HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS FIFTH FILING - PDP190018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
March 06, 2020
John Beggs
Russell + Mills
506 S College Ave
Unit A
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing, PDP190018, Round Number 2
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:
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!
Comment Number: 2
11/27/2019: INFORMATION:
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.
2
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.
Please avoid using acknowledged, noted, or other non-descriptive replies.
Comment Number: 4
11/27/2019: INFORMATION:
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.
I have attached the 2020 P&Z schedule, which has key dates.
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.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please delineate and label the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plan.
Response: The note has been added to all of the requested plans.
Comment Number: 2
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Environmental Planning will have to perform a site visit to evaluate mitigation for trees being removed
that are not being mitigated by forestry. Mitigation plantings will have to occur within the NHBZ.
Response: The preliminary notes provided via email to John Beggs were added to the tree inventory and
mitigation sheet. The design team will continue to work with staff to ensure all mitigation trees are be
provided.
Comment Number: 3
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please work with stormwater to ensure wetlands are being supported through treated stormwater runoff.
Response: Runoff contributing to Wetland 2 (Robert Benson Inlet Swale) receives treated runoff from the LID and
Water Quality Basins associated with detention Ponds A and B, respectively. Wetlands 4 & 5 (southwest corner) are
upstream of the development area and do not receive significant runoff from the project site.
Comment Number: 4
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
How is the piping of the North Louden Ditch being mitigated for? There appears
to be over 4 acres of ditch being piped and this will require mitigation.
Response: The mitigation diagrams included in the submittal outline the areas of mitigation and where those are
being mitigated for on site.
Comment Number: 5
3
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
How is Wetland 1 being mitigated for a 1:1? What about portions of Wetland 2?
Response: We are proposing to expand the large wetland to the SW of the site – this will meet our mitigation
requirement of 0.5AC for the wetland mitigation requirements.
Comment Number: 6
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please provide a wetland design and monitoring plan that ensures resources
are not only protected but sustainable long term from a hydrologic, soil and
vegetation standpoint. Plans must be reviewed and approved by City staff,
including number and location of plot points assessing hydrology, vegetation
and soils preconstruction, and 3-5 years post construction. Preconstruction
monitoring must occur monthly at minimum during the growing season (April-September).
Response: The wetland design is shown on the landscape plans of the submittal. We have included City seed mixes
and wetland plantings around the expanded wetlands in the SW that will meet our mitigation requirement areas – as
well as planning for other areas within the detention basins for some wetland plantings/seed mixes.
In regards to the mitigating for wetlands in detention areas – we have included (as an appendix to this document)
several instances/examples of where this has been done in the City of Fort Collins. We believe that it is a viable
option to mitigate for wetlands in the detention basins – we also understand that the quality of these mitigated
wetland areas are not the same as the existing or the possibility of expansion of existing wetland areas. That is why
we have proposed the expansion of the SW wetland on this property. Treated stormwater will be drained into this
area to offset any hydrologic loss from piping the ditch, etc. The detention area has also been adjusted to not create
issues for the adjacent wetland area.
Also, a small berm will be constructed along the south side of the property to help with the hydrology of the existing
wetland. Wetland monitoring will begin in early May and will continue as outlined in the wetland documents included
with this submittal.
Comment Number: 7
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
I am concerned about the 15-foot tall retaining wall abutting Wetland 2
boundary. Constructing a footer would impact wetlands and would not be
approved by Environmental Planning staff. I recommend an alternative design
that moves the walls further away from wetlands.
Response: In response to this comment and after our meeting – we made significant changes to the site plan to shift
the closest apartment building to this area to the south and west in order to minimize the impacts to wetland 2. We
are also proposing a segmented block retaining wall that utilizes a minimal footing to minimize the impacts in this
area during construction.
Comment Number: 8
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please add a table to the site plan that includes the following: amount of buffer
area that would be required through quantitative setbacks; amount of buffer
area provided on these plans; minimum buffer distance for each feature;
maximum buffer distance for each feature; average buffer distance for each feature.
Without the table and NHBZ delineated on plans, Environmental Planning
cannot comment on mitigation recommendations or approvals.
Response: The diagram dated 4-15-20 and titled Potential Wetland Areas Exhibit outlines the areas you are
referencing above. We thought this exhibit would be the most clear representation of the information instead of the
4
site plan.
Comment Number: 9
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
As discussed on the phone, please move the trail and overlook further away
from the wetland to ensure grading does not impact the feature.
Response – the trail and overlook have been removed from the plans to not impact the wetland.
Comment Number: 10
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Forestry and Environmental Planning have concerns over the amount of tree
removal taking place, particularly for the small groves of cottonwood trees in the
northeast and southwest areas of the site. Trees being removed in G13 is an area of concern.
Response – The site plan, grading and proposed utilities have been updated to ensure that existing groves
are minimally impacted to the extent feasible.
Comment Number: 11
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Thank you for providing a photometric plan with this PDP submittal. Current
plans illustrate light spillage into natural habitat buffer zones. With respect to
lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires
that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage
from off-site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site
amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Please update the lighting
fixtures and photometric plan to remove this light spillage.
Response – The lighting plan has been updated to eliminate light spillage to the extent feasibly possible
without effecting the light levels for the parking lot and sidewalks. The applicant will work with staff to
develop a lighting strategy is there are issues with lighting in the buffer zone including, but not limited to
specific hours dimming, motion sensor fixtures etc.
Comment Number: 12
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please add note to landscape plans: Areas that are bare or disturbed will need to be re-seeded.
Response – This note has been added to the landscape plans.
Comment Number: 13
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please include the following note on the landscape 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 – This note has been added to the landscape plans.
Comment Number: 14
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please include the following note on landscape plans:
THE TIME OF YEAR SEEDING IS TO OCCUR SHOULD BE OCTOBER THROUGH EARLY MAY.
5
PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE SEED
MIX SPECIES THROUGH AERATION AND ADDITION OF AMENDMENTS,
THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENLY OVER
ENTIRE AREA. DRILL SEED ALL INDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS.
IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.
APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED
(STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED).
DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED
APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN ½ INCH DEPTH. FOR
BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE
SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE
FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES.
PREPARE A WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WEEDS ARE
PROPERLY MANAGED BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SEEDING ACTIVITIES.
AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED
STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS.
WHERE NEEDED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
UNTIL SEED IS GERMINATED THEN WEEN THE SEED FROM IRRIGATION.
IF IRRIGATION IS USED, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR SEEDED AREAS
SHALL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE TIME OF SEEDING AND SHALL
ENSURE 100% HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE OVER ALL SEEDED AREAS.
ALL METHODS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPROVED IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER
IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS
NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER.
THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A
NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING
OCCURS IN NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS DO NOT MOW LOWER
THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH.
NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN
SEVENTY PERCENT VEGETATIVE COVER IS REACHED WITH NO
LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL
DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES AND EROSION CONTROL.
THE DEVELOPER AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATE SEEDLING COVERAGE AND GROWTH
AT THE TIME OF FINAL STABILIZATION, AS DEFINED BY STATE AND
LOCAL AGENCIES. IF FINAL STABILIZATION IS NOT ACHIEVED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE AGENCY, THE DEVELOPER AND/OR
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL
CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO SATISFY FINAL VEGETATIVE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSEOUT.
