HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments - 09/06/2024
Page 1 of 26
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
September 06, 2024
Dan Nickless
Waters Edge Investments, LLLP
5340 S Quebec St, Suite 340S
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
RE: Sonders Village, PDP230012, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Sonders Village. If you have questions about any comments,
you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review
Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 970-221-6695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Todd Sullivan tsullivan@fcgov.com 970-221-6695
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
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: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2
FOR HEARING:
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
Page 2 of 26
key dates leading up to the hearing.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 3
SUBMITTAL:
As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. The
final 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.
Response: Acknowledged
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: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4
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: 4_UTILITY_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: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5
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
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6
SUBMITTAL:
Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being
the cut-off for routing the same week. Upon initial submittal, your project will be
subject to a completeness review. Staff has until noon that Friday to determine if
the project contains all required checklist items and is sufficient for a round of
Page 3 of 26
review. If complete, a formal Letter of Acceptance will be emailed to you and the
project would be officially routed with its initial round of review, followed by a
formal meeting. Please check with me, your Development Review Coordinator,
regarding review timelines.
As you are preparing to submit your formal plans, please notify me with an
anticipated submittal date. Applications and plans are submitted electronically
to me by email or secured file sharing applications.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7
INFORMATION:
Once your project has been formally reviewed by the City and you have received comments,
please resubmit within 180 days, approximately 6 months, to avoid the expiration of your project.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 8
INFORMATION:
ANY project that requires four or more rounds of review would be subject to an additional fee of $3,000.00.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Kai Kleer kkleer@fcgov.com 970-416-4284
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING
It appears that a portion of the site is planned to develop outside of City Limits and the Growth
Management Area Boundary (GMA). It will be required to annex and zone all areas of the development
into City Limits prior to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The annexation area should match the limits of development for the site, however, is not clear what
portions of Douglas Road will need to be included but please coordinate with City Staff regarding this topic.
Based on the conservation easement city staff recommends zoning the annexation area Public
Open Lands (POL).
Response: Annexation will be limited to those areas that include improvements which are subject to City inspections
(stormwater detention ponds) or facilities eventually maintained by the City of Fort Collins (community trail) and which would
be appropriately zoned Public Open Lands (POL). All other areas would remain in Larimer County’s jurisdiction since they
are open, undeveloped areas where public access is expressly prohibited under the recorded Sod Farm Conservation Easement
or that are subject to the property rights and operational rules of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, which is a quasi-
governmental organization.
No portions of the development site abut Douglas Road so the right-of-way will not be impacted. The box culvert undercrossing
of the No. 8 Outlet Ditch will remain in situ and the ditch will not be relocated where it abuts the Douglas Road right-of-way.
Therefore, portions of the adjacent site that abut Douglas Road will not be annexed.
Page 4 of 26
Comment Number: 2
09/04/2024: FOR FINAL
Please show concrete service pad and enclosure details such as crane bolts
and metal angle iron or bollards for interior wall protection. Please include all
standard details on sheet S19. Show concrete pad within paving details of utility plan.
Response: This will be provided at final
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING
Provide elevation view of trash enclosure. Also make sure there is a concrete
service pad depicted in front of the enclosure.
Comment Number: 3
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING
There are several areas of the lighting plan that exceed both the maximum
horizonal illuminance and fixture glares limits of lighting standards. Please
revise the plan in accordingly. We've also developed a new table to allow
applicants to double check their work which can be found here,
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/cofc_lighting_compliance_calcu lator.xlsx?169324665
Response: This comment was responded to with the last round of review. This comment is still from that round of review.
Comment Number: 4
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING
For street tree calculations (3.2.1(D)(2)(a)), it's rather challenging to measure a
block face because the project is split across several pages. For the next round
of review could additional information or an exhibit be provided that provides
the block face size and tree planting count for each block face and side?
Response: This comment was responded to on the last submittal. A separate sheet has been added to the landscape plan with a
chart showing street tree compliance.
Comment Number: 9
09/04/2024: FOR HEARING
Please reconsider the non-traditional arrangement of the neighborhood center.
A good example of a more traditional arrangement of buildings and public space is Prospect
New Town in Longmont. additionally, City Plan provides the following historic guidance:
2004 - Policy LMN-2.2 Neighborhood Center. A neighborhood should be
planned to include other neighborhood-serving uses and features in addition to
residential uses. At a minimum, each neighborhood will include a Neighborhood
Center that serves as a year-round gathering place accessible to all residents.
A Neighborhood Center will be no larger than 7 acres, and will include some of
the following: recreation facility; school; children’s and adults’ day care; place of
assembly and worship; small civic facility; neighborhood-serving market, shops,
small professional offices, clinics, or other small businesses. Any such uses
should have limited needs for signage and limited
traffic attraction into or through the neighborhood. The inclusion of rooms or
indoor space for meetings and neighborhood functions is encouraged, as is a
square, plaza, pavilion, or other outdoor space accessible to all residents.
Policy LMN-2.3 Neighborhood Center Location. A Neighborhood Center should
Page 5 of 26
be encouraged to locate near the center of the neighborhood, but will be
permitted to be located elsewhere such as on an edge.
Policy LMN-2.4 Neighborhood Center Design. A Neighborhood Center should
either be designed in collaboration with the residents, or otherwise be
custom-designed by its developer to reinforce the positive identity, character,
comfort and convenience of its surrounding neighborhood.
