Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST OAK TOWNHOMES - PDP230018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview January 19, 2024 RE: East Oak Townhomes, PDP230018, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of East Oak Townhomes. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras via phone at 970-416-2744 or via email at bbethuremharras@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Brandy Bethurem Harras bbethuremharras@fcgov.com 970-416-2744 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! RMS Response: Thank you Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: 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 2 why comments have not been addressed [when applicable]. RMS Response: Thank you, responses below. Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: SUBMITTAL: Correct file naming is required as part of a complete submittal. Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found here: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic-submittal-requiremen ts-and-file-naming-standards_v1_8-1-19.pdf?1680306305. File names should have the corresponding number, followed by the file type prefix, project information, and round number. For example: 1_SITE PLAN_Project Name_FDP_Rd1. A list of numbers and prefixes for each file can be found at the link above. RMS Response: Thank you, files submitted with naming above. Comment Number: 4 *AutoCad SHX Text on Geotech Report 01/16/2024: SUBMITTAL: All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers. Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from the PDF’s. AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set, and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and newer) in the command line and enter "0". Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti cles/sfdcarticles/Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-Aut oCAD.html EEC Response: PDF flattened. Comment Number: 5 01/16/2024: 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. RMS Response: Noted. Comment Number: 6 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: Please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the expiration of your project. RMS Response: Noted. Comment Number: 7 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee of $3,000.00. 3 RMS Response: Noted. Comment Number: 8 01/16/2024: NOTICE: A Development Review sign will be posted on the property. This sign will be posted through the final decision and appeal process. A request for the removal of signs will be made by your Development Review Coordinator at the appropriate time. RMS Response: Noted. Comment Number: 9 01/16/2024: 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. RMS Response: Noted. Comment Number: 10 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: This proposed project is processing as a Type 2 Development Plan. The decision maker for Type 2 is the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission. For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners within 800 feet (excluding public right-of-way and publicly owned open space). RMS Response: Noted. Department: Planning Services Contact: Arlo Schumann aschumann@fcgov.com 970-221-6599 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: Have you had discussions with a trash service provider regarding bin pickup? Is the intention that the hauler will remove and replace the bins in the enclosure area? A summary of your conversations with the local haulers as part of the narrative document would be helpful. RMS Response: AS noted in staff review, owner has made two attempts to both National and Ram Waster and has not received a response. What is being proposed is the same as L’Avenir across the street, trash service works well. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: Tandem parking spots are not counted towards the minimum parking counts. I don't believe these are needed if you are following the TOD parking standards. Since single-family attached is not considered a multi-family type of use, a modification will need to be requested to evaluate the parking under the TOD parking standards. This may be part of modification #6. RMS Response: Modification 6 now includes the following code sections: 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) and 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1)(a) for unit count requirements and demand mitigation strategy. Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: FOR FINAL PLAN: Stairs Encroaching into ROW. With the expected major encroachment request 4 for the stairs along Matthews, we'd like to have some discussion on alternative unit entrances if for some reason the encroachment was revoked. It appears a few of the rear doors enter garages. I believe the building code would not accept that as a primary exit. We would like to include a note on the planning coversheet as well as language in the DA that modifications to the units will be made as needed to comply with code standards if the encroachment is revoked. RMS Response: Noted has been added to cover page of development set. Comment Number: 4 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The lighting plan needs to include additional information. The allowable lumen budget for the common area needs to be listed along with the proposed total lumens proposed. The color temp of the fixtures should be included in the table data. Any lighting not in the common areas only needs to meet building code requirements and doesn't need to be included in the lighting budget. Please see