Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOMESTEAD AT CLARENDON HILLS - PDP190007 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview May 03, 2019 Kristin Turner TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Homestead at Clarendon Hills, PDP190007, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane, at 970-224-6119 or tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 All comments are PRIOR TO SCHEDULING HEARING: Lots: Lot 8 appears to be too narrow to meet the RL standards. RESPONSE: Lot widths have been confirmed to meet RL standards. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Driveway access is close to the intersection for lot three and seems out of place in the neighborhood pattern. Lot 3 frontage would benefit from having more frontage on one or the other street, instead of splitting the street frontage at the corner. Show driveways with resubmittal. RESPONSE: Please refer to revised layout. The bulk of the lots now take access from a driveway. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Some of the lot depths/widths exceed the standards and some don’t meet the standards. In addressing 3.4.1 buffer performance standards, explore adjusting deeper lot depths that exceed RL lot standards to provide additional buffer depth for Tract A to meet or exceed buffer standards. No buffer depth analysis or proposed demarcation was provided. 2 RESPONSE: A NBHZ boundary has been added to the plan along with the associated statistics. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Landscape Plans: The landscape design surrounding the path east of lot 8 needs to be redesigned. RESPONSE: The path area and landscape have been adjusted. This area has been incorporated into the NHBZ boundary. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Tract A: Explore ways to make Tract A are a more cohesive landscape design that provides integrated enhancements. The shrub area lacks integration with the topography and reinforces the linear pattern of the lots. Add more design elements to provide layers of visual transition and buffering of views from Shields. Add vegetation throughout the Tract to enhance the area. Vegetation should be added to provide visual interest, shade, cover and privacy in appropriate areas. This would supplement the existing trees, some of which appear to be in decline. RESPONSE: New vegetation is not proposed behind the lots of this subdivision. The design intent is to maintain the existing character and focus more intense plantings at the ‘front door’ of the project which will serve as an enhancement for both the existing neighborhood and the new lots. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Ideas to explore. I’ll need to see a plan revision to this area with one or two concepts, and would like to meet with area residents to get their input on the design revisions. Tract A: Residents will want to walk through and explore this area. How will this be controlled without damage to the landscape areas. Will access be controlled or channeled and encouraged. With the landscape plan provide notes showing how the area is intended to function and be maintained. RESPONSE: A trail is not proposed through Tract A and pedestrian activity in this area will not be encouraged. Native plantings are shown along the trail on the east side of the site to discourage passage to the west. Tract A: A narrow soft trail though the area could provide maintenance access and control access for residents. The trail loop provided, will the seating get used at this location? It’s close to the street and probably a bit hot. Would suggest talking with residents about a narrow foot trail though the Tract A space. It could be wider in some areas for access to the manholes? What about moving the benches north of the ditch near the cottonwoods between lots 6 and 7? RESPONSE: Please refer to revised plan. The trail loop has been eliminated. A trail is not provided behind the lot, as pedestrian access will not be encouraged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Maintenance and other details: Tract A: The plans should provide more notations and information on how Tract A will function and be maintained. The notes should address who will maintain the area. RESPONSE: Please refer to Landscape Notes #14 which states the following: ‘The common areas (Tract A) at the Homestead at Clarendon Hills will be maintained by the Homestead at Clarendon Hills HOA. This area will function as a native area.’ 3 There is an existing Clarendon Hills sign in Tract A. It would seem that an easement and maintenance of this area should be clarified on the plans. RESPONSE: Please refer to Site Plan Notes #21 which states the following: ‘The existing Clarendon Hill sign shall be maintained by the (existing) Clarendon Hills Homeowners Association’. An easement for maintenance has been provided on the plans. The plat says HOA for the maintenance of Tract A. The plans should clarify whether this is intended to be a new HOA or the Clarendon Hills HOA. RESPONSE: Please refer to site plan note #21. A note has also been added to the plat. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Fencing Details: The planning set should clarify whether fencing is allowed. If fencing is allowed, details should be provided on the set showing where the fencing types will go and clarify the design specifications. This is another item that needs input from the HOA. Lots should be defined with low fencing so that residents don’t take over and encroach into the open space. RESPONSE: Rear lot fencing (3-rail fencing) will be required (by homeowner). A detail has been provided and notes have been added to the plan. A solid privacy fence will be permitted per the covenants for side yards only. All side yard fencing shall be installed by homeowner. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 The plan should provide plan specific notes for the existing trees that need limbing and general care. Please coordinate this effort with forestry staff. RESPONSE: This information was provided at Round 1 on the tree inventory sheet. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 The plans don’t show how street trees will be provided per city standards and policies, in a pattern that does not conflict with existing/proposed utilities, street lights and driveways. Also unclear how street trees be planted on top of existing power and CTV lines. RESPONSE: Please refer to current plans – street tree layout has changed. There are tree lawn trees provided along Langdale. Other street trees are located informally to the west of lot 1 and throughout the landscaped detention area. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Zone District Comments and Land Use Table Comments: Site Plan/cover page: clearly document compliance with the following information: Lot sizes, garage setbacks, net area and density, required and proposed off-street parking, solar orientation, hydrozone, driveway locations. See Water’s Edge site/landscape plan set format example. RESPONSE: Additional data has been added to the site plan cover sheet. The hydrozone table was updated per changes to the landscape with this revision, but was provided with the original submittal. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 On the site plan, add dimensions showing typical lot widths/depths. Add dimensions on the irregular lots to demonstrate compliance with minimum lot 4 width at the corresponding front or rear setback line where the lot is narrower. RESPONSE: These dimensions have been added to the plans. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Small subdivisions without typical lots should show setbacks and all other site restrictions and design information directly on the proposed lots, instead of the lot typicals. The site plan should provide instructions on where trees and driveways should go to serve each lot while avoiding conflicts with all utilities. RESPONSE: The setbacks are challenging to show on the lots due to overlapping line work depicting lots, easements and setbacks. The lot typical has been revised to show the setbacks more clearly and any information that pertains to the LMN zone district has been removed. In addition, the utility layout detail has been provided to show required separations between trees, utilities and driveway access. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Contact light & power to get the locations of any needed street lights. These should be shown on the plan with enough accuracy that the driveways, trees and other elements can be planned. RESPONSE: We will coordinate with Light and Power regarding light locations prior to Final Plan. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Provide notes on the plans to identify that the developer will be responsible for planting and maintaining the street trees, and not the homeowner. Work with forestry and engineering staff to ensure that the trees will function as city street trees if the trees are located on the lots behind the sidewalk. RESPONSE: Please refer to Landscape Note #15 which states the following: ‘Developer shall be responsible for planting all street trees. The Homestead at Clarendon Hills HOA shall be responsible for maintaining all street trees.’ Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 The sheet numbering doesn’t clarify how many sheets are in the planning set or what is in the set. This is required to tie the signatures to the set. See master dev. review requirements. A consistent drawing scale in the planning set should be provided at 1:30 or 1:20. Add cover sheet if necessary. Preliminary on the planning set should be changed to “Project” Add scale bar to inventory/mitigation plan. RESPONSE: Added. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Ditch users have requested on paper copy of all plans with the resubmittal. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 Repeat comments from conceptual review: R-L Land Use Standards. (2) Dimensional Standards. (a) Minimum lot width shall be sixty (60) feet for a single-family dwelling or child-care center and one hundred (100) feet for all other uses. 5 (b) Minimum setback of the front yard shall be twenty (20) feet. (c) Minimum setback of the rear yard shall be fifteen (15) feet, except that the minimum setback of alley-accessed garages shall be six (6) feet. (d) For residential uses, the minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot and five (5) feet for all interior side yards. (e) Maximum building height shall be twenty-eight (28) feet for a single-family dwelling, accessory building, group home or child care center and three (3) stories for all other uses. Lot width and setbacks are defined in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. The applicant should note that the minimum lot width of 60 feet is measured along the cord length of the front setback. This should be verified for angled lots such as 6 and 7. The front setback is measured from the required right-of-way line. Information Only: Here are the lot definitions per Article 5: Lot width shall mean the horizontal (plan view) distance between the side lot lines as measured along a straight line parallel to the front lot line or the chord thereof. The minimum lot width shall be measured between the side lot lines along a line that is parallel to the front lot line and located at the minimum front setback distance from the front lot line. In the case of cul-de-sac lots, the minimum lot width may be measured between the side lot lines along a line that is parallel to the front lot line and located at the actual front building line. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: BY HEARING: The public sidewalk adjacent to the property must meet ADA standards including width and cross slope minimums. Engineering is flexible on what sidewalk improvements could look like and understand the need to coordinate with the development team, as well as City Forestry, Planning, and Utilities on what design will enable ADA, landscaping, and utility separation requirements to be met. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. All public sidewalks will meet ADA requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: BY HEARING: From what I can see on the landscape plans, the trees look like they’re very close to the sidewalk. Please review LCUASS Figure 16-1 setbacks and provide more detail for how the setbacks are being met in these areas. RESPONSE: Understood; please refer to latest submittal for updates. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: BY HEARING: For Lot 3, it does not appear possible for a driveway out to Clarendon Hills to 6 meet minimum spacing from the intersection – it appears that a driveway to Langdale could meet the standard. Driveways on Lots 1 and 2 also have the potential of not meeting spacing requirements depending on where they are constructed. Please show driveways on the plans in order to ensure that the minimum spacing will be met or exceeded in all cases. RESPONSE: The layout was revised to allow the lots to access from a private shared driveway except for Lots 1 and 8. The shared driveway will meet LCUASS offset standards from the intersection of Clarendon Drive and Langdale Drive. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: FOR FINAL: Please include applicable LCUASS construction details for public improvements at time of FDP. RESPONSE: Standard LCUASS driveway and sidewalk details are included. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: No comments. Ready for hearing. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: INFORMATION ONLY. Thank you for submitting Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) dated April 9, 2019. Highlights: A. Wildlife value is moderate. B. Property consists of open regularly mowed field, irrigation ditch and mature native trees along the ditch. C. Numerous nest cavities were observed in mature cottonwood trees but stick nests were not observed. D. Narrow wetland occurs on each side of ditch. E. Currently a wetland delineation report is being prepared for submission to the Army Corps of Engineers. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL. Please clarify: is the proposed impacted wetland area a total of 10,084 square feet or 2,982 sf? This is critical to understanding mitigation needed per LUC and subsequent design of natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ). RESPONSE: The design has been revised and wetlands are no longer impacted. They have been quantified on the Natural Habitat Statistics Chart but will not be disturbed with the development of this property. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL. Schedule a meeting with City Environmental Planner, City Stormwater Engineer, Applicant Stormwater Engineer and Landscape Architect to discuss 2 -3 options for natural resources 7 mitigation and designs for natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) to be included with the project design to meet LUC 3.4.1 while also meeting stormwater criteria. RESPONSE: Several meetings have been held to determine a feasible stormwater solution. The wetlands and ditch are no longer impacted with the revised design. A NBHZ has been defined and design is provided for review with this submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO FINAL PLAN APPROVAL. Current site layout proposal appears to impact wetlands and potentially those under federal regulation (along irrigation ditch) thus a jurisdictional letter from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) needs to be submitted. See LUC 3.4.1(O)(1): “If a proposed development will disturb an existing wetland, the developer shall provide to the city a written statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan fully complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations established in the federal Clean Water Act.” Note: City staff are coordinating to understand flows in this area. RESPONSE: The revised design no longer impacts the wetlands on-site. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING. Applicant to verify Army Corps permitting process has begun if needed if jurisdictional wetlands are being impacted by proposed project and that project can meet LUC 3.4.1(O)(1). RESPONSE: The revised design no longer impacts the wetlands on-site. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL. Please clarify: is the entire existing open irrigation ditch proposed to be piped? Note Policy LU6 in the Nature in the City Strategic Plan specifies that the multiple values of the City’s ditch system, including wildlife habitat and ecological functions, should be supported and protected. This includes keeping ditches daylighted when appropriate, removing barriers to wildlife movement along ditches, enhancing habitat, and improving connectivity for people and wildlife where appropriate. In some cases, re-alignment of ditches to achieve the goals outlined in this policy and the specific site development goals can be considered when the ecological value on the site can either be protected or enhanced. As such, the City recommends leaving the ditch open, incorporating it into the site design as an amenity, and enhancing it as part of a connected corridor for people and wildlife. RESPONSE: The revised design no longer includes piping the ditch. The existing ditch will remain in place. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL. An appropriate natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) will need to be designed. There are several mitigation approaches including but not limited to: A. 1:1 wetland mitigation (e.g. 0.20 ac removed and 0.20 ac added elsewhere onsite). B. 1:2 wetland to upland mitigation (e.g. 0.20 ac wetland removed and 0.40 ac uplands provided). RESPONSE: A NHBZ has been defined. Wetlands are not being impacted/mitigated but the NBHZ has been established since the lots will encroach on the 50’ offset. 8 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING. Once the natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) is designed then it needs to be delineated in its entirety and labeled on site, landscape, grading and utility plans. RESPONSE: Labeled. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING. Once the natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) is designed then on plans it needs to be shown in a table: A. amount of buffer area that would be required by a 50ft buffer from the ditch delineated top of bank and/or edge of wetlands. B. amount of buffer area provided on these plans. RESPONSE: Table has been added to landscape notes. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO FINAL PLAN APPROVAL. Add the following note on landscape and utility plans: NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY. RESPONSE: Added. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING. Provide documentation of coordination with the ditch company to determine whether any easements or restrictions apply for the ditch. Note City Environmental Planner will follow-up with internal City staff as well and relationship of ditch to City assets. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: INFORMATION ONLY. Within the natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: FOR FINAL Thank you for including the tree inventory and mitigation information on the plan. Please note that depending on the proximity of lots 6 & 7, tree #6 will require further evaluation by a TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified) arborist. RESPONSE: Understood. Lot layout has changed; please refer to newest plans. 9 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: BY HEARING Additional information is required regarding front setbacks and potential utility conflicts to determine whether it is possible to place trees behind the walk. On properties with attached sidewalks, the LUC requires trees to be placed 3-7’ behind the edge of the walk (we recommend at least 7’ to reduce the likelihood of root/sidewalk conflicts). Ideally, Forestry would like to see a detached sidewalk with a parkway for street trees on Langdale Dr. RESPONSE: Please refer to revised site layout. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: BY HEARING Please show the location of the driveways on the lots. This will likely impact tree placement and spacing. RESPONSE: A lot typical has been provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: FOR FINAL Shade trees should be approximately 30-40 feet apart. Currently, a lot of the proposed trees are between 40-60 feet apart. It would be helpful to have driveways on the plan, in addition to utilities and any proposed streetlights, to determine how additional street trees can be planted. RESPONSE: We selected an ornamental (Korean Wild Pear) and a Fastigiate Oak along Langdale since the tree lawn is 5.5’ wide. Since we used ornamental/columnar, we’ve spaced the trees at 30’. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: FOR FINAL While the LUC currently requires 20 feet of separation between stop signs and parkway trees, Transportation has informed Forestry that this is not adequate to maintain stop sign clearance. At this time, 50’ of separation is recommended. The Kentucky coffeetree proposed behind the stop sign in front Lot #3 will need to shift back or be eliminated, depending on space. RESPONSE: Trees have been revised per the new design. We have checked the spacing and there are no trees within 50’ of the stop sign. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: BY HEARING The parkway width on Clarendon Hills Drive may not meet current streetscape standards. Please consult with Engineering to verify the required parkway width. The parkway measures < 5’ (plans show 5’). Narrow parkways can’t adequately accommodate street trees in the long run. What are the plans for meeting proper parkway widths on this project? RESPONSE: The parkway along Clarendon is existing and will remain in-place as part of this subdivision. We understand that it is too narrow for street trees. We have included informal clusters of deciduous trees to the west of Lot 1 as well as trees within the landscaped pond area. In order to meet the intention of the parkway tree planting requirements, we have included 21 deciduous or ornamental trees along the street frontage which exceeds the number of street trees that would have been required in traditional tree lawns with the previous plan. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 BY HEARING On Clarendon Hills Dr., the parkway narrows as it approaches Langdale Dr., and it does not connect to the intersection. Can this stretch of parkway be 10 extended? Placement of trees behind the walk here may be difficult due to the existing utilities. RESPONSE: Our proposal is for the existing tree lawn to remain in it’s existing location/size. Street trees have been placed along Langdale, per discussion with City Staff, and included in the landscaped pond area. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: FOR FINAL How will the lots be screened (i.e. fence, trees etc.)? Please consult with planning to determine appropriate screening for the back of the lots. RESPONSE: A 3 rail open fence will be required along the rear lot lines. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: INFORMATION ONLY While lindens are great urban trees, they are not suitable for parkways that are impacted by deicing salt. If either street is treated, please consider replacing the lindens with a different species. RESPONSE: Understood; Lindens will not be used. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. RESPONSE: Erosion Control Plans will be included during Final Plan. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: For Final: Please resubmit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. RESPONSE: Erosion Control Report will be included during Final Plan. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: Development Agreement: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. RESPONSE: Erosion Control Escrow will be included during Final Plan. Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/25/2019 04/25/2019: BY HEARING: Existing Irrigation Ditch: An agreement with the irrigation ditch company will be required for piping and relocation of the existing irrigation ditch. The proposed detention outlet to the existing irrigation system will require a discharge agreement with the ditch company. For Preliminary: A signed Letter of Intent from the ditch company needs to be obtained before approval to proceed to the Hearing. 