Response – This note has been added to the landscape plans.
Comment Number: 15
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please provide documentation of coordination with the ditch company to
determine whether any easements or restrictions apply for the ditch.
Response: The engineer has contacted the ditch company on approval of the preliminary utility plan as it relates to
the Louden ditch realignment. Engineer will provide documentation on the approval of the preliminary utility plan
6
from the Ditch company.
Comment Number: 16
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING
Please add the following note on all sheets of the site, landscape and utility
plans that show the Habitat Buffer: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is intended
to be maintained in a native landscape.
This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future.
Response: The note has been added to the utility plan sheets.
Comment Number: 17
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please add an Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans that show the buffer zone.
Response: Environmental Planner signature is shown on applicable utility plan sheets.
Comment Number: 18
03/03/2020: DCP:
Fine, airborne particulate matter (fugitive dust) generated by construction
related activities is considered a Criteria Air Pollutant and is regulated by
federal, state, and local government due to its impact on public health and
safety, and the environment. Per Section 12-153 of Municipal Code, the City
requires owners/operators of developments and construction sites that are
greater than 5 acres prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan to
jkomes@fcgov.com. Dust Control Plan guidance is available in the City’s Dust Prevention and
Control Manual at fcgov.com/dust; please contact Jason Komes at jkomes@fcgov.com with questions.
Response: Comment noted. The contractor will be responsible for preparation of the
dust control plan and will coordinate with Staff for issuance of DCP.
Comment Number: 19
03/03/2020: DCP:
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment-Air Pollution
Control Division (CDPHE-APCC) requires the submittal of an Air Pollution
Emission Notice (APEN) for land disturbances greater than 25 acres and/or
that exceed 6 months in duration and may also require a Construction Permit.
Please contact the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment (the
enforcement arm of the CDPHE-APCC) at 970-498-6775 for more information.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 20
03/03/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Language regarding the protection and enhancement of the Natural Habitat
Buffer Zone will be included in the Development Agreement for this project. A
security will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Development
Construction Permit that accounts for the installation and establishment of the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Prior to DCP, please provide an estimate of the
landscaping costs for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, including materials, labor
and irrigation. We will then use the approved estimate to collect a security (bond
or escrow) at 125% of the total amount.
Response: Comment noted.
Department: Engineering Development Review
7
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
This info is still needing input and verification. The grading for the outfall pond
still appears to be around the same elevation of predicted groundwater. I'm also
looking to verify if basements are being proposed in the development as some
of the lots at the south end could have issues with groundwater depth in proximity to basement elevation.
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: There are no basements in the development. Based on groundwater
information provided within the geotechnical report, estimated groundwater elevation
has been compared to the finished grade of the proposed development. Pond bottom
elevations have been set to be above at least 2’ above the expected groundwater
elevations.
Comment Number: 4
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
I'm unable to form any conclusions to gain an understanding of how the ultimate
cross section is accommodated on the plan. There isn't a cross section on the
cover sheet of the civil set, and the existing/proposed full width right-of-way of
College Avenue isn't being depicted on the plans to correspond with the cross
section. The sidewalk itself doesn't appear to correspond with the property
line/right-of-way, and the sidewalk itself isn't labeled for width, along with the
parkway based on the ultimate section.
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
8
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 US HWY 287 Future Road Section Plan has been added to the Utility
Plan. The plan shows the proposed improvements, included sidewalk placement, in
relation to the proposed edge of -right-of-way according to the US 287 EOS. Right-of-
way dedication is shown on the plat.
Comment Number: 5
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
The comment response indicated that EOS was considered outdated by CDOT
and would need to be revised. I reached out to Tim Bilobran with CDOT and he
indicated he would email the applicant confirming the 25 foot offset
requirement, with the input that the study may be considered old, but was still
relevant. The offset is still a requirement of CDOT and would need to be accommodated for in the design.
Response: Acknowledged – the plan as accommodated the 25’ shift along the property.
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: Comment noted. Please see response to Comment #4.
Comment Number: 6
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
Have we received a letter from Louden Irrigation for their OK in concept to the
plan? This is required prior to a hearing.
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: The engineer is coordinating with the ditch company directly and will provide
notice of preliminary acceptance from the ditch company, pending final utility plan.
Signature blocks are shown on the utility plans and plat.
Comment Number: 7
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING - UNRESOLVED:
The comment response indicated agreement to close these driveways however
the information isn't shown on the plans.
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.
9
Response: Removal and replacement of the curb cuts are called out on the Existing
Conditions/Demolition Plan and Site Plan, respectively.
Comment Number: 11
03/03/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
The submitted variance along with the confirmation info from Traffic that this will
be a stop control intersection, would support the granting of the submitted variance request.
Please provide a final signed and P.E. stamped request to complete the variance request.
Response: Comment Noted – Variance Request provided with this update.
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: Comment noted. Variance request will be updated, as necessary, to reflect
final utility plan approval and will be submitted to staff prior to final acceptance.
Comment Number: 12
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please note that radii on horizontal curves weren't provided in all cases.
Strasburg is missing this information, portions of Avondale, etc. The offsite
Avondale design shows a 425 foot radius when 600 foot is the minimum.
The construction of this road would set the alignment such that the Kroger parcel
would not technically meet street design standards to connect Avondale to
College in the future. Additional discussion, potential variance analysis, and
coordination with the offsite property owner should occur at this time.
Response: See updated comment #14 below regarding this matter
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
Street plans: please label radii on all horizontal curves.
Response: The 425 radius is selected to allow for a minimum 100’ tangent between the
curve and intersection with US 287. The 600 radius does not accommodate this.
Please notify engineer if a variance is required.
Comment Number: 14
03/04/2020: INFORMATION ONLY - UPDATED:
Updating this comment based upon recent correspondence I received from a
representative from Kroger. I've passed along a printed out email
correspondence with Kroger where they did not express an interest either way
in the development proposal. Based on this correspondence, we'll operate
under the presumption that this is the equivalent of a letter of intent and not an
objection to the site design proposal.
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
My original understanding in inheriting the project was that the development
would have needed to make the off-site connection of Avondale to Carpenter
Road, which would have had the applicant coordinating with the Kroger parcel.
Realizing that this connection isn't apparently required, I'm concerned that the
project isn't designing Avondale Road to be equally divided between the project
and the Kroger parcel. Additionally, the original proposal from the Kroger parcel
depicts Avondale split between its development and this parcel as linked below.
10
I've reached out to a Kroger representative for their input. https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?
cmd=convert&vid=185&docid=2099482&dt=REPORTS
The link below shows a letter of intent from this parcel that Kroger obtained
where both parties agreed to the Avondale being equally divided. https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?
cmd=convert&vid=185&docid=2100562&dt=LEGAL+DOCS
Note that input from Kroger will also mention the different alignment for Strasburg Drive.
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: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 18
03/03/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN - UPDATED:
The response indicated that relevant details are provided to built these to the
standard drive approach. The are depictions on the civil plans however that
imply that asphalt is still being constructed with right-of-way and these are being
built more like street intersections (see Long Vista Way and Maroon Vista Way
intersecting with Castle View Drive along with the parking lot directly north).
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: The approaches are revised to provide concrete to the back of walk.