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING
Regarding the Neighborhood Center, the non-traditional arrangement seems to
leave a lot of leftover outdoor space that could be better utilized as a public
plaza space on the east side of the buildings (think Jessup Farm neighborhood
center). Size, arrangement of buildings, and sense of enclosure are all
important elements when considering the design of space. Please also see
redlines on the site plan related to architecture. Neighborhood Centers should
continue the architectural theme and character of nearby neighborhoods.
Significant discussion is needed on this topic.
Please also review the nonresidential building design standards of the LMN
zone district. Notable standards that are currently out of compliance are related
to roof form and building orientation.
Response: Neighborhood Centers are not financially sustainable when located near the center of the neighborhood. Architect
and Urban Planner Peter Calthorpe, who was the principal author of Fort Collins’ City Plan, has changed his professional
opinion on neighborhood center location since the Plan’s creation, and recently acknowledged that such centers are not
financially viable unless located adjacent roadways that capture visibility and access to a larger market. This is also supported
by retail planning specialist Robert Gibbs who asserts that “the best locations for corner stores are on major local roads at the
busiest entryway into the neighborhood.”, just as we have proposed at Sonders Village.
The one centrally located neighborhood center example cited by staff in our most recent meeting is Longmont’s Prospect New
Town. While Prospect has a successful centrally located neighborhood center including a stand-alone restaurant, the tenant
space is subsidized by the developer to ensure its viability. We find that financial subsidy of the Sonders Village neighborhood
center would not be sustainable for the Metro District and not an approach we will pursue.
We also cannot find anywhere in the code that requires a specific arrangement of buildings and amenities. We have explored
other layout options but prefer the design we are showing. We are also talking to a potential user of building one that also
prefers this layout.
We have deleted a small building from the layout and have converted that area to a xeriscape garden demonstration area with
room for tables and chairs to expand the neighborhood center functions.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Emma Pett epett@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
8/26/24: UPDATED: Thank you for submitting your preliminary irrigation plans.
Final irrigation plans are due before building permit.
09/19/2023: 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
Page 6 of 26
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-submitt al-reqs.pdf?1649260267
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: John Gerwel jgerwel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/19/2024: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
Leaving this comment open until we receive an LOI from the ditch company, or
the plans change to no longer propose work within the ditch or ditch parcel.
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
We will want a signed Letter of Intent from the ditch company for the proposed work.
Comment Number: 2
Response: : The owners are working with the Ditch Company on obtaining and LOI or documentation to demonstrate the
Ditch Company and developer are working in good faith and the Ditch Company is okay with the project for hearing, with
additional details to be worked out in final design.
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
In our discussions for this design, we had talked about pedestrian signalization.
Traffic will need to be involved for determining an acceptable way to get
pedestrians across the street. LCUASS has the maximum crossing distance at
56 feet of roadway, but given the high speed of this street, a pedestrian refuge
island would also be a good safety measure, which would push the best
crossing spot on the northside. One factor that might favor a northside
connection would be the number of utilities on the southside of Ballyneal.
Another piece of the design shown versus previous discussions is the merging
of the regional trail with the sidepath. The trail is currently being shown as being
disconnected to the sidepath until the Ballyneal crossing.
Response: A pedestrian refuge island layout has been provided to Traffic Ops and Engineering and okayed for preliminary,
with additional details and design to follow during final design and after the hearing.
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
The parcel that extends up to the southeast of the intersection of Turnberry and
Douglas will need frontage improvements along Turnberry. We might have to have
additional coordination for an alternative cross section given the proximity to the ditch. I
think this comment will have to be its own meeting with Planning, Stormwater, and Traffic.
Response: This comment is not applicable and has been cleared by Dave Bentley, as the area is offsite. Please see current
plans for planned improvements along our frontage and how the tie-in to existing asphalt occurs at the northwest corner of the
project.
Comment Number: 4
08/19/2024: INFORMATION:
This comment is to acknowledge the acceptance of this variance. Thank you for
including it on General Note 48. No further action needed.
Page 7 of 26
Response: Thank you
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
We will want to see a variance for the southern part of Sternwheeler where the
tangent between curves cannot be met. We previously discussed this spot, and
we are okay with what you have. Just want to get the variance on record.
Comment Number: 7
08/19/2024: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
There are a lot of easements proposed to be vacated via plat or separate
document. We'll need LOI's from those entities prior to hearing. Signature
blocks will be needed in the plat when we get to FDP.
Response: The other entities are also reviewing the plans and plat and have not made any comments or disputes against
vacating existing easements by plat and then re-establishing new easements by plat. Majestic Surveying is aware of signature
blocks needed and have added blocks accordingly. Typically, the City Engineering checks directly with other entities to
confirm there are no issues with vacation of easements as part of the review process. If this has changed, please let us know.
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
Any affected parties with easements getting changed will need to sign off on the
plat. Right now, that just looks like the ditch company.
Comment Number: 14
08/28/2024: FOR HEARING:
Some of the ditch grading near the Turnberry/Douglas intersection appears to
be within the City ROW. LCUASS 7.7.2 requires all slopes in the ROW, or
outside of the ROW if such slope can affect public improvements, to be 4:1. It's
tough to tell with the linework, but I'm measuring a slope of about 2.67:1. Slopes
steeper than 4:1 need to have a retaining wall outside of the ROW, must be
proven to be stable, and need to be approved by the City Engineer.
