HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE RETREAT AT FORT COLLINS (FORMERLY REDWOOD STREET MULTI-FAMILY) - PDP - PDP180002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
April 13, 2018
Linda Ripley
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: The Retreat at Fort Collins (formerly Redwood Street Mult-Family), PDP180002,
Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about
any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through
the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com.
Northern Engineering, Landmark Properties, W&A Engineering, Delich Associates,
Terracon, Ripley Design, Ripley, Terracon, Landmark, W&A Engineering
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: The cross section for Suniga in this area will be modified from the
standard 4 lane arterial cross section. I'll send this cross section to your team.
Response: We have updated the plans to reflect the modified cross-section of Suniga Drive. It is our understanding that Suniga
Drive will be constructed with Northfield – Filing 1. We have shown the design of Suniga Road within our Utility Plans to match the
preliminary design of Northfield – Filing 1 and will continue to coordinate with their design team to ensure our connection will work
with the future construction of Suniga Road. For the interim design, if our project is approved prior to Northfield – Filing 1, we are
proposing a temporary access road from the western parking area to access Redwood Street in the future location of Suniga Road
and Redwood Street.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: We will require variance requests for the intersection spacing of
Streets A and E which are not currently shown in compliance with LCUASS
2
Table 7-3 spacing requirements. Please submit the request in accordance with
Section 1.9.4 of the LCUASS. Please detail how you would plan to limit the
access as well as any engineering theory that would back the reduced design.
Please also include turning templates for the neckdown intersection.
Response: All internal street systems are now planned to be private and function as a high-volume drive. With the classification of
a high-volume drive, minimum intersection spacing is in compliance with the current LCUASS Standards.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility plan cover sheet: the cross section for private drive shows
feet of ROW, could this be changed to access easement for clarity?
Response: All internal roadway cross-sections have been revised to illustrate that the roads will be within an Access Easement and
not within a Public Right-of-Way.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Throughout the site, please implement the standard directional
ramps - detail 1606, rather than any modified curb ramp design.
Response: All internal ramps have become private and will be privately owned and maintained. The two high volume drive
entrances onto Conifer Street and Redwood Street have been modified per LCUASS Standard Details 1606 and 1603.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Please label the private portions of Snyder Drive as "Snyder Drive
(Private Drive)" throughout the utility plan set.
Response: All streets have been relabeled as private streets on the detailed sheets and the street plan and profiles.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.01: the cross pan adjacent to Redwood
should be 8 feet wide - Redwood is a collector.
Response: Both drive entrances onto Confiner Street and Redwood Street have been revised to a high-volume drive to comply with
LCUASS Standard detail 707.1.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.01: standard corner curb return radii for a
local/collector (adjacent to Redwood) is 25 feet, see LCUASS Table 8-2.
Response: The curb returns have been revised to 15 feet per LCUASS Standards for a high volume drive.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.01: Vertical curve starting at 18+19.5 does
not meet minimum 90 foot length for the 30 mph design speed.
Response: All internal streets will be privately owned and maintained.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: All private parking lot entrances from public streets should be
designed and constructed as low-volume detached drive approaches, LCUASS
detail 706.1. This not only delineates the ROW, it provides concrete rather than
asphalt through the pedestrian crossings so that the required 2% cross slope
will hold up longer with less maintenance. Based on Engineering conversation
with Ted Shepard, City Planning has no issue with this design.
3
Response: Both entrances from the public streets (Conifer Street and Redwood Street) are designed as high-volume drives. All
parking lots will be attached to private streets and will be privately owned and maintained.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Entrances onto private Snyder Drive should be designed and
constructed as high-volume detached drive approaches, LCUASS detail 707.1.
This not only delineates the ROW, it provides concrete rather than asphalt
through the pedestrian crossings so that the required 2% cross slope will hold
up longer with less maintenance. Based on Engineering conversation with Ted
Shepard, City Planning has no issue with this design.
Response: Both entrances from the public streets (Conifer Street and Redwood Street) are designed as high-volume drives.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.02: Vertical curves starting at 20+52.46 and
22+97.52 do not meet minimum length for the 30 mph design speed.
Response: All internal streets will be privately owned and maintained.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Where public Street A meets public Snyder Drive, an elbow
should be designed and constructed in accordance with Figure 7-24 Revision
3. The private Snyder drive should be designed and built in accordance with
707.1 in this area and the parking lot entrance in accordance with 706.1. The
reason the elbow needs to be implemented rather than a T intersection is that
the parking lot is not a public street, it is a low volume private access-way.
Based on Engineering conversation with Ted Shepard, City Planning has no
issue with this design.
Response: All public roads internal to the site have been changed to private streets. Both entrances (Conifer Street and Redwood
Street) have been designed as high-volume drives to distinguish that the internal roads are privately owned and maintained.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.05: please title this page as "Offsite Snyder
Plan and Profile" for clarity.
Response: A request for Alternative Compliance has been submitted to remove crossing onto Northfield.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.05: what's going on at 28+50.57?
Response: Street design has been revised.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.06: should there be a cross pan at
17+20.01?
Response: Street layout and design has been revised.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.06: Vertical curve starting at 16+44.92 does
not meet minimum length for the 30mph design speed.
Response: All internal streets will be privately owned and maintained.
4
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan Sheet C5.07: 2% ADA cross-slope at the crossing on
the North leg of Mullein and Street A is not met.
Response: This street has been revised as a parking lot entrance and will provide 2.0% ADA cross-slope at the crossing
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Work with PFA and Traffic for the Lupine entrance width and
neckdown design - the need for this should be demonstrated and the design
should provide for any necessary PFA access.
Response: The entrance to Lupine Street and Mullein has been converted to an emergency access only
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/12/2018
04/12/2018: Engineering is OK with the proposed Redwood Street
sidewalk/trail design and will look for access easements where the trail goes
behind the ROW.
Response: An access easement has been provided on the plat, but will probably change as the final location of the trail is
determined.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/12/2018
04/12/2018: From Tom Knostman, pavement engineer: Designer needs to do
a subsurface water evaluation to assure that the separation from the water table
is greater than 3-feet per LUCASS chapter 5.
Response: All internal streets have been designed to provide a minimum of 3 feet from subgrade to existing groundwater elevations.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: The project owes an additional $1,140.50 for TDRFees. The
acreage on the application did not match that shown on the plat and the
numbers were not correctly added on the form. That is why there is an
additional amount due.
Response: Additional TDF fee was provided at the time of the submittal.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: It appears the site layout from the July 2017 Preliminary Design
Review (PDR) to this April 2018 Project Development Plan (PDP) first round
review has become less accommodating to incorporation of existing natural
habitats and features on-site and within 500 ft of site, as defined by City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code, in addition to the associated minimum quantitative
setback requirements (50 ft from top-of-bank along ditches, 100 ft from edge of
wetlands greater than one-third acre in size without significant use by waterfowl
5
and/or shorebirds, 50 ft from wetlands less than one-third acre in size).