Comment Number: 27
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
The plat has an approval certificate by PFA, is this specifically required by PFA
as this isn't typical on City plats.
Response: The PFA signature block has been removed from the plat.
Comment Number: 28
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
The plat has easement approval blocks for Qwest, Comcast, and Xcel, are they
receiving easements dedicated to them? The general utility easement
conveyed to the City does not require signatures from the franchised utility providers.
Response: Comment noted. These have been removed from the plat.
Comment Number: 29
03/03/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN:
The cross slopes for sidewalks intersecting streets should not exceed 2% for
ADA compliance. Realizing that at this time this level of detail isn't provided,
especially with only centerline stationing provided, this is more of a heads up
comment. The street centerline grades that are being established however do
exceed 2% in many if not most cases, and understanding how the design will
progress to attempt to adhere to no greater than 2% should be considered.
Response: Comment noted. Intersection Details will be provided at time of final plan to
demonstrate cross slopes are meeting accessibility requirements. Established
elevations will be required to “catch up” in grade as sidewalks continue longitudinally.
Comment Number: 30
03/04/2020: FOR HEARING:
As a follow up to the review meeting on 3/4/2020, please label the storm sewers
11
in the overall utility plan as either public or private to understand and hopefully
avoid any private lines in right-of-way (and obtain stormwater verification on this as well).
Response: The storm sewer configuration has been revised to address comments on
conflicts with private storm sewer within the rights-of-way. Private and public storm
sewer has been labeled on the Utility Plan.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
03/03/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN - UPDATED:
Please set up a meeting with City Signal and Engineering staff to review plans
and process for signalization. CDOT will also need to be involved.
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: The owner and development team met with City staff on April 9 to discuss
signalization and processes. A preliminary signal plan is provided with the Preliminary
Utility Plan. A refined signalization plan will be submitted for approval with Final Utility
Plan.
Comment Number: 5
03/03/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN - UNRESOLVED:
This comment will remain active until it is addressed.
12/03/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
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: Comment noted. We will provide a signage and striping plan at time of Final
Utility submittal.
Comment Number: 6
12/03/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
The DA will need to address specifics (timing, construction, funding etc) on the
signalization of College / Triangle
Response: Comment noted. In the April 9 meeting, discussions with staff indicated that
signalization may be tied to Certificates of Occupancy. We will continue to have
conversations with staff to work toward an agreement to be included with the DA.
Comment Number: 7
12/03/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
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: Comment noted. The owner and representatives will work with staff to
determine if and how contribution amount will be determined.
Comment Number: 11
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
There is a trail crossing across Triangle shown east of Strasburg Drive. That
12
crossing is shown in a drain pan, and without a ped curb ramp. It should be moved to the intersection.
Response: The trail connection has been relocated to the intersection.
Comment Number: 12
03/03/2020: FOR INFORMATION:
The general layout is much improved from the first submittal. Thank you for
addressing many of the comments.
Response: We will continue to coordinate with the reviewer for approval of the Final
Utility Plan
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9
03/02/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Additional design revisions are needed to accommodate all the private and
public storm sewer systems. The private storm sewers can not travel parallel in
the right-of-way and needs to be placed on private property. Also, utility separation criteria
needs to be met for the revised storm sewers with other utilities and landscaping trees.
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 sewer has been labeled as public or private, accordingly. Per
conversations with the reviewer, the storm sewer layout has been revised to eliminate
the private storm running parallel and within the R.O.W. Following the utility
coordination meeting, storm sewer alignments and other utility alignments have been
adjusted to provide required horizontal clearance.
Comment Number: 11
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Additional discussion is required regarding the ground water report. City Criteria states that the
bottom of a detention basin needs to be 2 feet above the ground water surface elevation.
This requirement could be varied if it is determined that the basin bottom will be designed for wetlands.
Coordination with Environmental Planning and Stormwater Utility is needed to
determine how the detention basins will be designed and landscaped.
Response: Based on groundwater information provided within the geotechnical report,
estimated groundwater elevation has been compared to the finished grade of the
proposed development. Pond bottom elevations have been set to be above at least 2’
above the modeled groundwater elevations. We will continue to coordinate with
Stormwater and Environmental staff, as needed, if ongoing monitoring of groundwater
dictates a need for wetland mitigation within pond bottoms.
Comment Number: 12
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
A storm sewer is shown on the Utility Plans going through a garage. Please revise.
Response: The storm sewer alignment has been revised.
Comment Number: 13
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
13
Please provide detailed grading for the bottoms of the detention basins.
Response: Spot elevations have been provided across pond bottoms.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/02/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Please show the electric running line along both sides of the public roads in the
parkway between the back of curb and the walk. Thank you for showing a
running line, but it is shown in the utility easement typically where gas and the water stops go.
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: The electric utility line is shown on the Utility Plan to reflect the reviewers
comments and feedback provided from the Utility Coordination meeting.
Comment Number: 3
03/02/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Will the clubhouse, apartment buildings or anything else on this site (for example
a pump) need 3-phase power? I know at this stage we will not have C-1 forms
or One-line diagrams but it will be very important to know this when coordinating
transformer locations and electric line location.
Response: Comment noted. It is not anticipated that 3-phase power will be required at
this time.
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. It is not anticipated that three phase power will be required
at this time.
Comment Number: 4
03/02/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN - UPDATED:
Electric meters are shown on the Elevations Plan but I could not find them on the
Site Plan or Utility Plan. Please show your anticipated electric meter locations
on the Site & Utility Plan so we can coordinate these locations.
Response: We will coordinate with Light & Power on placement of the utility meters for
Final Plan.
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
14
rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf
Response: We will coordinate with Light and Power on placement of the utility meters
for Final Plan. Utility meters (gas and electric) have been shown on the architectural
building elevations for reference. Townhomes will have individual meters (1 each gas
and electric) for each unit. Apartments will have individual electric meters and a single
house gas meter.
Comment Number: 5
03/02/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Keeping this one Active, as this site is very constrained and it looks like it will
be difficult to find locations for electric equipment and still maintain clearance
requirements from other utilities.
Response: Acknowledged
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, we will continue to coordinate with Light and Power for
placement of transformers and meters for Final Plan following feedback of the revised
utility alignment.
Comment Number: 6
03/02/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
The electric line, on the private drives, is shown in an easement under the
parking and asphalt. Where will we install transformers and equipment and still
be in an easement?? The electric line should go behind the curb in a utility
easement with enough room for gas and meter pits.
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: The electric utilities within private drives have been relocated within an
easement and behind parking/walks to allow for placement of transformers and
equipment.
Comment Number: 9
03/02/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Highly Recommend a utility coordination meeting to discuss utility conflicts. In
many areas the electric cannot meet the clearance requirements of the Water
and Storm Utilities. Especially on the private drives, but even on the public
drives there many areas where it will be problematic to install vaults, streetlights,
secondary boxes, etc.. and meet clearance requirements from water and sewer services.
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.
15
Coordinating transformers, vaults, secondary boxes, and streetlights early in the process will be needed.
Response: A utility coordination meeting was held on March 25. The utility plans have
been updated, accordingly.
