Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOMESTEAD AT CLARENDON HILLS - PDP190007 - 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 13, 2020 Kristin Turner TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Homestead at Clarendon Hills, PDP190007, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Homestead at Clarendon Hills. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at 970-224-6119 or via email at tbeane@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/25/2019 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Fort Collins Storm Criteria requires that the development obtain approval from ditch owners for any alteration of existing flow patterns into the irrigation ditch (Ch. 9, section 6.0 FCSCM). For this project, some developed areas are draining into the Smith Lateral - this will require the approval of the ditch owners - even though the development will be decreasing flows into the ditch. Please feel free to discuss this requirement with us offline. RESPONSE: The ditch owners are aware that they will be required to sign the plat, either individually or as an HOA. The City of Fort Collins and the Front Range Community College will also sign. We are in touch with the respective legal representatives and they are awaiting the final review documents so we can complete this approval. For Preliminary: A signed Letter of Intent from the ditch owners needs to be obtained before Hearing. 2 RESPONSE: City legal staff has indicated that we can proceed to Final Plat at which time such document will contain the final signature of all parties. The ditch owners want a final document, not the preliminary, for review. They will receive the Preliminary package at the same time as the City. For Final: A signed and executed agreement will need to be submitted. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Agreement would be indicated by execution of the plat with appropriate easements 04/25/2019: BY HEARING: Existing Irrigation Ditch: An agreement with the irrigation ditch company will be required for piping and relocation of the existing irrigation ditch. The proposed detention outlet to the existing irrigation system will require a discharge agreement with the ditch company. RESPONSE: We are no longer proposing to discharge the detention pond into the irrigation ditch. For Preliminary: A signed Letter of Intent from the ditch company needs to be obtained before approval to proceed to the Hearing. RESPONSE:City legal staff has indicated that final signatures on the plat would take the place of a letter or intent or Agreement. For Final: A signed and executed agreement will need to be submitted before the FCU will sign the plans. RESPONSE:The intent is to deliver a fully executed plat with the signatures of all ditch owners or their HOA, if applicable. The ditch owner's attorney is undertaking this analysis as to who may bind the ditch owners. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: A stage-storage table of the proposed pond needs to be provided before Hearing. This is to confirm the pond footprint is sufficient. RESPONSE: A stage-storage curve is included in the drainage memo. 04/26/2019: BY HEARING: Proposed Detention Pond: Please provide the proposed stage-storage tabulation and 100-year WSEL. RESPONSE: A stage storage curve is included in the drainage memo. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING Please clarify the existing condition release rate from the site - in the appendix, I see 1.7-cfs in the existing flows table, however the report body states 1.9-cfs. Please provide a tabulation showing allowed site discharge, free releases, and required pond release rate. RESPONSE: Per the Clarendon Hills 1st Filing Drainage Report "The ponds were designed using a mass diagram that required 10.46 acre feet to detain the 100-year developed storm and release at a 2-year historic rate...." Basin EX B is that portion of the site that drains towards the 3 Clarendon Hills Detention Ponds and inot the Fossil Creek Drainage Basin, and the existing 100-year storm for Basin EX B is 1.9 cfs. The other three basins, EX A, EX OS1 and EX OS 2 drains into the Mail Creek Drainage Basin. 04/26/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: As a reminder, 100-yr developed flows will need to be detained at or below historic 2-yr flow rates for the Mail Creek Basin. For the Fossil Creek basin these 2-yr historic rates are specified as 0.2 cfs/ acre. RESPONSE: The proposed flow rates into Mail Creek Basin are less than the 2-yr historic flow rates. The flow rates into the Fossil Creek Basin are per the assumptions in the Clarendon Hills 1st Filing Drainage Report. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Please provide rain garden sizing calcs and confirmation that rain garden footprint is sufficient. RESPONSE: Water quality and rain garden stage storage curves are included. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Please try to drain as much of the developed site away from the Smith Lateral ditch as possible. Can the grading for house envelopes on lots 1, 6, and 8 be adjusted so that the grading brings the rooftop flows to Clarendon Hills Drive or Langdale Drive? Note: Fort Collins allows sideyard swales to be 1% slope. RESPONSE: We are able to increase the amount of Lots 1 and 6 to drain south. However, the existing grades along the east property line limits how much of Lot 8 can be graded south, and the available footprint for the detention pond limits how much of Lots 1 to 8 can drain south. Even with the rear lawns draining into the Mail Creek Basin, the developed flow rates are less than the existing flow rates. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR INFORMATION: Vegetated Buffer LID - Typically we require formal vegetated buffers to be uniformly graded and have "engineered" soil amendments. In this case, there is very little impervious area draining through the proposed veg. buffer and we will allow this as proposed. Note, there may be some minor adjustments requested in Final Plan. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Please show pond spillway location on the plans. Note, a spillway on a 4:1 slope will require scour protection. RESPONSE: Spillway is included on the plans. Scour protection will be required. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Detention pond landscaping and grading - As shown, the detention pond grading plan does not meet the Detention Pond Landscape Guidelines – these 4 require the pond grading and shape to vary and articulate. However, it is recognized that providing articulating grading and shape for small detention facilities may be very difficult. In light of that, robust landscaping will be needed around the detention pond to mitigate the slopes and lack of naturalistic shaping of these areas. Please feel free to let us know if you would like to discuss this further. RESPONSE: The site is extremely tight and difficult to provide articulating grading within the detention pond. Comments from other City Departments regarding the access driveway negatively impacts the available space for the detention pond. To comply with City of Fort Collins stormwater criteria, linear retaining walls are necessary in the detention pond. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Is there a way to get the flow from Lot 8 into the onsite water quality and detention? RESPONSE: No. The grading of Lot 8 is limited by the existing grades long Langdale Drive, the east property line, and the elevation of the existing ditch. The existing grades for Lot 8 falls to the north. To rectify this situation requires extensive grading between the north lot line of Lot 8 and the existing ditch. The developer is trying to preserve as much of this area in its natural state to comply with ditch owner requests and comments from other City Departments. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: See drainage report redlines RESPONSE: Drainage report is updated per the redlines. Response to comments are included in the drainage report. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: See Utility Plan redlines. RESPONSE: The utility plans are updated per the redlines. Any responses are included within the redlines. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR HEARING: The proposed detention pond, rain garden LID, and vegetated buffer LID need to be in dedicated drainage easements. The pond easement will need to extend to the toe-of-slope of the embankment. We will allow a utility easement, for the existing sanitary sewer, to cross through the detention pond (but not through the rain garden.) RESPONSE: All of Tract B, as noted on the plat, will be in a drainage easement. Specific easements in Tract B for emergency access and utilities are included on the plat. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 5 03/09/2020: FOR INFORMATION The project site is located in the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Please contact them for requirements on this proposed development plan. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Erosion Control Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-222-1801, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/05/2020 03/05/2020: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: ESC materials will be expected at FDP. RESPONSE: Erosion control materials will be provided during final plan. 04/30/2019: Development Agreement: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. RESPONSE: An erosion control escrow will be provided during final plan. Department: Parks Contact: Aaron Wagner, aawagner@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR Hearing Please label this ditch (known as the “Smith Lateral”) as a “privately-owned irrigation ditch” and clearly show the ditch and a 20 foot 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 numerous individual owners as well as the City of Fort Collins (through the Parks Department) who use the ditch to convey irrigation water. Approval from the irrigation ditch owners 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: Irrigation ditch is label as privately owned and note added to utility plans. A 20’ access easement from the top of ditch is provided to the south and extended north to the property line. The width of the access easement on the north side varies due to the proximity of the property line to the top of the ditch. This statement has also been added site/landscape set – see Site Plan Notes #19. **See ditch user comments in attached separate document. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Morgan Stroud, 970-416-4344, mstroud@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 6 03/09/2020: For Hearing: The drive approach for the shared driveways should be a minimum of 24 feet wide since they are serving more than one home. RESPONSE: Driveways are widened per the City’s comment. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: For Hearing: The existing 4 foot sidewalk on Clarendon Hills Drive exceeds a 200 foot length which pushes it out of ADA compliance. To satisfy ADA requirements with a sidewalk less than 4.5 feet in width that is over 200 feet long, a 5 foot by 5 foot passing space must be provided. Please show this on the next submittal. RESPONSE: A 5’ x 5’ passing space was added per the City’s comment. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: For Hearing: To make sure that a sidewalk chase is not needed adjacent to the driveways, please provide information on the area of water that will flow over the sidewalk at the driveways. RESPONSE: A detailed grading sheet is included. Per the detailed grading sheet, the only area of water overflowing the sidewalk is the sidewalk itself. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: For Hearing: The existing roll over curb and gutter along Langdale drive will need to be replaced with the detachment of the sidewalk because the stones were poured monolithically. With this construction, there is not a good way to preserve the existing curb while only detaching the sidewalk without significant damage to the curb section. RESPONSE: We will sawcut along the top back of curb in order to keep the roll-over curb and remove the sidewalk. A note is added to the plans allowing the City of Fort Collins Engineering to evaluate the curb and determine if it need to be replaced or not. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: For Hearing: Please address my minor comments in my redlines with your next submittal. RESPONSE: Utility plans are updated per the redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020 03/03/2020: FOR INFORMATION This is a very different site plan than the original submittal. As noted in previous submittals, no TIS is required, the trail connection is important and driveways should be as far as possible from an intersection. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020 7 03/03/2020: FOR HEARING No parking can be allowed in the private access road (too narrow). It should be signed as 'no parking'. RESPONSE: The driveway was widened to 24’ wide. We will coordinate with the City and PFA regarding no parking signs during Final Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020 03/03/2020: FOR HEARING Because there is no parking in the access road, it would be very beneficial if building envelopes can be far enough back to have driveways at least 20 ft in length - to allow a car to be parked in a driveway. RESPONSE: The LUC requires the buildings are set back a minimum 20’ from the ROW. All buildings will meet the LUC which will provide driveways with sufficient space for parking. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020 03/03/2020: FOR HEARING What is the expectation for pedestrian movements as they leave homes on the access road? There doesn't seem to be any sidewalk for them. RESPONSE: You are correct, there are a few lots that do not have a sidewalk. This is a private driveway which will function like a typical driveway where residents would walk along it to access the public sidewalk system along Clarendon or Langdale. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR APPROVAL: City staff does not support how far Lot 1 encroaches into the buffer zone. The triangular tract in front of the lots, and the slender space for a trail connection to the east do not meet the intent of the buffer zone requirements. To meet the intent, staff recommends removing Lot 1 and including that as part of the buffer zone. RESPONSE:Per a meeting with Kelly Smith on 5.29.20, a new Lot 1 configuration was provided and accepted by Environmental Planning. In addition, the triangular tract in front of the lots was also accepted as part of the NHBZ. The trail connection on the east side of the development has been removed from the NHBZ. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please add a table to the site plan that includes the following: - amount of buffer area that would be required by a 50' buffer from the ditch - amount of buffer area provided on these plans - minimum buffer distance - maximum buffer distance - average buffer distance RESPONSE: Please note that this information has been provided on previous submittals. It can be found under Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Statistics on sheet 5. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please ensure only native species are proposed in the NHBZ. RESPONSE: Per coordination with Kelly Smith, a mix of native and plants recommended by various 8 agencies in Colorado for water conservation, have been approved for this property. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please add the following note to the landscape plan: Areas within the habitat buffer that are bare or disturbed will need to be re-seeded. RESPONSE: A note has been added to both the plan view and the general landscape notes #16. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR APPROVAL: Please add the following note to the landscape plan: NATIVE SEED MIX NOTES 1. THE TIME OF YEAR SEEDING IS TO OCCUR SHOULD BE OCTOBER THROUGH EARLY MAY. 2. 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. 3. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 4. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED). 5. 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. 6. PREPARE A WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WEEDS ARE PROPERLY MANAGED BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SEEDING ACTIVITIES. 7. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS. 8. 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. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER. 10. 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. 9 11. 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. 12. 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: Per an email from Kelly Smith on 6.22.20, the existing native seed notes are appropriate and do not need to be replaced with the notes above. Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: BY HEARING Given the canopy spread and height of tree #16, its condition, and its proximity to the edge of lots (~40 feet from the trunk), it should be further evaluated by a TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified) arborist. City forestry would like to review a written report on its condition and safety risks. RESPONSE: A TRAQ has been provided with this round of submittal. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 3/10/2020: FOR FINAL Please include lot numbers on the landscape plan. RESPONSE: Provided. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 3/10/2020: FOR HEARING While wider parkways promote better tree growth, the parkway on Langdale Drive meets the minimum width at 5’ 6”, per LUCASS standards. There should be canopy shade trees planted along its length. Please substitute shade trees for the fastigiate oaks and ornamental pears at 30-40 foot spacing. RESPONSE: Understood; fastigiate oaks have been replaced by shade trees. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 3/10/2020: FOR HEARING The parkway along Clarendon Hills Dr. does not meet the minimum width a collector. Per LUCASS standards, the parkway should be a minimum of six feet. There are no street trees shown on this parkway. Per LUC 3.2.1 Section 2(a), canopy shade trees are required in the parkway along the entire frontage. The clusters of trees shown around the landscaped pond or along the western edge of the property do not meet the intent of the street tree requirement. Properly spaced canopy shade trees along streetscapes provide shade, drainage infrastructure, screening etc. The parkway should be widened to meet 10 minimum LUCASS standards and accommodate street trees. If that is not possible, please include canopy shade trees behind the walk at 30-40 foot spacing 3-7 feet behind the edge of the walk. RESPONSE: Understood; however, the parkway along Clarendon will not be widened. We will add trees behind the walk where feasible. Conceptual driveways are now shown to demonstrate where trees will fit within the lot frontage. An alternative compliance is being provided. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 3/10/2020: FOR FINAL Northern red oaks are not well suited to the alkaline soil in Fort Collins. They are often prone to severe chlorosis and have relatively short life spans. Please substitute another shade tree species. RESPONSE: Northern Red Oaks have been replaced. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR FINAL Please consult to traffic operations to determine whether the serviceberries proposed at the corner of Langdale Dr. and Clarendon Hills Dr. will obstruct the site distance triangle. RESPONSE: Serviceberries have been removed. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/26/2019 03/10/2020: FOR HEARING: Are the sewer and water mains running along the proposed driveway considered private? What is the required clearance needed for electric from the sewer and/or water lines? This could be problematic in the proposed 9' utility easement with electric, gas and water meter pits. RESPONSE: The sewer and water mains are considered to be public. Water and sewer services are located a minimum of 10’ away from side lot lines except for Lot 1. We propose to use an existing sewer stub on the western property line of Lot 1 as the sanitary service for Lot 1. 04/26/2019: FOR HEARING Please adjust all water and sewer services at least 10' away from the proposed lot lines to provide adequate clearance for electric facilities. RESPONSE: Water and sewer services were adjusted per the City comment. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 03/10/2020: FOR HEARING: Will the homes on this site need services Larger than 150amps? This makes a difference in the design. RESPONSE: We are assuming individual lots will require 200 amp services. 04/29/2019: FOR HEARING Light & Power will need to know what service size these lots will be developed at. 150amp? 200amp? RESPONSE: We are assuming individual lots will require 200 amp services. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: INFORMATION: 8.1.10. The builder is required to install the electric meter socket(s) on the same side as the electric service ‘stub’. 11 RESPONSE: A note was added to the utility plans per Light and Power’s comment. 8.1.11. Builders are also encouraged to install the natural gas meter(s) on the opposite side of the house from the electric service. RESPONSE: A note was added to the utility plans per Light and Power’s comment. 