The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMARS LANDING - PDP190013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSFort Collins October 04, 2019 James Prelog Galloway and Company 5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd Suite 210 Johnstown, CO 80534 RE: Mars Landing, PDP190013, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Mars Landing. 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: Planning Services Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwrav@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax kgov. com/developmentreview Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 BY HEARING: Site Plan cover page. Only include planning signature block on this page. Title block, add Mars Landing - "Project Development Plan" to all sheets. Response: The signature block is shown on the cover only and the titleblock has been updated to designate the set as Project Development Plan. Comment Number: 2 BY HEARING: Site Plan Cover summary table. Vehicle Parking: Total Multi -Family Parking Spaces: Req. 145 bedrooms/unit) Std spaces provided:127 HC spaces Req.: 6/provided 6 Garage: 28 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 (show calculation per • 0.014 acres of lower ecological value wetlands habitat (native willows volunteers, reed canary grass, field sedge) as determined by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland ecological criteria. • 3.5 acres of black -tailed prairie dog colony, a LUC Section 5.1 defined special habitat feature. Response: We have coordinated with staff to include mitigation for the NHBZ. That information is included on the Landscape Plans in addition to supporting ECS information. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: ECS CORRECTIONS NEEDED PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. FOR ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT. Thank you for submitting Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) and 10 days prior to Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal. Comments and edits on the ECS have been provided by City staff and delivered via email to the ecological consultant. Corrections must be submitted at least 10 days prior to a PDP RD2 submittal. Response: The revised ECS was submitted to City staff on October 15 and is included here with the submittal. An ECS for potential offsite mitigation areas to the east and west of the project site was submitted to staff on December 30. A supplemental study of the existing wetlands on the east and west parcels is included with the submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO RD2 PDP SUBMITTAL. FOR ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT. Page 5 of the ECS reports under section 5.8 Special Habitat Features that no special habitat features as defined by the City exist, however, this is not correct. LUC 5.1 Definitions for Special habitat features clearly states and includes "prairie dog colonies one (1) acre or greater in size" and this applies to this proposed Mars Landing project area. Corrections must be submitted at least 10 days prior to a PDP RD2 submittal. Response: Please refer to the revised ECS. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO RD2 PDP SUBMITTAL. FOR ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT. There appears to be a mis-understanding. On ECS page 2 remove and correct the following and prior to PDP Rd2 submittal. Corrections must be submitted at least 10 days prior to a PDP RD2 submittal. Remove: "However, the City has in the past stated that they define wetlands differently than is what is commonly done via the Corps method." Change to: To determine wetland boundaries, the City follows Land Use Code 3.4.1(D)(2) that allows utilization of the "standards and guidelines and/or professional recommendations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, and/or the Colorado Division of Wildlife in establishing such boundaries." Response: Comment noted. Please refer to the revised ECS. 10 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO RD2 PDP SUBMITTAL. FOR ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT. In the past, City Environmental Planning staff has communicated the following to the various ecological consultants (including this consultant) and applicant teams submitting for this project area since 2016: 1) Early on and in advance of the development process, City staff often recommend applicants use the U.S. Army Corps Wetland Delineation Manual with supplements assessing soils, hydrology and vegetation to understand wetland boundaries and to be prepared in the case wetlands are jurisdictional. This information is already collected and then can support a submittal to USACE to confirm jurisdictional status and meet LUC 3.4.1(0) Proof of Compliance to receive Final Development Plan approval. 2) The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code regulates wetlands whether they are jurisdictional (federally regulated and connected to defined Waters of the U.S.) or not. The City of Fort Collins LUC allows use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, and/or the Colorado Division of Wildlife to establish wetland boundaries [see LUC 3.4.1(D)(2)]. 3) Note that in light of a lack of information submitted by applicants over time for proposed development projects in this area around and containing the North Louden Ditch, City staff reached out directly to U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) staff to solicit input and information. USACE staff completed a site visit in December 2018. In an email communication received December 2018, USACE staff communicated N Louden Ditch did not have an 'ordinary high water mark and/or wetlands within this channel that would trigger our jurisdiction." Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO RD2 PDP SUBMITTAL. FOR ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT. Please note and re -read for future reference the following Land Use Code section. 3.4.1(D)Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary Definition (2) Wetland Boundary Delineation. In establishing the boundaries of a wetland, the applicant and the Director shall use soil samples, ecological characterization and hydrological evidence, to the extent that such are in existence or are requested of and provided by the applicant. The Director may also utilize the standards and guidelines and/or the professional recommendations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, and/or the Colorado Division of Wildlife in establishing such boundaries. Wetland boundary delineations shall be established in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification system and shall be identified in the submittal documents for the review of the project development plan (if applicable, or if not applicable, the most similar development review) and prior to commencement of any construction activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards and 11 guidelines shall be used to identify the boundaries of any "jurisdictional wetland." Response: Comment noted. Please refer to the revised ECS. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019: INFORMATION ONLY. Please note City staff follows the following wetland definitions and criteria for identification and as described in the Field Guide to Colorado's Wetland Plants: Identification, Ecology, and Conservation prepared by D. Culver and J. Lemly and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). Key items from this document: A. For Section 404 permitting purposes e.g. jurisdictional (federal) wetlands the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual with supplements mandatory technical methods must be used to establish wetland boundaries. To be determined a wetland then, in this case, the area must demonstrate ALL THREE of these criteria: 1) predominance of wetland plants, 2) wetland hydrology and 3) hydric soils. B. For non -Section 404 permitting, the US Fish and Wildlife Service ecological point of view and methods can be used as outlined in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. In this case to be determined a wetland then, an area must have ONE of the following criteria: a) supports predominantly hydrophytes at least periodically, b) substrate is predominantly un-drained hydric soil, or c) the substrate is non -soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. C) Wetlands are typically defined by their vegetation, primarily. Response: Comment noted. Please refer to the revised ECS. Comment Number: 14 09/30/2019 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: KEY WETLAND INFORMATION. 1) In the past City Environmental Planning staff has observed Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass), Salix spp. (native willows) and Carex praegracilis (field sedge) in multiple areas within the North Louden Ditch. All of these species National Wetland Plant Indicator Rating is Facultative Wetland or FACW. FACW species usually occur in wetlands (67-99 percent of the time) and occasionally can be found in non -wetlands. Response: Comment noted. Please refer to the revised ECS. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: KEY WETLAND INFORMATION. 2) Soil test pits have not been completed within the North Louden ditch. City staff estimate that if soil pits tests were completed there would be small pockets of soils demonstrating hydric indicators. 12 Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: KEY WETLAND INFORMATION. 3) City staff estimates at least 0.014 acres (about 600 square feet) of lower ecological value pocket and/or fringe wetlands exist within N Louden Ditch in this area. City staff estimates that AT LEAST ONE of the following USFWS criteria can be observed or tested for in the N Louden Ditch area annually: a) supports predominantly hydrophytes at least periodically or b) substrate is predominantly un-drained hydric soil. Response: Mitigation to be provided for the 0.014 acre wetland to be vacated. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: ECS CORRECTIONS NEEDED PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. FOR ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT. Page 8 of the ECS under sections 5.12 and 6.0 includes blatantly incorrect statements. Corrections must be submitted at least 10 days prior to a PDP RD2 submittal. Response: Comment noted. Refer to the revised ECS. RE: Section 5.12 Natural Habitat or Feature Requiring Mitigation My apologies if communication in the past has been unclear. To be 100 percent clear and transparent, note that at an absolute minimum the following THREE items require mitigation according to LUC 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features standards: (1) 1.50 acres of lower ecological value uplands (rabbitbrush, yucca, volunteer cottonwoods seedlings, chokecherry, showy milkweed) habitat for the following resources. This would be to mitigate for the following: (a) irrigation ditch serving as wildlife corridor for small wildlife (quantitative buffer 50 feet) and/or (b) isolated patches native grassland or shrubland (quantitative buffer 50 feet) and/or (c) naturalized drainage channel (quantitative buffer 50 feet) — refer to LUC 3.4.1 buffer table. (2) 0.014 acres of lower ecological value wetlands (quantitative buffer 50 feet) habitat (native willows volunteers, reed canary grass, field sedge) as determined by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland ecological criteria. Refer to LUC 3.4.1 buffer table for wetlands less than one-third acre in size. (3) 3.5 acres of black -tailed prairie dog colony, a LUC Section 5.1 defined special habitat feature. Refer to LUC 3.4.1(A)(2)0), the buffer table, and LUC 5.1 Definitions. Response: Mitigation for items 1 and 2 is provided within the updated plans. We will work with City Staff on a prairie dog mitigation strategy as the project moves toward FDP and with the formation of the development agreement. Department: Forestry 13 Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 11 mroche@fcgov.com 9/30/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 Please include the existing tree removal plan to the demo plan within the Utility Plan Set. Include the City of Fort Collins Tree Protection Notes to this sheet. Response: The trees to be removed and notes have been added to the Existing Conditions Plan within the Utility Plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 17 Forestry redlines are provided. Response: Plans are revised per redlines provided. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 9/30/2019: FOR HEARING — UNRESOLVED: Continued: Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 An Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter was not submitted. Prior to hearing, a justification letter must be submitted for City Forestry to review and approve. Please note, justification is required in order to remove any on -site tree. Examples of Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letters may be provided to the applicant upon request. Response: A letter has been included. 7/24/2019: 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. 14 Response: A letter has been included. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR HEARING — UNRESOLVED: Continued: The parkway design along South College Ave was not included in the site plan. Please provide the landscape plan for South College Ave in the next submittal. 7/24/2019: FOR PDP Due to the required improvements along College Ave as apart of this submittal, please include a 10 foot parkway strip and street trees along this stretch for Forestry's review. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR HEARING — UNRESOLVED: Continued: There does not appear to be many additional trees proposed around the detention area, as noted in the comment response letter. Please refer to Forestry redlines for recommended planting locations. Response: Trees have been placed where possible to avoid utility and easement conflicts. 7/24/2019: FOR PDP Please increase tree planting around the edges of the detention pond and increase foundation plantings in parking lot islands and around buildings. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR HEARING — UNRESOLVED: Continued: The species percentages provided on the submitted landscape plan do not meet Land Use Code requirements. Since there are 94 total trees (canopy shade, ornamental, and evergreen trees) on -site, the maximum percentage of any one species cannot exceed 15%. Currently, Honeylocust, Baby Blue Eyes Spruce, and Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry exceed 15%. In addition, canopy shade trees must make up at least 50% of all tree plantings. The plans currently display canopy shade trees at 48% of all plantings. In order to increase diversity of the planting palette and meet these percentage requirements, please decrease the number of Honeylocust, Baby Blue Eyes Spruce and Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry and incorporate additional shade trees such as Choice City Elm, Catalpa, Hackberry, Chinkapin Oak, Bur Oak, or Shumard Oak. Please incorporate additional ornamental trees such as Japanese Tree Lilac, Red Baron Crabapple, and Hawthorn. Additional evergreen trees could include Southwestern White Pine, White Spruce, Vanderwolf Limber Pine, and Ponderosa Pine. 15 Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please 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 50 ft between street trees and stop signs Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please do not specify Lindens in parking lot islands or medians or along arterials. They do not handle deicing salts very well. Suitable parking lot trees include Kentucky Coffeetree `Espresso', Oaks, Honeylocust, and Elms. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 13 9/30/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please include species labels on all trees and shrubs. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR HEARING Under or near the Tree Inventory and Mitigation table, please provide the number of required mitigation trees, which is equal to 7 upsized mitigation trees. In the plant list, please label and provide a total of 7 mitigation trees sized at the following calipers: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 8.0' height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped Please label mitigations trees with a bolded M in the plant list and on the landscape plan. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR HEARING Please provide a north arrow and a scale on landscape plan sheets L1.1 and L1.2 Response: Revised as requested. 16 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 9/30/2019: FOR HEARING Please provide additional street trees along Skyway Drive. Street trees can be planted on top of telephone lines. Response: Revised as requested. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218-2932, jschiam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/24/2019 09/24/2019: Information Only: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and/or meets the criteria for a need for Erosion and Sediment Control Materials to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are located in the Stormwater Design Criteria in Chapter 2 Section 6.0 a copy of the requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosion Please check the erosion control plans with the updated criteria. This project seems to be designed for erosion control under the old criteria as noticed by lack of updated erosion control standard notes and sequence chart and summary table. The full list of erosion control material requirements can be found in Chapter 2 section 6. Response: An Erosion Control Plan and Materials will be submitted at time of Final Plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/24/2019 09/24/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Response: An Erosion Control Plan and Materials will be submitted at time of Final Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/24/2019 09/24/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Report to meet City Criteria. Response: An Erosion Control Plan and Materials will be submitted at time of Final Plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/24/2019 09/24/2019: For Final: Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation based upon the accepted Erosion Control Plans to meet City Criteria. Response: An Erosion Control Plan Escrow Calculation will be submitted at time of Final Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/24/2019 09/24/2019: Information only: Based upon the area of disturbance, State permits for stormwater will 17 be required since the site is over an acre and should be pulled before Construction Activities begin. Response: Comment noted. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: FOR HEARING -The City requires 100% of the site to have water quality treatment for storm water flows. The site is proposing 88% of the site's impervious area to be treated with a LID water quality method. Water quality treatment is still needed for sub -basins Al and A3. This can be accomplished with standard water quality or a LID method. Response: Water quality for Basins A 1 and A3 is addressed on the utility plan and within the drainage report. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: FOR HEARING - Sub -basins 131 through B3 can free release without quantity detention as proposed in the Drainage Report. Also, disconnected impervious area (grass buffer) can count towards water quality for these sub -basins. Please describe this water quality treatment in the Drainage Report. Response: The drainage report has been revised to address water quality for these basins. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: FOR FINAL -Please propose a permanent erosion control matting rather than riprap for the two pipe outlet locations. Response: TRM has been called out to replace the riprap at the outfall locations. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: FOR HEARING - Please revise the drainage report regarding reference to basin A2. It appears some changes were made and not updated. The percentage of site being treated by LID may need to be updated as well. Response: Basin references and LID calculations have been updated. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: FOR HEARING -It appears there is an error in the STormTech calculations that needs revision. Response: The StormTech calculations have been updated. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: The Stormtech chambers need to be within a drainage easement. 18 Response: A drainage easement will be dedicated for the Stormtech Chambers and is labeled in the utility Plans. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: Please provide 10 feet of separation between any storm sewers and trees. Response: Revised as requested. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, ilynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS The comment response letter dated August 2, 2019 indicates the project has achieved IFC Appendix D105 compliance for required Aerial Fire Apparatus Access and that both buildings are located "within 30 feet of the Emergency Access Easement through the site". The Site Plan provided with this submittal shows the buildings setback from the fire lane at a distance of 35 feet rather than at the maximum allowable distance of 30 feet. Additional discussion is therefore required. Response: The building locations have been adjusted to be within 30' of the proposed emergency access along the west side of the buildings. This has been dimensioned on the site plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FIRE LANE WIDTHS The proposed limits of the fire lane are approved as shown; however, for planning purposes the project team need only provide 26' wide fire lanes where required for Aerial Fire Apparatus Access along the west side of the buildings. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FIRE LANE SIGNAGE Fire lane sign locations as proposed do not fully identify the limits of the EAE as required by code. Additional signs are required at 75' intervals. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. If so desired, the applicant may simplify the sign detail (Legend #13 & 14 of Site Plan page C1.0) by adding bi-directional arrows to all signs. Response: Fire lane signage has been coordinated with the reviewer and is labeled on the site plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS Fire department connections shall be located on the west side of buildings in relation to the proposed fire hydrant. The location of the FDC's shall be 19 Clubhouse: Req. 5-10/Provided: 10 Bicycle Parking Required: 1/136 bedrooms + min. 4 (clubhouse) =140 (20% enclosed/80% fixed racks) - show locations and totals. Response: A breakdown is provided with required spaces per unit and bedroom. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 BY HEARING: Site Plan. - See Environmental Planning comments on NHBZ setbacks per ECS. This will impact what is shown on west edge of site including garages, clubhouse, parking etc. - Show garage setbacks from property line. - Minimum separation between buildings is 20' - Check site plan and landscape plan notes match City standard notes (see file). Response: ■ A mitigation plan has been provided for the NHBZ setbacks. ■ Garage setbacks are dimensioned on the site plan. Building separation has been dimensioned. Per 2018 IBC Table 602, footnote h, "For a building containing only a Group U occupancy for private garage or carport, the exterior wall shall not be required to have a fire -resistance rating where the fire separation distance is 5 feet or greater." Similar, Table 705.8, footnote j, unlimited openings with a fire separation distance of 5 feet or greater. ■ The notes have been updated to match those provided by the planner. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 Landscape Plans - 1-1.1/1-1.2: - Add clubhouse building foundation/tree planting at west and north elevations. - Add parking lot tree planting as shown on redlines. - Add shrub screen planting along south parking bay. Response: Revised as requested. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 BY HEARING: Elevations: - Label perspective sketches on plans. - Use architectural grade metal panels. - Accentuate/enhance all main front entries on both buildings with architectural elements, materials, over -hangs etc. Response: • Perspective views have been labeled. • Metal wall panels were part of the original design as noted and scheduled (RE: blue accents on building elevations). ■ The main building entries occur along the west elevations of both apartment buildings (A-42 and A- 48). These entries have been further enhanced from the previous submittal with increased storefront sizes, detailed mullion patterns, and enlarged awnings over the doors. Note — the east elevations (facing away from the parking lot) would not be considered as the primary or main entrance. However, similar storefront enhancements have been made to these entries as well. 2 approved by the fire department and labeled on future Utility Plans. Response: We will coordinate with the architect and Mechanical engineer to show the FDC on the west side of the buildings. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 09/30/2019: FIRE ALARM & DETECTION SYSTEMS Fire alarm systems and smoke alarms shall be installed in Group R-2 occupancies as required by IFC 907.2.9. Response: Comment noted. We will coordinate with our building team for inclusion in the building permit submittal. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: There is currently 3-phase power located on the southern frontage of Skyway Dr with conduits stubbed to the north east corner of the site. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power and shown on the utility plans. 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: Transformer locations are shown on the utility plan for coordination purposes. Engineer and owner will coordinate with utility provider going forward on final placement and services to individual buildings and site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: The services to the buildings will be considered a commercial service; therefore, the service lines from the transformers to the meters are required to be installed, owned and maintained by the property owner. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: This project will need to comply with our electric metering standards. Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. 20 Please gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite of the gas meters. Reference Section 8 of our Electric Service Standards for electric metering standards. A link has been provided below. https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStanda rds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: A commercial service information form (C-1 form) and a one -line diagram for all commercial services will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review prior to Final Plan. A link to the C-1 form is below: http•//zeus fcgov com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/bu ilders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: L&P has an above ground vault on the corner of Skyway and College Ave. If any existing electric infrastructure needs to be relocated or underground as part of this project, it will be at the expense of the developer and will need to be relocated within a dedicated easement. Please coordinate relocations with Light and Power Engineering. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: Please contact Luke Unruh at 970-416-2724 so we can place transformer locations on the utility and site plans before the next submittal. Response: Comment noted. Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov,com Topic: Building Insp Plan Review 21 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: INFORMATIONAL: Please visit our website for a list of current adopted building codes and local amendments: hftps://www.fcqov.com/building/codes.php Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: 5% of all parking spaces must be EV Ready Response: Comment noted. We will coordinate with the electric utility provider to extend service for EV parking stations. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: The two multi -family buildings require 20ft separation between them for fire separation distance or rated walls and limited openings will be required. Response: The fire separation distance (FSD) between buildings A-42 and A-48 is between 10' and 12'-6" (primary building walls). The FSD between the buildings' mechanical and H2O rooms is approximately 6'- 6". Refer to site plan for building dimensions. Per 2018 IBC Table 602, the fire resistance rating requirements for exterior walls of type VA construction with a Group R occupancy is 1-hour for all fire separation distances less than 30'. 1-hour fire rated exterior walls will be provided. Overhangs and projections will be in compliance with Table 705.2. Per 2018 IBC Table 705.8, the maximum allowed area of unprotected openings in a sprinklered building is 25% for a FSD between 5-10' and 45% for a FSD between 10'-15'. Note: these buildings are considered sprinklered per this table's definition in that we are providing a NFPA 13 system. Per the City of Fort Collins' 2018 IBC Amendments, Group R occupancies require an automatic sprinkler system to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13. MAX. AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE A-48 A-42 TOTAL WALL AREA (sq ft) 2016 2016 UNPROTECTED OPENING AREA (sq ft) 256 256 PERCENTAGE (%) 12.70 12.70 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 icountV@fcgov.com Comment Originated: 09/20/2019 09/20/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN: The Benchmark Statements shown on the Site & Utility Plan cover sheets will need to match the following. Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 22 BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX'. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/20/2019 09/20/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: Comment noted. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: CDOT, Gloria Hice-Idler, gloria.hice-idler@state.co.us, 970-381-8629, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: We agree with the findings of the TIS, but because the traffic volumes generated by this proposal increase traffic at the intersection by more than 20%, the applicant should be required to obtain a new access permit. No highway improvements will be required. Response: Comment noted. Contact: Chris Pletcher, PE, (970) 226-3104 ext.104, cpletcher@fclwd.com, Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: 1 have reviewed the September 2019 PDP submittal of the Mars Landing project and offer the following comments: C0.0: Please correct spelling typos in the third line "Outalot" and "Subdiviosn" Response: The spelling typos have been corrected. C0.1: District Approval Block should only be on the cover sheet, not the full set. 23 (also on subsequent sheets) Response: The signature block is only shown on the cover and applicable sheets. Utility Notes #12 — HDPE service lines are not allowed. Response: The note has been revised to not allow HDPE services. C3.0 Call out the size of the irrigation tap in the northeast corner of the site. Response: A 1 " Irrigation tap and meter will be provided with irrigation plan. The waterline alignment within the easement shown would not allow us to excavate a repair without certain damage to infrastructure outside the easement. Consider using shallower bend angles to stay centered in the easement. Response: The waterline alignment has been adjusted. Define and call out the additional length of restraint along the pipe. Response: Restraint calculations and callouts will be provided following the PDP at time of FDP submittal. Include a backflow prevention note calling for a reduced pressure principle Backflow prevention device for domestic, fire and irrigation. Response: A note has been added to the utility plan. Please submit your anticipated fire flow needs — I am concerned about the fire flow rate required to serve a six-inch fire service along with two 2" domestic lines plus a hydrant off a dead end 8" line. Response: We will coordinate with the plumbing engineer with demands for fire flow and domestic services and communicate those to the district. C4.0 Please provide a sanitary sewer profile with final plans. Response: Comment noted. C4.1 Please provide a sanitary sewer profile with final plans. Response: Comment noted. I would like to see a resubmittal of this project with the above items addressed (sewer profile may be deferred to final plans). Please contact me if you have any questions. Contact: Don Kapperman, don_kapperman@comcast.net, 970-567-0245, Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: No issues at this time would like to do joint trench with Ft Collins 24 light & power 25- Department: Internal Services Contact: Jonathon Nagel, 970-416-2701, inagel@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: BY HEARING: Are residents responsible for taking their own trash and recycling to the proposed enclosures or is there any type of valet service, secondary carts, etc. planned? Please note any type of valet collection service requires approval from PFA and the City. Response: No valet service is planned at this time. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: BY HEARING: Please provide elevations and an enlargement in plan view of the proposed trash and recycling enclosures and update the label on the site plan that references what page these are located on. The enlargement should show all proposed containers, labeling their capacity and intended use i.e. " 3 cubic yard recycling", dimensions overall and of the service gates and pedestrian entrance and label materials. Response: Trash enclosure details are provided with the Site Plan set. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The Community Recycling Ordinance (No. 109 2016) requires that all new business and multifamily complexes subscribe to recycling service that is at minimum 1/3 of their overall service capacity (total bin capacity x number of weekly pickups, include both trash and recycling when calculating overall service capacity). In general recycling containers must be at least 50% the size of proposed trash containers to meet this requirement. Please make sure proposed containers meet this requirement and that adequate space is provided in all enclosures. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL: All trash and recycling enclosures are required to provide methods to protect the interior walls from being damaged by dumpsters. Common methods include metal framing, bollards, angle iron/curbing. Please show proposed protection method on the plan enlargement request in comment #2 Response: A bumper stop detail is provided within the site plan details. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: It is recommended to provide door -less pedestrian entrances to the trash and recycling enclosure to provide more efficient access to resident who will often be carrying heavy materials. Doored 3 entrances often lead to people throwing materials over the enclosure walls or endlessly leaving the doors open. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019: BY HEARING: With 90 units you are likely to need 38 cubic yards of weekly trash service and 25 cubic yards of weekly recycling service. Please make sure adequate space is provide in the proposed enclosure to accommodate this capacity. 4 3 cubic yard dumpsters (2 trash, 2 recycle) in each enclosure I recommended and would result in -3x week trash service and 2x week recycle service. Response: Comment noted. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 10/01 /2019 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR HEARING Please correct spelling errors in the legal description on the cover page of the site plan and utility plan (see redlines). Response: Spelling errors have been corrected. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR HEARING Please make minor corrections to the Mars Drive typical section on the site plan and utility plan cover sheets (see redlines). Response: The cross section has been corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR FINAL The general notes (sheet 2) of the site plan are usually only included in the utility plans and may not need to be a part of the site plan. Please confirm with Planning. Response: The notes have been removed from the PDP plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR FINAL Please update the detail sheet number references on the site plans and utility plans. The callouts currently have "###" instead of the sheet numbers. Response: Sheet references have been corrected. Comment Number: 5 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR FINAL Call out and dimension the proposed pedestrian access easement on the west side of the site, the same as you have it called out to the east. Response: A dimension for the pedestrian easement has been added on the west side of the property. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR FINAL Label the existing temporary access (turnaround) easement at the south end of Mars Drive. For final approval we will want to process the vacation of that easement as well. This will need to be included in the TDRF application with the other easements to be dedicated and the appropriate fee paid ($400). Response: Comment noted. This has been labeled on the site plan to be vacated. Fee payment will be coordinated with the project review coordinator prior to final plan approval. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR FINAL The temporary barricade at the south end of Mars Drive should be located on the Outlot A property, unless there is going to be an easement from the adjacent property owner. If that is the case, then please show and call out the easement on the plans. Response: Mars Drive improvements have been pulled back from encroaching onto the adjacent property. Comment Number: S Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: FOR FINAL Please align the proposed crosswalk striping with the pedestrian ramps internal to the site. Response: The crossings have been shifted to align with the pedestrian ramps. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 10/02/2019: FOR HEARING The Owner's Certificate does not need to be on the utility plan cover sheet. Response: The owner certificate has been removed from the Utility Plan cover. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 10/02/2019: FOR HEARING The utility plans call out the irrigation ditch to be removed. I believe it is already removed, correct? If so, please call out accordingly so it is clear what the existing condition is. Also, the existing pipe/infrastructure for the irrigation should be shown and called out on the plans. Response: The ditch has been called out as previously abandoned on the existing conditions plan. Comment Number: 11 5 Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 10/02/2019: FOR FINAL Some of the proposed grading at the south end of Mars Drive and also along the College Ave. improvements doesn't appear to correctly tie to existing (see redlines). Response: Grading has been adjusted to tie into existing. Comment Number: 12 10/02/2019: FOR FINAL Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 Please provide key maps on all sheets as necessary to help identify what area the sheet is showing in relation to the overall site. Response: Key Maps are shown on all necessary sheets. Comment Number: 13 10/02/2019: FOR HEARING Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 Mars Drive needs to be extended/built to the southern property line. Your profile shows the proposed grade of the street ending approximately 2.5 feet below existing grade at the property line. Please revise your design to to to existing grades. This will likely need to include a temporary grading easement from the adjacent property owner or an interim design and payment in lieu for the portion of the street not constructed with this project. Response: Mars Drive profile is drawn per the Final Utility Plans for South College Storage (C-3 2464), approved 101612017. The South College Storage plans show the continuation of Mars Drive approximately 500 south of the project site. The Mars Landing plans are designed to replicate this profile for future continuation. The road section will terminate approximately 5'short of the property line. Road end treatment has been relocated within the dedicated Mars Drive right-of-way. Comment Number: 14 10/02/2019: FOR FINAL Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 We may want to coordinate on the College Ave. sidewalk design and grading. I'm hesitant to have a 3:1 slope coming off the back of walk and dropping down 5 feet in some areas. Maybe you can grade in a bit of a transition slope fora couple of feet before your steep slope begins. Also, we would prefer grades to not exceed 4:1. This is a requirement in public ROW and easement areas, but would be recommended in this case too, because of the proximity to the public walk. Response. The grading has been revised not to exceed 4:1 (H: V). A bench is graded in behind the back of walk before the 4:1 side slopes. Comment Number: 15 10/02/2019: FOR FINAL Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 Please ensure that you are showing all of your site and off -site improvements. The College Ave. sidewalk sheets look like your viewport may be cutting off a little bit of your grading at the south end. Response. Viewports have been adjusted to show all improvements. Comment Number: 16 10/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Please refer to redlines for additional comments. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 Comment Originated: 10/02/2019 10/02/2019: FOR HEARING Please ensure that there is no conflict between proposed landscaping and sight distance triangles at your site accesses to Mars Drive. Response:Trees within sight triangles are to be limbed up as noted on plans in accordance with AASHTO standards. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: BY HEARING The traffic study has been received and reviewed. While we agree with the general conclusions that no physical construction is required at the intersection of College and Skyway, we did ask in the scoping for the study to review the eastbound approach at that intersection and identify whether potential striping changes would improve the function of that approach. This primarily consists of formalizing the right turning traffic that 'bypasses' the queue for those going straight or left. We would like to see an evaluation and exhibit that shows what this might look like (Queue lengths, striping etc). This is the number 1 issue for residents in the area, and if this development can mitigate that with striping changes, we would like to see those implemented. Response: A striping plan is included with this submittal that includes Mars Drive and Skyway. We would like to work with staff on the Skyway Drive restriping on any additional signage or striping needed to accommodate the shift in centerlines of the eastbound approach to help satisfy the required variance to Chapter 8.2 of LCUASS. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: BY HEARING Prior review comments indicated that the northern access drive that is close to Skyway does not meet driveway spacing standards, that a variance needs to be requested, and that the variance is conditioned that in the future it could be restricted to a right -in, right -out. That should be noted on the plans, the variance request, and in the DA. Response: A note has been added to the City of Fort Collins Site Plan Notes, Sheet CO. 1, Note 6 with respect to the variance and conditions. This has been called out on the Site Plan and will be added to the DA. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: BY FINAL CDOT has provided a review and comments back. They are indicating that no changes are needed along College (their jurisdiction) and that an access permit for change in use will be needed at Skyway. That can be completed at final. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/01/2019 10/01/2019: BY FINAL We'll need to work with you on striping for Mars (and Skyway). Where will parking be allowed? Response: Per the typical section, parking is allowed on Mars Drive. A striping plan is included with this submittal that includes Mars Drive and Skyway. Signage for where parking is allowed is shown on the plan. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 9704164290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. BOTTOM LINE: 1) The buffer standards in Land Use Code 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features apply to this project. This has been communicated by multiple City staff and several times to the property owner, the consultant who completed the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS), and various applicant teams since 2016. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. BOTTOM LINE: 2) It is the role of City staff to apply Land Use Code 3.4.1 standards including determining if/when Natural Habitats and Features protection and mitigation is needed on a development project and in the form of a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ), and NOT the role of the Developer or the Ecological Consultant on the Applicant team. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. BOTTOM LINE: 3) The submitted PDP has not responded in design to consistent comments delivered by City staff to various applicant teams since 2016 and as currently proposed does not and cannot meet applicable LUC 3.4.1 standards and requirements. The submitted PDP did not respond to Environmental Planning staff comments delivered for the Mars Landing PDR190007 in July 2019. 0 Response: Comment noted. The consultant team and City Staff met on October 14, 2019 to discuss a draft of the revised ECS and mitigation requirements. The revised ECS was submitted to City staff on October 15 and is included herewith the submittal. An ECS for potential offsite mitigation areas to the east and west of the project site was submitted to staff on December 30. A supplemental study of the existing wetlands on the east and west parcels is included with the submittal. A revised PDP and Utility Plan is provided addressing the mitigation comments. PLEASE NOTE. The "East Study" area that is discussed within the ecological reports as potential mitigation area is not proposed for mitigation with this submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. BOTTOM LINE: 4) If the next round of PDP submittal for Mars Landing does not include a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) into the project design and the NHBZ is not clearly delineated on the site, landscape and utility plans, then, the submittal will not be accepted by City of Fort Collins staff and will not be routed for review. Response: The NHBZ has been removed from the plan to accommodate site improvements. We have coordinated with staff to include mitigation for the NHBZ That information is included on the Landscape Plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. BOTTOM LINE: 5) The Mars Landing development project proposal must be designed in a way that can meet LUC 3.4.1 standards in order to proceed in the development review process. Response: We have coordinated with staff to meet the requirements of LUC 3.4.1. That information is included on the Landscape Plans. Supporting information is provided with the revised ECS. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: INFORMATION ONLY. Meeting LUC 3.4.1 protection and mitigation requirements and stormwater requirements would have been much easier if master planned across all three parcels in this area and at the time of the South College Storage project development proposal, but alas, a different situation exists at this time. Environmental and stormwater requirements for this area were delayed and placed onto future individual parcel owners. Response: Comment noted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/30/2019 09/30/2019: PRIOR TO PDP RD2 SUBMITTAL. City Environmental Planner conservatively estimates at least the following needs mitigation for any proposed development project for this parcel: • 1.50 acres lower ecological value uplands (rabbitbrush, yucca, volunteer cottonwoods seedlings, chokecherry, showy milkweed) habitat for the following resources: irrigation ditch serving as wildlife corridor for small wildlife (quantitative buffer 50 feet), isolated patches native grassland or shrubland (quantitative buffer 50 feet), naturalized drainage channel (quantitative buffer 50 feet). 9