Department: Parks
Contact: Aaron Wagner, , aawagner@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please see clouded area on plans. Please label ditch (known as Robert
Benson Lateral off of the North Louden Ditch) as a “privately-owned irrigation
ditch” and clearly show the ditch and its associated ditch easement on both
sides of the ditch on all plan sheets and other documents. Please also include
the following note on the plans and other documents: This irrigation ditch is
owned by the City of Fort Collins who use the ditch to convey irrigation water.
Approval from the irrigation ditch owner is required prior to any work on the
ditch or in its easement, as well as before any stormwater can be discharged,
or planned to be discharged into the ditch. Please contact Jill Wuertz
(970-416-2062), 413 S. Bryan Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 regarding the Parks' Department's interest.
Response: The ditch labeling and notes have been added the utility plan. There is an
existing +/-9’ drainage easement as documented in the project’s ALTA survey and
shown in the Robert Benson Lateral construction plans. We will continue to coordinate
with Parks and the owner of the North Louden Ditch for approvals on replacement of the
ditch and laterals.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING – UDPATED
Thank you for updating the Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter. Forestry
would like to further understand why specific trees cause a significant burden to
the project and cannot be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. It would be
additionally helpful to understand the ‘why’ behind grading needs and site
development. For example, if a tree must be removed due to grading or general
site development, please provide detailed reasoning such as:
- Grading is proposed in this area to direct stormwater flow to the southeast corner of the site.
OR
- A street like private drive is proposed to improve site circulation, therefore
four trees must be removed. They are not able to be transplanted due to their size.
Response – the tree removal letter has been updated to indicate the specific reasons to why each tree or
grove has been removed.
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
16
several significant stems and groups of trees and will provide a few examples of this letter.
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.
Comment Number: 6
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED
The applicant’s response was “noted” however no changes were made to the
landscape plan. Please include the City of Fort Collins Street Tree Permit Note
on all landscape sheets. Forestry is requesting this note to be shown on all
landscape sheets in order to emphasize importance.
Response – the note has been added to every landscape sheet.
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.
8/2/2019: FOR PDP
Please include the City of Fort Collins Street Tree Permit Note on all landscape sheets.
Comment Number: 7
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
Please review Forestry redlines which detail several conflicts between trees
and utilities as well as locations for additional street trees. Please provide
comment responses directly on the redlines that indicate how redlines were resolved or addressed.
Please note that trees must be located 10-ft from all mains and stormwater inlets and 6-ft from services.
Response – The trees have been updated and coordinated with Forestry, in cases where it is not possible
to provide street trees, ornamental trees have been placed 6 ft from mains as directed by Forestry.
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
17
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 street lights and stop signs. Please adjust tree locations to
provide proper tree separation:
• 40 ft between Canopy Shade Trees and street lights
• 15 ft between ornamental trees and street lights
• 40 ft between street trees and stop signs
Comment Number: 8
3/3/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL – UNRESOLVED
The applicant’s comment response was “noted” which does not give enough
information to the status of the initial comment. It doesn’t appear that stop signs
and street-light locations have been identified and shown on the landscape plan.
Please provide stop signs street-light locations and proper tree separation for the next round of review.
• 40-50-ft between street trees and stop signs
• 40 ft between Canopy Shade Trees and street lights
• 15 ft between ornamental trees and street lights
Response – The ROW street lights and stop signs will be placed by Civil during FDP, the street trees will
be adjusted accordingly to provide the correct separations.
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 street lights
• 15 ft between ornamental trees and street lights
Comment Number: 9
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
I apologize – my initial comment from 12/2/19 should have read please DO
NOT specify the following species in the right-of-way: Sensation Boxelder,
Plains Cottonwood, and Crimson Pointe Plum. I noticed Sensation Boxelder
were provided in the right-of-way. Please change these out for another suitable
species (for example: Hackberry, Elm, Oak, Linden...) as they require a high
level of maintenance to prune over sidewalks. The number of Crimson Pointe
Plum should be reduced to very few since they do not tend to live past 15 years
in Fort Collins. In lieu of Crimson Pointe Plum, please consider using Regal Prince Oak.
In previous comments, it was requested that State Street Maple ‘Morton’ be
switched out for Fall Fiesta or Green Mountain Sugar Maple, but this was not
done. The applicant’s response was “noted”. Please change State Street
Maples out for the above-mentioned Sugar Maple species prior to hearing.
Also noted in my comment from 12/2/19: 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. The applicant responded “noted” but changes
were not made to the plant list to remove Heritage Oak. Please correct prior to hearing.
The above species changes should be incorporated prior to hearing to ensure
18
that an adequate species palette is used on the final plans.
Response – The design team and Forestry have been coordinating extensively to ensure the appropriate
plant list has been provided for this project. The updated plans reflect the changes made and approved
street tree lists.
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.
- Please switch out State Street Maple for either ‘Green Mountain’ or ‘Fall Fiesta’ Sugar Maple.
- 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.
- Please switch out Peking Lilac Tree for Japanese Tree Lilac.
Response – The design team and Forestry have been coordinating extensively to ensure the appropriate
plant list has been provided for this project. The updated plans reflect the changes made and approved
street tree lists.
Comment Number: 10
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
This comment is carried over until further information is provided by CDOT
regarding their plan for College Avenue. In order to incorporate street trees,
ornamental trees will be allowed under overhead powerlines. What underground
utilities are thought to be in conflict with future trees?
Response – The design team is proposing ornamental trees in the ultimate build out of College Ave. There
has been coordination with Forestry to identify species, and extents of street trees.
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.
Comment Number: 11
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
City Forestry will provide existing street tree inventory and mitigation information
for the trees along Triangle Drive by first-round FDP the latest. Existing street
trees shall be surveyed and shown on the existing tree inventory and landscape
plans as to be protected and retained. Please include the inventory information
in the existing tree inventory and mitigation table.
Response – The design team and Forestry have been coordinating extensively to ensure the appropriate
inventory and mitigation information has been provided. There has been updated survey work to identify a
trunk limits of the dense growth within the groves, and street trees have been surveyed along Triangle. The
updated plans reflect the changes made and have been shared with Forestry for preliminary review.
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.
19
Comment Number: 12
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
Please label the four trees that do not appear to be included in the tree inventory
and mitigation table on sheet TR405 (Tree Protection Plan). Since they were
not inventoried and it looks like at least two of them are proposed to be
removed, please schedule a follow up site visit with City Forestry to collect their
information which should be included in the plan prior to hearing.
Response – The trees were missed during the walk – site photos will be provided as an exhibit, and will be
updated with Forestry’s mitigation requirements.
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.
Comment Number: 13
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for labeling mitigation trees on the plans. Please also include the
specific number of mitigation trees provided for each species in the plant list.
Response – The plans have been updated to show the specific number of mitigation trees provided.
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.
Comment Number: 14
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING – UNRESOLVED:
The applicant’s response was “noted”, however no changes were made to the
landscape plans. Match lines were not labeled and street names were not
provided on the landscape plans. Please provide prior to hearing.
Response – The plans have been updated to show the specific sheet number match lines.
12/2/2019: FOR HEARING:
Please label all match lines and street names on the landscape plans.
Comment Number: 15
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING – UPDATED:
Thank you for working with Forestry, Planning, and Environmental Planning to
preserve many of the trees and groves listed below. There appears to be
several groves (G9, G10, G11, G12, G13 and G14) that can be retained with
adjustments to grading, detention pond design, and slight building reconfiguration.
