Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS FIFTH FILING - PDP190018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity 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 December 06, 2019 John Beggs Russell + Mills 506 S College Ave, Unit A Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing, PDP190018, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing. 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, 970-416-2744, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 11/27/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: 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! Response: Noted Comment Number: 2 11/27/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: 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. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable. Response: Noted Comment Number: 4 11/27/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: This proposed project is processing as a Type 2 Project Development Plan. The decision maker for Type 2 is the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff would need to be in agreement the project is ready for Hearing approximately 3-5 weeks prior to the hearing. Response: Noted Comment Number: 3 11/27/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: When you are ready to resubmit, please make an appointment with me at least 24 hours in advance. Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. Response: Noted Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Thank you for setting up and completing an on-site visit with Forestry and Environmental Planning staff after the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) meeting held on 8/14/2019, and then afterward, setting up the in-person meeting to discuss mitigation requirements on Thursday 10/31/2019 at 281 N College Av with City staff (Forestry, Environmental Planning, Stormwater). Response: You’re welcome! Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Thank you for submitting a more finalized Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) than that submitted with the PDR and with this PDP Rd 1 submittal. Information in the ECS informs the design of a "natural habitat buffer zone" or NHBZ when a site has or is adjacent (within 500 ft) to City Land Use Code (LUC) identified natural habitats and features and areas identified as significant ecological value in our City. Response: Noted Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: As discussed during the 10/31/19 mitigation meeting and then sent in meeting notes, when a natural habitat buffer zone is required in a development proposal project plan, it can be established using the quantitative setbacks (e.g. 50-ft, 100-ft, 300-ft etcetera) outlined in the LUC 3.4.1 buffer table or through meeting buffer zone performance standards outlined in LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i). At the mitigation meeting, a performance standards approach was communicated as the chosen path by the applicant team. Response: Noted Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE HEARING: Environmental Planning needs another round of PDP review as the currently proposed site, landscape and utility plans do not meet LUC 3.4.1 buffer zone quantitative or qualitative [LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i)] buffer zone performance standards. Response: NHBZ memo and associated diagrams outline that how the project is meeting the required 10.5 acres of natural habitat buffer zone qualitative performance standards. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE RD 2 PDP: Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) plan has adjusted for this Project Development Plan (PDP) Round 1 submittal. It appears that not enough mitigation space is being provided in the proposed site plan for a designed natural habitat buffer zone or NHBZ. The bottom line is: significant changes to basic site plan layout are needed. Response: NHBZ memo and associated diagrams outline that how the project is meeting the required 10.5 acres of natural habitat buffer zone qualitative performance standards. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE RD 2 PDP: The project seems to propose reducing natural habitat buffer zone area by about half from that which would be provided by quantitative setbacks. Am I mis-reading this? The calculations included in the submittal to me read: A. Amount of total buffer area that would be required using LUC quantitative setbacks for all identified LUC defined natural habitats and features = 10.5 ac B. Amount of total proposed buffer area provided on these plans for LUC defined natural habitats and features = 4.92 ac Response: Amount of proposed buffer area being proposed is now 11.0 acres. If I am understanding correctly, then, this significant reduction is not supported by City staff because it would not be capable of meeting qualitative performance standards for natural habitat buffers [LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i)]. Response: NHBZ memo and associated diagrams outline that how the project is meeting the required 10.5 acres of natural habitat buffer zone qualitative performance standards. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE RD 2 PDP: The large southern wetland and northeast riparian areas are considered of significant ecological value by LUC 3.4.1(A)(1) and this value is described in the ECS. These are the two highest priority ecological areas to protect in place. These features should be incorporated into the site to meet natural habitat buffer zone requirements and would support multiple design goals including: aesthetics, screening, tree protection and stormwater management. Protecting these two features in particular in place facilitates a project's ability to meet LUC 3.4.1 natural habitat buffer requirements at this site. City Environmental Planner will provide a more detailed ecological protection and mitigation summary to support applicant team in decision-making related to design of a natural habitat buffer zone that can meet LUC 3.4.1 NHBZ performance standards. Response: Refinements/revisions to the site plan have been made to protect the north eastern wetland area along the crack willow draw - further discussions are planned with environmental staff to finalize the details in this area — other wetland to the south is being retained and enhanced with weed mitigation and upland/riparian planting. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE HEARING: As discussed at 10/31/19 mitigation meeting and then sent in meeting notes... Due to size and quality of largest wetland in the southern portion of the project: A. Plan is to consolidate wetland pockets impacted elsewhere and add wetlands to south. Response: Correct - one change from the pervious plan was that the crack willow draw wetland was not being retained. The majority of this area is being retained with the changes that have been made to the site plan. B. Monitoring plan and design needed including groundwater, soils and vegetation community plots points. Response: This will be provided by the environmental consultant prior to hearing C. Monitoring plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff including number and location of plot points assessing soils, hydrology and vegetation of southern wetland preconstruction and then for three years post construction. Response: Noted D. Approved monitoring plan needed before scheduling project Hearing. Response: Noted E. Monitoring to occur at least monthly – checking plots monthly April-September and starting April 2020 if project is to proceed in development review process and move to Hearing. Response: Noted Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE HEARING: A. City approval of a groundwater and vegetation monitoring plan is needed prior to scheduling a Hearing as this will be important to understand if and how the project can ensure the wetlands are protected and if proposal for consolidating smaller wetlands is likely to succeed given the hydrology, soils and vegetation contributing to the designed natural habitat buffer zone. B. Stormwater LID features should be no closer than 50 ft to edge of existing delineated wetlands and this is consistent with past projects approved in City. RESPONSE: No LID features are located within 50’ of existing wetlands. C. Stormwater detention and LID features included in any 50 ft and/or 100 ft buffer and/or in a designed natural habitat buffer zone must have naturalistic design including naturalistic topographic undulations, vegetation and habitat enhancements. Current proposed stormwater feature slopes are too steep in several areas. These features must be shallower and with more gentle slopes and naturalistic design. RESPONSE: Proposed detention and bio-retention ponds within any existing buffers or proposed mitigation areas incorporate naturalistic design with varying slopes. D. A total of 2.36 ac of wetlands exist preconstruction according to the ECS and thus 2.36 ac of wetlands needs to remain post construction. Response: Noted E. It appears a minimum of 10.5 acres total of natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) is needed for any proposed development project at this site. Response: Correct - 11.0 acres is being provided with this plan. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE HEARING: Submit a design incorporating a much larger NHBZ and one protecting the southern wetland and northeast riparian area in addition to the aforementioned wetland monitoring plan. This will need to be provided prior to City Environmental Planning staff accepting the PDP RD 2 submittal for routing. Response: The larger NHBZ has been provided on the plan — the wetland monitoring plan will be provided prior to hearing as it was mentioned above Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/05/2019 12/02/2019: BEFORE HEARING: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Section 3.2.4(D)(6), requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources." Thus lighting shall not spill over into any natural features or natural habitat buffer areas. Response: Noted Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/06/2019 12/06/2019: BEFORE RD 2 PDP: Because the design of a natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) that can meet LUC 3.4.1 performance standards is key to a development project proposal at this site, and given the NHBZ relationship to other LUC requirements for Planning, Forestry and Stormwater, perhaps it is best to set up a mini design charrette in coming weeks with relevant City development staff reviewers and prior to submitting a PDP Rd 2 development project proposal for this site. Thank you. Response: Meeting was held. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING – UPDATED Thank you for providing an Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter. The letter that was provided included one blanket statement to justify tree removal and a copy of the tree inventory. In our opinion, the letter provided is not sufficient. Forestry requests that the applicant provide additional justification for removing several significant stems and groups of trees and will provide a few examples of this letter. Response: Letter has been updated. 8/2/2019: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP If applicable, please provide an “Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter” for City Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. Response: Letter has been updated Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED Thank you for including species percentages in the plant list. The plant list on sheet LP101 is cut-off – please show the entire plant list on all sheets. In addition, please include species labels on all trees and shrubs. Response: Correction has been made to planting plan 8/2/2019: FOR PDP Please include species labels on all trees and shrubs as well quantities and species diversity percentages in the plant list. Response: Species diversity has been shown on the planting plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED This has not been done. Please include the City of Fort Collins Street Tree Permit Note on all landscape sheets. Response: Note has been added. 8/2/2019: FOR PDP Please include the City of Fort Collins Street Tree Permit Note on all landscape sheets. Response: Note has been added. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Forestry redlines are provided. These redlines detail inadequate tree-tree and tree-utility separations as well as locations that can fit additional street and landscape trees. For example, some street trees are spaced closer than 30 ft apart, further than 40 ft apart, and too close to utilities including but not limited to gas, sewer, sanitary, water, and street-lights. Forestry scanned all landscape pages to identify tree separation issues, but please note that it is possible that not all errors have been identified. Please verify that all street trees are placed 30-40 ft apart and maintain the following separations from utilities: 10’ between shade trees and water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between ornamental trees and water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines. Include locations of streetlights and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to provide proper tree separation: 40 ft between Canopy Shade Trees and streetlights 15 ft between ornamental trees and streetlights 40 ft between street trees and stop signs Response: Noted Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING: I am not sure if all street-lights and stop signs have been included on the plans. Please verify and provide proper tree separation. 40 ft between Canopy Shade Trees and streetlights 15 ft between ornamental trees and streetlights Response: Noted Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING: Species list - Please do specify the following species within the City right-of-way: Sensation Boxelder, Plains Cottonwood, Crimson Pointe Plum. Only single-stem ornamentals should be used in the right-of-way. Response: Noted - Please switch out State Street Maple for either ‘Green Mountain’ or ‘Fall Fiesta’ Sugar Maple. Response: Noted - City Forestry has noticed issues with Heritage Oak during hard freeze events and does not recommend this species to be used in Fort Collins. Please consider using additional Chinkapin and Texas Red Oaks in their place. Response: Noted - Please switch out Peking Lilac Tree for Japanese Tree Lilac. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING: Due to the required improvements along College Ave as a part of this submittal, please include a 10-foot parkway strip and street trees along this stretch for Forestry’s review. Please do not specify Lindens in the right-of-way along arterial streets due to their issues with deicing salts. Response: Street trees cannot be accommodated along this stretch of South College - existing utilities - both overhead and underground are present Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING: City Forestry will provide existing inventory information for the street trees along Triangle Drive. Existing street trees shall be shown on the existing tree inventory and landscape plans as to be protected and retained. Response: Noted Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING The following trees/groves on the Existing Tree Inventory Plan are shown to be removed on the list but shown to remain on the plans: G4, G5, G7, G9, G10, G11, Trees 10-22, Trees 47-53. Please clarify their status. Tree 46 is not shown on the plans. Please label trees to retain in the list. G14 is shown with an X on the plans but is not shown to be removed in the list. Include Environmental Planning mitigation values for trees that cannot be mitigated by Forestry. G8 – to be removed or to retain? Tree labeled as 8 on sheet TR405 – incorrectly labeled? Redlines are provided for further clarification. Response: Tree mitigation/removal plan has been updated Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING: Please label all mitigation trees in the plant list. Clarify the number of each species that are called out to go towards the required mitigation total. Response: Noted Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/2/2019: FOR HEARING: Please label all match lines and street names on the landscape plans. Response: Match lines and street names have been added on the landscape plans Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/06/2019 12/6/2019: PRIOR TO PDP ROUND 2: City Forestry staff does not support removing the cottonwoods and other trees existing in the northeastern area of the site as well as several other existing tree groves mentioned below and on redlined plans. The retention of these trees does not appear to present a significant burden to the project. The justification provided for tree removal (site grading, utilities, and development) is not supported by City Staff because alternative site-design and layout that accommodates tree preservation has not been explored or presented by the applicant. In particular, trees 1-32; groves G1-G9; trees 56-57, groves G13-G16 should be retained and protected to the extent reasonably feasible as they have inherent value to the environment, canopy coverage, carbon storage, and wildlife habitat. If it is determined that the trees are unable to be saved, the significant loss of tree canopy and habitat would have to be substantially mitigated on-site according to mitigation values designated by City Forestry and Environmental Planning. Response: Significant site revisions have been made to save the existing wetland area and associated trees in the NE area — we would like to continue our coordination with City staff to identify which trees could be removed further in this area to enhance this area further. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2019 11/20/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: No ESC materials were submitted with the PDP. Since the disturbed area associated with construction activities proposed with the development exceeds one acre an Erosion Control, plan and report as well as a State stormwater discharge permit will be required at FDP level submittal. RESPONSE: Erosion control plan and report will be provided at FDP level. Contact: Katie Gray Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/21/2019 11/21/2019: FOR HEARING: Drainage and Erosion control should be closely analyzed and designed as to not impact upstream or downstream properties. The County would require on-site detention of the 100-year event with an outlet that releases flows at the two-year historic rates with adequate water quality. RESPONSE: Detention ponds are designed to meet the maximum allowable release rates associated with the City of Fort Collins Fossil Creek drainage area master plan (0.2 cfs per acre). Detention calculations are included in the preliminary drainage report. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: All detention ponds need to have a maximum of 4 to 1 side slopes. Please revise. RESPONSE: Detention pond slopes have been adjusted not to exceed 4:1. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: All detention ponds need to meet the City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards which include varying slopes with a naturalistic shape and proper landscaping. RESPONSE: Proposed detention and bio-retention ponds within any existing buffers or proposed mitigation areas incorporate naturalistic design with varying slopes. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: City recommends a bio-retention facility be proposed for Basin C instead of a sand filter due to less frequent maintenance, more options for landscaping, and dual purpose use. RESPONSE: Bio retention will be utilized in Basin C. The updated area is shown on the plans and calculations for the BMP are included in the drainage report. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: No LID calculations were submitted for the sand filter. Extended Detention calculations were submitted instead for Pond C. RESPONSE: Bio retention will be utilized in Basin C. The calculations for the BMP are included in the drainage report. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: The amount of LID underground Stormtech chambers seems high. The City would like to review the calculations with the applicant to make sure accuracy. RESPONSE: Revised calculations are included within the drainage report. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: The City is not sure why the irrigation lateral has a high-water bypass into the storm sewer system. Please remove the bypass and explain the reasoning behind it. RESPONSE: An existing overflow bypass for the irrigation ditch will be demolished with the proposed realignment of the irrigation ditch. The overflow spilled into the Benson Lake Inlet. An overflow weir is proposed within a junction structure that will outlet into the Benson Lake Inlet. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR HEARING: There are a few locations where private storm sewers are running parallel in the right-of-way. Please relocate these storm sewers on private property until a connection can be made perpendicular to the street. RESPONSE: Storm drain inefficiencies have been corrected. Near the intersection of Strasburg and Triangle, offsite storm drain and irrigation ditch connections are shown for the most efficient connection to the Benson Lake Inlet. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR HEARING: Due to some of these comments and comments from other departments that may impact the site plan, not all aspects of the design was reviewed and additional new comments may apply in the next PDP round. The RESPONSE: Comment noted. We will coordinate with the district on the utility drawings. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: Please show the electric running line in the parkway along both sides of the public road and in the utility easement on both sides of the private drives. Please make sure all other Utilities required clearances from electric are being met. RESPONSE: Electric service is shown on the utility plan within the easements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Secondary service for any buildings other than single-family detached, will be installed, owned and maintained by the owner. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a One-line diagram will need to be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for all proposed buildings other than single-family detached. A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf RESPONSE: Electric meters have been located on the exterior building walls, visible in plan and elevation. Individual meters have been provided for each unit. Meters will be installed per the required mounting heights (24”-78” per Section 8.1.2.2). Meters have been located approximately split half and half on each building side elevation. Note: the building will be serviced by a central water heater and therefore a single house meter will be used for the gas meter. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: Transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering. 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 minimum. 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: Comment noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Any existing and/or proposed Light & Power electric facilities that will remain within the limits of the project must be located within a utility easement. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: If Fort Collins Loveland Water District will be serving this site, Light & Power would request not installing paired water services at the lot line. This makes it very difficult to install vaults, streetlights and secondary boxes at the lot lines. RESPONSE: Shared water services are preferred. We will coordinate with FCLWD on placement of the services, with potential to offset from the lot line. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Any ditch crossing agreements necessary to install utilities will be the owners/developers cost and responsibility to obtain. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: There seem to be quite a few areas where maintaining clearance requirements from other utilities will be problematic. For instance, Storm water is in the parkway or encroaching on the parkway in many places and the proposed utility easements don't seem to account for all of the utilities and clearances. Coordinating transformers, vaults, secondary boxes, and streetlights early in the process will be needed. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Preliminary electric layout for power with the utility easements adjacent to the right-of-way and private drives is shown. We will coordinate with light and power on service/meter/transformer locations. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: Confirmation should be made that the overall premise of how the development is proposing to develop and entitle the single-family product. I’m traditionally used to seeing single-family being associated with individual lots lines being created (even for attached single family) and separate utility services to each lot (one water service appears to split between several individual units). Input from Planning, Building, and FCLWD would be helpful in this regard. RESPONSE: Tracts are called out on the plat for the single family areas. Townhomes will be subdivided across individual lots. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: The site plan shows the establishment of private drives with street names. The subdivision plat does not show any legal establishment of the street name, which is needed for GIS and Larimer County to recognize. The plat should ideally be defining the private drives as tracts to define the limits of the street name (where Maroon Vista Way stops, and Long Vista Way starts for example) and to also have established distinct areas in which the maintenance is being indicated. In addition to the tract, the street name in the plat should also be followed by "(Private Drive)". Example: Tract A, Maroon Vista Way (Private Drive) RESPONSE: Private drives have been designated as tracts. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: The geotech report shows high groundwater, in its shallowest, less than a foot from existing grade. This particular location at the south end of the site is shown under public streets and homes in the report, but this appears to be an older site plan, and this location appears to now be where the storm outfall/detention of the site occurs. We’ll want to understand the implications on the viability of the detention pond with the high groundwater at this location, and have further confirmation that the high groundwater area is not where public streets are intended. Are basements proposed in this subdivision? If there demonstrates a need to mitigate the groundwater (whether due to storm drainage, streets, and/or basement concerns, please provide a subsurface hydrologic study which contains the required information listed in LCUASS 5.6.2.A. This can be a new report or an addendum to the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. Understanding relevant mitigation needs to be proposed prior to the project going to public hearing. Depending on what is proposed, any proposed basements may not be feasible in this area of the site. RESPONSE: Grading within the pond areas and the remainder of the site has been adjusted to be brought above the groundwater table, based upon the Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by CTL Thompson, dated August 28, 2019. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: Please provide an exhibit showing that the sidewalk along US287 is being constructed in the ultimate location in accordance with the US287 EOS 144’ cross section (57th St. to Harmony Rd.). It does not appear that the existing sidewalk and curb/gutter were built in the ultimate location. Please include interim and ultimate widths for vehicle and bike lanes, and parkway. We want to ensure that the sidewalk and trees are put in so that the roadway can be widened in the future. If the sidewalk cannot be placed in the ultimate location horizontally and vertically, an interim sidewalk may be installed and a payment in lieu for the full cross section (pavement, curb, gutter, parkway, sidewalk) will be collected. We also want to make sure that trees are not planted in a location which will conflict with the widened cross section. Response: The sidewalk is being shown in the ultimate location for the South College widening. Further clarification from both CDOT and the City is requested to finalize this area. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: Please dedicate right-of-way on US287 to the ultimate location per the 144’ Environmental Overview Study cross section. A link to the document can be found here: https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/US287EOS/eosreportjanuary2007.pdf/at_ download/file Please note that on Page 108 of the study that a transition to shift the roadway approximately 25 feet to the west occurs partially along the frontage. We'll want to ensure that this is taken into account and that CDOT has reviewed the development proposal to indicate whether conformance to the plan is being met (or accept a modification to the plan accordingly). Response: As mentioned above - further clarification is needed in order for the client to dedicate land in this area. In conversations with CDOT, the EOS that was done is outdated and would need to be revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: The plans appear to show work being done to an existing ditch owned by Louden Irrigation Ditch. It appears that the civil construction plans would need a signature block from the irrigation company, also the plat may need to have Louden Irrigation Ditch signing as well. RESPONSE: We will coordinate with the ditch company on approval of the plan and any signature blocks that are required. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: The existing curb cut on US287 (south of where the existing sidewalk ends) should be replaced with vertical curb. Similarly, the drive approach off of Triangle Drive that's no longer being utilized should be removed and replaced with vertical curb. RESPONSE: The existing curb cuts on US 287 and Triangle Drive will be replaced with vertical curb and gutter consistent with the current section. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: It appears that some of the private drives would require emergency access easements. Please confirm with PFA which private drives require emergency access easements in addition to the proposed access easements. RESPONSE: Emergency Access has been coordinated with PFA. Easements are called on the plan and plat. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: At the street turn of Field View Drive and Longmont Street, please ensure that at least one set of access ramps is provided for ease of crossing the street for pedestrians and bikes. RESPONSE: Access ramps are provided at Field View Drive before the turn onto Longmont Street. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: Street plans: what is the existing grade going into the vertical curve where Avondale connects to existing? What is the grade on Avondale between ST 24+58.47 and 24+64.82? RESPONSE: Per the Ridgewood Hills Fourth Filing FUP, the proposed extension of Avondale Road where it enters the Fifth Filing site is 4.62%. The proposed section has been updated to match this. Please note, the Fourth Filing plans where designed using a different vertical datum, so elevations are inconsistent. The stationing between the two profiles sheets has been adjusted to show all slope label. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: Street plans: the vertical curve on Field View south of Avondale does not meet minimum length requirements and the tangent length between the intersection and pc also does not meet standards (LCUASS 7.4.1.A.2.a requires 100’ tangent between intersections and curves). Please look into this and provide a variance request if this cannot be met. RESPONSE: The vertical curve information has been adjusted to meet minimum K value requirements for a residential connector. A variance has been requested for the tangent between the intersection and horizontal curve. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: Street plans: please label radii on all horizontal curves. RESPONSE: Horizontal curve radii have been labeled on the road plan and profile sheets. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR HEARING: There are several areas in the parkway strip along US287 where the grade exceeds the max 4:1 slope in the right of way – please look at this and we can figure out what might make sense in these areas. RESPONSE: Parkway slopes along the US 287 right-of-way have been adjusted not to exceed 4:1. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: A payment in lieu of construction will need to be provided for the small portion of Avondale that is not being constructed with this project. The payment will only be for the local portion of the road, will be based on the adopted local street cost estimate, and will be due prior to first building permit. This will be included in the development agreement. Response: Noted Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: A payment in lieu of construction will need to be provided for the portion of Avondale that is not being constructed with this project. The payment will only be for the local portion of the road, will be based on the adopted local street cost estimate, and will be due prior to first building permit. This will be included in the development agreement. Because the detention pond abuts Avondale Road that is shown to be built by the developer to the south, the local portion will need to include the portion of Tract H that abuts future Avondale Road since it is the abutting property owner of one side of Avondale Road. Response: Noted Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The development agreement will also include language covering developer contributions to future ped crossings for the school route as well as a proportional contribution to the College and Trilby intersection project. We will continue the conversation about contribution amounts and timing as plan review progresses. Response: Noted Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The plans should be showing the design for Avondale Road that is being tied into as part of Ridgewood Hills Fourth Filing. The plans show the implementation of the current collector cross section specified in LCUASS, which has a buffered bike lane, but given that the majority of Avondale has been built (or will be built with Ridgewood Hills Fourth Filing) to the older standard without the buffered bike lane, this development should continue the older cross section with a 50-foot roadway (and the larger 8-foot landscape parkway). Also, the Ridgewood Hills Fourth Filing construction of Avondale Road does not extend fully to the boundary of this development and would need to be constructed partially offsite (the City has the obligation in place for that developer to provide their local portion of unbuilt Avondale within their development boundary in the same manner that was commented on in a previous comment.) RESPONSE: Avondale Road has been updated Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: Driveway access from public streets to private drives and private alleys should be constructed to LCUASS drive approach standards with concrete to the back of walk. RESPONSE: Comment noted. LCUASS alley intersection and standard driveway approach details are included in the Site Details pages. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: The grade break shown on future Avondale exceeds the 0.4% max, please adjust to show a design that meets LCUASS standards. RESPONSE: The Avondale profile has been adjusted to eliminate the grade break. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL: Street plans: where Field View turns into Longmont, please provide radii in accordance with the widening detail Figure 7-24. RESPONSE: The radii have been labeled in accordance to Figure 7-24. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please include plans for signal installation at Triangle and College as well as interim and ultimate college striping plans with final plan submittal. RESPONSE: A preliminary traffic signal plan is included in the Utility Plan. We will coordinate with engineering and traffic reviewers for installation of the signal. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please ensure that the City's "Utility Plan Approval" Block that is on the cover sheet is provided for on all sheets of the plan set and space on the lower right hand corner is accommodated for it in the future. RESPONSE: Signature block fill be added to the Final Utility Plan sheet. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: Utility plan notes page: Please maintain LCUASS numbering system for consistency and please add drainage report date to general note 19. Site plan notes are not needed on the utility plans. RESPONSE: The numbering of the General notes has been checked for consistency with the LCUASS General Notes. A date will be listed for the Drainage Report at time of Final Plan. The Site Plan notes have been removed. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Please note that as more design information is submitted, Engineering may have additional comments regarding the final design of the public infrastructure. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The site plan shows a pedestrian connection from the southwest boundary of the site onto Ridgewood Hills 3rd Filing's Tract A. In looking at Tract A it appears to be an access easement conveyed to the City, but it should perhaps be verified if the existing HOA is aware of the proposal. Response: Noted Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: FOR FINAL: The City has implemented signage for street signs that are not public streets (private drives with street names). Specifications of these are included in the electronic redlines ("Privately Maintained.pdf"). Please ensure that these are included on the construction plans for the project. Response: Noted Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR INFORMATION The TIS has been received and reviewed. It provides a good basis for making early decisions during the PDP phase. More detailed comments may be forthcoming. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR FINAL Please update the name of the project on the TIS to Ridgewood Hill 5th Filing for filing purposes. RESPONSE: The reference has been corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR FINAL Page 36 of the TIS has a reference to Hansen development. Is that correct? RESPONSE: The reference has been corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR FINAL We'll need to see a signal plan sheet that shows pole locations (and any potential conflicting utilities), mast arm lengths, pedestrian access to buttons etc. RESPONSE: A preliminary signal plan is provided within the Preliminary Utility Plan set for your review. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR FINAL Please plan to submit a signing and striping plan. Stop signs should also be shown on the landscape plan - ensure that there are no trees planted within 50 ft of the approach to a stop sign to ensure sign visibility. RESPONSE: A signing and striping plan will be submitted at time of Final Plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR FINAL The DA will need to address specifics (timing, construction, funding etc) on the signalization of College / Triangle Response: Noted Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR HEARING The project will be required to contribute a proportional contribution towards the College / Trilby capital improvement project. In coming submittals, we can work with you to identify the impact from this development, and the expected fee in lieu. Response: Noted Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR FINAL Please work with Engineering on details related to internal pedestrian facilities and design and signing for privately maintained internal roads. RESPONSE: Signage for pedestrian facilities and private roads will be coordinated with engineering added to the plan set. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR FINAL Work with Engineering on requirements for frontage improvements along College Avenue. RESPONSE: We will coordinate with engineering and CDOT for improvements along 287. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR HEARING If you are coordinating with Kroger's on the potential for an interim connection of Avondale to Carpenter, that will be an important component to understand. Response: Several attempts have been made to communicate with Kroger - those have been unsuccessful Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: REQUIRED FIRE ACCESS > Perimeter fire access has been achieved in all portions of the updated Site Plan with the exception of three duplex units located at the south end of Pyramid Vista Way. Their orientation to that private drive places them outside the 150' maximum allowable distance. Orienting those three units to be accessible (and addressed) from the intersecting private drive to the west would resolve this problem. > Dedicated fire access will be required for the private drives currently labeled as Long Vista Way, Maroon Vista Way, & Pyramid Vista Way. > Fire lanes are labeled as Emergency Access Easements (EAE) on Utility Plans; however, fire lanes shall also be dedicated on the Plat and identified as EAE's. RESPONSE: Emergency access has been reconfigured to proide access for the duplex units at Pyramid Way. Fire access is to be permitted along the private drives. Access easements requiring emergency access have been updated on the plat to read as such. Refer to the Land Use Summary table for Emergency Access granted across Private drives dedicated as Tracts. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: REQUIRED AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS > Please verify the 24-unit building has a 26' wide fire lane on the south side. > Please verify the 42- & 48-unit buildings are located within a maximum distance of 30' from the fire lane. Initial review appears to indicate buildings are set back more than this distance. > Please verify the 4-Plex Mountain Modern and 4-Plex Modern products do not exceed 30' in height as per IFC D105.1 or show that aerial access standards have been achieved for such units. Response: The roof wall intersection is below 30’ - per our meeting this requirement does not apply. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: FIRE HYDRANT The duplex units on the south end of what is currently identified as Pyramid Vista Way are greater than the maximum allowable 400' distance to a fire hydrant (as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel). Hydrant placement will need to be revised. RESPONSE: A hydrant has been located adjacent to the private drive with emergency access along the south side of Pyramid Vista Way. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE Not required for hearing but prior to FDP approval, provide a posting plan for fire lane signage. Refer to LCUASS detail #1419 for placement, and spacing. RESPONSE: Fire lane signage will be provided at time of Final Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS Not all multi-family products appear to show fire lines to the structure on the Utility Plans (eg. 4-Plex units). Unless separated by lot lines, 13-R sprinkler systems are typically required. Please update Utility Plans to indicate either fire line locations or building department approval to provide residential fire sprinkler systems using the domestic water line. RESPONSE: Separate fire lines are shown to all multi-family structures. For the apartment buildings (A-24, A-42, and A-48), per the City of Fort Collins’ 2018 IBC Amendments, it is our understanding that Group R occupancies require an automatic sprinkler system to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13. Will this development be allowed to provide a 13R sprinkler system? For the townhome buildings, per the City of Fort Collins’ 2018 IRC Amendments, section R302.2, ‘Townhouses shall be provided with a fire-suppression system in accordance with section P2904 of this code, NFPA 13D, or other approved equivalent sprinkler system’. A townhouse, by the same city amendments, is defined as two or more attached single-family dwelling units each located entirely on a separately recoded and platted parcel of land bounded by property lines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING Not required for hearing but prior to FDP approval, provide a plan for address posting and wayfinding. With the updated Site Plan and ability to park at the front door of most dwellings, I believe this will be a relatively simple matter; however, wayfinding to the units east of Pyramid Vista Way are more problematic. See also Required Fire Access comments above. `Response: Noted Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/21/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Building Design and Duplex and Single-family Detached Dwellings The color renderings show a positive design approach. However, the architectural design needs significantly more detailing to achieve the character portrayed in the renderings. This includes overhanging eaves, recess depth at doors and windows, and substantial trim to create the depth, interest, and shadow as illustrated. Response: Updates and revisions have been made to the duplex buildings One significant question is the rendering of stacked units with gabled and hipped roofs, but no elevations are included for those buildings. What is the concept for that? See comments for ‘Model 4’. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Overhanging eaves should be provided on all buildings, with a minimum dimension of 16”. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Transom windows. Along the side walls of abutting dwellings, window placement should be detailed, with transom windows considered for comfort and privacy. Response: Noted Useable outdoor space. These dwellings do not include any porch, patio, deck, or yard space. This needs significant detailed consideration. Either the dwellings should be detailed with outdoor spaces, or common outdoor spaces should be created in proximity to all dwellings, or a combination of approaches. Detailing of spaces at each dwelling a larger scale. Response: Useable outdoor space has been added in all areas on the project - these include several community gathering spaces for both the townhome and duplex areas Side yard inconsistencies. Related to lack of outdoor spaces, the Studio Unit elevations show a side door, but no walkway connections or porches are shown on plans; and vice versa for the duplexes, which do not show side doors but do have little rectangles on the sides in plan view. These may be opportunities for porch, patio, or deck spaces. For further exploration and clarification starting at the meeting. Response: This side door is showing access - but this will only be for a side deck area. Code Section 3.5.2(C), model variety. Model 1 & Model 2 do not do enough to provide distinctly different housing model types. Please revise models so that they are obviously distinguishable. Characteristics may include, without limitation, differences in floor plans; roof lines; and elevations including materials, entrances and all other features. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Topic: General Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/05/2019 12/05/2019: BEFORE HEARING: Likewise, several other tree groves should be incorporated. For further consideration and discussion as needed. Response: Per our meeting - the site plan has been updated to preserve several more tree groves on the project - these include the area in the north east and large grove along the north west property line. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/04/2019 12/04/2019: BEFORE HEARING: Following today's meeting, staff concluded that the belt of cottonwood trees in the northeastern area of the site must be incorporated into the plan, if staff is to support the plan going forward. Otherwise Kai and I will add a clear comment in to re-design this part of the site. They should be considered as helping to satisfy requirements for the landscape plan overall, and possibly for natural features requirements and “naturalistic” design of detention ponds, one of which is needed in this general part of the land. Planning for this land should start with mapping of this feature, and then working around it. This connection to Benson Reservoir is a very significant feature and it is reasonably feasible to work with it. This could enhance value for both residents of the development, and the community. It’s too rare and special to scrape it. Response: Extensive updates have been made to the site plan to accommodate planning and environmental planning comments. Also - in our meeting in December, a direction was ‘approved’ and we have been proceeding with that site plan - specifically in the MF apartment area. Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, kkleer@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Building Design for Duplex and Single-family Detached Dwellings No two abutting units may be the same model. Note that applicants for Building Permits for single-family and two-family dwellings must affirm and certify that the dwelling which is the subject of the Building Permit does not adjoin a lot with the same housing model, if on the same block face. Plan drawings. Label each unit’s model number to ensure model variety is dispersed as required above. Response: A spreadsheet has been added to the submittal that outlines the architecture variation for the duplex area Compatibility generally. Code Section 3.5.1 building & project compatibility, requires new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such area by using a design that is complementary. Compatibility can be achieved through the following techniques: 1. Repetition of roof lines 2. Use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces 3. Similar relationship to the street, similar window and door patterns 4. Use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed development. Building materials must either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible despite the differences in materials. Materials. The use of architectural metal panels, lap siding, stucco, masonry and wood on the proposed multi-family elevations positive visual interest. Please consider elements of this to be carried throughout the site into duplex and single-family units. Material samples will be needed for review prior to hearing. Response: Color samples for the duplex architecture have been included. Material boards have been included for the apartment and townhome architecture. Color. The color palate using earth-tone colors such as buff, sandstone, sage, copper, and some of the proposed colors presented in the multi-family and townhome architectural elevations. A material and color sample board is required at time of next submittal. Response: Duplex color samples have been included - a full material board for the duplex architecture will be submitted prior to hearing Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Model 1 and Model 2 – 60’ Wall Lengths: Update elevations to accurately depict callouts. Label the exposure of lap siding – it should be 5-6” to fit the scale of these small building faces. This detail should be explored at a larger scale of drawing and rendering. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Model 1 and 2 should be further differentiated with a design feature(s) on one or both of the models to make them more obviously different. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Is the clubhouse/sales/management building a part of the plan? Response: This was a previous technical drawing that has been deleted from the submittal - the color rendering of the clubhouse accurately depicts the architectural design. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Studio Units: Eaves. Provide eaves with a minimum of 16 inches of overhang on all sides of the Studio Unit model, including an eave over the projecting feature as shown on the color rendering. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Panel siding. Eliminate the use of Smart Panel. Staff has found that the thin panels with metal retainers at joints, do not achieve the effect shown in drawings but rather emphasize imperfections and incongruities. Alternatives should be explored further. Lap siding with smaller exposure, board and batten, or other fiber cement panel products with a quality joint detail. Response: Client would like to have further discussions regarding the use of this product. Roof pitch. Increase to a 4:12 pitch. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Model 4: Add Pitched roofs. Add gabled or hipped pitched roofs with 16” eaves. As noted previously, the color renderings show these buildings with pitched roofs. Note that the renderings show lap siding with no corner trim – is that intentional? Understanding that these are manufactured homes, are there additional options for model variety? If so, please provide at time of next submittal. Response: Updates to the duplex buildings have been made to respond to your comments. A summary of duplex revisions is included in the submittal that outlines the changes that have been made. Architectural details of bike enclosure, trash enclosure and fence. Response: These details have been added to the submittal - bike enclosure and trash enclosure. There is no fence currently shown on the plans Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Trash and Recycling Enclosures: Enclosures must include a person-door and must be made of durable materials such as those proposed as part of the multi-family project. This can include masonry columns and durable siding to be compatible with the associated buildings. Because the cityscape enclosure as proposed does not comply with the requirements of 3.2.5. Response: Trash enclosures have been updated to include a pedestrian entry. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 INFORMATION ONLY: Generally, some of the comments addressed within this letter will be duplicated on the redlines that staff provides. At time of resubmittal please indicate how all comments have been addressed. Response: Noted Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Landscaping -- Tree Planting Standards. Full tree stocking is required in all landscape areas within 50 feet of a building or structure. Additional canopy shade trees are required dispersed throughout the neighborhood to help establish the required urban tree canopy. Strategic areas have been redlined in the landscape plan. Please place informal groupings of trees throughout these areas. 3.2.1(D) Response: Noted Canopy shade trees along all streets must be planted at a 30-40-foot spacing average along all streets in the development. The plan does not show street trees for College Avenue. 3.2.1(D)(2) Response: Noted - Trees have been planned for where they are possible - some utility conflicts have not made it possible Foundation plantings. Building walls that in high-use or high-visibility areas, particularly along streets, must have planting beds along at least fifty (50) percent of the walls. 3.2.1(E)(2) Response: Noted Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 FOR FINAL: Water conservation. the landscape plan will need to include a water budget chart that shows the total annual water use which cannot exceed an average of 15 gallons a square foot for the landscape. Please delineate hydrozones according to this section. 3.2.1(E)(3) Response: Noted Parking lot perimeter landscaping. a minimum of one tree per 40 feet is required within the 5-foot parking lot perimeter setback area. 3.2.1(E)(4) Response: Noted Additional landscaping is required around all parking lot perimeters to block at least 75% of light from vehicle headlights. Screening should be emphasized where parking areas are adjacent to street frontage and consist of a wall, planters, earthen berm, plant material, or a combination of such elements. These elements must have a minimum height of 30 inches and extend a minimum of seventy percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and 70 percent of the lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Response: Noted Parking lot screening. The plan set should depict the parking lot screening as seen along streets and street-like private drives. Keep in mind that plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened. Response: Noted Parking lot landscape islands. Parking spaces cannot span more than 15 parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula. There are several instances around the proposed multi-family buildings where the project does not meet this requirement. 3.2.1(E)(5) Response: Noted Please provide calculations for interior parking space landscaping. The standard in this section requires at a minimum landscape area of 6% for all parking lots with less than 100 spaces and 10% for all parking lots with 100 spaces or more. Within this internal landscape area at least one canopy shade tree per 150 square feet is required. Response: Noted Regarding 3.2.1(E)(6) Screening, building elements with low visual interest such as garages, trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks and blank walls must be screened on all sides except where an opening is required for access. Please add additional landscaping around trash enclosures, ramp extending from college into site and along the rear side of the garages that front College Avenue. Response: Noted Regarding Tree Preservation and Mitigation. it appears that most of the mitigation trees will be located in the ROW is there any opportunity to provide the mitigation trees as evergreens along the College Avenue frontage? 3.2.1(F) Response: Noted - we will further explore the possibility of mitigating with the evergreens along College Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Lighting: In the model elevations there appears to be lighting mounted to residential units that is not represented as part of the lighting plan. Please provide notes or specifications for the proposed lighting to ensure that it is fully shielded and down directional. Response: Noted - our lighting plans do not take into account building mounted lighting - the lighting plan only accounts for site lighting. All building lighting will be shielded and down directional Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Multi-family Dwellings: Materials. Question: what is intended for ‘Adhered Masonry’? Response: Refer to provided material boards for proposed basis of design for the adhered masonry (and other exterior materials and colors). Overall, the use of architectural metal panel, lap siding, stucco, masonry and wood on the proposed multi-family elevations provide excellent visual interest consistent with requirements. Response: Noted Mechanical equipment screening. Show all wall utility meters and HVAC equipment on site and elevation plans. Screening for the HVAC equipment must be provided using the same materials as the principal building and meters must be screened by landscaping. Mechanical equipment must 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/or public streets. 3.5.1(I) Response: Utility meters are shown on the building elevations. For the apartment buildings, mechanical equipment is located within the mechanical “closets” located on the building ends. For the townhomes, air conditioning condenser units are shown along the fronts of the buildings and will be screened by landscaping (refer to landscape plans). Useable outdoor space. Multi-family development must have a park space or community support/neighborhood recreation facility within the project or within adjacent development, within ¼ mile of all dwelling units. The space: 1. include a minimum of ten thousand square feet; 2. be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. 3. be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public. 4. consist of multiple-use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to utilize. 5. not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park when integrated into storm drainage and detention facilities. 3.8.30(C) Response: The central gathering space has been identified as the community gathering space - it meets the minimum 10,000 SF, is highly visible and is accessible from all areas of the neighborhood. There may be some possibility that the Shenandoah park could serve a portion of the site, however, staff would need to see some cooperative agreement and connection into the park using a walkway, etc.