redlines. A copy of our lighting compliance worksheet and an example of a lumen budget table will be included in the final comment package as a resource. RJM Response: Acknowledged, drawings updated. Comment Number: 5 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The Land Use tables need to show the proposed and allowed lot floor areas (including the max rear) for each SFA lot. These need to be shown for each townhome lot. Since the buildings nearly cover the entirety of the townhome lots this standard will need to be part of the modification package. Allowable Floor Area per 4.9(D)(1) This seems to just be a definition Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots per 4.9(D)(5) Included Dimensional Standards per 4.9(D)(6) - This includes for front, side, and rear setbacks since these are measured from the SFA lots. Included RMS Response: All of these code section have been wrapped into one Modification as discussed. Comment Number: 6 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: A modification request will be required to address the 'Building Design' standards in 4.9(E)(1)(a) -(4) The second floor shall not overhang the front or side exterior walls -(7)The minimum roof pitch shall be 2:12 These modifications may be grouped under a modification of 4.9(E)(1)(a) Building Design Au Workshop Response: Please see the separate modification request document. Comment Number: 7 01/18/2024: FOR HEARING: Regarding modification #3, it would be helpful to show the relationship between the proposed building and the setback plane for walls higher than 18'. FOR INFORMATION: Staff supports the set of modifications as currently presented in this first submittal round. there appear to be additional modifications that need to be added. It would be staff's recommendation to combine modification requests by general topic rather than a separate 5 modification for each line of code. For example all items under 4.9(D)(6) Dimension Standards could be combined into a single modification rather than (a), (b), (d) etc. individually. I'm happy to work with the team on how to group the requests. RMS Response: Thank you Arlo, we will package per topic instead of individual code section as noted. Comment Number: 8 01/18/2024: FOR HEARING: We will need a shadow analysis and summary of conclusions as required in 3.5.1(G) Au Workshop Response: Shadow analysis and summary of conclusions is now included in the documentation. Please see sheets A10 and A11. Comment Number: 9 01/18/2024: FOR HEARING: There is concern that the corner turn in the drive aisle is very tight and vehicles may tend to clip the corner planting area. See redline on site plan. Wilson Response: A turn template exhibit has been provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 10 01/19/2024: INFORMATION: Please keep in mind per LUC 3.5.1 (I) (2) All mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design theme of the building and the landscape so that the architectural design is continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences and equipment and no attention is attracted to the functions by use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. These areas shall be located and screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Au Workshop Response: Thank you. At this point, the mechanical system is planned as geothermal and there will be no exterior mechanical equipment to screen. If this changes in the future, code-compliant mechanical screening will be provided as required. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Jim Bertolini jbertolini@fcgov.com 970-416-4250 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: HISTORIC SURVEY: Some information below is repeated from conceptual development review comments. The properties at 216 & 220 E. Oak Street have up-to-date historic survey findings issued on December 9, 2021 (valid through December 9, 2026, and/or during an actively filed development plan). Both properties were determined Not Eligible and can be demolished as part of the project. Further historic survey is not necessary. Au Workshop Response: Noted, thank you. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: DESIGN COMPATIBILITY - REFERENCE: For the purposes of applying historic design compatibility requirements in LDC 5.8.1 (formerly LUC 3.4.7), the McIntyre Property at 137 Mathews is the primary historic property for reference (considered Landmark-eligible), since it us abutting the development 6 site. Secondary references for design compatibility within 200 feet include the Poudre Garage (148 Remington, Landmark), the McHugh-Andrews House (202 Remington, Landmark), 210 E. Oak St., and the Edwin Morrison Residence (206 Remington, Eligible). Au Workshop Response: Noted, thank you. Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: DESIGN COMPATIBILITY – GENERAL: Staff will provide redlines for specific elements of LUC 3.4.7, E, Table 1. Overall, while some elements of design compatibility appear met, there are several elements that appear unmet, and other elements that are unclear and may just require additional visuals to document compliance. Key items that appear unmet relate to use of predominant materials on the abutting historic resource to select dominant materials on the new construction (Table 1, Item 4) and the use of horizontal or vertical reference lines to connect old and new construction (Table 1, Item 6). Au Workshop Response: Thank you for providing the redlines. Per email correspondence and our Zoom meeting on February 13, 2024, we feel these items have been met and are prepared to discuss them with the Historic Preservation Commission. Comment Number: 4 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS: Staff may be able to support a Modification of Standards for elements of 3.4.7, E, Table 1. Staff is likely to support a Modification of Standards request for the stepback requirement in light of the additional setback provided along the north property line and the treatment at the southwest property corner as “as good or better than” solution to the stepback requirements in LUC 3.4.7. A modification for other items currently not clearly met such as primary materials and vertical/horizontal reference lines may be supported if other compatibility requirements are exceeded, demonstrating an “as good or better than” approach to the project’s overall design. Au Workshop Response: Thank you. Per our email correspondence and subsequent meeting, we believe this comment has been addressed. Comment Number: 5 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHEN HISTORIC RESOURCES ARE NEAR DEVELOPMENT SITE: If no structures or other features on the development site are historic resources (based on the information provided by the surveyor), Historic Preservation review of your proposed development would be limited to section 3.4.7(E), which provides various standards regarding architectural compatibility with abutting and nearby historic properties within 200 feet. The purpose of the design compatibility standards is not to force derivative architecture, but rather to establish a few points of commonality and create a fundamental harmony between the old and the new. Those requirements are designed to create an appropriate design relationship between new construction and nearby historic resources. They cover building massing and design features and, for larger developments, are applied only to the new construction that is closest to the identified historic structures, i.e. the “historic influence area.” This is illustrated in 3.4.7(B)(2). If an abutting property is a historic resource or there are historic resources on the development site, the design compatibility requirements are typically met relative to that property, even if there are other historic resources within the 200-foot boundary. 7 Au Workshop Response: Noted, thank you. Comment Number: 6 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: The applicant is required to seek a recommendation to the decision maker for development sites that contain historic resources or have historic resources within 200 feet. In this case, staff would refer this application to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for that recommendation. The recommendation addresses compliance of the development with Section 3.4.7 of the land use code. A conceptual review with the HPC was already held at the October 2023 regular meeting – that feedback should be incorporated into documentation of 3.4.7 compliance. The HPC hearing for a formal recommendation can be scheduled at any time prior to the hearing with the decision-maker (P&Z Commission) – staff can advise on the best timing. Au Workshop Response: As discussed, we intend to present the project to the Historic Preservation Commission at the March 2024 hearing. Comment Number: 7 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: SALVAGE/DECONSTRUCTION: This is not a requirement of the Historic Preservation Land Use Code but as a suggestion, deconstruction & material salvage may be a good option for portions of the building, especially the masonry. There are non-profits such as the National Center for Craftsmanship that support that kind of approach. Salvage and reuse in the proposed new construction is a possibility as well. Staff can assist with examples/networking if needed. Au Workshop Response: Noted, thank you. We will remain in contact with Historic Preservation about this item. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: John Gerwel jgerwel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The steps to the front porches on the east and south encroach into the ROW. This will require an encroachment permit. The implications of this permit means that the City has the right to revoke the permit, should the ROW space need to be utilized. These units should have another means of ingress/egress, and probably a backup front entrance configuration. This will also mean that if any utility line running under the steps needs to be worked on, then those steps will be removed and replaced at the owner's expense. Wilson Response: The architecture team understands the permit requirements and will configure the porches so they can be modified if the permit is revoked. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: We would want the setback of the first step on those porches to 2 feet behind back of sidewalk. This creates a safer walkway, better separates the steps when sidewalk maintenance is needed, and could potentially help the steps stay in the event that the street configuration has to widen. Au Workshop Response: Noted, thank you. The steps will be set back 2’ from the sidewalk. 8 Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The electric transformer will need a dedicated easement around it. Reach out to Cody Snowden from Light and Power to see how much clearance he needs. Wilson Response: The entire Tract A is Utility Easement. Comment Number: 4 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: This might be more of a planning comment, but I'm a little concerned with alley and interior access. The gate and driveway for Lots 9-15 seems to only be able to accommodate one-way traffic. Wilson Response: A turn template exhibit has been provided with this submittal. Very few trips are anticipated. This area is intended to function similar to a narrow alley. Comment Number: 5 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The alley entrance needs to be reconstructed as well. Wilson Response: Alley is now shown as being reconstructed. Comment Number: 6 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: Could we clear up some of the utility linework? I know it's all service lines, but there are a lot of service lines. Built in linework labeling would really clarify things. See redlines. Wilson Response: The utility linework line type has been updated for clarity. Comment Number: 7 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The site delineation on the plat looks like it might be incorrect. Please confirm. See redlines. Wilson Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 8 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The variance request needs one small edit - the first justification notes that LCUASS local streets have 19.5 feet of space from the curb to the back of easement. This is untrue. The dimension is 22.5 feet. Wilson Response: The dimension has been updated to 22.5 feet. The approved variance request has been received. Thank you. Comment Number: 9 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The mailroom falls under utility and drainage easement. Structures are not permitted on easements. Tract A should be revised to exclude that area. Wilson Response: Our understanding is that this is not a structural component. Comment Number: 10 01/16/2024: FOR FINAL PLAN: It appears that the pedestrian ramp on the east side is intended to be demolished, but was not identified in the demo plans. Could you clarify that? See redlines. Wilson Response: The ramp demo has now been identified on the demo plans. Comment Number: 11 01/16/2024: FOR FINAL PLAN: Given the amount of public improvements and utility tie-ins, we'll probably want to pursue a Development Construction Permit (DCP) for work done in the 9 right-of-way. DCP info can be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev Wilson Response: Comment noted for Final Plan. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist sgilchrist@fcgov.com 970-224-6175 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/15/2024: FOR HEARING: The Transportation Impact Study details the unit types as 220-Multi-Family (Low Rise,) when it really should be considered 215- Single Family Attached housing units since each individual unit has a private external entrance versus entrances off a shared internal corridor. I would also like this reviewed under the General Urban/Suburban Setting/Location category in comparing the differences in the daily/peak hour trips from the former use to the new use. Once this is resubmitted we will review for the possibility of waiving the TIS. Delich Response: Update Made Comment Number: 2 01/17/2024: INFORMATION: The removal of the ADA parking spot will need to be reconsidered. With the new Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines being adopted, 1 ADA accessible spot will be required per block face, or every 25 parking spots. If the developer wishes to move the spot, that is something we can consider but it will need to be fully ADA compliant. We don't want to simply just remove the parking spot if we will be required to come back later and install one. Wilson Response: The ADA parking spot has been added back into the plans, but shifted to the south end of the row of on street parking. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: 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 markups, please contact John Von Nieda at 970-221-6565 or jvonnieda@fcgov.com RMS Response: Noted, redlines resubmitted with comment responses. Department: Erosion Control Contact: Andrew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 12/27/2023: INFORMATION: 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 10 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. As this project is under an acre and not part of a larger common development an Erosion Control Report is not necessary in order to meet City Criteria. Wilson Response: Acknowledged that an Erosion Control Report is not necessary to meet City Criteria. Comment Number: 2 12/27/2023: FOR 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 under 3 acres so only a sequence chart needs to be provided on the erosion control plans. Please ensure that the Erosion Control Plans provided include a sequence chart in accordance with (FCSCM Ch 2 Section 6.1.3.2) 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. Wilson Response: An Erosion Control Plan and Escrow Calculation will be provided for Final Plan. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Emma Pett epett@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/09/2024: FOR FINAL PLAN: 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 RMS Response: Noted, plans will be provided at that time. We will not be using more than 30,000 gallons per year so there will be no separate tap requirement. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Stephen Agenbroad sagenbroad@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: Fort Collins requires that 75% of the impervious area on site is treated with LID methods, the site is currently proposing treatment of only 64%. For only 50% of the site to be treated with LID methods, it would require the use of permeable 11 pavers. Since there are no pervious pavers proposed on this site it is required that 75% of the site is treated with LID methods. The Udal Subbasin treats the remaining 25% (or less) of impervious area with standard water quality methods. Please adjust the sizing and drainage plan to accommodate for these requirements. Wilson Response: The sizing and drainage plan have been adjusted to accommodate these requirements. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The city would prefer that the vehicular use areas are treated rather than the roofed areas. Vehicular use areas often have more contaminants than roofed areas, therefore the city would like for these areas to be treated first. Wilson Response: The area treated has been adjusted to also treat as much of the vehicular area as possible and still meets the above requirements. Comment Number: 4 01/16/2024: QUESTION: Could the curb inlet at the north end of the site have an overflow weir that directs flow to the stormtech system rather than directing all roof drains to the stormtech system? For larger storms, flows would overtop the weir and flow out the 15-inch storm line to Mathews st. Wilson Response: The system has been adjusted to add the weir that will backflow runoff into the Stormtech system. Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: Please provide more information on how all roof drains will be routed to the stormtech system. Due to the limited space on site, it will be difficult to route all roof drains to the stormtech system and maintain required separations. Do you intend to tie the roof drains to the basin at the north end of the system? Or tie directly into the chambers. Wilson Response: The roof drains have been adjusted to tie to two storm systems that will then backflow into the Stormtech system. Comment Number: 5 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING Is the mail room a roofed/conditioned structure? The city does not allow permanent structures over a stormwater system and not within a utility/drainage easement. In addition, the city does not allow stormwater lines to run under permanent structures. This structure will restrict access to the facility if maintenance is ever required. This structure may need to be relocated or removed. Wilson Response: The storm system has been moved to drain to the north and is no longer in conflict with the mail room. Comment Number: 6 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING When sizing the stormtech isolator rows please provide more information on the volume of the chamber with aggregate. Wilson Response: The entire system is the isolator rows and the only volume is in the chambers. That calculation does not use any of the aggregate void volume. Comment Number: 7 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING Please provide an LID exhibit, similar to the Impervious Area exhibit, that shows the impervious areas being treated with LID methods. Wilson Response: A Permanent BMP Exhibit has been added to the report. 12 Comment Number: 8 01/17/2024: FOR HEARING The current alignment of the of the stormwater outlet is roughly 1-2 ft off of the structure. This is not constructable, please provide some additional separation from the building and the pipe so that it is accessible for maintenance. Please refer to my redlines for a possible alignment. Please also coordinate with other utilities to satisfy their separation requirements. Ideally, the city would like at least 6ft of separation from trees to the storm line. Wilson Response: The stormwater outlet has been relocated to the north. RMS Response: Dimensions added to landscape plan for trees and storm lines. AND Since the line is running parallel to the ROW, please coordinate with Engineering to obtain an encroachment permit. Wilson Response: The stormwater outlet has been relocated to the north. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Stephen Agenbroad sagenbroad@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: To have 8 single-family attached homes served of a single combo service, please submit a variance request to both Heidi Hansen (hhansen@fcgov.com) and me (sagenbroad@fcgov.com) for review. The variance request will need to justify why the chosen alternative is the best option for the site and must address why other alternatives are not feasible. Please feel free to reach out to discuss. Wilson Response: The variance for the shared sewer service has been submitted. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING The city prefers water meters to be external to the buildings and patios. This is to make them accessible to our crews at all times. To keep the water meters external to the buildings and patios, a minimum of 10-ft from the building to the shared combo service is needed. In addition, the water meters are required to be at least 4-ft from any structure. Therefore, please ensure that the individual services have at least 4-ft of separation from the patios. Wilson Response: The water meters have been moved to keep a minimum of 4-ft from any structure. Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please coordinate with PFA to determine the amount of flow is needed to satisfy the flow requirements of the fire sprinkler systems. Typically we see 1-inch services are required in order to satisfy the flow requirements of the fire sprinkler systems. On occasion we have accepted 3/4-inch services, but to meet the flow requirements a water tank is needed within the property. Wilson Response: Comment noted and will be addressed at Final. Comment Number: 4 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING Please maintain at least 6-ft of separation between service lines and tree plantings. RMS Response: Dimensions added to landscape plan for trees and storm lines. 