Response: The site plan design has been evolving since PDR. Terracon, our environmental consultant re-visited the site May 20th
to gather additional information regarding existing wetlands after vegetation was emerging on the site. Since establishing the
boundaries of existing wetlands adjacent to the project site, we have expanded our proposed Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (NHBZ)
to exceed the minimum area required by the City’s Land Use Code (LUC). (See sheet 17 for NHBZ delineation, and sheets 12 – 16
for detail planting plan) In addition we have added native trees and shrubs within the NHBZ to create structural diversity for wildlife
species to meet the City’s performance standards.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) received 3/7/2018 by
Terracon. Of note from the ECS:
a. Verified red-tailed hawk active nest to southeast of site approximately 0.4
miles away from proposed development parcel boundary. Colorado Parks and
Wildlife (CPW) has no surface occupancy (NSO) recommendation (beyond that
which historically occurred in area) within 0.33 mile radius of active nests. ECS
quote: “Development of the site should not affect this nest.”
b. No other wildlife observed at site during site visit including no active
black-tailed prairie dogs. No federally listed threatened or endangered species
observed.
c. Northeast corner of property contains approximately 13 Russian olive trees, a
Colorado List B noxious weed species. Colorado State develops and
implements state noxious weed management plans designed to stop continued
spread of List B species.
d. Terracon survey took place 27 FEB 2018 outside of normal growing season
(MAY – OCT).
e. “If development is planned on or near the drainage ditches, Terracon
recommends requesting a jurisdictional determination from the USACE and
delineating wetlands during the growing season.”
Response: See response to Comment 1 above. Terracon will be requesting a jurisdictional determination from the USACOE . We
understand that the determination is needed prior to the City issuing a Development Construction Permit.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Current site layout proposal appears to impact wetlands and
potentially those under federal regulation (along Lake Canal) thus a
jurisdictional letter from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
needs to be submitted. See LUC 3.4.1(O)(1): “If a proposed development will
disturb an existing wetland, the developer shall provide to the city a written
statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development plan
fully complies with all applicable federal wetland regulations established in the
federal Clean Water Act.”
Response: See responses to 1 and 2 above. During their site visit in late May, Terracon did not find wetlands on site along the
Lake Canal except for a small potentially emerging wetland in the southwest corner of the site where no development is planned.
With the extension of a drive to connect the project to Conifer, a small area of wetlands in the north drainage ditch will be filled
(approximately 800 SF). The plan is to mitigate this wetland in the southwest corner where the existing emergent wetland is
located.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Current site layout proposal appears to impact wetlands
associated with Lake Canal, thus a wetland delineation assessing soils,
hydrology and vegetation using methodology of the USACE 1987 Wetland
6
Delineation Manual with Supplement needs to be completed. At a minimum this
wetland delineation should be completed for the entirety of Lake Canal.
However, it may be in the Developer interest to complete full wetland delineation
of drainage area along north end of property and wetland to northwest of the
property and directly adjacent to the property. Quantitative setback
requirements are determined from the edges of wetland boundaries and are
based upon size of wetland (50 ft for wetland less than one-third acre; 100 ft for
wetland greater than one-third acre without significant use by waterfowl).
Wetland delineation to be completed during the growing season (MAY-OCT).
Response: Terracon completed a wetland delineation along the Lake Canal and areas located north and west of the property on
May 20th. Terracon will visit the site again in mid-June after the irrigation canals have been running for a few weeks to verify the
delineation points recorded on May 20th
. The proposed Natural Habitat Buffer Zones (NHBZ) exceed the minimum area required by
the City’s Land Use Code (LUC). (See sheets 17-18) In addition we have added native trees and shrubs within the NHBZ to create
structural diversity for wildlife species to meet the City’s performance standards.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: The ECS and wetland delineation informs design of a “natural
habitat buffer zone,” or “NHBZ” including any and all mitigation (1:1 for wetlands)
requirements. This first round PDP site design layout proposes impacts to
wetland features, as opposed to the PDR that appeared to remain clear of
direct impacts to wetlands, especially along Lake Canal, by maintaining a 50 ft
buffer setback from the top of the bank of the ditch. In addition, the PDR showed
less programming in the southern tip of the site in addition to the northwest
corner of the site, and less proposed encroachment into the 100 ft buffer
setback for the northwest wetland adjacent to the site that is larger than
one-third acre.
Response: Proposed grading and the alignment of the regional trail has defined the NHBZ along the canal. Any encroachment
into the 50-foot required buffer is accommodated in other NHBZ on the site. The only wetland feature impacted by the proposed
site plan is located along the drainage channel at the northwest corner of the site. With the extension of a drive to connect the
project to Conifer, a small area of wetlands in the north drainage ditch will be filled (approximately 800 SF). The plan is to mitigate
this wetland in the southwest corner where the existing emergent wetland is located The entire area located south of Suniga Road
is being proposed as a NHBZ.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Applicant response (APR 2018) to Environmental Planning
comment #4 (delivered July 2017) that “more detailed landscape plans will be
provided at FDP” will not be adequate for this project. Landscape plans, at least
for the NHBZ in its entirety, will need to be reviewed and agreed upon PRIOR
TO DEVELOPER SCHEDULING a Planning and Zoning Board Hearing for this
proposed project, especially if qualitative performance standards are to be
used rather than quantitative standards clearly stated in LUC 3.4.1(E) table.
Env Plan comment #4 July 26, 2017: Thank you! Current proposed site design
seems to accommodate setbacks and sensitivity to on-site natural habitats and
features including the 50 ft Canal Setback, setback of the northwest parking
area adjacent to wetland (beside property), and through inclusion of pocket
stormwater management area features. Environmental Planning will look to
detailed landscape plans further in the process to ensure project planting plans
meet 3.4.1 LUC standards and aligns with the Nature in the City Strategic Plan
7
and City Plan.
Response: A detailed landscape plan for NHBZ has been submitted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: This proposed development project seems no longer to be opting
to use the standard quantitative natural habitat buffer zone setback
requirements [see table LUC 3.4.1(E)]. Thus City staff require more information
including full extent and sizes (acreage) of all wetlands in and adjacent to the
site. City Environmental Planning staff does not support encroachment into the
50 ft buffer setback from Lake Canal (as measured from top-of-bank).
Response: See responses 1,3 and 5.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: City of Fort Collins Environmental Planning staff disagrees with
calculations (LP sheet 5) provided showing baseline minimum NHBZ
requirements (applying standard quantitative setbacks) needed as 134,366 sf,
as this number does not seem to account for those areas of wetlands along
north edge of parcel boundary and those within 100 ft setback from the wetland
on adjacent property to the northwest.
Rough estimates calculated using basic FCMaps tools come to a minimum
total natural habitat buffer area required for this site (using standard 50 ft
setbacks for canals and drainage ways and 100ft for wetlands larger than
one-third acre w/o significant use by waterfowl): 413,332.08 sf
Visuals to be provided at staff review meeting 11 APR 2018
Response: NHBZ areas have been revised and account for all quantitative setbacks along the Lake Canal and along recently
delineated wetlands to the north and northwest.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: It is surprising to see the note on site plan (sheet 2) showing
“possible future parklet.” With the programming proposed in this first round
PDP, the layout does not appear capable of meeting LUC 3.4.1 protection and
mitigation standards. On the JULY 2017 PDR this southern corner area was
identified as stormwater and at staff review, opportunity for some co-location of
stormwater and NHBZ requirements here were discussed, in addition to
opportunities in northwest corner of site and northeast corner of site.