- Regardless of species, please explore retaining trees #23-33 and Grove 9
and incorporate them into the proposed detention design. Although Russian
Olive is considered an invasive species, they still provide environmental
20
benefits and should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible.
- Grove 10, 11, and 12 are also valuable to the site. The road layout and
grading plan should be looked at closely to preserve these trees.
- It is unclear how many trees/stems are proposed to be removed in Grove
13. Please schedule a follow-up site visit with City Forestry should be scheduled
to identify which trees are proposed to be removed. Updated mitigation requirements will be provided.
- It appears existing trees in Grove 14 can stay in place with slight building
reconfiguration. One unit and parking lot may be lost, and the grading may have
to change in order to retain this significant grove. These trees provide multiple
benefits: existing semi-mature canopy, a natural buffer between homes and the park to the north, etc.
- Redlines are provided on the Tree inventory Plan for more information.
Response – The design team and Forestry have been coordinating extensively to ensure the appropriate
inventory and mitigation information has been provided. There has been updated survey work to identify a
trunk limits of the dense growth within the groves. The updated plans reflect the changes made and have
been shared with Forestry for preliminary review.
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.
Comment Number: 16
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please provide surveyed locations or outline the total canopies of all trees in the
inventoried groves on the landscape plan, both those to remain and to be
removed. Currently the plans do not provide an accurate depiction of the
number of trees that exist on the site today.
Response - There has been updated survey work to identify a trunk limits of the dense growth within the
groves. The updated plans reflect the changes made and have been shared with Forestry for preliminary
review.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17.1
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING
Please include wildlife mitigation values in a separate and labeled column
within the tree inventory and mitigation table (which were initially provided by
Stephanie Blochowiak) on the Tree Protection Plan.
Response – The mitigation notes were provided on the plans – Environmental planning has indicated that
they will perform a site walk (after receiving this submittal) to determine the other mitigation items.
Department: Planning Services
21
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/03/2019 FOR 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.
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’.
Overhanging eaves should be provided on all buildings, with a minimum dimension of 16”.
Transom windows. Along the side walls of abutting dwellings, window
placement should be detailed, with transom windows considered for comfort and privacy.
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 - Duplex and single family dwellings (aka, cottages) have been updated with the suggested design
revisions and redrawn to more clearly depict the design intention. For site configuration, building placement, unit mix,
and access, please refer to the site plans. Material and color schedules have been added to the building elevation
sheets showing proposed color schemes as specified and portrayed in the project renderings.
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: The studio unit elevations show small decks (with no steps off) – where adjacent decks abut one another
– an ‘L’ shaped 6’ high privacy screen will be built to create more separation between the two deck areas. These
details are shown on the architecture elevation/plans for the duplex/cottages.
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.
Comment Number: 16
12/05/2019: FOR HEARING:
Likewise, several other tree groves [in addition to the northeastern belt of
cottonwoods] should be incorporated. For further consideration and discussion as needed.
Response – The site plan has been revised to protect additional existing trees. A parking lot, and 2 units
were removed to accommodate the trees.
Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, kkleer@fcgov.com
22
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
12/03/2019 FOR 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.
Response – The site plan has been revised to clearly identify the building model elevation types.
PLAN DRAWINGS. Label each unit’s model number to ensure model variety is
dispersed as required above.
Response – Unit plans and elevation sheets have been labeled. There are four plans proposed (1, 2, 4,
and 5). These plan numbers are now marked on the site plan.
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.
COLOR. The color pallet 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. – UNRESOLVED
Response – Material and color schedules have been added to the building elevation sheets showing
proposed color schemes as specified and portrayed in the project renderings. Building elevations are noted
with the proposed materials, sizes, and profiles.
Comment Number: 3
12/03/2019 FOR 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.
23
Response – building elevations are noted with the proposed materials, sizes, and profiles.
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.
Is the clubhouse/sales/management building a part of the plan?
Comment Number: 4
12/03/2019 FOR 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 – roof eaves have been modified and are now 16” overhang typical.
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 – Panel siding has been eliminated from these elevations.
ROOF PITCH. Increase to a 4:12 pitch.
Response – roof pitches have been modified and are now at least 4:12.
Comment Number: 5
12/03/2019 FOR 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.
Response – duplex and single family dwellings (aka, cottages) have been updated with the suggested
design revisions and redrawn to more clearly depict the design intention.
Note that the renderings show lap siding with no corner trim – is that intentional?
Response – corner trim is now depicted in the building elevations as intended.
Understanding that these are manufactured homes, are there additional options
for model variety? If so, please provide at time of next submittal.
Architectural details of bike enclosure, trash enclosure and fence.
Response – Details have been provided for the trash enclosure, bike shelter, and fence. These can be
found within the LS500 series of sheet set.
Comment Number: 6
12/03/2019 FOR 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 – The trash enclosure has been updated to match and compliment the architecture. The updated
details can be found within the LS500 series of sheet set.
24
Comment Number: 7
12/03/2019 FOR HEARING:
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS: Model variation in m-f buildings requires distinctly
different footprints with no two similar models next to each other. Could different
footprints be used to shine more sunshine into the central spine area?
Materials. Question: what is intended for ‘Adhered Masonry’?
Response – There are (3) different apartment building plans proposed for this site (a-24, a-42, and a-
48). Refer to site plans for building configurations on-site. The a-24 building is about half the length of
the others. The a-42 and the a-48, although both are approximately the same overall length, are two
unique and different buildings with different footprints; they are not exact. Building entries occur in
different locations, over framed architectural elements and bump outs are in different locations,
balconies and patios are in different locations, etc. Furthermore, the addition of side entries into these
buildings as requested at the time of our previous submittal has been treated differently between the
a-42 and a-48 buildings. The awnings, the side elevation roofs, and the materials and colors have all
been designed differently to distinguish these building types as independent of one another.
Based on the design of these unit plans and the efficiencies achieved by using the same unit plans
amongst all building types, the overall dimensions of the building are locked in. Widening the central
spine cannot be achieved because each unit type carries the same depth and therefore sets the
dimension of the overall building footprint. Unique elevation elements are achieved with over framed
elements, balconies, roof/parapet design, materials and colors. But these design strategies would not
affect the dimensions of the overall footprint nor open up the central spine. Due to site restraints,
building separation requirements, etc., the building locations are set and additional open space cannot
be achieved.
Adhered masonry, when referred to on the building elevations, is a thin manufactured stone veneer
product. The basis of design manufacturer, style, and color have been listed on the elevation sheets in
the exterior finish material schedule.
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.
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 (gas and electric) have been shown on the archtectural building elevations
for reference. Ground mounted air conditioner units are planned for the townhome buildings and will
be screened with landscaping as required. On the apartments, ptac (packaged terminal air
conditioner) wall units will be located for each unit below their windows. Aesthetically, these will be
integrated with the windows and surrounding trim to minimize or eliminate their visual impact.
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;
25
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)
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.
Response – The useable outdoor space has been updated for the duplex, and multi family spaces. A
pocket park has been provided at the northwest corner of the intersection of Strasburg, and Castle View. A
pavilion and gathering space has been provided with open lawn area exceeding the 10,000 square foot
requirement. In addition to the pocket park, there are multiple pathways and bench locations throughout the
development connecting to the regional trail.