Response: The grading has been altered to allow tie-in of contours along Turnberry Road further south so the existing, offsite
embankment is not altered and the 4:1 issue for proposed grading is met. This was provided to and approved by John Gerwel.
Comment Number: 15
08/28/2024: FOR HEARING:
LCUASS requires access ramps for at least one side of T-intersections and to
make offsite connections. I marked up some spots on C-009 and C-010 of the
utility plans. Installing pedestrian safety measures for Richards Lake will need to
be contemplated with Traffic.
Response: : Aspen has added ramps as redlined.
Comment Number: 16
08/28/2024: FOR FINAL PLANS:
I made some small redlines that don't need to be addressed prior to hearing,
but marked them as I saw them. See redlines for Plat and Utility Plans.
Response: Redlines that apply to PDP have been updated. Redlines that apply to final will be provided during final design.
Comment Number: 17
09/03/2024: INFORMATION:
Make sure that the new street names are in compliance with the Larimer County
Page 8 of 26
naming conventions. I don't see any issues, but it's something to check - it can
hold up the recording process.
Response: We have reviewed the street names and have made some changes. Street names have been submitted for reservation.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
09/04/2024: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
Response: Acknowledged
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1
09/04/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL-UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked in the Technical Services (TS) markup PDF.
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: The changes on the PDF redlines have been made.
09/19/2023: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:
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
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Steve Gilchrist sgilchrist@fcgov.com 970-224-6175
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
The Transportation Impact Study has been received and is being reviewed.
See subsequent comments.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING UPDATE: Please remove any recommendation
to convert intersections along arterial roadways to all-way stops. (i.e. Turnberry.)
These intersections will be considered for signals, but not all way stops.
Page 9 of 26
Response: Reference to all-way stop conditions along Turnberry Road have been removed from the revised traffic study except
at the Lemay/Country Club and Turnberry Road/Mountain Vista intersections which are already all-way stop conditions.
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
The recommended improvements to convert the two intersections on Turnberry
to multi-way stops is recognized but not considered a viable option. As
development continues to occur in this area these will be monitored for a
potential traffic signal, but it is highly unlikely that we would install a multi-way
stop on an arterial.
Comment Number: 3
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
The recommended improvements at Lemay/Country Club Road and
Timberline/Mountain Vista are consistent with recommendations from other
developments in the area. A proportional contribution will be required if either
of these project is not fully funded at this time. Larimer County will need to be
routed with this study to help determine the proportional share for the Lemay
and Country Club Road intersection as this is outside City Limits.
Response: Acknowledged; please provide the revised traffic study to Larimer County through the proper channels.
Additionally, Sonders Village will contribute monies to the City towards off-site improvements as part of their development
agreement which should account for the proportional share contribution for these improvements. Please refer to the revised
traffic report for the anticipated percentages.
Comment Number: 4
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING UPDATE: For signalized intersections and
roundabouts, individual movement level of service should be provided, in
addition to the approach leg, and the overall intersection level of service. It
would be recommended to put these in a table. Any failing level of service
should include the anticipated delay. See page 4-43 from Chapter 4 of the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for an example.
https://www.larimer.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2021/ch04_transportation_im pact_studies_0.pdf
Response: Instead of a tabular summary, the Levels of Service (LOS) for individual intersection movements have been added
to the LOS graphical representations.
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
We would like to have the overall intersection level of service noted in the
worksheets along with the individual movement level of service you provided.
Comment Number: 5
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING UPDATE: Continued coordination is needed in
this regard. Internal connectivity to the regional trail is provided, but uncertainty
about the actual construction of the regional trail is not clear. With this in mind,
we need to look at the connectivity of the regional trail to the adjacent
neighborhoods and future trail connections. This includes, the connection
across Turnberry and the potential crossing across Richards Lake. This was
not detailed in the Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis.
Response: Utility plans for platting of the regional trail easement as well as providing grading that meets the cross-slope and
longitudinal criteria. The owners/developers have confirmed that they will not be building the regional trail.
Page 10 of 26
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING:
Multi Modal Level of Service- Additional coordination may be needed to identify
the connectivity within the development to the regional trail being proposed on
the eastern portion of the property. This will need to be coordinated with our
Park Planning staff. Additional evaluation may be needed with regard to any
bike/pedestrian connectivity to the north to Douglas Road, and possibly
connectivity to the Country Club Reserve neighborhood.
Comment Number: 6
09/19/2023: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Thank you for providing the Signing and Pavement Marking sheets in the plan.
We typically will review these within the Final Development Plan, but will start
working on these before your next submittal.
Response: This will be provided at final.
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Andrew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 2
08/29/2023: 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)
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: SWMP and Erosion control calculations and escrow will be provided in final design.
Comment Number: 12
08/27/2024: Thank you for your acknowledgement of Erosion comments from
the previous PDP round of review. We understand projects are subject to revisions during
PDP reviews and it is not practical to submit Erosion Control Submittals at this time.