… For further discussion: It appears that some of the amenity space shown on the first few iterations of the plan set have been removed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Building placement - depict setbacks on site plan. Please depict required setbacks on the site plan. 3.5.2(E) Response: Noted Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 BEFORE HEARING: Access, Circulation & Parking: Sidewalks along Avondale. Extend to the southeast property boundary. Curb cuts and ramps. There are several instances redlined on the site and landscape plan where safe and convenient locations for the physically disabled, bicyclists and people using push strollers or carts are not provided. Please correct all locations where this condition exists. Show how the person door for the trash enclosure can be reached. 3.2.2(C)(2) Response: This comment is somewhat confusing - site circulation has been studied - further curb ramps may need to be added to accommodate full site circulation. There will be no person door on the trash enclosure - a person entry has been added. Site Amenities. Please consider strategic inclusion of benches, bike racks and informal seating areas along walkways, trails and within areas close to duplex, studio and townhome units - dog waste stations should also be added and placed strategically within the site in a similar fashion. This topic is somewhat related to staff’s significant concern about useable outdoor space. There are several left-over spaces throughout the site where pocket parks could be integrated into detention or within parking areas and ultimately mitigate the lack of private open space. Consider programming each space with informal seating, play equipment, grill, landscaping, canopy shade trees, information center for the Shenandoah Barn, etc.…3.2.2(C)(3) Response: Several community gathering spaces have been added throughout the project - these areas include outdoor grills, picnic and bench seating. And in most cases, these areas are adjacent to open turf areas Bike Facilities. Provide an elevation view of the enclosure. Much like the trash enclosure design requirements, the shelter should be built with similar materials as proposed primary building. If you would like more information on any resources relating to bike shelters, please contact our transportation department at 970.221.6705. 3.2.2(C)(4) Response: Further detail of the bike enclosure has been added. Walkways. There are several instances where walkways do not provide direct connections with areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination. Please revise plan paying special attention to areas where walkways outline parking areas, end with vertical curbs or into raised landscape islands (see redlines). Provide a pedestrian striping plan that enhances all paved surfaces that cross a drive aisle or lead to a main entryway. Pavement treatments such as, signs, striping, signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques, median refuge areas and landscaping are required. Response: Site circulation has been studied - some areas will need to be further studied and refined to meet this request There are several instances where parking occurs on the rear side of a building and there is no direct entrance into the rear of the building. This requires detailed consideration related to other comments about reconciling building design and outdoor space. 3.2.2(F), 3.2.2(C)(5) Response: The rear of the duplex buildings do not have an access door. Sidewalks have been added for circulation to the front door. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 FOR FINAL: Transportation and Circulation: Regarding 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements, Public and private easements shall be provided on lots for utilities, public access, stormwater drainage or other public purposes as required and approved by the City Engineer. It does not appear that any of the pedestrian and cycle paths are reflected on the Plat. The aforementioned paths must incorporate public access easements so that they connect into existing and abutting properties. Response: Noted Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019 12/03/2019: FOR HEARING: The site plan indicates very close proximity between the existing historic barn on the neighboring parcel and the proposed improvements. It is important to create an appropriate buffer around the barn for its protection and to maintain an appropriate separation between the two. Federal guidelines for this scenario state that "new construction should be appropriately scaled and located far enough away from the historic building to maintain its character and that of the site and setting." This is particularly important for meeting the plan of protection requirement for historic resources, in section 3.4.7(E)(3) of the land use code. A plan of protection details the particular considerations and protective measures that will be employed to prevent short-term and long-term material damage and avoidable impact on the character of identified historic resources on the development site and within the area of adjacency from demolition, new construction, and operational activities. Satisfactory completion of this standard generally hinges on creating a meaningful buffer between any site disturbances/improvements and the historic resource(s). Please contact me to request the plan of protection document template when you are ready to complete this step. Response: Noted Department: Park Planning Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com Topic: Easements Comment Number: 4 11/18/2019: FOR INFORMATION: The plat, utility and site plans should indicate a "Public Access and Trail" easement encompassing the trail. Response: Noted Topic: General Comment Number: 1 11/18/2019: FOR INFORMATION: Thank you for the concept plan dated November 2019 indicating a trail along the west property boundary. As indicated in the South College Corridor Plan this trail fulfills "Strategy 7: Develop Off-Street Trail Network". Also as indicated on Figure 29 the "Skyridge Trail" (between Skyway Drive and Trilby Road) is to be privately built and maintained. Response: Noted Comment Number: 2 11/18/2019: FOR INFORMATION: The Skyridge Trail should be built to general design guidelines for paved recreational trails, as found in the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan. The Master Plan can be found at fcgov.com/parkplanning under "Policies and Plans". Response: Noted Comment Number: 3 11/18/2019: FOR INFORMATION: General design guidelines include: a 10' wide concrete paved surface with level shoulders, and a parallel 4' wide crusher fines path. The trail shall be constructed to ADA guidelines. Response: Noted Comment Number: 5 11/18/2019: Please contact Park Planning & Development for any questions regarding trail alignment and design. We would be happy to work with you. Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340. sbassinger@fcgov.com Response: Noted Department: Building Services Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 12/02/2019: Submit a site-wide accessibility plan for review per CRS 9-5 Response: This plan has been provided Comment Number: 2 12/02/2019: BUILDING PERMIT: Buildings with 3 or more attached units, located on the same lot must be built under the IBC code (not IRC townhomes) Response: A townhouse is defined as two or more attached single-family dwelling units each located entirely on a separately recoded and platted parcel of land bounded by property lines. The 3- and 4-plexes are intended to be individually platted. Department: Larimer County Assessor Contact: Megan Harrity, 970-498-7065 , mharrity@larimer.org Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 11/25/2019: FOR HEARING: In the subtitle of the plat there is a typo. It has, Part of Tracts A & C, Shenandoah... and under the statement of ownership it looks correct and the subtitle should read Part of Tracts B and C, Shenandoah... Comment Number: 1 11/25/2019: FOR HEARING: Our ownership is currently as follows: TR B, SHENANDOAH PUD, FIL 1, FTC SHENANDOAH OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC POR TRACT C SHENANDOAH PUD; ETC... NEXTOP HOLDINGS LLC (.79) BETTER LAND LLC (.21) RESPONSE: Typos have been corrected. Ownership is given in case additional signature blocks need to be added. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 12/02/2019: 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. RESPONSE: The redlines have been addressed on the subdivision plat. There are no liens on the property. The irrigation ditch and relocation are shown in the PUP and will be shown in the FUP. The proposed irrigation easements show are delineated on the plat that will follow the ditch as it bisects the property.