Comment Number: 8
12/03/2019 FOR HEARING:
BUILDING PLACEMENT - depict setbacks on site plan. Please depict required
setbacks on the site plan. 3.5.2(E)
Response – Dimensions have been added to the site plans.
Comment Number: 9
12/03/2019 FOR 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)
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 – Additional tree plantings have been provided, meeting all tree planting requirements for
spacing, and separation from building and utilities.
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 – Foundation planting has been provided for all buildings, particularly along streets.
Comment Number: 10
12/03/2019 FOR FINAL PLAN:
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
26
15 gallons a square foot for the landscape. Please delineate hydrozones
according to this section. 3.2.1(E)(3)
Response – The hydrozone calculation can be found on LP100. The development is proposing
approximately 6.2 gallons per square foot.
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)
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 – Additional tree plantings and landscape planting has been provided along the parking lot
perimeter setback area.
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 – Landscape planting has been provided to screen parking lots.
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 – All parking lots meet the landscape island requirement.
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: A modification request has been submitted in response to not meeting the minimum of 10% for the interior
landscape requirement. We are currently at our minimum parking count for the apartment area and the interior
landscape is shown at 7.7% for the apartment area.
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 – Additional tree plantings and landscape planting has been provided along the garages, and
trash enclosures to the extent feasible due to multiple utility easements within the area between College
Ave. and the development.
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)
27
Response – The mitigation trees have been reallocated to include some evergreen trees along College
Ave.
Comment Number: 11
12/03/2019 FOR HEARING:
ACCESS, CIRCULATION & PARKING:
Sidewalks along Avondale. Extend to the southeast property boundary.
Curbcuts 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 was deemed to be satisfied by Kai via email.
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 – Benches, and dog waste stations have been provided within the development along the
pathway network. Bike racks have been provided near entries, and other major pedestrian network nodes.
There is a pocket park provided with grilling stations, seating, pavilion and open lawn at the intersection of
Strasburg and Castle View. Other community spaces have been provided throughout the development
which include grills, tables, benches and open lawn spaces.
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 – The bike shelter can be found within the LS500 sheet set.
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 – This has been coordinated with civil to provide markings for pedestrian crossings.
FOR HEARING and DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: There are several
instances where parking occurs on the rear side of buildings and there is no
rear entrance to the building - particularly along Avondale. This requires detailed consideration
28
related to other comments about reconciling building design and outdoor space. 3.2.2(F), 3.2.2(C)(5)
Response: This comment was discussed at the staff review meeting and was resolved – the plans will remain as is
with no rear door to the duplex units.
Comment Number: 12
12/03/2019 FOR FINAL PLAN:
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:
Comment Number: 13
12/03/2019 FOR 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 – Apartments and townhomes do not currently show any building mounted lights. Lights, once
specified, will comply with all requirements. All building mounted lighting shall be fully shielded, down
directional, and dark sky compliant. Typically, the site photometric plan will not include porch or patio lights
in their calculations as these fixtures are independently controlled by the residents and therefore cannot be
factored into the site design as it would be an inconsistent source.
Comment Number: 14
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.
Comment Number: 17
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING AND DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
MODEL VARIATION IN M-F BUILDINGS: standards require significantly different footprints with
no two similar models next to each other. Could different footprints be used to
shine more sunshine into the central spine area?
Response – There are (3) different apartment building plans proposed for this site (a-24, a-42, and a-
48). Refer to site plans for building configurations on-site. The a-24 building is about half the length of
the others. The a-42 and the a-48, although both are approximately the same overall length, are two
unique and different buildings with different footprints; they are not exact. Building entries occur in
different locations, over framed architectural elements and bump outs are in different locations,
balconies and patios are in different locations, etc. Furthermore, the addition of side entries into these
buildings as requested at the time of our previous submittal has been treated differently between the
a-42 and a-48 buildings. The awnings, the side elevation roofs, and the materials and colors have all
been designed differently to distinguish these building types as independent of one another.
Based on the design of these unit plans and the efficiencies achieved by using the same unit plans
amongst all building types, the overall dimensions of the building are locked in. Widening the central
spine cannot be achieved because each unit type carries the same depth and therefore sets the
dimension of the overall building footprint. Unique elevation elements are achieved with over framed
elements, balconies, roof/parapet design, materials and colors. But these design strategies would not
29
affect the dimensions of the overall footprint nor open up the central spine. Due to site restraints,
building separation requirements, etc., the building locations are set and additional open space cannot
be achieved.
Also, what is the concept for the multi-family building with zero trees along its
south side? It does look conceivable that small, narrow trees could be grown up
against the building to meet general requirements for tree plantings, but this is
one more factor to consider in adding a different model into this area.
Response – Trees have been provided along all building facades to the extent feasibly possible due to
utility separation requirements.
There is significant staff concern over how the 42- and 48-plexes vary the
footprint size, shape and building design. Staff finds the following will be needed
to better evaluate compliance with this standard.
42 & 48-PLEXES: These four buildings do not have significantly different
footprints. Differentiation must be provided by a creating unique architectural
elevations, entrance features, roof forms, massing proportions, and other
characteristics along with footprints.
As mentioned above in comment 7, although the footprints are similar in overall size, building entries occur
in different locations, over framed architectural elements and bump outs are in different locations, balconies
and patios are in different locations, the design of the side entries have been treated differently, and the
materials and colors have all been designed differently to distinguish these building types as independent
of one another.
A perspective rendering from College Avenue looking northwest towards the
Shenandoah Barn is needed; southwest. Also, a perspective renderings from
Strausburg looking south along the street showing the multi family buildings.
Response – Perspective renderings with select views of the apartment buildings have been
provided with this resubmittal and is intended to highlight the variety between building types.
3. Window and wall detailing that show how elements such as frames, sills and
lintels, and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and
establish human scale and proportion.
Response – finish materials, including accent trim and details, are noted in the elevations.
Comment Number: 18
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING:
Trash enclosure does not emulate the materials used in the multi-family building.
Please update design to be consistent with multi-family building materials.
Response – The trash enclosure has been updated to match and compliment the architecture. The updated
details can be found within the LS500 series of sheet set.
Comment Number: 19
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING:
Elevation E1-3 for the studio unit does not demonstrate 16" overhang as mentioned in the comment letter.
Response – Duplex and single family dwellings (aka, cottages) have been updated with the suggested
design revisions and redrawn to more clearly depict the design intention.
Comment Number: 20
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING:
For duplex and studio units, please provide details of what patio is proposed. It
30
is unclear from the plan elevations how this is addressed.
Response – for site configuration, building placement, unit mix, and access, please refer to the site
plans.
Comment Number: 21
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING and DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
Garage doors lining Longmont Street near the south edge: a modification of a
fundamental standard limiting garage doors to 50% of a building's frontage will probably be needed.
Response – detached garages, by the nature of their design, will have the majority of their door
side elevation consisting of the overhead door. The footprints of these garages have intentionally
been stepped back to limit the length of a continuous wall plane to three or fewer individual garage
bays, in addition to alternating the roof planes to break the massing and add visual interest to an
otherwise common building type.