Response: The Applicant proposed a small park in the area south of Suniga Road. Now the entire area is proposed as a NHBZ.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Prior to scheduling a project Hearing: the Natural Habitat Buffer
Zone needs to be delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and
landscape plan and clearly shown as able to meet LUC 3.4.1 standards
(whether quantitative or qualitative). See LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(a-i) for
comprehensive list of qualitative (performance) standards for buffers.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Environmental Planning needs another formal round of PDP
review, at a minimum. The following information is needed on the site plan:
8
A. The total acreage required by the standard 100 ft buffer from the wetland
adjacent to the property at the northwest corner that is larger than one-third acre.
B. The total acreage required by the standard 50 ft buffer from the wetlands
along the northern boundary of the parcel that are most likely less than one-third
acre.
C. The total acreage required by the standard 50 ft buffer from top-of-bank of
the westernmost bank of the Lake Canal and/or as measured from fringe
wetlands most likely less than one-third acre.
D. Total acreage required for a natural habitat buffer zone through application of
quantitative (buffer table) standards (A-C above).
E. Total natural habitat buffer zone acreage proposed for the site including any
and all encroachment into standard quantitative buffer setbacks (A-C above).
Response: NHBZ have been revised to meet and/or exceed all quantitative setbacks.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: There appears to be outdoor light spillage proposed within natural
habitat buffer zone areas. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Section 3.2.4(D)
(6), requires that "natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light
spillage from off site sources." Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site
amenities shall not spill over to the NHBZ areas and this must be clearly shown
on photometric plans submitted.
Response: Landscape has been increased where there is potential for light spillage.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Within the natural habitat buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)
(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the
buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. Waiting until
FDP to determine NHBZ plantings would not be appropriate for this proposed
development project, buffer zone size or size of proposed development project.
The NHBZ needs to be at least ninety percent designed prior to scheduling a
Hearing in order for City Environmental Planning staff to provide a reputable
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board (decision-maker) that this
project meets LUC 3.4.1 standards.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: If the Developer has not yet done so, City staff HIGHLY
recommend consulting with staff associated with the Zero Waste Plan and
Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP) as they are
working directly with local waste services providers to ensure appropriate and
efficient waste and recycling management at large multifamily sites such as the
one proposed at this site.
http://fcgov.com/recycling/wrap.php, contact Jonathon Nagel at 970-416-2701
or jnagel@fcgov.com
Response: Landmark has coordinated with Jonathon Nagel.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: Please have the Developer contact myself directly with any
9
questions or concerns related to environmental planning comments delivered
during this first round PDP submittal. If I can assist the Developer in
understanding City of Fort Collins development requirements as they relate to
natural habitats and features as defined by the Land Use Code, I am more than
happy to schedule a phone conversation or in-person meeting with the
Developer or Developer representative. Thank you.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
4/10/2018:
The scale used (1” = 100’) on this landscape plan is quite large. Please
consider using a smaller scale in the range of 1” = 20-60’ to allow for a more
accurate review. This also significantly improves reading the plans in the field
during planting and permitting.
Response: Landscape sheet have been updated to show a more detailed view of the proposed plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018:
Species Selection
Both Deborah Norway Maple and Newport Plum tend to have higher early
mortality and decline problems. Forestry recommends using an alternate
species in place of these two species, such as additional Hackberry and
Catalpa. Please also note that Maples are particularly sensitive to use in
parking lot islands and peninsulas.
Please incorporate Lanceleaf Cottonwood in addition to the already proposed
Plains Cottonwood.
City of Fort Collins Forestry Division is close to reaching the maximum
percentage of Honeylocust in Fort Collins’ urban forest. During the development
review process, we see it as an opportune time to educate landscape
architects to use fewer Honeylocust on plan proposals. On this project, there are
50 Shademaster Honeylocust proposed out of 403 total trees. Please
significantly decrease the number of Honeylocust and incorporate additional
Hackberry and Catalpa.
Please incorporate additional Oak species to balance out the number of
Chinkapin Oak. Texas Red Oak and Shumard Oak are good choices. You may
also want to consider increasing the number of Bur Oak on the plans to provide
more diversity.
Response: A revised landscape plan has been submitted. We considered a variety of alternate tree species, decreased the number
for Gleditsia on the landscape plan, and additional oak species have been selected.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
10
4/10/2018:
There are multiple discrepancies between the number of trees shown in the
schedule and what is shown on the landscape plan. Please update the following
numbers to remain consistent between the schedule and plans.
Deborah Norway Maple (should not use this species): 14 additional trees on
plans
Northern Catalpa: 10 additional trees on plans
Red Barron Crabapple: 3 additional trees on plans
Chinkapin Oak: 2 missing trees from plans
American Linden: 16 additional trees on plans
Greenspire Linden: 2 missing trees from plans
Response: A revised landscape plan has been submitted. All discrepancies should be corrected with this revision.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
4/10/2018:
List the percentage of each tree species used and check for compliance with
the minimum species diversity standard LUC 3.2.1 D 3. Please include
Minimum Species Diversity percentages on the tree schedule.
Response: Tree Species Diversity table is submitted with this round.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
4/10/2018:
The symbol for irrigated turf is difficult to decipher on the landscape plans.
Please darken the hatch or use a different symbol. Irrigated turf should be
shown in all City street rights-of-way and areas where trees are planted.
Response: Turf hatch adjusted for better clarity.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
4/10/2018:
Please update the following tree sizes in the plant schedule:
Canopy Shade Trees: 2.0" caliper ball and burlapped or equivalent.
Ornamental Trees: 1.5" caliper ball and burlapped or equivalent.
Evergreen Trees: 6' height ball and burlapped or equivalent.
In addition, please display upsized mitigation trees in the plant schedule (2
upsized Bur Oak at 3” caliper ball and burlapped).
Response: Tree sizes provided, and mitigation trees noted on the landscape plans.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018:
4/10/2018:
I am concerned with the layout of species on the landscape plans. In one
instance, there is up to 10 of the same species in a row. In reference to the
Larimer County Streetscape Standards 4.1.2., “To the extent reasonably
feasible, street tree rows in landscape areas, whether inside or outside of the
sidewalk, shall be in groupings of three, five, or more of a single species. The
intent is to provide a degree of species diversity within a deliberate, repeating
design pattern.” Please reevaluate the diversity along planting areas and
11
consider incorporating additional species in groups of three to five.
Response: Layout of the trees has been corrected with this submittal.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018:
Please directly label all trees and landscaping on the landscape plans. This will
allow for easier field-review of the plans during time of planting and permitting.
Response: Tree Species labeled on the landscape plan
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018:
Please show existing trees to remain on the proposed landscape plan.
Response: Existing trees to remain are shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018:
TO COORDINATE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING (STEPHANIE
BLOCHOWIAK): please remove all trees in poor or worse condition as they
could pose a significant hazard to the adjacent property and tenants. Explore
the possibility of retaining trees in better than poor condition, however, cutting
them to 6 foot stumps for enhanced wildlife benefit.