We will expect Erosion Control submittals at FDP round 1 for review and
Page 11 of 26
comments. Please refer to the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual,
Chapter 2, Section 6 for the required Erosion Control Submittals for your
project. This can be found at the following website.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f
orms-guidelines-regulations/erosion/
Response: Acknowledged
Topic: Fees
Comment Number: 3
08/29/2023: 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 360 lots, 129.54 acres of disturbance, 4 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 $16,568.19 . 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, 2 number of bioretention/level spreaders, 2 number of
extended detention basins, and 0 number of underground treatments, results in
an estimate of the Stormwater LID/WQ Inspection fee to be $ $1,130.00 .
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 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
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque wlamarque@fcgov.com 970-416-2418
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
09/03/2024: PRIOR TO HEARING-UNRESOLVED:
I could not find any documentation.
Response: : This was provided to Wes, and Aspen met with Wes, in which he cleared the project for hearing, pending the
LOI/confirmation from the Ditch Company they are ready for hearing.
Page 12 of 26
09/15/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
The ditch is being relocated and grading (fill) is being proposed within the
inadvertent detention area on the sod farm property. The detention volume in
the inadvertent detention area, per the City's Stormwater Master Plan, needs to
be preserved. Please provide documentation that all of the existing available
volume within the inadvertent detention area is maintained or being replaced
with additional volume due to the fill and lost detention volume within this area.
Comment Number: 5
09/03/2024: PRIOR TO HEARING-UNRESOLVED:
The flows in the No. 8 Ditch documented within the Upper Cooper Slough
Drainage Master Plan are existing flows. These flows are existing that will be in
the No. 8 Ditch regardless and need to be accounted for with provided a
controlled spill into the inadvertent detention area.
Response: As discussed with Wes, the Ditch Company has stated their irrigation ditch shall not be utilized by the City for
regional stormwater flows. The Ditch Company has confirmed this is still the case, and no flows, unless approved by them, are
allowed to enter their ditch. Aspen has coordinated with the Ditch Company engineer and Wes to provide for theoretical
capacity of approximately 1,025 cfs flow in the re-aligned ditch, with an overflow weir that could potentially spill flow to the
low point on the sod farm, as required and requested by the Ditch Company engineer.
09/15/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
Due to changes on how the ditch will spill into the inadvertent detention area
with the relocation of the ditch, please provide a controlled spill structure (weir)
from the ditch into the inadvertent detention area. This should ensure the
defined drainage overflow spills, per the City's Stormwater Drainage Master
Plan, will safely spill without causing erosive damage to the ditch embankment.
Response: Per coordination with the developer, Wes, and Ditch Company engineer, Aspen has provided an overflow weir in
the east bank of the re-aligned ditch, as requested and required by the Ditch Company Engineer and Wes. Further
coordination and design details will be provided during final design. All details, requirements in relation to offsite masterplan
stormwater flows shall be coordinated and resolved between the City and Ditch Company, not Aspen.
Comment Number: 10
09/03/2024: PRIOR TO HEARING-UNRESOLVED:
This comment is still valid as these flows are existing flows and will be in the No.8 Ditch regardless.
09/15/2023: PRIOR TO HEARING:
The irrigation ditch needs to have a capacity of 1025 cfs upstream of the spill location into the inadvertent
detention area. I did notice the cross-sections in the drainage report documenting what is needed to carry
this flow and want to make sure that the entire stretch upstream of the spill has this capacity.
Response Aspen’s current plans provide for the northern reach of the re-aligned ditch being 8’ deep and the southern reach
being 6’ deep. The depths were originally intended to meet the regional masterplan flows, but the Ditch Company has
confirmed their ditch cannot be used for regional stormwater conveyance. Coordination and agreements are still in the works
between the developer and the Ditch Company on what flow(s) should be utilized and accounted for in design of the new ditch.
Additional details and information will be provided in final design.
Comment Number: 11
09/15/2023: FOR FINAL PLAN REVIEW:
The placement if riprap in residential areas has been a problem with maintenance and sustainability.
Please prove a TRM alternative, like scour stop, for all pipe outlets.
Response: Aspen will continue to work with City Stormwater on acceptable erosion control items for the site and will confirm
in final design, as okayed by Wes.
Page 13 of 26
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Luke Unruh lunruh@fcgov.com 970-416-2724
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/19/2023 INFORMATION ONLY:
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 to discuss development fees 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-investmen t-development-fees
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
Any existing electric infrastructure that needs to be relocated as part of this project will be at the
expense of the developer. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering.
Response: Acknowledged. Aspen and Vignette are working with Luke Unruh to incorporate the L&P’s electric layout into our
CAD and design files. Aspen will show electrical layouts during final design, as agreed with Luke.
Comment Number: 3
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
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.
The utility easement for the transformer shall extent 3 feet past all sides of the transformer pad.
Response: Acknowledged. Layout will meet these requirements.
Comment Number: 4
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
During utility infrastructure design, please provide adequate space of all service
and main lines internal to the site to ensure proper utility installation and to meet
minimum utility spacing requirements. A minimum of 10 ft separation is
required between water, sewer and storm water facilities, and a minimum of 3 ft
separation is required between Natural Gas. Please show all electrical routing on the Utility Plans.
Response: Please see previous comment about electrical layout being added to utility plans. Spacing will be provided, as
required.
Comment Number: 5
09/19/2023: FOR FIRST FDP SUBMITTAL:
Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power.
Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance
purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft inimum.
When located close to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as defined in
Figures ESS4 - ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please show all
proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans.
Response: This will be shown in final design.