13 Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund tsiegmund@fcgov.com 970-416-2772 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: Please show the electrical routing on the utility plans from the existing transformer location to the new transformer location. McNutt Response: Please refer to sheet E100 for meter locations and secondary routing. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: Please show the proposed meter locations on the buildings and private electric service from the transformer to the meters. Au Workshop Response: Please see sheet E100. The meter stacks will be on the north walls of the west and east buildings. Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: The proposed transformer is placed on existing utility lines. Please shift the proposed transformer east to not conflict with the existing utilities in the alley. Wilson Response: The transformer has been shifted, but we think these lines will be moved as they are from the existing transformer. Comment Number: 4 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: Building site charges and system modification charges, in addition to capacity fees, will apply to this project for the transformer relocation. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding electrical fees for the project. Owner Response: Noted. Comment Number: 5 01/16/2024: 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 Owner Response: Noted. Comment Number: 6 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: All single-family attached buildings or services above 200 amps are considered customer owned service; therefore, the applicant is responsible for installing the secondary service from the transformer to the meters and will be owned and maintained by the individual unit owner. McNutt Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 7 01/16/2024: 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. McNutt Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 14 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: 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 McNutt Response: Acknowledged refer to sheet E100 for meter location. Comment Number: 9 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: Light and Power is experiencing material shortages and long lead times on certain materials and unfortunately this is an industry wide issue. Light and Power typically has stock of our materials, including transformers, and we work on a first come, first service basis with our inventory stock. We will assess what we have available when this project gains City approval and progresses to construction. Light and Power is working hard to secure materials, transformers, and orders have been placed with our manufactures to replenish inventory. McNutt Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 10 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: Light & Power will require AutoCAD files of the Site Plan, Utility Plans, and Landscape Plans prior to the Entitlement Process approval. RMS Response: Noted, files will be provided. Comment Number: 11 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: The City of Fort Collins now offers gig-speed fiber internet, video, and phone service. Contact John Stark with Fort Collins Connexion at (970) 207-7890 or jstark@fcgov.com for commercial grade account support, RFPs, and bulk agreements. RMS Response: Noted Comment Number: 12 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: For additional information on our renewal energy programs please visit the website below or contact John Phelan (jphelan@fcgov.com). https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/go-renewable Owner Response: Noted. Comment Number: 13 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: Please contact Tyler Siegmund with electric project engineering if you have any questions at (970) 416-2772. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/electricservicestandar ds.pdf?1645038437 Reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers 15 Owner Response: Noted. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kristie Raymond kraymond@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/02/2024: INFORMATION: Please note that 2-4" cobble mulch will cover ground but will not function as a mulch to deter weeds and retain moisture. If a rock mulch is desired, then 3/4" of 1/2" screen or smaller would be necessary. Additionally, please note there are disadvantages to using a weed barrier. While it helps prevent weed growth, there are some potential negatives to consider: Limited Water Infiltration: Weed barriers can restrict water penetration into the soil, potentially leading to water runoff and poor moisture distribution. This may affect the health of plants by limiting their access to water. Soil Compaction: Over time, the use of a weed barrier can lead to soil compaction. Compacted soil hinders root growth and reduces the overall health of plants by limiting their access to nutrients and water. Weed Barrier Degradation: Weed barriers can break down over time due to exposure to sunlight, weather, and other environmental factors. This degradation can create openings for weeds to grow through, defeating the purpose of the barrier. Nutrient Limitations: Weed barriers can impede the natural decomposition of organic matter, limiting the availability of nutrients in the