Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZIEGLER - CORBETT ODP - ODP210004 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College AvenuePO Box 580Fort Collins, CO 80522970.221.6689970.224.6134 faxfcgov.com/developmentreviewNovember 05, 2021Chris Beabout Landmark Homes6341 Fairgrounds Ave., Suite 100Windsor, CO 80550RE: Ziegler Corbett ODP, ODP210004, Round Number 1Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Ziegler Corbett ODP. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan via phone at 9702216695 or via email at tsullivan@fcgov.com. Comment Summary:Department: Development Review CoordinatorContact: Todd Sullivan, 9702216695, tsullivan@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/2021I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting processes. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. To best serve you, please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you!Response: Thank you.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/2021FOR HEARING:All "FOR HEARING" comments need to be addressed and resolved prior to moving forward with scheduling the hearing for this project.As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged.Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. Files are to be named PLAN NAME_PROJECT NAME_REVIEW TYPE_ROUND NO.Example: UTILITY PLANSMY PROJECT_PDP_RD1.pdfResponse: UnderstoodComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/02/2021Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cutoff for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your plans, please notify me with as much advanced notice as possible.Response: UnderstoodComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/02/2021Temporary Service Changes City of Fort Collins Development ReviewTo best provide thorough reviews and give every project the attention it deserves, the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has begun to impact the timeliness of our reviews. We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service level adjustments.Currently, one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks). Lengths of subsequent rounds of review will be considered after each round of review. Also, Completeness Checks will be performed on all initial and Round 2 submittals during this time. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.Response: UnderstoodDepartment: Planning ServicesContact: Ryan Mounce, 9702246186, rmounce@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING: Additional information and analysis is needed regarding the proposed ODP modifications prior to hearing. Please see specific comments for each modification request below:Response: See below and Revised ModificationsComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING:Modification of Standard 4.26(D)(2): Staff is unlikely to support any hardship modification criteria based on the information provided. Hardship modifications are typically used when there are difficult site geometry/topography issues. A large, rectangular greenfield site is unlikely to meet staff's interpretation for this particular modification of standard.Response:Modifciatiion have been revised. Please see new justifciations and data supportComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING: Modification of Standard 4.26(D)(2): Staff is interested in additional information and analysis to evaluate a justification around either a public benefit criteria. Staff believes there are two major components to such a modification request and is seeking additional information as described below:1) Demonstrate why this property is not suited for primary uses. More detail is needed on why this particular site isn’t suitable for primary uses as defined by the HC zone district. While staff agrees it will be important to buffer and compatibly transition to existing residential development, this is a large site that could still include primary uses and still create an appropriate transition. Issues such as visibility and access for primary uses are hinted at in the original justification and as a result of the change in the corridor plan to allow Front Range Village, but staff is seeking more information on how this site compares to other HC zoned sites that have been able to fulfill the primary/secondary use requirements. A comparison of visibility/accessibility or other important metrics where primary uses either have/have not worked well in the HC corridor could be included.Response:Modifications have been revised. Please see new justifications and support for public benefits.2) Clarify what specific benefits are being provided in lieu of fulfilling primary uses More specific detail or commitments are needed to justify the modification based on a public benefits criterion. The original request discusses creating an attractive development and including certain price points that would meet certain City policies/goals, but these details are too vague in their current form for staff and future decision makers to evaluate. While ODPs are typically higherlevel site planning, more details or specific commitment is needed as a part of the modification request evaluationResponse:Response: Modifications have been revised. Please see new justifications and support for public benefits. LEED Gold and Solar Power, attainable HousingComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING:Modification of Standard 4.26(D)(3)(a): Similar to the modification for 4.26(D)(2), staff is unlikely to support a hardship criterion for this modification and views this proposed request best suited towards an ‘equaltoorbetterthan’ criteria. It should be demonstrated how this ODP sets a framework to promote greater compatibility and transitions with existing development than would otherwise be required by existing standards (i.e. lower building heights, greater buffering or landscaping/screening provisions near existing residential)Such concepts could support slightly taller buildings elsewhere on the site, which average out to the existing 3story standard for the HC zone district and simultaneously support broader HC goals as a corridor suitable for some higher intensities and appropriate residential transitions.Response:Response: Response: Modifications have been revised. Please see new justifications and support for public benefits. Day Care and priority for Civic usesComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING: Pending ongoing evaluation, this ODP may need to request a modification or alternative compliance request for Section 3.6.3(F) regarding the lack of a connection north to The English Ranch. Staff anticipates additional discussion around this project element throughout the review.Response: Alternative Compliance is acceptable, but we would prefer to allow the City Street Master Plan to justify the lack of this connectivity. It clearly shows no connection which indicates that the thought and reasoning behind this has already been approved and vetted through the City.Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING: Is the intent of Parcels D & E only to include groundfloor nonresidential uses and multifamily above? A note or more information may be needed for these parcels to indicate the possibility of 3+ stories could only occur as either pure primary uses or mixeduse with ground floor primary uses. Staff would also not support six stories for Parcel D given standards in the HC zone district discussing abrupt height transitions adjacent to existing residential development.Response: Plan and tables indicate a maximum of 3 stories in parcels D & EComment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING: Is the overall ODP density stated at the bottom of the Land Use Statistics table inclusive of the residential units anticipated in Parcels D and E? The total site tabulations for density and total dwelling units should also be updated to reflect this if not.Response: Yes, they are included in the overall allowed units. The intent is to provide flexibility for the developer within each parcel and a certainty of total units by providing an overall maximum units allowed unit (750 Units Max). Tables have been revised in areas to reflect density in Parcels D and EComment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING: The landuse statistics table indicates the site is greater than 30acres in size, which will require a minimum of three housing types. More granularity would be helpful on which housing types are proposed to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Singlefamily attached counts as its own, housing type while multifamily of various building unit sizes could count as additional types. Mixeduse also counts as a separate housing type, although only if groundfloor primary uses are included.Response: Note 9 has been revised to read:THE SITE IS GREATER THAN 30 ACRES IN SIZE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF THREE HOUSING TYPES. A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, MULTI-FAMILY, WORK/LIVE AND MIXED-USE UNITS WILL BE APPLIED OVER THE ENTIRE ODP, AND FINALIZED AT THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) PHASE.Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATION ONLY: With the exclusion on the Young property from the ODP, keep in mind the multifamily buffer standards (25ft adjacent to existing single-family development) would apply for future PDP submittals next to this area.Response: UnderstoodDepartment: Engineering Development ReviewContact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING REVISED:Please coordinate with Engineering and Traffic to determine if the proposed full movement vehicular connection to Ziegler Road will be permitted. If full movement is approved, please add a note to the ODP plan stating that this access point will be a channelized T. If full movement is not approved, the Full Movement Intersection note will need to be removed. This needs to be resolved before going to hearing.Response: Note and generic diagram of a Channelized T has been added forreferenceComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:For the proposed access point onto Ziegler Road, a variance request will be required at the time of PDP. The variance request is triggered by proximity of this access point to the Target access drive to the south.Response: Understood. We anticipate City support of this variance request.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR HEARING REVISED:Please indicate on the ODP plan any proposed pedestrian improvements along Ziegler Road or Paddington Road. Currently, there is no existing pedestrian crossing along this stretch of Ziegler Road. If new pedestrian facilities are proposed, the details of those improvements will be worked out at the time of PDP.Response: Legend has been revised to indicate improvements along the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle routes. PDP and FP processes would require further investigation and discussion of these improvements.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:Please coordinate with Traffic, Engineering, and Planning to discuss why a vehicular connection to Paddington Road is not being proposed along with this development. We would also like to discuss the possibility of aligning the Ziegler driveway with Hidden Pond Drive, if the Young property becomes part of this development.Response:The City’s Street MasterPlan indicates this connection should not occur and feedback from the neighborhood meeting was strong in not wanting this connection either, We have full movement onto Ziegler from our property so the Paddington intersection is not needed to go north on Ziegler.Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/04/202111/04/2021: FOR HEARING NEW COMMENT:Assuming that there will be no vehicular connection north to Paddington Road, please change the note from No Vehicular Access to Bike and Pedestrian Access Only.Response: Understood. Note revisedDepartment: Traffic OperationContact: Nicole Hahn, 9702216820, nhahn@fcgov.comTopic: Traffic Impact StudyComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/05/202111/05/2021: FOR HEARING: The traffic study was received and reviewed. Please add analysis in the traffic study that examines the potential signal at the intersection of Paddington and Ziegler with the connection to the development in place. Various other scenarios were examined, and this scenario will be critical for further conversations with the community. This will include increasing the trip distribution/assignment that would go to that intersection if it is signalized.Response: The traffic study has been updated according to discussions.Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/05/202111/05/2021: FOR HEARING: Please review traffic study there are various references to a Crossroads project.Response: The traffic study has been updated according to discussions.Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/05/202111/05/2021: FOR HEARING: Several comments at the public hearing referred to bike and pedestrian connectivity. Please include further discussion in your traffic study regarding the need for bike and pedestrian connections across Ziegler. The study suggests crossing at HP and walking all the way back to North of Paddington would meet a LOS C standard, and we would like to understand the thinking that went into this.Response: The traffic study has been updated according to discussions.Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/05/202111/05/2021: FOR HEARING: During the public meeting the residents mentioned that there were very few gaps in traffic to get a left out onto Ziegler due to the steady stream of traffic from the roundabout. Can you address this in the discussion related to the channelized T.Response: The traffic study has been updated according to discussions.Department: Stormwater Engineering – Erosion ControlContact: Jesse Schlam, 9702182932, jschlam@fcgov.comTopic: Erosion ControlComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/202110/11/2021: INFORMATION ONLY:This project is located within the City's MS4 boundaries and is subject to the erosion control requirements located in the Stormwater Design Criteria, Chapter 2, Section 6.0. A copy of those requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/erosionResponse: Acknowledged.INFORMATION ONLY:Annexations, Overall Development Plans (ODPs), Basic Development Reviews (BDRs) w/ only lot line changes, or Minor Amendments to prior ODPs alone does not trigger erosion control requirements. Any future projects or planned work that disturbs greater than 10,000 square feet will trigger erosion control requirements.Response: Acknowledged.]Department: Stormwater EngineeringContact: Wes Lamarque, 9704162418, wlamarque@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/202111/02/2021: FOR APPROVAL:In the text of the Drainage Report, on Page 5, please state "EPA SWWM or the Rational Method may be utilized for the Final Drainage Design, as determined by the City".Response: Text has been updated.Department: WaterWastewater EngineeringContact: Wes Lamarque, 9704162418, wlamarque@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/202111/02/2021: No comments.Response: Thank you.Department: Light And PowerContact: Cody Snowdon, 9704162306, csnowdon@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/12/202110/12/2021: FOR INFORMATION:Light & Power has no concerns or comments on the ODP portion of this project. Please feel free to reach out early with any design questions as you arrive on a more detailed site layout.Response: Thank you.Department: Environmental PlanningContact: Scott Benton, (970)4164290, sbenton@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/202111/02/2021: No comments on the ODP submittal, however comments will be provided at time of PDP submittal.Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPDepartment: ForestryContact: Molly Roche, 2246161992, mroche@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: PRESUBMITTAL: Forestry Tree Inventory If there are trees on site that will be impacted by the project proposal, please schedule an onsite meeting with City Forestry (mroche@fcgov.com) to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information. Please note that existing significant trees should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. This meeting should occur prior to first round of formal submittal. Forestry recommends scheduling the onsite tree inventory as early in the design process as possible.Response: Understood and will schedule site visit prior to PDPComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: 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 onsite location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements.Response: Understood and will be provided at time of PDPComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP Please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code 3.2.1 requirements. This should include the existing tree inventory, any proposed tree removals with their locations clearly noted and any proposed tree plantings (including species, size, quantity, and method of transplant). The plans should also include the following City of Fort Collins notes: General Landscape NotesTree Protection Notes Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable. These notes are available from the City Planner or by following the link below and clicking on Standard Plan Set Notes: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.phpRequired tree sizes and method of transplant: Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlappedEvergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlappedOrnamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlappedRequired mitigation tree sizes:Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped Ornamental tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlappedResponse: Understood and will take note at time of PDPComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP LUC standard for Tree Species Diversity states that in order to prevent insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan:Number of trees on siteMaximum percentage of any one species101950%203933%405925%60 or more15%The City of Fort Collins’ urban forest has reached the maximum percentage of the following species. Ash (Fraxinus), Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthose: ‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’, etc), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Please note that additional species might join this list as we work through the review process.Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPComment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP Please provide a typical rightofway detail per transects that includes locations of utilities (gas, water, electric, communication, cable, fiber option, sewer etc.), streetlights, driveways (if applicable) and street trees. Standard treeutility separation distances currently used per Land Use Code standards are preferred and are as followed: Streetlight/Tree Separation:Canopy shade tree: 40 feetOrnamental tree: 15 feetStop Sign/Tree Separation: Based on feedback from Traffic Operations, it is preferred that trees be planted at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign in order to minimize conflicts with regulatory traffic signs. While the 50 feet of separation is not officially codified yet, Traffic Operations has indicated that the current standard of 20 feet does not provide adequate stop sign clearance. Driveway/Tree Separation:At least 8’ from edges of driveways and alleysUtility/Tree Separation:10’ between trees and electric utilities, public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines4’ between trees and gas linesResponse: Understood and will take note at time of PDPComment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDPPer LUC 3.2.1 (D) (c), canopy shade trees shall constitute at least fifty (50) percent of all tree plantings.Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPComment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDPCanopy shade trees should be planted at 3040’ spacing (LUC 3.2.1 (D)©) along street frontages.Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPComment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/01/20217/6/2021: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDPEach landscape island should be 8’ in its smallest dimensions to allow for tree root growth (LUC 3.2.1 5©).Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPDepartment: PFAContact: Marcus Glasgow, 9704162869, marcus.glasgow@poudrefire.orgTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/25/202110/25/2021: FOR INFORMATIONMULTIPLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Multiplefamily residential projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system.Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than onehalf of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPDepartment: Technical ServicesContact: Jeff County, 9702216588, jcounty@fcgov.comTopic: GeneralComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/202111/01/2021: FOR FINAL APPROVAL:The smaller text sizes need to increase. See redlines for the typical text.Response: Text size has been increased where applicable. Information not required per the City of Ft Collins ODP requirements document have been turned off for better clarity.Department: Internal ServicesContact: Katy Hand, , khand@fcgov.comTopic: Building Insp Plan ReviewComment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/202111/02/2021: NOTICE: 4story residential need to be designed/constructed under the IBC code (10ft to property lines)Response: UnderstoodComment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/02/202111/02/2021: Multifamily items: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10% of all parking spaces must be EV ready (conduit in place) includingaccessible parking. Multifamily Residential located within 1000ft of rail tracks, 500 of highway, or 250ft of a 4-lane road must provide exterior wall composite sound transmissionof 39 STC min.R2 occupancies apartment/condo must provide 10ft setback from property line and 20 feet between other buildings or provide fire rated walls and openings per chapter 6 and 7 of the IBC.City of Fort Collins amendments to the 2018 IBC require a full NFPA13 sprinkler system in multifamily units with an exception to allow NFPA 13R systems in buildings with no more than 6 dwelling units (or no more than 12 dwelling units where the building is divided by a 2-hour fire barrier with no more than 6 dwelling units on each side).·Buildings using electric heat are required to have higher insulation and must use the prescriptive energy path in code. ·A City licensed commercial general contractor is required to construct any new multifamily structure.If trash chutes are proposed in the building, dedicated recycle chutes must also be provided.Accessibility is required per IBC, ICCA117.1 and state law CRS 95 Accessible parking and access aisles must be provided in covered and open parking areas per current IBC including van spaces where required.Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPComment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/02/202111/02/2021: Single Family Attached Townhome items: ·Attached singlefamily provide 3ft setback from the furthest projecting element to property line or provide fire rated walls/ projections. Openings in those walls must be limited or fire protected per chap 3 of the IRC· Bedroom egress windows or doors (emergency escape openings) required in all bedrooms.· Attached singlefamily townhomes and duplexes are required to be fire sprinkled per local amendment and must provide a P2904 system min and provide fire rated wall per R302. Determine what water line size will be provided to dwellings so the firesprinkler system can be designed.· New homes must provide EV/PV ready conduit in place.This project is subject to state accessibility requirement CRS 95 (Title 9) Provide a sitewide accessibility plan showing how accessible points will be achieved and where (in accordance with CRS 95 (title 9)). This requirement includes single family attached homes and accessible path must be provided into the dwelling entrance (no step). Adaptable/Accessible should be dispersed across the site rather than located in one building type. Plan grading accordingly.(2) 1hr walls (i.e.) 2hr fire barriers constructed between townhomes should be continuous to the roof deck and furthest projecting element per current IRC and local amendments (this includes covered patios and decks). Each townhome unit will require a separate air tightness test for certificate of occupancy passing at 3ACH. Consider air barrier details between units for the building design. Gas lines cannot run through the interior building interior to adjacent units.Response: Understood and will take note at time of PDPComment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/02/202111/02/2021 FOR BUILDING PERMIT: Please visit our website for current adopted codes, local amendments and submittal requirements.https://www.fcgov.com/building/application.phphttps://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.phphttps://www.fcgov.com/building/energycodeResponse: Thank you