Comment Number: 22
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING:
LANDSCAPE: South edge of multifamily parking: landscape screening
including trees are required. A fence could suffice for the screening function,
but trees are required. A Modification of those standards looks like it would be
difficult to justify.
Response – The landscape plan shows columnar and evergreen trees and a planting bed along the south
limits of the parking lot.
Comment Number: 23
03/03/2020 FOR FINAL PLAN:
discuss the privacy fence along the walkway next to the adjacent barn open space.
Response – Per correspondence from Historic Preservation, a 4 foot tall section of fence will be placed
adjacent to the barn. The other fencing will be 6 foot privacy fencing.
Comment Number: 24
03/03/2020 FOR FINAL PLAN:
LANDSCAPE: Show shrub plantings.
Response – The landscape plan will include shrubs, ornamental grasses, and perennials for final plan.
Comment Number: 25
03/03/2020 FOR FINAL PLAN:
LANDSCAPE: A detail spec for metal edging should be apoint of attention.
Staff has seen unfortunate examples of poorly installed metal edging becoming
a dominant negative feature that detracts from the architecture and landscaping.
Response – A detail will be provided for final plan.
Comment Number: 26
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING:
LANDSCAPE: The west side of the clubhouse and pool look like some trees
are warranted – perhaps small evergreens such as pinyon or rocky mt. juniper
along the pool, and a shade tre along the clubhouse.
Response – The ditch easement runs along the west side of the club house area, there cannot be any tree
plantings within the easement. The club house and pool area has been updated, refer to site and
landscape plans for the revised design.
Comment Number: 27
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING:
A cohesive planning set needs to be assembled for this project. Currently
information exists within several different documents and some communicate
31
different information than what is stated in the comment letter and narrative. One
PDF should exist and contain the following sheets:
• Cover Page
• Site Plan
• Architectural Plans for multi-family, single-family attached, single-family detached and duplexes.
Callouts of material types, patterns, colors, and finish textures.
Materials should reference a specific manufacturer and product.
Directly label and describe all three-dimensional accent elements such as cornices, pilasters,
eave overhangs, awnings, canopies, balconies, and other similar features.
Provide dimension and depth notations.
Plans shall describe the architectural character and indicate dimension changes in depth proposed
with material patterns and millwork, including dimensions of proposed pilasters, window
and door trim surrounds, accent trim materials, molding and other similar elements
Plans shall describe surface pattern treatments including material joinery details, reglets, reveals,
control joints and pattern sizes for all exterior wall surfaces
Window details are required. The architectural character of all proposed windows shall be
described including overall dimensions and a description indicating the window fenestration and
depth or projection from the surrounding wall plane.
Building elevation details – such as accent feature details, elevation enlargements, cross
sections, perspective details and construction diagrams – shall be provided as necessary to
convey material depth, massing, window placement, design of accent features such as cornices,
entrances and general architectural character features. If multiple details and diagrams are
provided, these items shall be grouped together and incorporated into the plan set.
Response – Exterior finish material legends and detailed building and material notes have been
provided on all building elevation sheets. Building plans with overall dimensions have been provided
for reference and show wall plane jogs as well as unit offsets from one to the next. Construction
details will be installed as required by manufacturer’s and standard construction practices. At this
stage of design, the general character and design intent is shown in plan and elevation and further
highlighted with the provided three dimensional views and renderings. Fine details and final design
decisions will continue to progress throughout the design and submittal process as required and
following the recommendations and comments received by staff.
• Floor Plans
• Landscape Plan
• Tree Mitigation Plan
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/03/2019: FOR HEARING:
The site plan indicates very close proximity between the existing historic barn
32
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.
Comment Number: 2
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Note that it is important to preserve views of the historic barn
within the development. The six-foot wood fence shown on the plans will impact
the visibility of this focal point. Please explore alternatives to mitigate this
problem. Otherwise, it will fail to satisfy land use code Section 3.4.7, Table 1:
"New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural
elements, such as windows or primary design features, of historic resources on
the development site, abutting or across a side alley."
Response – Per correspondence with John Beggs, a 4 foot tall section of fence will be placed adjacent to
the barn. The other fencing will be 6 foot privacy fencing.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 6
03/06/2020 FOR HEARING:
Parts of the trail easement are within the ditch easement. Please provide a
letter of intent that the ditch company agrees to allow this path to exist within their easement.
Response: We are coordinating with the ditch company on the realignment and will provide acceptance of the
alignment of the trail within the easement.
Comment Number: 7
03/06/2020 INFORMATION ONLY:
A 10’ trail width is suggested (8’ was shown in the Nov Plans) of Portland concrete (no color).
We typically pour to a 5” thickness. Within ROW it goes to 6” to match sidewalk standards.
Comment Number: 8
03/06/2020 INFORMATION ONLY:
Please look carefully at trail intersections with streets should not be offset – requiring a
trail user to travel on the roadway or sidewalk for a short distance is not desirable if it can be avoided.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
33
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING
SECONDARY ACCESS REQUIRED - Further details required to identify offsite
construction. The current submittal package appears to detail a dead-end
development with only one connection point (i.e. intersection of Strasburg and
Triangle Drives). My apologies if I missed this at the first round PDP review but
this condition does not meet minimum connectivity requirements. Site plan
approval will depend upon the creation of two alternative access connections
(eg. Avondale connection with College Ave; Avondale connection with Triangle
Drive). Supporting fire code language provided below:
Section D103 - MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS:
> D103.5.1 Second Point of Access Required. A second point of access shall
be required when the primary access roadway exceeds 660 feet (201 m) in length.
Exception: Where all dwelling units beyond 660 feet (201 m) are equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3.3, access from two directions shall not be required.
> D103.5.2 Third Point of Access Required. A third point of access will be
required when any access road exceeds a distance of 1320 feet (1/4 mile) (402
m) in length.
Exception: Where all dwelling units beyond 660 feet (201 m) are equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3.3, access from only two directions shall be required.
> D103.5.3 Fourth Point of Access Required. A fourth point of access will be
required when access road exceeds a distance of 2640 feet (1/2 mile) (804 m) in length.
Exception: Where all dwelling units beyond 660 feet (201 m) are equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3.3, access from only three directions shall be required.
> D103.5.4 Access location. Where two or more points of access are required,
they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum
overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line.
Response: Per e-mail correspondence – the access comment was resolved between John Beggs and Jim L.
Comment Number: 8
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING
FIRE LANE DEDICATION - LABELING INCONSISTENCIES
> Tract B: A blanket Emergency Access Easement (EAE) dedication is
indicated for Tract B on the Plat, but otherwise shown in other plans as limited
to the drive lanes in Tract B. Please correct the Plat accordingly.
> Tract J: Tract J is shown on Utility Plans as an EAE dedication but not on the
Plat. Tract J is not required to be dedicated as an EAE.
> Tract K & L: EAE dedication is appropriately indicated for Tracts K & L.
34
Response: EAE labeling inconsistencies have been corrected.
Comment Number: 9
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING
REQUIRED FIRE HYDRANTS - Please label all fire hydrants on Utility Plans.
> A fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of every M-F product. The northern
most building of the four large M-F buildings is out of compliance. Please add a
hydrant as indicated on redlines.
> Relocate two hydrants on Field View Dr as shown on redlines.