soil. This can impact the overall fertility of the soil and affect plant growth. RMS Response: Cobble mulch shown only in some small arcs of tree lawn area to break up the space. All planted areas will be mulched with organic mulch and no weed barrier. Comment Number: 2 01/02/2024: FOR HEARING: Please provide approximate plant quantities and locations in the landscape plan. RMS Response: Shrubs, ornamental grasses and perennials have been added to the plans. Comment Number: 3 01/02/2024: INFORMATION: This area would be great to incorporate some green infrastructure that has many benefits. Green roofs can help regulate a building’s internal temperature, reduce stormwater runoff, and mitigate the urban heat island effect. Green roofs offer significant economic benefits, including a longer roof life and heating and cooling energy savings. Green roofs also provide an opportunity for urban food production, and increasing urban biodiversity. If well-designed and cared for, green roofs can offer people the psychological benefits of nature. RMS Response: Noted, project is utlizing many other green methods such as solar panels, shared vehicles, heat pumps, etc. Department: Forestry 16 Contact: Freddie Haberecht fhaberecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/08/2024: INFORMATION The courtyard plan looks very nice and the form of the birch would be great but it may be worth considering some different species. Heritage birch in particular has had soil tolerance issues. Western river birch can be a great tree but tend to be variable and to die out in the middle and re-sprout. For a similar effect Japanese lilac, pekin lilac, bigtooth maple, Turkish filbert, 'Harvest Gold' linden, Yellowwood, and even redbud with the protected site could work. RMS Response: Ownership would like to keep the proposed trees. The HOA will have an arbor visit annually to assess disease and any fertilization needs of the trees. Comment Number: 2 01/12/2024: QUESTION: What method of excavation will be used to install the utilities within the critical root zone of the existing city owned trees? Trenching in the areas proposed will cause significant damage to the existing trees. RMS Response: Comment Number: 3 01/12/2024: QUESTION: The one city tree proposed for removal was under my understanding being removed for the placement of utilities. I'm not seeing any utility conflicts with this tree or replacing this tree? If a tree is replaced in the location of the removed tree the mitigation payment can be reduced by 500 dollars which is the city cost of planting a tree. RMS Response: Tree will be replaced with a new tree and payment is shown as $500 on mitigation plan. Department: Park Planning Contact: Missy Nelson mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: INFORMATION: Both Park Planning & Development and Parks department comments will be provided by Missy Nelson | mnelson@fcgov.com RMS Response: Noted. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: No comments from Parks or Park Planning and Development. Thank you. RMS Response: Thank you. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS – IFC Appendix D105 Amendment Buildings over 30' in height trigger additional fire lane requirements in order to 17 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. The current proposal does not meet aerial requirements. If compliance cannot be met, a written alternative method request would be required to be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval. Au Workshop Response: We have engaged with a fire + life safety consultant to evaluate the project and prepare a request for alternate materials and methods. Our target is to submit the request to PFA within a week or two of this submittal. Comment Number: 2 01/16/2024: FOR FINAL PLAN: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING – IFC section 505.1.1 amendment Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. The address numbers for one- and two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 4” in height with a minimum ½” stroke and shall be posted on a contrasting background. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official. Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane. Addressing for the interior courtyard facing townhomes will require additional wayfinding signage and address locations. Please add generic address to elevations and update note 17. Au Workshop Response: Note 18 has been updated on sheet G001 per email correspondence. We will continue to work with PFA on wayfinding and addressing throughout the building permit and construction process. Comment Number: 3 01/16/2024: FOR FINAL PLAN: FIRE LANE LOADING - IFC Appendix D102.1 amendment Fire lanes shall be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 80,000 pounds. Private drives used for fire lanes shall provide 18 information confirming the design can handle fire truck loading. A note shall be added to the civil plans indicating all areas dedicated as EAE are capable of supporting 80,000 pounds. If the alley is to be used as a fire lane, it shall meet the minimum loading requirements. Au Workshop Response: Thank you. The fire + life safety consultant will determine if the alley will be needed for fire access. Comment Number: 4 01/16/2024: FOR HEARING: TURNING RADII - IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. If the alley is to be used as a fire lane, it shall meet the minimum turning radius requirements. Au Workshop Response: Thank you. The fire + life safety consultant will determine if the alley will be needed for fire access.