Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP190003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPage 1 of 19 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview September 16, 2019 Stephanie Hansen Ripley Design Inc 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Sanctuary on the Green, PDP190003, Round Number 3 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan, at 970-221-6695 or tsullivan@fcgov.com . Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 08/27/2019: FOR HEARING: There are a number of areas where tree stocking requirements still appear to be an issue around the proposed buildings. In accordance with LUC 3.2.1(D): Tree Planting Standards. All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. Response: We have added full tree stocking in all possible areas. Vertical trellises are provided adjacent to highly visible driveways to provide additional plant material. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR HEARING: Along the south property line, south of Block One, parking is proposed along the property. A minimum 5’ parking setback is required per LUC 3.2.1(D)(4) - -Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping (in the minimum setback areas required by Section 3.2.2(J) (Access, Circulation and Parking) shall meet the following minimum standards: (a) Trees shall be Page 2 of 19 provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet along a public street and one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right-of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according to the following table: Along a lot line* Minimum Width of Setback at Any Point: 5 feet. *Setbacks along lot lines for vehicular use areas may be increased by the decision maker in order to enhance compatibility with the abutting use or to match the contextual relationship of adjacent or abutting vehicular use areas. Response: Parking stalls have been changed to parallel spaces Parking driveway width comments: Parking drive aisle widths: Portions of the project plan do not appear to meet the minimum driveway dimensional standards in LUC 3.2.2(L): When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. Staff sees this provision as not applicable. This applies where the face of the garage door abuts the drive aisle. Two-way drive aisle widths: 24 feet minimum. Applicable where head-in parking is provided. Response: The driveway has been widened. One-way drive aisle widths: 20 feet minimum, and where parking abuts the drive aisle and the parking stall are 17 feet in depth, the one-way drive aisle width must be increased to 22 feet. Applicable to the proposed parking in this area. Response: No one-way drive aisles are proposed. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR HEARING: Staff recommends that the amenity area south of Impala be moved to a location further away from residents on Impala Drive. 3.5.1(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Response: Amenity area has been removed Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: FOR HEARING: Along the ditch lateral, the footprint and paving placement is still very angular and forced in several locations along the habitat buffer. A more gradual transition is recommended by pulling developed areas further away from the ditch. Response: curvilinear landscape beds and native shrub plantings have been added to soften the transition. Additional trees have Page 3 of 19 been added to the area as well. Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 09/03/2019 08/28/2019: FOR HEARING: If phasing is proposed, please provide a phasing plan that demonstrates compliance with the following: LUC 4.5(D)(1)(c): The maximum density of any phase in a multiple-phase development plan shall be twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land, and the maximum density of any portion of a phase containing a grouping of two (2) or more multi-family structures shall be twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. Response: At this time, phasing is not proposed. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: Information Only: A portion of this property is located in the City regulated, 100-year West Vine floodplain and floodway. Any development within the floodplain must obtain a floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please show the revised floodplain/floodway boundaries on the floodplain exhibit along with the current regulatory boundaries. Per previous conversations with the applicant’s engineer, the revised floodplain modeling and mapping is available and should be utilized for the design of the development. Response: Please see the revised floodplain exhibit Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: For Hearing: The drainage report states that the applicant is planning to go through the CLOMR/LOMR process to remap the floodplain. Please note that the CLOMR would need to be completed prior to site grading and an approved LOMR is required prior to the release of any building permits for structures that would not meet the current regulatory requirements. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please provide information about how each of the structures will comply with the City’s floodplain regulations (elevation, floodproofing, removed with the CLOMR/LOMR, etc.). Residential uses must be elevated while non-residential uses can incorporate floodproofing to reach the Page 4 of 19 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Response: Please see the revised report Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Please show the proposed floodplain site improvements and CLOMR linework on the plans so that it is clear what portions of the site and buildings will be located outside of the floodplain. The modeling may be provided as a part of the floodplain submittal but the proposed linework must be included on the development plans. Response: Please see the revised floodplain exhibit Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: For Hearing: For any structures that will remain within the floodplain, please clearly call out the Base Flood Elevation, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (Base Flood Elevation + 18 inches), and Lowest Finished Floor Elevation along with any Floodproofing Elevations as planned. Residential structures must be elevated and cannot be floodproofed. Response: Please see the revised floodplain exhibit Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: For Hearing: If the project will continue moving forward in the planning process prior to CLOMR approval please add a note stating that the applicant is aware that the current plan does not meet regulatory requirements and is continuing through the planning process at the applicant’s own risk. Building permits for structures not meeting floodplain requirements based on the current regulatory floodplain may be held up if the LOMR is not finished and regulatory. Please add this note to the Site Plan Response: Please see revised plan Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment 03/04/2019: For Hearing: Add and label the floodplain/floodway boundaries on the site plan. The modeling may be provided with the floodplain submittal but the proposed linework must be included on the Site Plan. Response: Please see revised plan Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: Information Only: Any development within the floodplain boundary including, site work, structures, utilities, and landscaping must be preceded by an approved floodplain use permit and comply with the safety regulations of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code. The permit for can be obtained at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 08/27/2019: Repeat Comment Page 5 of 19 05/24/2019: FOR HEARING - Staff must be comfortable that the proposed design for the floodplain is reasonable prior to hearing. Please submit the preliminary floodplain modeling and mapping for review. Response: Please see the floodplain report now provided Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: FOR HEARING - New existing modeling is available for the engineer to utilize for their Corrected Effective model in the CLOMR. Please work with City staff to obtain and utilize this modeling. Response: We have obtained the latest draft, which was provided by City Staff on May 27, 2020, and have utilized this data Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: 03/04/2019: For Final: Please resubmit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Response: Will submit with final plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: 03/04/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. Response: Will submit with final plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: 03/04/2019: Development Agreement: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Response: Will submit with final plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: 03/04/2019: For Information: Significant thought should be taken into a project this large to break it up into phases as this much exposed soil at any one time will cause difficult control of erosion and fugitive dust. Response: Understood phases will detailed with final plans Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR HEARING - Water quality can be provided in Pond 1 as long as it is shown that the 100-year flows can still pass through without negatively Page 6 of 19 affecting any properties. Please provide an analysis documenting the proposed 100-year flow condition. Also, please provide an outlet works detail on how the water quality will be provided and how the 100-year flows will pass through. Response: Water quality is no longer proposed in Pond 1. In the 100-year event, flows will overflow the proposed wall which will serve to create detention within the future channel that Pond 1 exists within.100-year flows will rise and overflow the wall, and in doing so will bypass Pond 1. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/28/2019 08/28/2019: FOR HEARING - With the relocation of the LID StormTech chambers near the northeast corner of the site, sub-basins C-3 and C-4 no longer have water quality treatment. These sub-basins will need to have water quality treatment. Please revise. Response: Basins c-2, c-3 and c-4 are all being collected by inlets and flow into the storm tech chambers. A WQ weir will be placed in the connecting manhole and overflow from stormtech chambers will flow into detention pond Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 08/28/2019 08/28/2019: FOR HEARING - There are side slopes in the regional channel/Detention Pond 2 that are 3:1 slopes due to the close proximity of the northern building and the regional trail. These slopes need to be 4:1 maximum. Please revise. Response: Updated Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 08/27/2019: FOR FINAL - Please document the surface of the access road. Needs to support HS20 loading. 05/29/2019: BEFORE HEARING - FOLLOW UP - We see that access has been provided to the SSMH on the southeast corner of the site VIA a "ditch access road." Please add a utility easement for sanitary sewer access. Please document the surface type of the access road. Response: There is a blanket access easement for that tract. Material for access road added 03/04/2019: BEFORE HEARING - The existing 15-inch sewer main and any proposed sewer mains not located within a drivable surface need to have maintenance access provided per City requirements. Response: Sidewalks and ditch access road positioned to provide access to manholes Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/31/2019 08/27/2019: This was also proposed for a sewer line serving 2 buildings, which is not allowed. Please revise back to a 8-inch public main. 05/31/2019: Please revise the sanitary sewer public lines to private combo services where the main is serving just one building. Please see redlines. Response: Updated Page 7 of 19 Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/31/2019 08/27/2019: Reminder Comment 05/31/2019: FOR FINAL - Due to some of the shifting of the utilities, tree placement will be important to ensure proper spacing. Response: Understood Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: BEFORE HEARING - Updates to the site layout that had previously been discussed at two separate utility coordination meetings that would allow the ability to provide minimum utility separations still have not been reflected in the submitted plans. There has been significant work by Northern Engineering to try to accommodate the utilities within the space provided, which has led to less conflicts in the mainlines in the alleyways; however, there are still locations where conflicts exist and there is still a significant concern from Staff that the building spacing being proposed will not allow for the installations of the infrastructure needed by the dry utility companies without introducing conflicts during the construction phase. For instance, telecom, Fort Collins Connexion, Fort Collins L&P, and others will all need to place secondary boxes in order to serve the development. None of this infrastructure is shown on the plans and it does not appear that adequate space is being provided to accommodate this infrastructure. This site has currently been designed with the bare minimums for separation distances and has not accounted for all of the infrastructure that will be installed. Additional consideration will need to be placed on how all necessary utility infrastructure can be constructed while still maintaining the minimum separation distances. Response: Electric design has been provided from light and power and added to the plans. Separate fire services have been removed and will be provided through water services to required buildings. Per conversation with Connexion they should have little impact on spacing. Boxes will only need to be placed in ROW and services lines can be provided from public ROW. Communication can share the same trench as electric. From previous meetings we have removed units to improve spacing and we believe we have met the separation requirements. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: Due to some of the shifting of buildings that may occur, additional water and sewer comments may apply with any site layout changes. Response: understood Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Light and Power has facilities on the west side of Taft Hill and on the south side of Laporte. We would need to loop electric facilities through the site. The project would be responsible for obtaining a ditch crossing agreement from the Mercer ditch. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 Page 8 of 19 03/05/2019: FOR FINAL: Multi-family buildings are treated as commercial services; therefore a(C 1) form must be filled out and submitted to Light & Power Engineering. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the developer and their electrical consultant or contractor. Response: will be provided for final Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility plans. Response: electric layout provided by light and power Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Response: Street light poles are shown and tree spacing has been met Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Transformer locations shall be within 10' of a paved surface and must have a minimum of an 8' clearance from the front side and a 3' clearance around the sides and rear. (1000 kVA up to 2500 kVA requires 4' around the sides and rear.) Response: electric layout provided from light and power Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: INFORMATION: Things are certainly looking better than your last few submittals, but I still fear that we will run out of room in the northeast portion of the site. What is on the plans seems to meet the separation requirements with a few solvable exceptions, but I do not believe there is enough room leftover in the utility easement for the communication companies. There will be up to three communication companies seeking to install their facilities within the utility easement, and I fear that it may be a tight fit for one company to install their equipment. Page 9 of 19 Response: electric layout provided from light and power Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: BEFORE HEARING: We do not wish to install our vaults at the back of a utility easement. Our standard installation would result in our vaults being located in the parkway in between the sidewalk and the road. Response: electric layout provided from light and power Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: BEFORE HEARING: The proposed gas and electric route at the corner of your property abutting 2318 LaPorte Ave is not an acceptable solution for Light and Power. It does not meet the three-foot separation requirement for our utility. Response: electric layout provided from light and power Department: Outside Agencies Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: FOR APPROVAL: From Xcel Energy: We would like to see all utilities represented in the plans, including communications, in order to us to determine our services can be installed within all of the utility separation requirements. Gas is typically the last utility to be installed and we need assurance our facility can be installed safely without causing issues with all utilities installed before us. We currently do not have that assurance. In general, we continue to experience utility separation conflicts based on the separation requirements of both Xcel and the City of Fort Collins. Xcel requires a minimum of one-foot horizontal and one-foot vertical separations from any other utility (including communications). However, other utilities require six feet, three feet, etc. of separation from their utility, and in an eight-foot easement there is not room for gas to be installed and meet any separation requirements. Response: More detailed plan shown with Gas layout. Communications will be installed in same trench as electric Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, , ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/24/2019 05/24/2019: FOR INFORMATION: Thank you for the additional detail on the Landscape Plan. The design and quantity of material is compatible with the character of the NHBZ. There are additional mitigation trees/shrubs required for the tree removal on LaPorte. 4 trees and 12 shrubs will be required for mitigation. Please place them in the NHBZ. If mitigation cannot be achieved let the Environmental Planner know to work out a different method. Response: Trees and shrubs have been added within the NHBZ and marked with an “M” for mitigation (trees and shrubs have been Page 10 of 19 added east of ditch south of the club house amenity area). A table has been added to the tree mitigation plan showing the additional trees and shrubs that have been added for mitigation and showing the total mitigation numbers. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: To meet the performance standards of the reduced buffer around the wetland on Laporte, please include enhanced and restoration plantings, and weed mitigation for the wetland. Response: The unit encroaching upon the wetland buffer has been removed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR INFORMATION: With the bridge and pedestrian crossings of New Mercer Ditch, City staff requires a copy of written proof of compliance statement from the ACOE prior to issuance of DCP. Response: Understood Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Turf intersects a rain garden on sheet L-40, just west of the community center. Either the rain garden needs to move or the turf area needs adjusting. Please double check the NHBZ boundary so that it makes sense in this area. Response: landscape plan has been adjusted to avoid Turf and rain garden conflict. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please ensure the plantings within the NHBZ are native. Response: Native trees and shrubs have been added within the NHBZ. A few small or individual trees may need to be discussed at a future date. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please remove trees that are placed on the New Mercer Ditch rider's road. Response: Trees have been removed form the New Mercer Ditch rider’s road. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please remove all walks that run parallel to and east of the New Mercer Ditch. The combination of the ditch road and walk is too much development within the NHBZ. Response: The sidewalk leading from the local street to the south has been shortened. The NHBZ boundary leading north was adjusted to remove the sidewalk. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The transition area between the New Mercer and Block 4 still does not adequately provide enough space for buffering a 3-story building, and the site plan is not sympathetic to the NHBZ. Please refine the edge so that a softer transition is accomplished. Response: Curvilinear plant beds have been added to soften the transition. Additionally, building number 7 steps down to two story on the west side. Page 11 of 19 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The modification request for 3.4.1 is not for that LUC section. Please resubmit. Response: Please see updated modification. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please ensure the NHBZ boundary is clearly identified and labeled on the utility plans. Response: Response: NHBZ boundary added to utility plans and labeled Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: To the extent feasible, please remove drain pans and use natural swales, especially in NHBZs. Response: Response: We tried to limit drain pans in NHBZ areas as much as possible. Due to the overall flat slope of the site we are unable get the necessary slope for natural swales in several areas. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please ensure there is no conflict between the Rain Garden B2 on sheet C2.01 and screen plantings at the multi-family parking lot. Also ensure that plantings are tall enough to screen headlights, particularly when planted on a 4:1 slope. Response: Plants selected will reach appropriate height to screen headlights (LU Code 30” height). Plants selected will reach between 3’ and 8’. See planting schedule with heights included on sheet L-34 (landscape enlargement of the rain garden). Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: Prior to hearing, please provide documentation of coordination with the ditch company to determine whether any easements or restrictions apply for the ditch, and whether the ditch road can be used as a soft surface trail. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please delineate and label the edge of wetlands on all relevant site, landscape and utility plans. Response: Wetlands have been labeled on all landscape enlargement plans, overall landscape plan, and tree mitigation plans. Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, , nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR HEARING Are there any additional tree removals required for the temporary asphalt walkway that is proposed west of Briarwood? Based on the proximity of some of the Siberian elms and cottonwood trees, an eight-feet-wide walk would likely have impacts on adjacent trees. Please indicate that existing trees will be retained and/or update plans to show any additional removals along with their mitigation. Forestry is happy to meet on site for additional inventory, if needed. Page 12 of 19 Response: No trees west of Briarwood along LaPorte are to be removed. Please see the connection to LaPorte plan, tree mitigation plan, and site plan for additional details. We have added labels “existing tree to remain” to all trees along temporary path. The temporary path is located on the gravel shoulder of LaPorte. We have also added adjustments to the path to narrow around trees. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FINAL There are various tree/utility separation conflicts. See redlines for examples (L24) and adjust accordingly. Sewer and water lines should be approximately 10’ from shade trees. Response: Understood. Tree utility conflicts have been reviewed and adjusted accordingly. Sewer and water lines are now approximately 10’ from shade trees. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FINAL There are street trees proposed close to alley intersections that may be in the site triangle. Please consult with traffic operations and shift tree locations (see redlines). Response: Trees indicated to be within site triangles have been adjusted. Will update trees in problematic areas as arise. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR FINAL Please remove both Acer freemanii (autumn blaze maple) and Acer rubrum (red maple) from the proposed tree list. Red maples and their hybrids are poorly suited to our soil; they typically experience severe chlorosis and ultimately have relatively short life spans in the front range. Please substitute both with a more suitable species. Response: Both Acer freemanii and Acer rubrum have been removed from the landscape plan and replaced with a more suitable tree species. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR FINAL There are multiple formatting errors with the Tree Diversity table. Please fix the following: -The existing trees list should be separate from the proposed Tree Diversity table. The diversity requirements pertain to the proposed development plan. Tree diversity standards have been met (as shown) for proposed trees. -Please recalculate tree diversity percentages accordingly. -Ginkgo biloba is listed under both canopy and ornamental trees. It can typically reach a height of 70-80 feet and is considered a shade tree. -Bur oak is listed twice. Please fix spelling. -The common name for Quercus buckleyi is Texas red oak or Buckley’s oak. -Please either left align or center all names. Response: Tree diversity table has been updated with the comments posted above. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: FOR FINAL Please add the abbreviations for trees shown on the plans to the corresponding trees on the plant schedule. Page 13 of 19 Response: Abbreviations have been added to the planting schedule Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 8/26/2019: FOR FINAL There are a few spots where it’s not clear whether the proposed trees will have irrigation (please see redlines). Response: All trees will be irrigated. The landscape medium (turf, mulch…) in areas under concern will be selected by the homeowner but irrigation lines will be run to the trees on the private properties. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 8/26/2019: FOR FINAL Please see redlines for examples for where proposed trees do not meet stormwater separation requirements. Response: Redlines have been noted. Trees have been moved to the appropriate separation distance for stormwater utilities. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 08/27/2019 08/27/2019: FOR HEARING The trees along North Taft Hill Rd are shown to be retained on the mitigation plan. What impacts are anticipated with the addition of the parkway and sidewalk, including grading changes? Given the condition of the trees, it may be difficult to retain these trees with the proposed right-of-way improvements. Please update the tree mitigation plan to reflect any additional removals necessary along Taft. Response: Trees along North Taft Hill Rd are planned to be retained. We have added additional notes to the landscape plan as well as the tree mitigation plan. We understand that given the conditions the trees may be hard to retain. If the trees fail during the construction process, we will plant street trees per city code. Additionally, there are overlapping existing and proposed trees. Please update the landscape plan accordingly. Response: Overlapping trees have been updated. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/08/2019 08/23/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Redlines have been provided for reference. 03/08/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Please refer to Engineering redlines on the Plat, Site Plan and Utility Plans for additional comments. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/23/2019 08/23/2019: INFORMATION ONLY It will be the responsibility of the applicant to confirm that all utility providers are okay with this gap in the utility easement. If Xcel, Comcast, City of Ft. Collins Connexion, L&P, etc. are okay with it, then Engineering is too. Response: Electric has provided their own design. Electric and communications can be provided from the north. Xcel has plenty of Page 14 of 19 room to go around gap in easement. 05/23/2019: FOR APPROVAL There is a gap in the utility easement for the Tract E. The linework for this area will need to be adjusted or the owner will need to obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner to ensure continuity of the easement. As mentioned in the staff review meeting, we can discuss further at the upcoming utility coordination meeting. The most critical utilities affected would likely be gas and maybe cable/internet. Response: We believe this gap does not affect any utilities. Electric and cable can be provided from the other side of the road and gas can be deflected around and still meet spacing requirements. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/23/2019 08/23/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please dedicate the typical 15 foot utility easement along all Laporte Ave. frontage. Response: Added utility easement Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR FINAL: We'll need to work with you on final signing and striping plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/20/2019 08/20/2019: FOR HEARING: Due to staff out of the office, final review of this submittal will be completed the first week in September. It appears that all critical items for Hearing have been addressed. Remaining items can be dealt with at final. If everyone else is ready for hearing, we can be too. Response: Thanks Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2019 08/26/2019: A bike/ped connection should be made along the northeast side of the New Mercer Ditch between the proposed bridge and the sidewalk network in Block 6. This allows residents to quickly ride or walk to the neighborhood school to the northwest. Response: Environmental planning has requested minimizing trails on the east side of the ditch where the ditch rider road exists. We anticipate residents using the ditch road. Department: Park Planning Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 15 of 19 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY The 2006 Northwest Subarea Plan, Chapter 4, presents conceptual alignments for Multi-Purpose (Regional) Trails and also "Local Area Connections". The plan discusses the proposed Soldier Creek restoration project and associated trail connections. The plan indicates that a public-private partnership is anticipated to construct the entire Soldier Creek trail. The Poudre Trail connection to Lincoln Middle School is designated a multipurpose (regional) trail both in the NW Subarea Plan and the 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan. Park Planning & Development plans to construct this almost 1-mile paved trail segment in summer 2019. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY The Project Development Plan Sheet L2 of 22 "Walkway Classifications" indicates approximately 900 LF labeled "Soldier Creek Trail Extension" at 6' wide connecting the existing 6' paved trail on the property to the north to the local street network of sidewalks and bike lanes within the project. This trail extension appears to provide excellent connectivity between and through the project and surrounding neighborhoods. As such, it coincides with the definition of a "Local Neighborhood Connection" for the Soldier Creek Trail identified in the NW Subarea Plan. Park Planning & Development funds are not available for this segment of neighborhood trail. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY The City Parks Department does not maintain the 6' trail located on the property to the north which is owned and maintained by the Fort Collins Stormwater Utility. Parks equipment is not appropriate for maintaining trail widths less than 8'. The Parks Department does not have access, or resources, to provide maintenance for the neighborhood Soldier Creek Trail Extension. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Constructing additional segments of the proposed Soldier Creek Trail connection between Lincoln Middle School and potentially Poudre High would be an important asset to the project and surrounding neighborhoods. Constructing the paved trail connection as shown on Sheet L2 of 22 as the "Soldier Creek Trail Extension" should occur along with the site development. Park Planning & Development does not have funding to contribute to the construction of this neighborhood trail segment, however, will assist in trail design and especially in maintaining ADA design standards. Department: Internal Services Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, jnagel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 05/28/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please evaluate replacing the bollards Page 16 of 19 with angle iron, curbing, metal framing or other method to protect the rear trash and recycling enclosure walls so the dumpsters may be slid farther back allowing for a more comfortable pedestrian access in front of them. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/29/2019 05/29/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: Please make sure all pedestrian entrances on all trash and recycling enclosures have sidewalk connections. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/28/2019 08/28/2019: BY HEARING: The location of the trash and recycling enclosure for the clubhouse is not conducive to efficient servicing and will require additional reverse operations. Consider placing the enclosure closer to the turn around so dumpsters can be wheeled to it for servicing and not requiring any reverse operations. Response: The trash enclosure has been removed. Bins will be sufficient. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/28/2019 08/28/2019: BY HEARING: Consider removing the trash and recycling enclosure between building 1 and 2 and using larger 4 cubic yard containers (very similar foot print to 3 cubic yard containers) in the two near by enclosures. This will eliminate one point of reverse operations and still provide enclosures within reasonable distance to each unit. Additionally 4 cubic yard dumpsters should be considered in all other enclosures as it will reduce service frequency, chance of overflowing and likely save money due to the reduced pickups. Response: The trash enclosure has been removed. All dumpsters have been changed to 4 cubic yards by increasing their depth and height. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 08/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL >The Emergency Access from Impala Dr is noted on the overall site plan. Please note that this should be either shown on the Plat or dedicated by separate legal document. Response: Added note about separate document >The EAE shown as Tract P is shown as 190ft in length. Any fire lane that is greater than 150ft in length requires an approved turnaround. PFA requests that a hammerhead turnaround is provided between SFA Buildings 3 and 4. >The project team will provide this at next submission for approval. Response: Hammerhead has been added >Due to neighbor concerns, the alley providing access to the very west residences may need to be redesigned which will be defined in an off-line meeting or next submission. 05/28/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL >The Fire Access to Impala Drive shall be shown on the Plat as an Emergency Access Easement or dedicated by separate legal document Response: Added note about separate document Page 17 of 19 >Please extend the walkway from Tract B to connect with Tract A Response: The walkways do extend all the way to Tract A >PFA may require Alley access verification by Autoturn when the design has been finalized. >The project team confirmed at the staff review meeting, 5-29-2019, that the Alley shown as Tract T will be designed to support 40T across the entire 26ft width. 03/06/2019: >The project team stated that the alleys will be 26ft where required for the residences over 30ft in height. >Tract T in the north-east area will change layout including two possible gates the design of which will be discussed further. >The project team will verify the height to the eaves of the two-story Farmhouse Units 02/28/2019: FOR APPROVAL GENERAL ACCESS >It is noted in the provided documents that the project will be built as one phase. Please note that approved access will be required before the any vertical build takes place. Please coordinate with PFA. 02/27/2019: ACCESS >The Alleys notated on the Site Plan dated 2-13-2019 enable the required perimeter access to each residence. >However, any Alley that is required to enable Aerial apparatus access shall be 26 feet wide. The Alleys shown in the northeast section of the project adjacent to the 3-story residences are shown as 20 feet wide and are therefore out of compliance. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 05/28/2019: >The project team states that 13R sprinkler systems will be used for the Multi-family Units. Response: Note added to plans 02/27/2019: FOR APPROVAL RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM >The single-family detached units will not require sprinkler systems >The Duplexes and single family attached will require a sprinkler system and fire separation approved by the Building Department. >The Multi-family units will require NFPA 13 sprinkler systems approved by PFA. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. >The Clubhouse will require a sprinkler system or an approved method of fire containment if it is greater than 5,000 square feet. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 08/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL An overall addressing and wayfinding plan will be required for FDP approval by Page 18 of 19 PFA. Response: Understood 02/27/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING To assist with prompt emergency response the address shall be clearly visible from the street in no less than 8" numerals on a contrasting background. Wayfinding signage will be provided to indicate the most appropriate access to each unit. An overall addressing and wayfinding plan will be required for FDP approval by PFA. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/28/2019 08/28/2019: CLUBHOUSE UPDATE >The project team confirmed that the clubhouse is 2980 sqft therefore no fire line will be required as stated in the narrative. >The loop access close to the east of the clubhouse will be built to fire lane standards to provide the 150ft fire access to all points of the structure. 08/13/2019: Please confirm the size of the Clubhouse. It is stated in the narrative that a fire line has been planned. However, the Clubhouse is shown at 2890sqft which does not require a sprinkler system. 05/29/2019: The project team will re-design the circle drive or adjoining maintenance access to achieve compliance for perimeter access. 05/28/2019: FOR FDP APPROVAL CLUBHOUSE The Clubhouse is approximately 50ft out of compliance for perimeter access therefore, the driveway should be extended to achieve this access or the Clubhouse located closer to the circle. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 08/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY-UPDATED: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: See redlines for responses 05/24/2019: INFORMATION ONLY-UPDATED: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 03/05/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Page 19 of 19 Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 08/26/2019: FOR APPROVAL-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: See redlines for responses 05/24/2019: FOR APPROVAL-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. 03/05/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter.