkled per local amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and
provide fire rated wall per R302. This fire sprinkler system usually requires a ¾”
or 1” water line and meter to meet all P2904 requirements.
•New homes must provide electric vehicle ready in garages are attached, see local amendment.
•Provide site-wide accessibility plan in accordance with CRS 9-5. This
requires accessible units per that state standard.
•New IRC code amendment R320 requires dwellings with habitable space on
the 1st floor must provide a visitable bathroom and path to such.
•The roof must be provided with solar-ready zones at outlined in IRC appendix RB.
•Energy code requires short hot water supply lines by showing plumbing compactness.
RESPONSE: Understood
Comment Number: 4
Page 26 of 28
03/17/2023: MULTI-FAMILY COMMENTS
•Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, see local amendment
(including accessible spaces)
•This building is located within 250ft of a 4 lane road or 1000 ft of an active
railway, must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.
•R-2 occupancies must provide 10ft to 30ft of fire separation distance
(setback) from property line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire
rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC.
•All multi-famliy buildings must be fire sprinkled. City of Fort Collins
amendments to the 2021 International Fire Code limit what areas can avoid fire
sprinklers with a NFPA 13R, see local IFC 903 amendment.
•Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of
fire-sprinkler. All egress windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24”.
•If using electric systems to heat or cool the building, ground source heat
pump or cold climate heat pump technology is required.
•Exit stair enclosures cannot be used for any other purpose other than egress
(i.e. no bike racks, mail, or storage)
•Each detached structure requires a separate permit (unless specifically
permit exempt), this includes carports, bike shelters, trellises, pergolas and
garage buildings, and shade structures, and covered mail kiosks.
•A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any
new multi-family structure.
•Energy code requires short hot water supply lines by showing plumbing compactness.
•Accessible parking shall serve each building. Additionally, accessible
parking is required in the garages covered parking areas. Accessible parking
shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking
to an accessible building entrance - (IBC chapter 11)
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
For new buildings, please schedule a pre-submittal meeting for any new commercial or multi-family
building with Building Services for this project.
Pre-Submittal meetings assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new
projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards. This meeting is
required to take place prior to Final Development Plan submittal. Please work with your Development
Review Coordinator to schedule this meeting.
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you
Comment Number: 5
03/17/2023: COMMERCIAL / MIXED USE COMMENTS:
•Commercial occupancies must provide 10ft to 30ft of fire separation
(setback) from property lines and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire
rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC.
•City of Fort Collins adopted International Fire Code (IFC) and amendments
to the 2018/2021 IFC require a full NFPA-13 sprinkler system per IBC chapter 9
or when building exceeds 5000 sq.ft. (or meet fire containment requirements).
•Buildings using electric heat, must use heat pump equipment.
•A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new commercial structure.
Page 27 of 28
•Plans must be signed and stamped by a Colorado licensed architect or
engineer and must be included in the permit application.
•Electric vehicle parking spaces are now required per local amendment to the IBC. See section 3604.
•Outdoor pools and spa's require separate permits and shall comply with the
adopted International Swimming Pool and Spa Code
- The 2 units above the retail space will be classified as R-3 occupancy units under the IBC
RESPONSE:
Comment Number: 6
03/17/2023: DAYCARE COMMENTS:
1.This will be considered an E or an I-4 occupancy.
2.I-4 = five or more persons who receive custodial care for fewer than 24hrs
including adult day care or child day care of any age
3.E = A child day care facility that provides care for more than five children 2.5
years of age who receive personal care services, education, and supervision for fewer than 24hrs a day
OR
A child day care facility that provides care for 5-99 children ages 2.5 or younger
where the rooms in which the children are cared for are located on a level of exit
discharge and each child care room has a door directly to the exterior.
4.New daycare buildings located within 250ft of a 4-lane road, or within 1000 ft
of an active railway must provide exterior composite sound transmission of 39 STC min.
5. The building may need to be fire sprinkled as per IBC and IFC local amendments.
RESPONSE: E occupancy
Comment Number: 7
03/17/2023: LIVE WORK UNIT COMMENTS:
Provide more information will these be connected live work units as defined
under the IBC? OR Will these be IBC mixed use with separate residential and
separate commercial occupancies. An early resubmittal meeting is
recommended to address occupancy, use, fire suppression system type and
occupancy separation.
RESPONSE: Connected live work units. Thank you
Contact: Lauren Wade lwade@fcgov.com 970-302-5962
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
04/26/2023: GIS
Please provide a street name for the street that is North/East of the Daycare for
addressing purposes.
RESPONSE: There is no proposed street to the NE of the daycare. It faces Ziegler avenue on the
east
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Page 28 of 28
10/02/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
10/02/2023: FOR HEARING-UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the markups, please contact
John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Please reference updated plat.
03/20/2023: FOR HEARING:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response
letter. If you have any specific questions about the redlines, please contact John
Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Please reference updated plat.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Emma Pett epett@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/20/2023: Please provide a landscape plan with a water budget and
hydrozones. Your water budget must be under 15 gallons/square foot for the
property annually. Please provide a detailed and complete irrigation plan that
includes your water budget, friction loss chart, irrigation components and
irrigation zones. Preliminary irrigation plans (PIP) are required for review at
Final Development Plan (FDP), prior to issuance of building permit. The
requirements for the PIP must comply with the irrigation requirements outlined in
Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code
RESPONSE: Hydrozone plan included
Comment Number: 2
10/02/2023: INFORMATION: Preliminary irrigation plans are due at FDP should
include a landscape plan, a water budget and hydrozone map. Your water
budget must be under 15 gallons/square foot for the property annually. Final
irrigation plans are due at building permit application, but we encourage you to
submit them earlier in case changes need to be made. Detailed irrigation
submittal requirements can be found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities//img/site_specific/uploads/irrigation-plan-submittal-reqs.pdf?1649260267
RESPONSE: Irrigation plans will be provided at final