Page 14 of 26
Comment Number: 6
09/19/2023: FOR FIRST FDP SUBMITTAL:
Streetlights will be placed along public streets. 40 ft separation on both sides of
the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. 15 ft separation on
both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights.
Please coordinate the light placement with Light & Power. Please reach out to
me before the first round of the Final Development Plan so I can provide a
streetlight layout. The City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf
Response: This will be shown in final design.
Comment Number: 7
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
Due to having private drives/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. Please coordinate with us to
get a design for our facilities in your private drives/alleys so that it can be
ensured that all utilities can fit into your proposed development
Response: Where alleys occur, gas, electric, water, and sanitary sewer have been separated and placed in the front and back of
the lots to help mitigate spacing conflicts.
Comment Number: 8
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
Per Light and Power’s Electric Service Standards:
8.1.10. The builder is required to install the electric meter socket(s) on the same
side as the electric service ‘stub’.
8.1.11. Builders are also encouraged to install the natural gas meter(s) on the
opposite side of the house from the electric service.
8.1.12. The electric service trench must be a minimum of 3 feet from the natural
gas service trench, and the electric and gas services shall not cross each other.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 9
09/19/2023: FOR FIRST FDP SUBMITTAL:
Please work with me to meet the following milestones as your project
progresses: For PDP reviews I would like to see an electric line shown on both
sides of the public streets in the parkway. During later stages of PDP we will
need to begin to place transformer locations and streetlights. For the first round
of FDP I will need to see the electric design shown. I will provide the electric
design that shows vaults, transformers, and streetlights.
Response: Please see previous comment about electrical layout being added to utility plans. Spacing will be provided, as
required.
Comment Number: 10
09/19/2023: FOR FIRST FDP SUBMITTAL:
Light & Power will need to know if three phase power will be needed for any
Page 15 of 26
buildings i.e. Club house, pool etc.
Response: This will be in final design
Comment Number: 11
09/19/2023: FOR FIRST FDP SUBMITTAL:
Multi family buildings and duplexes are treated as customer owned services;
therefore a C-1 form and one-line diagram must be filled out and submitted to
Light & Power Engineering for each building. All secondary electric service
work is the responsibility of the developer and their electrical consultant or contractor.
A C-1 form can be found here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-f orms-guidelines-regulations
Response: The owner/developer will need to provide this information once their unit layout is completed and their MEP team
has calculated the required loading for the units.
Comment Number: 12
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
11) You may contact Luke Unruh with project engineering if you have questions.
(970) 416-2724 or lunruh@fcgov.com. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/electricservicestandar ds.pdf?1645038437
You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our
fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 13
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
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 here:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Response: Acnowledged
Comment Number: 14
09/19/2023: INFORMATION ONLY:
All units other than single family detached at 200 amps or less are considered
customer owned service; therefore, the applicant is responsible for installing the
secondary service from the transformer to the meter(s) and will be owned and
maintained by the individual unit owner or building owner.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kristie Raymond kraymond@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Page 16 of 26
09/03/2024: INFORMATION ONLY:
The presence of natural features (No. 8 Canal and wetlands) on the project site
necessitates a process for the creation of a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to
protect that natural feature. For the public hearing, the project must demonstrate
adequate space to satisfy buffering requirements and that any mitigation is
feasible. For final approval, the details and specifics of restoration and/or
mitigation must be created. For permitting phase, development agreement
language will be created to memorialize the buffer and clarify requirements, and
a security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development
Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.
Response: The natural habitat buffer zone was shown on a separate sheet on the previous submittal. The proposed NHBZ is
also shown on the site and landscape plans where appropriate.
Comment Number: 3
09/03/2024: FOR APPROVAL:
Please add the following note on all sheets of the site, landscape and utility
plans that show the Habitat Buffer: "The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended
to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land
Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This will
help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future.
Response: This has been completed on the site and landscape plans.
Contact: Scott Benton sbenton@fcgov.com (970)416-4290
Topic: General
Comment Number: 14
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Please change the labelling of ‘Proposed 50’
Trail and Natural Areas Buffer Easement’ to ‘Proposed 50’ Trail and Natural
Habitat Buffer Zone’ on all applicable plan sets. Natural Habitat Buffer Zones
(NHBZs) don’t have to be in an easement, typically.
Response: The 50’ regional trail will be an easement, and portions of the NHBZ fall outside of the trail easement.
Nevertheless, I have clarified the language as needed.
Comment Number: 15
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Please update Natie Seed Mix Note #14 to the following:
“NATIVE SEED AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE NHBZ WILL BE CONSIDERED
ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY PERCENT VEGETATIVE COVER IS
REACHED WITH LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF COVER CONSISTING OF
NOXIOUS WEEDS, NO BARE SPOTS LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE,
AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY EROSION CONTROL.
NHBZ-SPECIFIC REVEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA TO BE
CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED INCLUDE MEETING THE REFERENCE
AREA COVER STANDARD, LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT NOXIOUS
WEEDS, EIGHTY PERCENT SURVIVAL OF WOODY SPECIES, NO
SIGNIFICANT BARE SPOTS, AND/OR DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING.”
Response: This note has been revised.
Page 17 of 26
Comment Number: 16
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: I understand that the issue of re-locating the No. 8
Ditch is not fully settled and the proposed plans are contingent upon that issue
being settled. Please be aware that stormwater facilities located in either a
NHBZ or within the Natural Areas Department’s Conservation Easement will
have to be meet naturalized design criteria that demonstrate habitat uplift.