Response: Trees along the canal have been removed. We will continue discussions with the ditch company and environmental
planning to determine feasibility of keeping tree stumps. It should be noted that natural habitat and additional planting along the
Lake Canal and drainage ditch to the north have been strengthened and will provide additional habitat features for wildlife.
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Jonathon Nagel, , jnagel@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
- 04/06/2018:
1. Prior to hearing, the following information must be provided with the project
plans for review and approval:
a. Trash and recycling enclosure details are required and must be incorporated
into the project plan set. Trash enclosure details must show each trash and
recycling enclosures proposed, in plan view and elevation view. Enclosure
elevations must be provided for all exterior sides of enclosures.
b. Trash enclosure plan and elevation details must be drawn separately from the
site plan, at a scale that is sufficient to provide clear and complete information
that is easily understandable as a reference document for the public hearing.
Typically a separate plan detail and elevation detail at an enlarged architectural
scale is necessary to provide sufficient information and to emphasize the
design intent and requirements prominently in the plans. It is recommended that
these details be grouped together in the planning set along with other site
details.
c. Plan details shall include direct labeling, dimensions and notations that
12
illustrate sufficient access, circulation and function of the enclosures for both
residents/employees and service providers. Plan details shall label and
dimension the overall enclosure area, widths of service gates, size of interior
circulation areas to be provided for interior access, required pedestrian
entrance, overall size of all proposed trash and recycling containers and their
capacity.
d. Elevations and plan details shall graphically show materials and textures, and
directly label all design components and shall clarify all materials, patterns,
colors, textures and general specifications as well as all functional components
such as drains, bollards, curbs and ramps. Elevations shall also describe wall
and door construction including recessed and projected material patterns, base
and top treatments and other design features. Include labeling, detail
enlargements and cross sections if needed to adequately describe the depth of
materials and construction intent.
Response: Plan view, elevations for all exterior sides, and a rendered perspective view of the trash/recycling enclosure area are
shown on plan sheet 40. One trash/recycling enclosure is proposed for this development. As discussed on the 4/20/18 conference
call with the Landmark Properties Operations team, each residential unit (excluding the clubhouse units) will be provided with a bin
to collect trash and recycling in separate bags. The bins will be set outside on pick-up days for collection by a valet trash service. A
trash room will be provided on the residential floor of the clubhouse building for trash/recycling collection and pick up by the valet
service. Valet service will collect from the bins and trash room and move the refuse to the trash/recycling enclosure. It is anticipated
that the valet trash service will operate 5-6 days/week. On-site management will be responsible for coordinating with tenants to
ensure that bins are brought in after collection periods and that debris is not left around the development
2. Prior to final plan approval, additional plan, elevation and capacity
information may be required with Final Plan review to clarify the adequate
function, construction and final design intent of the trash and recycling areas.
Response: Noted
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
- 04/06/2018: 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: Per the City’s MFU capacity calculator (provide for guidance in sizing the trash and recycling enclosure), the proposed
containers as shown on plan sheet 40 will be adequate to meet this requirement with 2-3 pick-ups per week. Additional pick-ups will
be scheduled by management as required.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
04/06/2018: Please provide labels on the site plan for all "Trash & Recycling
Enclosure"
Response: Labels added.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
13
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Light and Power has single phase electric facilities stubbed to the
north edge of the property from Mullen Dr. We also have conduit stubbed at the
proposed Suniga/Redwood intersection that will extend down Suniga. This stub
will have 3phase electric that can be extended into the site.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: 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/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Response: Transformer locations will be finalized at final design
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light &
Power. 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. Please show
proposed transformer locations on the utility plans
Response: Electric meter locations will be coordinated at final design.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and
Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. If
electric meters are to be ganged, please gang the meters on one side of the
building, opposite of the gas meters. All buildings larger than a duplex and/or
200 amps is considered a commercial service, therefore the owner is
responsible to provide and maintain the electrical service from the transformer
to the meter bank. Please show proposed electric meter locations on the plans.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
Commercial service information forms (C-1 form) and a one line diagrams will
need to be completed for all commercial meters and each multifamily building
and submitted to Light & Power Engineering. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Noted. As discussed at the 4/11 staff review meeting, the forms will be provided prior to/concurrent with the FDP plans
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com
14
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/04/2018
Please dedicate and show “Public Access and Trail” Easements in the
following locations:
a. Parallel and adjacent to Redwood Street south of Suniga.
b. On the north side of Suniga, continuing east across “Street E” until
intercepting the northwest bank of the Lake Canal. Trail crossings at street
intersections must be brought to the corner.
c. North of Suniga, and east of “Street E”: Following the north-west bank of the
Lake Canal along the entire east boundary line, to the NE corner of the site.
The Public Access and Trail Easement can overlay the Natural Habitat Buffer
Zone along the Lake Canal.
Response: Trail access easements shown on the site plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/04/2018
Due to the fact that a preliminary trail alignment for the regional Lake Canal trail
is not available at this time, the dedicated ¿Public Access and Trail Easement¿
on this site should allow the greatest flexibility in final trail alignment. A 50 ft
wide easement would allow for potential alignment meanders or bridge
crossings of the Lake Canal. The 2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan
recommended right-of-way (easement) width is 50 feet. The minimum
right-of-way or easement width is 30 feet, preferably only for short distances.
Response: A public access and trail easement is show on the site plan.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/04/2018
The Public Access and Trail easement shall be located outside of the street
right-of-way when parallel to a street; a paved recreational trail does not function
as or replace a street sidewalk.
Response: Per our recent discussions, the Public Access and Trail Easement will co-exist with a 12-foot wide pedestrian bike path
to be constructed with Suniga Road along the project frontage. The 12-foot wide trail will also serve as the public street sidewalk
and bike lane for this section on the north side of Suniga Road. We will continue coordinating with Parks Planning, Traffic prior to
Hearing.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/04/2018
Funding and construction of the Lake Canal Trail by Park Planning &
Development may potentially occur after 2021. If the owner is interested in
constructing all or a part of the trail along with the site development, PP&D may
have the funding available to enter into a reimbursement agreement for all or
part of the trail construction.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: PFA
Contact: Andrew Rosen, , arosen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018
04-10-2018 UPDATE
>Project team confirmed that the storage under the parking garage ramp would
be non-combustible such as bicycles and longboards.
15
>It was confirmed that the clubhouse would be fully sprinklered.
>The northwest hydrant would be moved to Snyder Dr and a hydrant would be
added within 100ft of the Standpipe FDC .
>The stairways and standpipes would now be located in the Southwest and
Northeast corners of the Parking structure.
>The project team indicated a second building denote Style 8 is planned and
will have a Fire Lane to its southwest side.
04/05/2018:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS
The following is a summary of general requirements as the project progresses:
>PFA should be involved in any plan to phase this project.
>Any road required for fire access, temporary or permanent, over 150ft in length
will require an approved turnaround
>Any dead-end road that is greater than 660ft without an approved turnaround,
will trigger the requirement for a second point of access to the project. This
second point of access will be spaced at a distance greater than half of the
longest diagonal measurement of the project. It is stated in the provided
documents that streets are planned for the future that join to neighboring streets.
These can be used to ensure required fire access is provided.