> There is an existing hydrant on the south side of Triangle Dr. in the middle of
the Strasburg DR ROW. Please indicate the disposition of it on the Utility Plans.
Response: Hydrant locations have been revised as suggested on the redlines. A new
hydrant has been added just to the north and west of the northernmost large multi-
family building. The existing hydrant at Triangle in Strasburg Drive is provided as a
blowoff for future connection. We are making a connection to this water main and will
remove the hydrant
Comment Number: 10
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING
SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY - Some alley loaded lots (eg. southwest corner)
do not provide direct sidewalk connectivity for emergency access to the front
doors of residences. Please revisit other alley loaded lots to ensure such
connectivity throughout the development.
Response – The site plan has been updated to provide access to the front of the buildings.
Comment Number: 11
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING
FIRE ONLY ACCESS CONNECTION - Please add details of fire access
connection from southern most M-F building to Strausburg Dr.
Response: The access connection from Strasburg Drive to the southern drive aisle of
the multi-family is labeled and called out on the Strasburg Drive plan and profile sheet.
The access will include rollover curb and gutter on both Strasburg Drive and at the edge
of the private drive aisle. The connection will be paved with heavy duty concrete.
Comment Number: 12
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING
ELEVATIONS - Please update elevations for all the three story, townhome
products to confirm buildings do not exceed 30' in height per IFC D105.
Response – Building heights have been reduced by lowering the plate heights at the lower and upper levels
in addition to reducing the roof truss heel heights and overall building heights. Refer to the provided wall
section diagram showing the typical building heights, floor-to-floor dimensions, and relationships between
average grade, finish floors, wall framing, roof trusses, and fascia/eave dimensions. Although there are
portions of the roofs that exceed the 30’ height limit, the proposed design revisions and lowering of the
overall building height brings the majority of the building roof eaves into compliance.
Comment Number: 13
03/03/2020: INFORMATION ONLY
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS - Confirming that townhome products may install
P2904, NFPA 13D or other approved sprinkler system.
> Apartment buildings (A-24, A-42, & A-48) will require full NFPA 13 sprinkler
systems unless otherwise approved by the building department. Buildings with
flat roofs and filled void spaces may possibly qualify for 13-R systems (TBD on
a case-by-case basis). Please contact the building department to discuss.
35
Response – townhomes are unsprinklered. Apartment buildings will provide an nfpa
13-r sprinkler system.
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. This applies to townhouses.
Response – Refer to the attached architectural site plan which includes charts showing the required and
proposed provided accessible units across each class of dwelling unit (apartments and townhomes).
Department: Environmental Services
Contact: Linda Hardin, , lhardin@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3
02/20/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
Final construction waste management plan and documentation for entire project
required before C.O. See prior comments/holds for additional needs prior to C.O./L.O.C.
Department: Larimer County Accessor
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...
Response: The typos have been corrected.
Comment Number: 2
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)
Ownership is given in case additional signature blocks need to be added.
Response: Comment noted.
Department: Fort Collins Loveland Water District
36
Contact: Nate Ensley, 970-226-3104 x113, nensley@fclwd.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please see attached Redlines
Response: The utility plan has been updated to address redlines.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
03/03/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP.
Response: Comment noted.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING-UPDATED:
Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree
with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not
made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter.
Response: Comment noted.
37
Examples of Wetland Mitigation in Detention Areas, Stormwater Areas in Fort Collins:
West Vine Outfall Project: City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Anderson Consulting Engineers
The West Vine Outfall Project is located in Fort Collins, Colorado extending from Vine Drive to the
Cache la Poudre River approximately 500-feet west of Shields St. on the south end and 1,200-feet west
of Shields on the north end. The purpose of the project is to provide flood mitigation and water quality
improvement for the West Vine Stormwater Basin. The project is the first phase in a system of
improvements identified in the West Vine Stormwater Master Plan. The project was jointly funded by
the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. The project included approximately 50,000 cubic yards of
excavation to create 3,300-feet of stream corridor and two water quality detention areas.
Construction of wetland mitigation sites was completed during late summer and early fall 2014. The
mitigation sites were excavated, topsoil was applied and the sites were seeded during this period.
Wetland mitigation sites were constructed within stormwater conveyance channels. WCI completed
wetland delineations, wetland mitigation oversite, wetland permitting and monitoring of post
construction wetland mitigation sites. WCI completed final permit closure with the ACOE 3 years after
construction of the mitigation sites.
Reconstruction of Larimer County Road 17 (North Shields Street) and Bridge Improvements at
the Cache la Poudre River Project: Larimer County, Anderson Consulting Engineers.
The Reconstruction of Larimer County Road 17 (North Shields Street) and Bridge Improvements at the
Cache la Poudre River Project is located in Fort Collins, Colorado. The project included widening
North Shields Street and completing improvements at the Shields Street Bridge crossing of the Cache la
Poudre River. The ACOE issued a Nationwide Permit No. 14 (ACOE file number NWO-2013-2505-
DEN) for the project in 2014.
Wetland mitigation for this project was completed within an outfall channel constructed for the West
Vine Outfall Project (ACOE File number NWO-2013-1571-DEN). Construction of wetland mitigation
site was completed during late summer and early fall 2014. The mitigation site was excavated, topsoil
was applied and the site was seeded during this period. WCI completed wetland delineations, wetland
mitigation oversite, wetland permitting and monitoring of post construction wetland mitigation sites.
WCI completed final permit closure with the ACOE 3 years after construction of the mitigation sites.
Canal Importation Ponds and Outfall Project: City of Fort Collins, Anderson Consulting
Engineers.
The Canal Importation Ponds and Outfall (CIPO) project is located in the City of Fort Collins. The
project included several components; however impacts to jurisdictional wetlands were limited to Red
Fox Meadows and Avery Park. Construction of the project was completed under an Individual Permit
(ACOE Permit Number NOW-2007-1453-DEN) with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). As
defined in the description of work associated with the Permit, the CIPO project impacted 2.03 acres
(1.94 acres filled in Red Fox Meadows and 0.09 acres temporarily disturbed in Avery Park) of
jurisdictional wetlands to solve flooding issues in well-established neighborhoods that were constructed
prior to stormwater detention requirements.
All wetland mitigation was completed in a large regional stormwater detention pond. Mitigation
construction activities in the Red Fox Meadows jurisdictional wetlands commenced in March 2008 and
were complete in 2009. Due to the high pre-project groundwater table in Red Fox Meadows, a temporary
dewatering system was installed to lower the groundwater table to facilitate excavation of the pond. This
temporary dewatering system was removed in early 2010, and shortly thereafter, the wetland mitigation
38
areas in the Red Fox Meadows pond were planted in June 2010. Construction activities to the
jurisdictional wetlands in Avery Park commenced in March 2009 and were complete in June 2009.
Wetland mitigation areas in Avery Park were also planted in June 2009, following the completion of major
construction activities. Monitoring Reports were submitted to the ACOE for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014
(Wildland Consultants, Inc. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2104). The 2015 Final Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring/Delineation was completed in September 2015 at the end/peak of the growing season using
the same monitoring points established during the initial monitoring efforts.
WCI completed all wetland monitoring, wetland monitoring reports, ACOE coordination, and final
permit closure for the CIPO projects.