Response: Acknowledged. Previous discussion in meetings mentioned this and the ponds and LID basins will meet the
required criteria.
Comment Number: 17
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Depict the NAD Conservation Easement on all
applicable plans (Landscape, Plat, Utility, etc.).
Response: Not sure what you are referring to
Comment Number: 18
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: A draft pollinator master plan will be needed to
satisfy metro district and public benefits agreement requirements. The plan
should address establishment of pollinator pathways across all phases,
establish minimum distances between pollinator resources, example
pollinator-specific planting plans, and pollinator-specific maintenance
requirements. The plan can be finalized at the final development phase.
Environmental Planning has several examples and resources to assist with this
process, and I’m happy to discuss this further is desired.
Response: This has been provided on the landscape plans with this submittal. Final landscape details will be provided at final.
Comment Number: 19
09/03/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: A restoration plan for the NHBZ and
areas within NAD’s Conservation Easement will be required based on adaptive
management principles that addresses weed management, seedbed
preparation, seeding, and outlines the reference area-based success criteria,
general timeline, and monitoring methods. An abbreviated version containing
the key points of the plan will be required on the site/landscape plan.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 20
09/03/2024: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Additional coordination will be needed
to finalize appropriate seed mixes for all anticipated edaphic conditions and
uses. For example, a raingarden seed mix and likely pollinator seed mixes will be needed.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Forestry
Contact: Christine Holtz choltz@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
Page 18 of 26
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING
There are multiple Node Activity areas in your plan. Node activity areas 2, 3, 4,
and 6 could certainly benefit from some shade trees, or any trees, especially in
the heat of the summer. With the understanding that these areas will be
gathering places with playgrounds, benches, community tables etc. is there a
specific reason they are devoid of trees? I understand the need for space for
pickleball courts and gardens.
Response: Additional trees have been added to the landscape plan. Landscape plans will be further refined at final.
Comment Number: 5
09/03/2024: FOR INFORMATION
I understand that tree/utility separations will be finalized at FDP. There are
currently multiple conflicts on the plan, but many of the trees can be shifted. The
street trees are all stated to be 40 feet apart, and they can be moved closer
together solving a lot of the conflicts without the need to eliminate trees from the plan.
Response: We have worked to resolve the conflicts by relocating trees, and or services. We have also accommodated the
proposed street lights.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Missy Nelson mnelson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/19/2023: INFORMATION: Both Park Planning & Development and Parks
department comments will be provided by Missy Nelson | mnelson@fcgov.com | 970.416.8077
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5
09/03/2024: UPDATED - FOR FINAL: Please note, crossing agreement/s for
the future trail will also need to be included.
Response: Acknowledged
09/19/2023: FOR HEARING: As mentioned in the Conceptual Review,
crossing agreements will be required for all areas where the sidewalk crosses
the Baker Lateral's irrigation easement. There are also a few encroachments
into the easement (see redlines); are they permitted encroachments?
Comment Number: 7
09/03/2024: UNRESOLVED - FOR FINAL: Please also add to general notes
section of landscape plan (since it mentions the landscaping maintenance
within the trail easement), as well as site plan. Thank you.
Response: This note has been added to the site and landscape plans.
09/19/2023: FOR FINAL: (per conceptual comment #4):
Please add note to final site plan:
As this is a part of the recreational trail system, the City is responsible for the
long-term maintenance of the community trail within the development.
Maintenance consists of snowplowing of the paved surface, occasional
seasonal mowing 2-3’ adjacent to the trail surface, repairing/replacing surface
Page 19 of 26
damage of the trail. All other landscaping maintenance within the easement is
the responsibility of the underlying property owner. Landscaping shall be
designed in accordance with all applicable City codes and please coordinate
with the City’s Parks Department. Spray irrigation, if required, shall be
designed and maintained to avoid spray on the trail.
Comment Number: 10
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Related to comment number 8, let's coordinate a
meeting to discuss an IGA between the City and the Metro District for regional improvements.
Before the next submittal round, it's important to know if the trail will be
constructed at the time of development for plan level detail and refinement requirements.
- If development constructs, then all the details of trail construction required for final approval.
- If City constructs at a later date, less detail, however, entire 50’ easement needs to be unencumbered
so that routes, radii, side path, line of sight, etc., can be determined at a later date.
Response: The trail will not be constructed by the development team.
Comment Number: 11
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Related to comment number 10:
Within utility plan set, please have dedicated separate sheets for the future
regional trail. Grading, running slopes and cross slopes for trail and all trail
connections are required for review. The trail cross slope should be between
1% and 2%, preferring 1.5% and running slope less than 5%.
If the City constructs in the future, the trail should be ready to be constructed,
sub-grades are there, etc. for a basic overlot grading perspective.
Response: Current plans meet the grading criteria mentioned.
Comment Number: 12
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Please use consistent labeling on all plan sets.
For example, all plan sets should call the easement "Public Access and Trail Easement."
Response: This has been completed on the site and landscape plans.
Comment Number: 13
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Why is the Public Access and Trail easement by separate document?
Response: As discussed with Missy, because the trail is sometimes onsite and sometimes offsite, it’s preferred to create by
separate document so there’s one concise legal and exhibit for the easement.