11 For Final: A signed and executed agreement will need to be submitted before the FCU will sign the plans. RESPONSE: We are no longer proposing to pipe the existing irrigation ditch. The existing irrigation ditch will remain undisturbed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: Detention Overflow Spillway: An emergency overflow spillway needs to be provided for the proposed detention pond. The spillway needs to be sized to convey the peak 100-year pond inflow for the fully developed watershed condition. A downstream surface flow path needs to be determined to provide safe conveyance of spillway flows to an adequate public facility. Discharge of overflows across private property will require agreement(s) with the respective owner(s). RESPONSE: A spillway will be provided to safely convey the 100-Year storm into the pond. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: Proposed Detention Pond: Please provide the proposed stage-storage tabulation and 100-year WSEL. RESPONSE: A stage-storage curve of the pond will be provided during Final Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: As a reminder, 100-yr developed flows will need to be detained at or below historic 2-yr flow rates for the Mail Creek Basin. For the Fossil Creek basin these 2-yr historic rates are specified as 0.2 cfs/ acre. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: Undetained site discharges to Fossil Creek Watershed (Subbasin B): To maintain consistency with the Clarendon Hills Flg. 1 drainage report and design, the proposed imperviousness for Subbasin B, and resulting C-factors, need to be at or below the developed runoff assumptions from the previous drainage report. The 1986 Clarendon Hills Flg 1 drainage report assumed a C value of 0.5. If the 1986 assumed imperviousness x area amount (C x A) is not exceeded, then additional stormwater quantity detention is not required for proposed Subbasin B. Comment: For the Preliminary Design submittal, in order to document the Subbasin B drainage situation, please tabulate the 1986 Subbasin B drainage area on this site – using the 1986 subbasin boundary line. The proposed “C x Area” factor may not exceed the 1986 “C x Area” factor. (2-yr C factors). In addition, for the PDP submittal, please submit direct impervious calculations based on site plan with house foot prints and driveways shown. RESPONSE: The site plan and drainage concept was significantly revised. The new site plan requires a detention pond in Subbasin B2. The detention pond in Subbasin B2 will restrict the combined flowrate from Subbasins B1, B2, B3 and B4 at or below the assumptions for the previous drainage reports for Clarendon Hills. 12 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: Water Quality, Grading, and Drainage: The proposed grading, drainage, and water quality scheme includes “All proposed roof drains will drain north to the proposed detention area.” How will it be ensured that all roof drains are directed to the north side of the lots? RESPONSE: We are now requiring all roof drains to drain towards the south. The site is graded for the south 2/3rds of each lot to drain south towards the detention pond, Clarendon Hills Drive, and Langdale Drive. With the preliminary submittal the City would like the house envelopes shown on the grading and drainage plans, with spot elevations if necessary, to confirm that this drainage scheme will work. Please revise the proposed drainage subbasins accordingly. RESPONSE: Building envelopes and spot elevations are provided. In addition, for the Building Permit, the City will require a detailed grading plan with roof drains and proposed building footprints shown. Last, the as-built drainage certification will need to verify that the roof drains are indeed draining to the north (subbasin A). RESPONSE: FHA grading can be provided during Final Plan. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: LID Water Quality: In order to meet WQ criteria requirements, the proposed vegetated buffer LID facility may not be in a shared utility easement. The basis for this requirement is the concern that future maintenance of another utility in a shared easement may result in the LID facility being damaged or removed. RESPONSE: The vegetated buffer within Tract A is restricted to being within a drainage and irrigation easement. The area needs to be designated as an irrigation easement to allow the ditch company to access the existing irrigation ditch. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: LID Water Quality: The proposed LID vegetated buffer (VB) does not meet the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) requirements for a stand-alone treatment facility. The VB requirements, for LID credit, are found in Ch 7. Section 6.7 of the FCSCM. At minimum, the proposed VB facility would need to be 14-ft wide and have a 1:1 area ratio of impervious area to VB area. However other requirements do apply. Please refer to this section of the FCSCM. Please feel free to contact FCU if you want to discuss this further. RESPONSE: A tabulation of the vegetated buffer is provided in the drainage memo. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: Water Quality: Water quality treatment is required for 100% of new impervious areas. As proposed, the driveways located in the Fossil Creek drainage do not have water quality treatment provided. Impervious areas draining to Fossil Creek (Subbasin B), need to have water quality treatment. RESPONSE: All new impervious area for the site is draining towards two rain gardens located at the intersection of Clarendon Hills Drive and Langdale Drive. 13 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: As a reminder, the water quality (WQ) requirements for single family residential development are 50% LID (minimum) plus 50% standard WQ treatment. This is a site wide requirement and not a subbasin by subbasin requirement. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: As a reminder, for single-family residential developments, LID must be placed in tracts or common areas for ownership and maintenance by the HOA. LID systems installed as part of the development requirement shall not be placed on single-family lots. RESPONSE: The vegetated buffer to the north, and the rain gardens to the south, are located in a common tract to be owned and maintained by Homestead at Clarendon Hills HOA. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: Please see the annotated Utility Plans and Drainage Report for other comments. RESPONSE: Utility plans and drainage report were updated per redlines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Because this submittal has not provided enough information to perform a complete review, new comments may occur in subsequent submittals as more information is provided. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION Light & Power has existing electric facilities running along the South side of Clarendon Hills Dr. and an existing primary line running along the North side of Langdale Dr. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION The feed for this development will have to come from the existing vault on the South side of Clarendon Hills Dr. and the primary running along Langdale Dr. Installation of at least two primary vaults and possibly re-trenching in new primary along Langdale Dr. to include the secondary necessary to feed the proposed lots. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be at the expense of the owner/developer. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 14 04/26/2019: INFORMATION Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at ElectricProjectEngineering@fcgov.com. Please reference our Electric Service Standards, development charges and fee estimator at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: FOR HEARING Please adjust all water and sewer services at least 10' away from the proposed lot lines to provide adequate clearance for electric facilities. RESPONSE: A minimum 9’ wide utility easement, larger if necessary, is provided for the installation of dry utilities across the front of all lots. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION It may be necessary to remove sections of the existing detached sidewalk, and where it transitions from attached to detached, for Light & Power to install the primary and the electric service stubs. It will be the responsibility of the developer to remove and replace those sections. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 04/26/2019: INFORMATION Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: FOR HEARING Light & Power will need to know what service size these lots will be developed at. 150amp? 200amp? RESPONSE: The service size will be for a typical single-family house. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/22/2019 05/01/2019: >At the staff review meeting today, the applicant team stated they will show the expected building envelope for each Lot. >Should the setback for the residence be too great to achieve the 150ft access, then the residence will be designed with a residential fire sprinkler system RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 04/22/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL HYDRANT >The applicant has stated in the conceptual review comments that they will provide PFA with the Hydrant test results. This hydrant is required to produce 1000gpm at 20psi residual pressure. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 15 04/30/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL ACCESS >After further discussion with other City departments, it is understood that the layout of some of the lots may change to take care of possible drainage issues. As noted in the conceptual review, access is required to within 150ft of all portions of the exterior perimeter of each residence. >Should the setback of any residence be such that this required access cannot be achieved, then the driveway shall be built to fire lane standards outlined below RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/30/2019 04/30/2019: FOR INFORMATION FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be dedicated by plat or separate document as an Emergency Access Easement. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. > The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans. > Dedicated fire lanes are required to connect to the Public Way unless otherwise approved by the AHJ. > Be visible by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. Sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/01/2019 05/01/2019: ADDRESSING The address shall be clearly visible from the street in no less than 6" tall numerals on a contrasting background. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Plat 16 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: FOR 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. RESPONSE: Revisions provided. Department: Building Services Contact: Sarah Carter, 970-416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: Construction shall comply with adopted codes as amended. Current adopted codes are: 2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments 2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments 2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments 2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments 2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Copies of current City of Fort Collins code amendments can be found at fcgov.com/building. Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Loads: Risk Category II (most structures): * 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or * Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of Colorado Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code: 2018 IRC Chapter 11 or 2018 IECC with amendments. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Chris Pletcher, Fort Collins- Loveland Water District, 970-226-3104, chrisp@fclwfd.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/22/2019 04/22/2019: The following PDP comments are provided on the water and sewer drawings shown on your plans. 17 1. Please make sure you add the District’s title block for signature. 2. Please confirm a minimum of 10 feet separation between the water and sewer lines in Lots 1 and 2. RESPONSE: The plans were updated per the District’s comments.