8.1.12. The electric service trench must be a minimum of 3 feet from the natural gas service trench, and the electric and gas services shall not cross each other. RESPONSE: A note was added to the utility plans per Light and Power’s comment. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/11/2020 03/11/2020: FOR HEARING: There doesn't appear to be any utility easement around the proposed pond adjacent to Langdale or Clarendon Hills Dr. There are existing utilities in this location that may need to remain and new utilities that may need this space to meet required clearances. Please provide utility easement all along Langdale and Clarendon Hills. RESPONSE: A 9’ wide utility easement is proposed along the right-of-way of Clarendon Hills Drive and Langdale Drive per the City’s comment. Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Site Design/Plat: With the redesign, Lots 3, 4 and 5 don’t appear to meet the definition of a lot (LUC Article 5). “Lot shall mean a designated parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision or otherwise permitted by law to be used, occupied or designed to be occupied by one (1) or more buildings, structures or uses, and which abuts a dedicated right-of-way, private street or private drive, any of which is at least twenty (20) feet wide at all points.” RESPONSE: Lots 3,4 and 5 are adjacent to a private driveway which connects to public ROW. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Proposed Pond: Design: The layout of this area is fairly symmetrical and uniform in appearance. Unclear whether staff will support the overall landscape design of the pond. The design character is unclear and there appears to be issues with meeting the landscape objectives in LUC 3.2.1 and 3.4.1. RESPONSE: The pond has been revised. The planting has also been revised. Site Walls: These are listed as “rock walls” on the utility plans, and “Ashlar Tandem Belgard” wall on the site/landscape plan, but we couldn’t find a detail to show what this means is provided to show what this means. RESPONSE: The notes for the retaining walls on the utility plans are revised to reference the landscaping plans for wall details. A detail has been added to sheet 2 of the site plan set. 12 Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Landscape Design: Trail area – native seeding not appropriate in the narrow strips on either side of the trail. This is a maintenance and design issue per LUC 3.2.1. It’s also unclear how the landscaping around the trail would transition to the front yard landscaping on Lot 8. Please also see formatting comments below for the planting plans. RESPONSE: Native has been replaced with cobble to mirror the neighboring property’s landscaping. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Fencing – Per staff’s previous comments, we’re recommending that the split rail fencing be installed by the developer along the rear lot lines and along the outer sides of Lot One and Eight. The plans must be updated to reflect this recommendation. RESPONSE: A fencing plan has been added. 3-rail fencing per developer. Can’t tell what the extent of the fencing is along Lot 8. Extent of design may be obscured by other linework. Please see formatting comments below. RESPONSE: Refer to fencing plan. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: Site Plan: On the site plan, indicate the maximum allowable floor area for each lot per the R-L standards. RESPONSE: Added. Many of the lot dimensions on the site plan do not match the dimensions on the Plat. RESPONSE: Lot dimensions shown on the site plan are provided at required setback locations. Lot dimensions shown on the plat are shown along the actual lot line. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: On the Plat, indicate that that the trail easement area is dedicated as “Pedestrian Public Access”. RESPONSE: Revised. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING/FOR FINAL PLAN: The landscape plans will need to be formatted so that they can be used for mylars and inspection. Plans are not properly formatted and are not readable for those parts of the process. Drawings, design intent/extent is unclear. Plans are difficult to read and review. Please use the master submittal formatting requirements as a guide in assisting with the following. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING/FOR FINAL PLAN: 1. Site and Landscape Plans -- Drafting, Formatting and Labeling Issues: 2. There are dashed boxes shown on each lot which don’t appear to be 13 relevant to code compliance and should be removed from the plan. RESPONSE: Removed. 3. Plant symbol sizes, both on the plans and legend are too small. Scale of landscape detail planting areas is too small. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. Small plant symbols have been converted to hatches for clarity. 4. Lot typicals -- (there is no typical lot), if used, these should be larger on the page. Those provided are really small. RESPONSE: The titles of the typicals specify them as ‘typical lot setbacks’ and ‘typical utility layout’. The scale has been enlarged. 5. Drainage area features such as top of bank, topo and other elements are undistinguishable. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. 6. Font sizes are too small in some cases – see submittal requirements. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. 7. Linework/line thicknesses/line hierarchy issues. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. 