Comment Number: 14
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: On utility plan set, sheet C-021, please design the
drainage culvert to meet trail minimum standards for a 10,000 lb vehicle.
Response: The culvert will exceed the 10,000 lb loading requested.
Comment Number: 15
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: All connections to regional trail must be within a
public access easement. Private connects must be a minimum of 15' flat
surface prior to connection. Show slope details for all connections on utility plan regional trail pages.
Response: Access easements have been added to areas outside of the regional trail easement to allow future construction.
Page 20 of 26
Comment Number: 16
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: On page L06 (and all coordinating), the trail is
proposed directly behind homes and rain garden and pond. If the City builds in
the future, this is not an acceptable design. Full 50' of easement needs to be
open and available for design of future trail and side path. If Developer
constructs, there is wiggle room due to exact location, etc. being planned during development.
Response: As discussed with Missy, the easement is primarily 50’ wide along the entire site, except for a couple pinch points.
In these pinch points, there is still enough room for the regional trail and the trail can be shifted to one side of the easement in
these areas to accommodate the development and other site features. The ponds and LID basins have been shifted further
away to accommodate the 50’ easement as much as possible.
Comment Number: 17
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Is drainage from homes engineered to flow
across trail or will it get captured before trail?
Response: Onsite drainage will be conveyed to the existing detention pond and proposed detention ponds and LID basins.
Off-site areas, including areas where the regional trail may exist, will follow historical drainage patterns, as required by state
statute.
Comment Number: 18
09/03/2024: FOR HEARING: Trail connection south needs to align with the
approved Montava PUD trail.
Response: Per our discussions with you, it has been determined that the proposed connection will remain as shown.
Department: PFA
Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
09/03/2024: UPDATED FOR HEARING
Many areas of the turning exhibit have overhang. These areas will need to be
corrected to provide enough access for fire apparatus to maneuver through the
site. The turning exhibit should also account for parked cars along the street as
most areas appear to be turning into areas where parking is allowed.
Response: Per call with Marcus, turning templates were previously approved, and Marcus has cleared this comment out.
09/18/2023: 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.
The proposed corners are only 20 foot inside radius. This shall be corrected to
meet the minimum requirements. As an alternative, an autoturn exhibit can be
submitted for review.
Response: Per call with Marcus, turning templates were previously approved, and Marcus has cleared this comment out.
Comment Number: 3
09/03/2024: UNRESOLVED
Page 21 of 26
Aerial access will be required for townhome buildings
Response: All buildings have been revised to be a maximum of two stories in height.
09/18/2023: FOR HEARING
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS – IFC Appendix D105 Amendment
Buildings over 30' in height trigger additional fire lane requirements in order to
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.
Aerial access will need to be further reviewed once building footprint elevations are established.
Comment Number: 4
09/03/2024: UPDATED
Fire lane signage will be required in any areas that obstruction of the fire
apparatus occurs with vehicle parking along the street.
Response: Aspen has provided fire lane signage in the plans and will continue coordination with PFA on any additional
signage or striping needed during final design.
09/18/2023: FOR FINAL
FIRE LANE SIGNS
The limits of the fire lane shall be fully defined and 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.
-No parking fire lane signage shall be added on 20' road section of Fairwater
Dr near the intersection at Brightwater Dr.
- All hydrants shall have adequate striping or signage to prevent parking.
-Corners at intersections shall be striped to prevent parking.
Page 22 of 26
Response: These will be provided at final
Comment Number: 5
09/03/2024: UPDATED FOR FINAL
Additional hydrants will be required throughout the site according to the redlines on the overall utility plan.
Response: Additional hydrants have been added as requested.
09/19/2023: FOR FINAL
WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy.
- A fire hydrant capable of providing Fire Flow according to IFC B105.2 is
required within 300 feet of any commercial/multifamily building as measured
along an approved path of vehicle travel.
-A fire hydrant capable of providing 1000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure is
required within 400 feet of any residential building as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel.
For the purposes of this code, hydrants on the opposite side of arterial
roadways are not considered accessible to the site.
-Please submit an overall hydrant plan for review.
-Multiple hydrants are required along Turnberry Road for infill every 1000 feet.
-Multifamily area has no hydrant coverage.
- Many homes with only alley access appear to be beyond maximum distance
from a hydrant when measured along an approved path of travel.
Response: Acknowledged, this will be addressed at final design.
Comment Number: 6
09/19/2023: 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 80,000 pounds. Private drives used for fire lanes shall provide
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.
Response: Acknowledged, this will be addressed at final design.
Comment Number: 7
09/20/2023: FOR FINAL
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
Page 23 of 26
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.
Please include generic address to scale on building elevations and show any
monument or wayfinding signage on the site plan.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Baker Lateral Company - Melissa Buick, 970-686-7126,
melissahbuick@gmail.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
08/26/2024: UPDATED:
The Baker Lateral ditch easement along Turnberry Road needs to be clearly
marked on the plans, and any crossing of the ditch will require legal agreements
with Baker Lateral Company prior to any construction.
Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.
09/22/2023: Please see letter related to Baker Lateral Company.
Response: Acknowledged. Aspen’s plans show the proposed new Baker Lateral irrigation line and associated easement.
Aspen also met with Peter (Baker Lateral President) to confirm approximate tie-in location at northwest corner of property for
connection of new line to the existing line. Aspen is awaiting confirmation by Peter of locates, and the surveyor will pick up
the painted locations and then potholing will be provided to allow for an invert to be obtained, that will be used in design, once
locates are confirmed/completed.
Contact: Boxelder Sanitation District - Heidi Jenson, 970-498-0604,
heidij@boxeldersanitation.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
09/06/2024:
Due to an out-of-office schedule and technical difficulties the City is having with
their Public Records website, this review will be delayed. Review results will be
forwarded as soon as they are completed and received by the City. Thank you.
09/22/2023: Please see review comments from Boxelder Sanitation District.
They have also provided an Easement Template for a stand-along easement
they are requesting.
Response: No comments have been received to date.
Contact: Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies - Autumn Penfold, 970-454-3377,
apenfold@eatonditch.com
Topic: General
Page 24 of 26
Comment Number: 3
09/06/2024:
Comments received from WRCC and LWIC in four (4) pdf files have been
added to Bluebeam Session.
* EX1 - Wheeler Sonders Comments.pdf
* EX2 - Recorded Stormwater Agmt.pdf
* EX3 - Grant of Eastment Centex-WRCC.pdf
* WRCC and LWIC Comments 9-5-24.pdf
Response: : The development team is working directly with WRCC and their team to resolve redlines, comments, and to obtain
and LOI or documentation that the Ditch Company is okay with project going to hearing.
10/20/2023:
Comments received from No. 8 Ditch Company and forwarded to Dan Nickless
and Terence Hoaglund.
09/22/2023: The No. 8 Ditch Company (WRCC, INC.) will be completing a
review of this by October 20, 2023. The incorrect contact was selected when the
City requested the review.
A copy of a letter previously provided on August 15, 2023 has been included.
Contact: Xcel Energy - Donna George, 303-571-3306,
Donna.L.George@xcelenergy.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/12/2023: Please see letter from Xcel Energy as a separate document.
Response: Acknowledged
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Katy Hand khand@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 4
09/18/2023: FOR PERMIT (all structures).
1. Each detached structure requires a separate permit. (including covered bike
structures, shade covers, etc.)
2. The structure shall comply with the current adopted code at the time of permit
submittal. Current codes, local amendments and structural design criteria can
be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes NOTICE: the next code
cycle adoption will likely occur 2024-2025 timeframe.
3. Stock Plans: A stock plan is a building design that can be submitted for
review and used for replicated buildings. The approved design is stocked and
can be referenced on future or concurrent 'lot specific' permit submittals. More
information can be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/building/stockplans
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5
09/18/2023: Accessibility comments (may impact site plan):
a. Multi-family, and Townhome buildings are subject to CRS9-5 State
Page 25 of 26
accessibility. Accessible units shall be dispersed across the site and no
clustered in a single building or building type. A site-wide accessibility site plan
is required showing the types of accessible units how points will be
implemented across the site. Provide this at the pre-submittal meeting and with
each permit or stock plan application. This may impact grading.
b. multi-family buildings require accessible parking per building and need to
include van accessible parking. Accessible parking shall be located as close to
the building entry as possible.
c. All ground floor units in multi-family buildings shall be type B accessible
(some type A's will need to be provided per the current IBC code).
d. Single family homes shall provide a visitable bathroom (per IRC local amendment R320).
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 6
09/18/2023: Informational (Townhome and duplex):
For a fire-sprinkled building, 3ft setback required from property line or provide
fire rated walls with limited openings per chap 3 of the IRC.
· Emergency escape and rescue openings are required in every bedroom.
· For buildings using electric heat, a cold climate 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 wiring if 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.
· For projects located in Metro Districts, if there are special additional
requirements for new buildings, Please contact the plan review team to obtain
the requirements for each district.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7
09/18/2023: Multi-family comments:
a. Electric vehicle charging parking spaces are required, including an 11ft wide
accessible charging space. (local amendment).
b. 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 limited openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC.
c. Buildings 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.
d. All multi-family 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.
e. If using electric systems to heat or cool the building, ground source heat
pump or cold climate heat pump technology is required.
f. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler.
Page 26 of 26
All egress windows above the 1st floor require minimum sill height of 24”.
g. A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multi-family structure.
h. Energy code requires short hot water supply lines by showing plumbing compactness.
i· For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code
requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain
the requirements for each district.
Building Permit Pre-Submittal Meeting:
For new buildings, please schedule a pre-submittal meeting 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 listed above. The proposed
project should be in the early to mid-design stage for this meeting to be
effective. Applicants of new projects should schedule this meeting with their Development
Review Coordinator prior to Final Development Plan submittal.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 8
09/18/2023: Single family detached house comments:
Exterior walls closer than 5ft from the property line or 10ft between other
dwellings on the same lot shall be fire rated with limited openings (doors and
windows). If the houses are fire sprinkled, 3ft setback allowed (or 6ft between houses on the same lot).
· Roof overhangs closer than 5ft to the property line are required to be fire
protected in non-sprinkled homes.
· Bedroom egress windows (emergency escape openings) required in every bedroom.
· For buildings using electric heat, heat pump equipment is required (for cold climates).
· A passing building air tightness (blower door) test is required for certificate of occupancy.
· For projects located in Metro Districts, there are special additional code
requirements for new buildings. Please contact the plan review team to obtain
the requirements for each district.
· 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 or recirculation pumps.
Response: Acknowledged