>Temporary or permanent stairways shall be required during the construction
process in all structures that are two stories or higher.
>Addressing and wayfinding will be required that is clearly visible as each
structure develops.
Response: Noted
Response: All comments are addressed with this submittal. See revised site plan for further information.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018
04/05/2018:
FIRE ACCESS
>Fire access is required to within 150ft of all portions of the exterior perimeter
of each building and residence in the project.
>In order to meet this requirement, the street like private drive, shown as Snyder
Drive (see naming comment below) shall be designed to Fire Lane standards
and dedicated on the Plat or separate legal document.
>From the provided documents, it appears that residential building design
number 8 (Sycamore) does not meet this criteria for fire access because there
is no accessway from the street directly into the courtyard area. Therefore this
design (#8) will trigger the requirement for a Fire Lane to be established in the
full extent of the drive area of the parking to the south west of this building.
>It appears that building design #3 does comply with this criteria because of the
large walkway through to the courtyard.
>The road that provides access to the Building 5 in the northwest corner of the
property is required to provide fire access to this building. This triggers the
requirement for this road to be built to Fire Lane standards through to the west
terminus of the parking area.
>From the provided documents dated 3-21-18, the clubhouse and parking
structure are in compliance with this 150ft fire access criteria.
Response: Fire access has been updated to serve Building Type 5, and Building Type 8. A revised site plan has been submitted.
16
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018
04/05/2018:
FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to
the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any
new fire lane must meet the following general requirements:
> Shall be designated on the plat or by separate document as an Emergency
Access Easement.
> Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum
overhead clearance. Where road widths exceed 20¿ in width, the full width shall
be dedicated unless otherwise approved by the AHJ.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting
40 tons.
> Dead-end roads shall not exceed 660' in length without providing for a second
point of access. Dead-end access roads in excess of 1320ft in length require a
third point of access.
> Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
> The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum
of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on
submitted plans.
> Be visible by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all
times. Sign locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final
plans. Refer to LCUASS detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and
spacing. Appropriate directional arrows required on all signs.
Response: Comment Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018
04/05/2018:
AUTOMATED FIRE SPRINKLER
Any building greater than 5,000sqft is required to be designed with an
automated fire sprinkler system or system of fire containment. The Clubhouse is
approximately 13,800sqft and therefore will be designed with a sprinkler system
throughout the building or designed with a method of fire containment where no
fire area is greater than 5,000sqft. The FDC should be located on the south
elevation and close to Street A depending on wall construction type. This plan
should be provided to PFA for separate permit review and approval. Please call
PFA with any sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2891.
>The Parking structure, classified as an S2, will require an approved automated
fire sprinkler system throughout the structure.
>The required fire lines are noted to each residential building for the automated
fire sprinkler systems.
Response: The clubhouse and parking structure will be designed with sprinkler systems. The FDC will be located as noted in the
comment. Building plans will be submitted for approval/permitting at a later date.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018
04/05/2018:
STANDPIPE SYSTEM
The parking garage, classified as an S2 occupancy will require a standpipe
17
system.
The standpipe system should be located in both stairwells with the hose
hookups on each intermediate stairway level. The stairwells should be relocated
to the southwest and northeast corners of the structure to enable best fireground
practices.
Response: Noted. This comment will be incorporated into building plans to be submitted for permit at a later date.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018
04/05/2018:
HYDRANTS
>A hydrant is required within 300ft of these residential buildings and on 600ft
centers thereafter. Hydrants located in nearby neighborhoods can be
considered for this calculation if they are located on appropriate fire apparatus
accessways.
>The hydrant indicated in the northwest parking area should be relocated at the
entrance to this road on Snyder Dr. Should the water department require this
hydrant at this location, another hydrant should be located on Snyder Drive to
maintain the required spacing.
>A hydrant is required within 100ft of a standpipe FDC, therefore a hydrant will
be required on Lupine Drive by the parking structure.
>The hydrant shown at the north east corner of the parking structure is required
in that location to serve the residential buildings in that area.
Response: The fire hydrant locations have been revised. A fire hydrant has been added to the street frontage to the south, in
addition, A fire hydrant is located on the north side of the parking structure for the residential buildings
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
04/06/2018:
SNYDER DRIVE
Snyder Drive will be required to be named differently for the east-west
component and the north-south component to avoid confusion of addressing.
Both the newly named streets will be required to be dedicated as Emergency
Access Easements and constructed to fire lane standards as noted above.
Response: The Site Plan has been revised to show no connection to Northfield Property.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
04/06/2018:
KNOX BOX
IFC 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau Policy 88-20: Poudre Fire
Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in an
approved, exterior location (or locations) on every new or existing building
equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system. The box shall be
positioned 3 to 7 feet above finished floor and within 10 feet of the front door, or
closest door to the fire alarm panel. Exception can be made by the PFA if it is
more logical to have the box located somewhere else on the structure. Knox
Box size, number, and location(s) to be determined at building permit and/or by
time of final CO.
Response: Noted. A “Knox Box” will pe provided per the above comment. The location will be coordinated as during the building
plan review/approval process
18
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
04/06/2018:
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - GENERAL STANDARD
> FCLU 3.4.5(B): If any use on the development site may entail the use or
storage of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site, the
project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes for
the use and storage of the hazardous materials involved. Adequate precautions
shall be taken to protect against negative off-site impacts of a hazardous
materials release, using the best available technology. Contact Poudre Fire
Authority for details, specific requirements, or assistance.
Response: The Developer is aware of the applicable compliance regulation and has prepared a Hazardous Materials Impact
Statement that was included in the initial PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
04/06/2018:
GATES
Emergency access will be required through the fence shown around the
swimming pool area by the clubhouse. 4ft wide gates fitted with an approved
Knox locking device should be provided to enable access.
Response: A gate will be provided at swimming pool area fitted with a knox locking device.
Response: A gate with an approved knox locking device is shown on the Sheet C3.02
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Because this site is unique in that it oddly-shaped and has
extremely limited public street frontage, it is important to be able to see how it
fits into the surrounding area. For the next round, please provide a context map
that is bounded by Conifer on the north, Vine on the south, Lemay on the east
and Blondel/Blue Spruce on the west. This map needs to include all existing
and proposed streets, existing and proposed development, and other features
such as regional stormwater facilities, irrigation canals and public facilities.
Response: A revised site plan has been submitted. A context map has been provided.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Bicycle/pedestrian spurs are needed to connect the project to the
City’s regional trail. It appears that in addition to the public sidewalks along the
two streets that will connect to Northfield, there are four other logical locations
that would serve the overall site. Please provide bike/ped spurs from the ends
of the four parking lots that are adjacent to the regional trail. If development of
The Retreat precedes construction of the regional trail, then a sufficient financial
security must be provided to the City to ensure that these connections are made
at the appropriate time.
Response: The Parks Department has requested that access to the regional trail be limited. The site plan now shows 2
connections which are acceptable to the Parks Department.
19
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: We have not seen the singular, centralized trash and recycling
depot, accompanied by a valet type of service, employed in multi-family projects
at this scale. One of our primary concerns is that the recycling opportunities for
multi-family residents is equal to that of single family residents with curb-side
service. Please provide a reference, with contact information, where this
system is up and running in a comparable project in a community similar to Fort
Collins (i.e. student-oriented, cottage-style, in a community with a major
university). The City’s environmental compliance inspector will be consulted to
assist with the evaluation of the proposed system.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Please indicate the location of the primary internal, private shuttle
bus transit stop. Will it be near the clubhouse on the street-like private drive?
Will be on a public street? In order to encourage ridership, it needs to be
centrally located, and equipped with a shelter that includes illumination,
benches, trash receptacles and schedule board. Staff assumes that this
primary stop will be the long term parking spot for the shuttle bus.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: The Transportation Impact Study indicates that the Adequate
Public Facilities issue is unresolved. Resolving this issue in a manner that
allows this project to proceed appears to be the critical path from a project
management perspective. At this time, Staff has not received a phasing plan
that indicates how The Retreat complies with current regulations.
Response: A phase line has been indicated on the site plan and the TIS addresses the proposed project phasing that will occur if
the APF ordinance is not changed prior to this project moving forward with construction.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Staff is concerned about the lack of detail associated with the
buffer yard. Please identify which buildings along the buffer are three-stories.
Between the fence and any three-story buildings, please install earthen berms to
enhance the effectiveness of the buffer. Also, it appears that the proposed
number of trees is sparse. A denser screen is needed to mitigate the
difference in size and scale between the existing neighborhood and the
proposed project.
Response: Clarification regarding building heights has been added to the site plan. The number of trees has been increased.
Grading for detention and the alignment of a City storm drain prohibit the use of berms in this area, however, attractive, sustainable
fencing and generous landscaping enhance the buffer zone which averages approximately 60’ feet in width. Note that 25 feet is
required by the LUC.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Please provide multiple cross-section views so we can evaluate
the effectiveness of the buffer yard and the relationship between the back of the
existing houses and the multi-family buildings.
Response: Sections through the buffer yard have been submitted illustrating existing and proposed buildings, proposed plantings,
20
fence location and grading.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: In general, after reviewing the rear and side elevations of the
various models, Staff is concerned about the lack of detail, materials and
interest of the buildings that would face the neighborhood. If these elevations
are not improved and upgraded, then there is a greater burden on the buffer
yard to mitigate the impacts of this project.
Response: The building elevations have been revised per the 5/2/18 meeting between Ted Shepard, Roger Burgess (Landmark),
Mack Furlow (Landmark), and Linda Ripley.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Please provide a detail of the fence along the buffer yard. With its
length, staff is concerned about this fence becoming overly repetitive and
monotonous. The graphic indicates that there will be columns but this can only
be assumed at this time lacking a design schematic. Staff recommends that
masonry columns be provided and that they be placed at the property corners of
the abutting lots. Please consider varying the design, height, materials, color of
the course of the fence. Finally, for vinyl fencing, please do not select white as a
color as the vinyl fence industry has not solved the problem with white fencing
causing an unnatural amount of glare.
Response: A fence detail has been provided.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: We will need to see a detail of the landscaping around the parking
structure.
Response: A detail of the landscape around the parking lot structure has been provided.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: The Landscape Plan Tree Schedule includes only two kinds of
Evergreen Trees. Please add additional cultivars to improve the variety of the
overall plan. Areas of low visual interest (parking structure, trash/recycling
depot and electrical transformers once their locations are established) are
logical locations for Evergreens.
Response: Additional evergreen species have been added to the landscape plan.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: The private street schematic cross-section indicates that on one
side the parkway is only five feet wide. Please widen to six feet to improve the
thrive-ability of street trees over the long term.
Response: The parkway on private streets has been widened to a 6’ to allow for the thrive-ability of trees over the long term.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Please provide a detail of the fence surrounding the private
amenity area.
Response: Amenity fence detail has been provided.
21
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Please refer to the redlines for a variety of comments related
labeling, graphics, conveying of information other miscellaneous issues.
Response: Redlines received, reviewed, and addressed.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Please refer to the redlines of the Planning Objectives. There are
sections of this narrative that stray off-topic and should be deleted. Other
sections need to be revised. Note that there is no mention of City Plan
Principles and Policies related to the L-M-N neighborhood (LIV 28) and the fact
that Suniga Road is part of the N. College / Mountain Vista Enhanced Travel
Corridor.
Response: Thank you for your comments. The Planning Objectives have been revised and a section addressing LIV 28 and the
fact that Suniga Road is part of the N. College / Mountain Vista Enhanced TravelCorridor has been added.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Please refer to the redlines for the Request for Increasing the
Occupancy Limit. Most of what is in this document is superfluous to the issue
and needs to be concisely edited so that what is called for in the standard is
specifically addressed.
Response: The Request for Increasing the Occupancy Limit has been revised to clarify what is called for in the standard, however,
additional information has been included for the Board’s consideration.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Birchmore and Fairview – sheets 7 – 12 – it is unacceptable that
the upper floors of the side elevations feature either no fenestration or faux
elements. The Fairview needs a larger front porch. Replace faux elements with
real building components.
Response: Faux elements have been removed. Fenestration has been added to street-facing facades. Per the 5/2/18 meeting,
fenestration will not be required for side elevations that only face another building. The front porch for the Fairview is called out as
12’x4’ with a 5’-3”x7’ recessed area at the front door
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Courtyard – on the front elevation, right side, second floor, enlarge
the window so that it matches the size of the window on the left side. The use of
faux elements is unacceptable.
Response: Faux elements have been removed and additional details have been added to the Courtyard building elevations per the
5/2/18 meeting.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Oakview – the side elevations need additional fenestration.
Porches are needed. Replace faux elements with real building components.
Response: Fenestration and brick have been added to street-facing facades. Per the 5/2/18 meeting, fenestration will not be
required for side elevations that only face another building. Porches and balconies for the Oakview units are called out on the plans
as 5’-4”x6’-6”.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
Cloverhurst – appears to exceed 14,000 square feet, please verify. Decorative
22
shutters appear to applied and artificial. Porches are mere stoops and need to
be enlarged.
Response: The Cloverhurst unit type is approximately 12,500 sf. Shutters are to be placed at four double-windows in the center
section of the building per the 5/2/18 meeting. Front porches are called out as 12’x6’.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Milledge – the side elevation is lacking fenestration. Porches
appear minimal. Carry the brick around all sides.
Response: Fenestration and brick have been added to street-facing facades. Per the 5/2/18 meeting, fenestration and brick will not
be required for side elevations that only face another building. The front porch for the building is called out as 37’-11”x10’-0” and two
11’-6”x9’-0” balconies are also provided.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Lumpkin – carry the brick around all four sides and enlarge the
front porches.
Response: Brick has been added. The front porch for the center two units of the building is called out as 37’-11”x10’-0” with two
11’-6”x9’-0” balconies. Front porches for the end units are called out a 19’-6”x6’-6”.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: Baldwin – appears massive and repetitive. The front entries need
to be differentiated. The lack of fenestration on the two sides is unacceptable.
Faux elements must be deleted in favor of real building components. This
model needs to be thoughtfully modified or replaced. Note that the building
cannot exceed 14,000 square feet.
Response: The building elevations have been revised per the 5/2/18 meeting. Differentiation for the front entries has been provided
and fenestration has been added on street facing facades. The middle two units have been revised to be set out 2 ft from the end
units. The Baldwin unit is approximately 9,000 sf.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
Tillman – such a large building needs to feature more variety in the entrances.
Six identical entryways appear monotonous. The lack of fenestration on the
side elevations is unacceptable. Faux elements must be replaced.
Response: The entrances have been revised to provide more variety. Fenestration and brick have been added to street-facing
facades. Per the 5/2/18 meeting, fenestration and brick will not be required for side elevations that only face another building
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: There are four instances where two identical models are next door
to each other. These models should be further separated to avoid
repetitiveness.
Response: The plan has been modified so that the same model types are not next door to each other.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: The clubhouse uses cultured stone as an attractive accent. This
material should be judiciously distributed over the balance of the project as an
accent feature that upgrades the appearance of the various models.
Response: The cultured stone will also be used as an accent feature on the parking garage façade. Brick will be used for accents on
23
the residential units.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: The parking structure will need some further use of other materials
to break up both the horizontal and vertical impacts of the overall mass. Please
consider the use of the cultured stone as the base treatment. The stairwells can
be enhanced as accent features. Other horizontal bands can be differentiated
by use of various materials, colors and textures. Recent parking structures
constructed for student-oriented housing offer other examples of acceptable
design.
Response: A revised elevation was presented at the 5/2/18 meeting. Cultured stone has been added as the base treatment per the
comment. Lap siding has been added to the stairwells and the precast concrete will be stained.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: In general, regarding the proposed architectural character of the
buildings (with the exception of the clubhouse) staff finds that most of the
buildings lack the detail that would normally be found in an L-M-N neighborhood,
particularly the side and rear elevations. Overall, there is a repetitive aspect
that needs to be mitigated. Much is made in the Planning Objectives about front
porches but most models feature mere stoops, not porches. Faux elements are
not found in our local vernacular and, again, are uncharacteristic of an L-M-N
neighborhood. Elements that are repeated lead to monotony. A finer grain of
architectural detail and character is needed so that this project becomes more
representative of a component of an L-M-N neighborhood and not an apartment
complex.
Response: The building elevations have been revised per the 5/2/18 meeting between Ted Shepard, Roger Burgess (Landmark),
Mack Furlow (Landmark), and Linda Ripley. Note that all units have a rear patio area with approximately 120sf – 140 sf of area.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 04/13/2018
04/13/2018: One idea to break up the mass of the buildings would be to take
advantage of the buildings that are located at the corners of two streets (public
and private). These buildings could feature distinctive individual unit entrances
that face each street.
Response: The building elevations have been revised per the 5/2/18 meeting.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Utility Plan, C3.00:
• Please label the new outfall for the Redwood Pond in these plans.
Response: A label has been added to the Utility Plans
• Please draw the existing NECCO backbone along Suniga Road to scale.
Response: The NECCO backbone has been drawn to illustrate a 54” RCP per the as-built drawings
• It looks like you are proposing a new box culvert along the Lake Canal at the
Suniga Road crossing. Please verify that the proposed box will work with the
newly installed NECCO backbone and the waterlines in the vicinity.
24
Response: The crossing of Lake Canal will be designed and constructed with Northfield – Filing 1. In the interim, the is a proposed
access drive from the western parking area to access Redwood Street at the ultimate location of Redwood Street and Future Suniga
Road
• Please note there is also a storm pipe crossing with inlets located on Suniga
that is a part of the overall NECCO infrastructure. I’m not completely clear if this
project or if Northfields is going to be responsible for constructing Suniga in this
area, however, this proposed storm crossing should, at a minimum, be shown
on these plans for reference.
Response: We are currently showing the inlets proposed by Northfield – Filing 1on our plans and will continue to coordinate with
Northfield’s design team to ensure our roadway connections will work as designed and drainage will maintained as designed for
Northfield – Filing 1.
• For the newly proposed NECCO storm line going up to the existing Redwood
Pond, we will need to be able to have drivable access along the pipe line. The
proposed sidewalk may work but we will need to discuss width, depth and
proximity to the manholes.
Response: A trail has been designed to allow for adequate access along the Redwood Pond Outlet Pipe.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Grading Plan:
• Per the geotechnical report that was submitted, it looks like groundwater
depths vary quite a bit across the site. It also looks like groundwater was
measured during February 2018. Groundwater depths will also be required to
be measured during spring and summer months to determine if the groundwater
depth is in fact, shallower at certain times of the year. Please note that the
detention basins will need to be shown to have inverts that are a minimum of 2’
above the determined groundwater depth.
Response: Grading and ponds have been redesigned to allow for a minimum 2’ separation from finish grade to reported
groundwater elevations.
• Please label cross-slopes throughout the grading plan.
Response: Grading and ponds have been redesigned to allow for a minimum 2’ separation from finish grade to reported
groundwater elevations.
• Let’s discuss the upper end alignment of the pipe to the Redwood Pond. Can
a couple of the bends/junctions be eliminated?
Response: The outfall pipe has been revised
• The proposed location of the box culverts along Lake Canal makes it look like
you are proposing to shift Lake Canal over to the northwest. Is this the case? If
the box culverts are shown in the correct location, the wingwalls are going to be
in too close of proximity to the adjacent storm pipe. Let’s discuss.
Response: Both connections to Northfield – Filing 1 have been eliminated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Street Plan and Profiles:
Why is the storm outfall from underground detention basin 7 so deep? Can this
be shallowed up?
Response: The internal storm sewer system has been revised to avoid exposing groundwater.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
25
04/09/2018: Drainage Report:
• For next submittal, please also provide the SWMM model. It might be easiest
to compare your inputs to those of the latest SWMM model for the NECCO
system and make sure the two are compatible and results are similar.
• Detention volume calculations from SWMM include WQCV? Please show this.
Response: The SWMM model will be included as both PDFs and as the .ini and .inp files with this submittal. WQCV are modeled in
the SWMM model as a initial volume in each pond with a very low release rate.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: In 'Section C. Floodplain', on the 3rd and 4th pages of the report,
there is no City Floodplain, so it doesn't need to be mentioned or included as
Figure 4.
Response: Updated
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: In 'Section C. Floodplain', on the 3rd page of the report, in
paragraph 1, please describe the FEMA regulatory floodplain as being the
FEMA-regulatory Dry Creek 100-year floodplain. Also, please reference the
FEMA FIRMette in Appendix E.
Response: Updated
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: On C1.00 of the Utility Plans, the Floodplain and Floodway
descriptions are reversed. Please correct them on this and all other applicable
sheets.
Response: The labels have been revised
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: On C3.00 of the Utility Plans, please add standard notes that
floodplain use permits and no-rise certifications will be required. Please add the
notes on this page and all other applicable pages.
Response: A separate Floodplain Exhibit has been included to supply all required notes and information.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: On C4.01 of the Utility Plans, please add a standard note that
storage of equipment and materials is not allowed within the floodway. Please
add this note on this page and all other applicable pages.
Response: A separate Floodplain Exhibit has been included to supply all required notes and information.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: On C6.00 of the Utility Plans, please include floodplain cross
sections, along with stationing and BFE's within the 100-year floodplain.
Response: A separate Floodplain Exhibit has been included to supply all required notes and information
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Please identify and label the current effective floodplain and
26
floodway boundaries in the southwest corner (Tract E) of this property, as well
as along the western boundary (Redwood Street).
Response: The floodplain and floodway lines have been included on the plat.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: The FEMA 100-year Floodplain and Floodway boundaries are
either incorrectly labeled or not labeled at all. Please correct this. Also, there is
a random line that doesn't correspond with any floodplain or floodway
boundaries.
Response: Labels adjusted and corrected.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
04/06/2018: All plans will be reviewed at the next round of review.
Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018
04/06/2018: 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: Redlines have been revised
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Tim Tuttle, , TTUTTLE@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Please coordinate with Engineering on the access locations on
Redwood and Suniga, a variance may be required due to the spacing in
relation to the Suniga/Redwood intersection. Staff concurs with the
right-in/right-out movements at these access points.
Response: All internal roadways have been revised to be private streets and will act as high-volume drives. All intersection spacing
is met with this designation.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: More detail will be needed for the roadway transition on Lupine to
the narrow section.
Response: The Lupine Drive and Mullein Drive have been redesigned as gated emergency access only connection.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Signing and striping will be reviewed as the project moves
forward.
Response: Acknowledged
27
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: We will need to work with the Developer on the interim
configuration of Suniga and Redwood including striping and control.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: The neighborhood to the east has expressed concern about the
additional traffic volumes, discussions may be needed for potential mitigation.
Response: The applicant has submitted a Request for Alternative Compliance to eliminate vehicular connections to Lupine Drive
and Mullein Drive. Landmark is under contract to aquire the connection to the north that will allow the project to provide an access
directly to Conifer, so that vehicular connection to the Redwood Meadows neighborhood is no longer necessary. Bike/Ped and
emergency access will still be provided at these two locations.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: The Traffic Study has been reviewed and the threshold for
Adequate Public Facilities (APF) has been exceeded for the Vine & Lemay
Intersection. Per the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.7.3, the project
cannot move forward until one of the following occur:
1. The proposed development fully funds the Vine and Lemay Overpass
Project.
2. The Vine and Lemay Overpass Project is funded through other means (City
or Developer)
3. Reduce the size of the development to meet the Transportation APF
Exception.
4. Wait and see if the City of Fort Collins Council revises the code pertaining to
Adequate Public Facilities.
Response: The project has been phased. Phase 1 meets the transportation APF exception.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: The TIS assumes Suniga Road extends east and connects to
Lemay Ave and that a portion of the site traffic uses the future Northfield access
"A". If the Northfield development is delayed or does not move forward, please
explain in a memo how the distribution and volumes would change.
Response: This scenario of Northfield being delayed is addressed in a section of the revised TIS
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/03/2018
04/03/2018: TRANSFORT
Thank you for the bus stop pad on Redwood. As we do not know when we will
start service to this stop, please provide a fee-in-lieu for the shelter and
28
amenities associated. Please contact Melina Dempsey for price and payment:
mdempsey@fcgov.com.
Response: Comment acknowledged. The project team will engage in further discussion at FDP.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Heather McDowell, 970-224-6065, hmcdowell@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: C3.00:
• The 200-foot hydrant lateral located in the northwest corner of the site will need
to be modified. We don’t allow services off of a hydrant lateral and this lateral
seems unnecessarily long. Let’s discuss.
• Please note on the plans that the existing 12-inch CoFC waterline located on
the north side of Suniga ROW is to remain.
Response: The internal water system and roadway system has been redesigned and the fire hydrant of concerns is not longer
proposed. A note has been added to the Existing Conditions and the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: C3.01:
• We would like to eliminate the water and sewer taps in Redwood Street if
possible because of the crossing of other existing utilities and because it looks
like there are ways to accomplish this by tying into the available water and lines
north and south of this block.
Response: The water and sewer taps have been relocated to avoid connection within Redwood Street
• We need to further discuss the sanitary sewer system in regards to the
delineation between the public and private components. I have included some
redlined suggestions.
Response: A manhole upstream and downstream of the Private Pump Station has been added to delineate ownership
• Sanitary sewer layout looks to include some unnecessary manholes. Please
note that typical spacing is 400-feet, with a maximum spacing of 500-feet. I’ve
redlined some areas that I think could be adjusted; however, please reduce the
number of manholes where possible throughout.
Response: The sanitary sewer design has been revised
• Please note that we do not want sanitary sewer services tying directly into
manholes. Please tie services directly into the main wherever possible.
Response: The services have been moved to avoid connection at a manhole
• There is a proposed storm pipe from underground detention pond 5 that
crosses the existing 12-inch waterline. Will this crossing work?
Response: The connection to the NECCO is approximately 13 feet deep and should not be in conflict with the existing 12-inch water
main
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: C3.03:
• I’ve made some suggested water, fire, hydrant location and layout
modifications for the northwest corner of the site.
Response: The water main has been revised and a line is no longer needed in that location
• Please note, water meters should be located behind the 9-foot utility easement
throughout the site and not within the easement so that they don’t conflict with
29
other dry utilities that will be using these easements. The curb stop should be
within the easement.
Response: The right-of-way has been revised to be an access and utility easement. This should allow for additional room for all dry
utilities. The electric is shown within the parkway per City Light and Power
• How are you planning to irrigate this site? Irrigation taps should also be shown.
Response: Two irrigation taps are shown on the Utility Plan
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018
04/09/2018: Landscape Plans
• Please include all of the utility mains and services on the Landscape Plans.
Also, please ensure that separation requirements are met between trees/shrubs
and utilities.
Response: Utility Plans now shown on landscape plan.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: A "Central Trash Depot" located on the NE corner of the lot does
not meet the requirements of conveniently located trash and recycling
enclosures as stated in 3.2.5(B). The service area is not conveniently placed for
the dwellings on the far side of the lot without a concierge/valet service. If a
concierge/valet service is proposed, its implementation will need to be added
to the site plan in the notes.
Response: Acknowledged.
Response: A central valet service will be provided Coordination will continue between the applicant and city. A note will be added to
the site plan prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018:The north east side of the development has a lack of handicap
accessible spaces available servicing the dwellings along the east side.
Relocating a few spaces from within the garage to the east lots will increase the
serviceability of the east side dwelling units.
Response: We have further explored the location of the ADA parking stalls. ADA parking spaces are located close to ADA
designated units.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: The elevator equipment on the roof of the parking garage needs to
be adequately screened from public view by integrating it in into the building
and roof design.
Response: The equipment will be screened by a wall.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018
04/10/2018: The pedestrian access to and from the parking structure is unclear
30
between the overall site plan and the elevation drawings provided. How will the
pedestrian and vehicular separation be provided?
Response: An enlarged site plan has been submitted that will help make the access to and from the parking structure more clear.
Pedestrians will access the parking structure via connecting walks.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018
04/11/2018: No foundation plantings are shown for the entirety of the site on the
landscape plan. If a full comprehensive landscape plan is not provided a
landscape typical shall be provided for all buildings.
Response: Foundation plantings have been delineated with this submittal. We will provide a full and detailed landscape plan
showing foundation plantings at FDP.