8. Pen settings/weights for symbols. Symbol shapes are difficult to distinguish and also cannot be printed. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. 9. Line-types not matching in the legends and plans. RESPONSE: Revised 10. Many of the line weights/types are unnecessarily thick and obscure plan detail. Hatches are shown on top of hatches. A series of plans or supplemental diagrams based on subject matter may be helpful to break up the information. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. 11. Cut off labeling/labeling and linework not clearly communicating design intent. RESPONSE: Plans have been revised for clarity. 12. Easement is listed twice in the legend, but it’s not clear what each easement is, and also the line type scale does not match anything on the plans. RESPONSE: Duplicates have been removed. The site plan has been labeled to match plat easement labels. 13. Fencing plans indicate proposed materials, but do not clarify intended color/finish. RESPONSE: Color/finish will be defined by HOA documents. Plans have been updated to reference community standards. 14. No landscape wall detail proved. RESPONSE: A detail has been included. 15. Lots which qualify as Solar Oriented Lots must be shown on the plans; this is left blank in the legend. RESPONSE: Revised. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR HEARING: The following notes can be removed from the plans: 6, 9, 13, 21. RESPONSE: Notes 6,9 and 13 have been removed. Note #21 (now #18) has been left on the plans as it was a request from another department during a previous round of review. 14 Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 03/09/2020 03/09/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN: This is a PDP level review, and not an FDP level review. Additional comments will be provided at the time of FDP detail. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 03/12/2020 03/12/2020: FOR HEARING: Please provide exhibits showing that a trash truck can navigate the proposed shared private driveway paving area. RESPONSE: Provided. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: FOR HEARING REQUIRED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS - Lots 4 & 5 are set back from the public streets so as to be located outside the maximum 150 foot perimeter requirement for fire apparatus staging. In order to resolve, the shared driveway shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement and constructed to minimum fire lane specifications. The alternative to providing a fire lane will be to install a residential fire sprinkler system in both residences. RESPONSE: Shared driveway was revised to a total width of 24’. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/10/2020 03/10/2020: INFORMATION ONLY PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT - The proposed fire hydrant at the south side of Lot 8 exceeds minimum requirements and may be omitted. RESPONSE: The fire hydrant was removed per PFA’s comment. : Department: Environmental Services Contact: Linda Hardin, lhardin@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/24/2020 02/24/2020: INFORMATIONAL: A Construction Waste Management Plan will be required with application for building permit. See: https://www.fcgov.com/recycling/constructiondebris . Contact Linda Hardin, lhardin@fcgov.com, or 970-416-2701 with questions. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 15 03/06/2020: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. RESPONSE: Acknowledged 04/29/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. RESPONSE: Acknowledged Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 03/06/2020: 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: Plat was revised per redlines. Response to comments are included in the redlines. 04/29/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. RESPONSE: Plat was revised per redlines. Response to comments are included in the redlines. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Chris Pletcher, FCLWD, 970-226-3104, chrisp@fclwfd.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/22/2019 04/22/2019: The following PDP comments are provided on the water and sewer drawings shown on your plans. 1. Please make sure you add the District’s title block for signature. 2. Please confirm a minimum of 10 feet separation between the water and sewer lines in Lots 1 and 2. RESPONSE: The District’s signature block was added to the plans. There is 10 feet of separation between the water and sewer lines and services. Contact: Don Kapperman, Comcast, don_kapperman@comcast.com, 970-567-0245, Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2020 02/25/2020: Comcast will need a 6 foot rear lot utility easement or the open space will need to spelled out as a utility easement. Comcast can go joint trench in the front lot with Light & power if here is no rear lot easement RESPONSE: Thank you for your comments. We will coordinate with Comcast during preparation of final plan. Contact: Nate Ensley, Fort Collins- Loveland Water District, 970-226-3104, nensley@fclwfd.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020 16 03/03/2020: See comments and redlines on attached document. RESPONSE: The utility plans were revised to per the redlines. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2020 02/19/2020: Regarding the parkway strips along Langdale Dr.: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged.