The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKECHTER FARM PLD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2015-09-09FortCollins y" ��;, COUNTY REFERRAL Planning COMMENT SHEET City File Number: CRF130019 COMMENTS TO COUNTY PLANNER Rob Helmick DATE: 03/04/2014 FROM: Cuf ent Planning TYPE OF MEETING: Planned Land Division- Preliminary Plat PROJECT: Kechter Farm PLD THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department CITY PLANNER: Lindsay Ex City comments must be received in the Current Planning Department by: Friday, March 149 2014 (comments due to County 1/212014) ❑ No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or Accela v 360) Date: signature: annexation boundary. tracts that are not proposed for annexation at this time and will be much easier on both of our parts if I do not need a long legal description to do so and can just reference full Tracts. Same goes for Tract L RESPONSE: The annexation boundary has been reference and delineated by separate tracts along Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Plat— I like the dedication language, but I doubt it can be filed this way. It may work to just change the current City of Fort Collins references to Larimer County, but that is something that needs to be discussed with the County. The City just wants to make sure that all easements are dedicated to the county (excluding the irrigation easement) so that when the plat is annexed that the easement then are transferred to the City as dedicated easements. RESPONSE: The language has been adjusted to 'County' Comment Number: 61 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Profiles for the irrigation lines need to be provided. LCUASS require that the private lines be sleeve where they run under the right-of-way. So please make sure that this is shown that way. RESPONSE: The proposed irrigation lines are to be reinforced concrete pipe. Encroachment agreements may be needed. The irrigation pipe crossings will be shown in the plan and profiles for confirmation of meeting minimum depth submittal. Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: A subsurface exploration report is needed. Please provide this with the next submittal. RESPONSE: The geotechnical report and an underdrain recommendation letter is included in this Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Notes and information on the design of the underdrain need to be provided on the plans. Underdrain mains are to be a minimum of 8 inches in diameter. Overall will need to see the report for the overall sizing of each branch of the system. It typically gets bigger as it collects more flows and smaller systems have ended in bigger pipes than are being shown here. Need to provide information on the location and placement of the cleanouts and how often they are to be provided. What is the pipe type and what slope is each section of pipe? There are several drop sewer manholes that the system follows — what does the underdrain do at these locations? RESPONSE: The underdrain design has been updated to incorporate a minimum of 8" perforated pipe and references the geotechnical engineer recommendations. A detail has also been included to show how to account for drop manholes. Comment Number: 64 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: The underdrain outfall location. What is the elevation of the outfall? What is the 100 year water level at the outfall location? This information is needed to verify that the underdrain system will not back up into the public row at any time and that it does not back up to a location where the service to a lot is provided. RESPONSE: Reference the UD outfall profile for elevations. Comment Number: 65 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Where the underdrain exits the ROW and the reenters the ROW a clay cut off wall shall be provided just before the line reenters the ROW. I have marked the locations on the plans. RESPONSE: Clay cut off walls have been included. Comment Number: 66 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: The underdrain details to be used are to be from Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for Fort Collins. RESPONSE: We reviewed the UD details included in the plan set along with the LCUASS details with South Fort Collins Sanitation District. SFCSD needs to be able to locate the UD and the UD cleanouts. They require that the cleanouts be attached to the manhole so that their future maintenance people know that there is an UD system in place. Along with the districts requirements, the line is to be owned by the HOA. They need to be able to locate the cleanouts in the future for maintenance and also acknowledge that a system is in place with the physical cleanouts being visible. We may need to review further if the City would like concrete collars to surround the cleanout and MH. Comment Number: 67 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Show the type III barricades at the end of the stub streets and show where you are proposing to end the asphalt. I need information on where the end of the asphalt will be in relation to the property line for the development agreement as funds will be collected for the portion of the street not being constructed to the property line prior to the issuance of any building permit. RESPONSE: Type III barricades are included. Comment Number: 68 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: A temporary turnaround (including easement for turnaround) will be needed at the end of Eagle Roost Drive if you wish the lots at the South end of Eagle Roost Drive and Heronry Place to be eligible for building permits. All frontages adjacent to a lot have to be constructed for a lot to be eligible for a building permit, but no access to lots is allowed off of a street stub without a turnaround. RESPONSE: A temporary turnaround has been added to the end of Street B-3 (Eagle Roost Drive) Comment Number: 69 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: The plans are showing a pedestrian path to be located and built to the south of the lots being platted. I have no issues with this — it just seems a bit odd to build a path on a tract that doesn't seem to be able to be dedicated at this time to the HOA. RESPONSE: Path has been removed from Filing 1. Comment Number: 70 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: The curb, gutter and sidewalk installation along the west side of Ziegler Road — can this be done without easements? RESPONSE: Temporary construction easements may be needed. The right-of-way and utility easements are dedicated with the MLD and the Kechter Farm — Filing 1 plat Comment Number: 71 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: The current grading shown on Block 16 does not tie into the existing grading at the property line. As shown an offsite grading easement is needed. RESPONSE: The grades have been revised. Comment Number: 72 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: You are showing the installation of quite a bit of storm drainage pipe outside of the area beign platted as lots and streets. Need to identify what the interim solution is for the inlets along all of these lines. Are the inlets to be installed — if so what is the long term protection to keep the dirt and sediment out. RESPONSE: A sediment trap is proposed at each inlet outside of the improved streets. Comment Number: 73 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Storm pipe — Overall the design looks good from a depth under the ROW perspective. There are a couple of places where you are close to minimum cover requirements. Please label the cover in these locations. RESPONSE: Pipe depths have been labeled. Comment Number: 74 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets — Need to provide curb return profiles and information. When designing and showing these remember that the x-slope of the ADA ramps is a max of 2% RESPONSE: Curb return profiles are included. Comment Number: 75 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets — Need PCR stationing and elevation information shown on the plan and profiles. RESPONSE: PCR stations have been included. Comment Number: 76 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Need curve information provided. Centerline, flowline, and median. RESPONSE: Line and curve tables have been included. Comment Number: 77 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Per the general notes you are proposing to use centerline stationing for the profiles. With that you will need to provide station equations, actual flowline lengths and slopes and identify how the stationing works for the cul-de-sacs, roundabout and medians. I think it would be easier to do flowline stationing, but it is your choice as long as you can show the profiles correctly and provide the information that is needed. So far you have not provided any station equations soother than some of the centerline the profiles couldn't be checked since the grades will change once actual flowline lengths are identified and used. RESPONSE: Reference cul-de-sac details for flowline stationing. Comment Number: 78 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Need to provide off -site design for the future street extensions. Standards say 500 feet. RESPONSE: Offsite street design is provided -per our discussions. Comment Number: 79 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Profiles are needed for the street stubs so the curb returns and intersection transitions can be designed, shown and constructed. RESPONSE: Offsite street design is provided per our discussions. Comment Number: 80 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets — Cul-de-sacs. Because the minimum grade in a cul-de-sac is 1 % the maximum grade break as the two slopes meet each other is 2%. This is being exceeded in the cul-de-sacs. RESPONSE: The cul-de-sac designs have been updated. Comment Number: 81 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Cul-de-sacs. Need to show the crown line location in the cul-de-sac and where this goes to. In order to balance the x-slopes in the cul-de-sac the location of the high point will vary depending on the cul-de-sacs and the grades. RESPONSE: The cul-de-sac designs have been updated. Comment Number: 82 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets — Spruce Creek Drive. Make sure there is a note on the plans that the project shall tie into existing curb and gutter if it exists — if not the project shall construct the curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement to the property line. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. , Comment Number: 83 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Spruce Creek Drive. The design shown doesn't match that on the Mail Creek plans. RESPONSE: The design has been updated. Comment Number: 84 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Spruce Creek Drive. At the intersection with Medlar Place, please verify that the slope does not exceed 3% through the intersection. RESPONSE: The intersection grade has been confirmed and does not exceed 3% Comment Number: 85 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —At low points along the flowline need to make sure that the minimum of .5% is maintained into the sump. Many times this means that a vertical curve is not used along the flowline of the street in this condition. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 86 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Missing some vertical curve information. RESPONSE: Vertical curve information has been updated. Comment Number: 87 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —At the temporary ends of streets that end with flow flowing off the end of the street rip rap needs to be shown and provided so that undermining of the curb, gutter and pavement does not occur over time. What is the intent of this area — is it a pond, a rain garden, a water quality pond? I need additional information before I can provide comments on the design and what the requirements are going to be. Likely the street here will need to be constructed in concrete and cur off wall provided behind the curb. An outside edge profile and an island profile will be needed. RESPONSE: Riprap pads will be shown. Comment Number: 88 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Trilby Road. What is the tangent length between the curves? It is not on the profile sheet and I can't find it on the plat. RESPONSE: Line and curve tables have been added. Comment Number: 89 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Trilby Road. curb transition at the east end connection. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 90 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Trilby Road. based on the parameters. RESPONSE: The VCs have been updated. Comment Number: 91 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 Need curve, sta, length and information on the Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 The VC west of the roundabout is too short Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Zephyr Road. The VC just east of the tie into existing is too short based on the parameters. RESPONSE: The VCs have been updated. Comment Number: 92 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Great Horned Owl Drive. Show the profile to the point it ties into the exiting curb and gutter. RESPONSE: The street name has been changed to Zephyr. The profile has been updated to show tying to existing improvements. Comment Number: 93 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Ziegler and Great Homed Owl intersection. As shown the low point will be in the intersection not at the inlet. A Directional ramp needs to be provided at the comer. RESPONSE: The grading has been revised and directional ramps included. Comment Number: 94 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Ziegelr/ Trilby. Need profile design and intersection detail information for the proposed changes shown. Also need to show the repavement limits, x-slopes, grades, spot elevations. RESPONSE: Additional detail is still needed. Comment Number: 95 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Road Profile sheets —Ziegler Road. Need to show the repavement limits and how this is proposed (mill, saw cut and remove?). RESPONSE: Reference cross section. A chip seal is being considered for the existing half of Zeigler after improvements complete. Comment Number: 96 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: You have too many Fall Harvest Way streets. The street coming off Great Horned Owl Drive needs to be called something else. It may eventually curve around and tie into the other Fall Harvest Way, but roadways are required to change names when they change directions. As shown there would be duplicate addresses. RESPONSE: Street names have been adjusted. Comment Number: 97 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details — Missing details for several intersections. RESPONSE: Intersection details added. Comment Number: 98 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details —Need to provide transition information for the street stubs so that the pavement can be installed correctly. RESPONSE: Transitions included. Comment Number: 99 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details —Have several transitions that are too long. There is no reason for the extreme length being proposed, these need to be shortened. RESPONSE: Transitions updated. Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details —Since most of the PCR information and curb return information was not provided yet on the profile sheets I could not verify that the details matched the information on the profiles. I did highlight most all of the elevations that either were not shown on the profiles or did not match the profiles. RESPONSE: Curb returns are added to profiles. Comment Number: 101 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details —Have quite a few locations where it does not seem that a x-pan is needed because most flows will not go across it. Why are these being proposed? RESPONSE: Cross -pan locations have been updated. Comment Number: 102 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details —Need to show the directional ramps and the individual ramps correctly on these details. RESPONSE: Ramps added. Comment Number: 103 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details —The curve tables are showing that several of the intersection curb returns are to be 25 feet. Per standards all the curb returns in this development (other than roundabout) are to be 20 feet. RESPONSE: Curb return radius' have been updated. Comment Number: 104 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Intersection Details —Additional comments are provided on the plans. RESPONSE: Redlines addressed. Comment Number: 105 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Cul-de-sac details —Need to show the crown lines and high point locations. The high point does not typically end up in the center of the cul-de-sac as it needs to be located to balance the x-slopes. The high points shown need to be moved to balance the x-slopes. Several of the x-slopes labeled are to flat. RESPONSE: Cul-de-sacs have been updated. Comment Number: 106 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Cul-de-sac details —Need to provide geometry for the islands and identify what curb type is to be used on the islands (outflow, barrier?) RESPONSE: Detail has been added to cul-de-sacs. Comment Number: 107 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Cul-de-sac details — The parking areas need to be shown to be constructed in concrete. RESPONSE: Parking shown to be constructed in concrete. Comment Number: 108 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Cul-de-sac details —For the cul-de-sac with islands enough spot elevations around the island need to be provided so they can be constructed and that the x-slope can be checked around the islands. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 109 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Roundabout —Identify any proposed differences in concrete pattern, texture, color or type. RESPONSE: Reference landscape plan. Concrete hatching has been added. Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Roundabout —Additional spot elevations need to be provided around the islands. RESPONSE: Detailed spot elevations have been added. Comment Number: 111 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Roundabout —Identify what curb and gutter is inflow and which is outflow and where the transitions are to occur. RESPONSE: Detail has been added to the roundabout. Comment Number: 112 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Roundabout —Provide CDOT M details for concrete joint construction. RESPONSE: Joint detail will need to be added. Comment Number: 113 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: Roundabout —Need design information, dimensions, x-sections and details. RESPONSE: Detail has been added to the roundabout. Comment Number: 114 Comment Originated: 12/15/2013 12/15/2013: X-sections — This will be checked once enough information is provided to check them and they are readable. RESPONSE: Cross-section text has been updated. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Conditions outlined in the memo from the wildlife consultant- The 9 conditions outlined in the memo from Mike Figgs should be added to the projects development agreement. RESPONSE: Noted Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tbuchanan(@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Add a sheet to the landscape plans titled Tree Inventory and Mitigation. Please provide a table of all of the existing trees identified by number, size, species, intent to retain or remove and mitigation. Provide the required number of upsized mitigation trees and clearly identify those upsized trees in the plant list and at the actual locations where they will be planted. Actual locations could include the symbol M with 3.0 inch caliper placed by the M. RESPONSE: Mitigation sheet L18 added. Locations of mitigation trees identified as requested on landscape plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: The walk through that was conducted with Forestry staff identified 3-4 existing trees that appeared to be a possible candidates to retain. An arborist report was requested on these trees. Are these trees to be retained? If so please provide the arbodst report and confirm that enough of the exiting root system will remain undisturbed to provide likelihood of tree survival? If they are not to be retained please provide a statement explaining why they could not be retained. On the Tree Inventory and Mitigation sheet please include the tree protection specifications found in LUC 3.2.1 G. RESPONSE: These trees were evaluated by a qualified arborist and determined to be unsuitable for retention due to hazardous qualities. See report attached and provided to Tim Buchanan. Comment Number: 3 12/13/2013: Comments on notes: Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 Please add information to Landscape Note number 1 that says in effect that street trees will be 8 feet from driveways and 20 feet from traffic control signs and devices. Add this sentence to note number 5. Phase inspection of street trees is not the final City of Fort Collins Forestry Division acceptance of maintenance inspection. Please add the following street tree planting notes: Street Trees shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor. Street trees shall be installed by residential lots by the developer at time of CO, unless season of year limits tree planting, in which case residential street trees shall be planted within 6 months of CO. The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility separations between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees to be centered in the middle of the lot to the extent feasible. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. RESPONSE: Notes added. Comment Number: 4 12/13/2013: Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 For lots that are 60 feet or less in width (which appear to be several of the lots) provide only one street tree per lot. Consider using chanticleer pear within 15 of street lights by narrower lots where it would not be feasible to have one canopy shade tree per lot. Utility and driveway separation standards limit more than one tree per lot on these narrower lots. (LUC 3.2.1 D. 2. a.) "if two or more consecutive residential lots along a street each measure between forty and sixty feet in street frontage width, one tree per lot may be substituted for the 30-40 feet spacing". RESPONSE: Updated along portions of the development containing 60' lots. Chanticleer Pear used for constrained areas. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Provide street trees at a 40 feet spacing's, unless utility separations result in a need for wider spacing. Some street trees are shown much closer than 40 feet spacing. Please adjust street trees throughout the project that are shown at a closer than standard spacing between trees. Space the majority of trees at 40 feet and for very occasional exceptions space at least 30 feet or greater RESPONSE: Adjusted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please provide a typical street tree detail for a 60 foot lot showing street tree placement in reference to the required utility tree separation standards. Show the water and sewer service lines and driveway locations. Street trees should be shown at 6 feet from water and sewer service lines and 8 feet from the edge of the driveway and centered in the middle of the lot to the extent feasible. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 7 12/13/2013: Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 Provide street tree placement that meets all of the utility separation standards in LUC 3.2.1. K. Confirm street light locations and tree placement at 40 feet from lights. There appears to be some locatation where trees are closer than 40 feet from a light. RESPONSE: Adjusted to separation requirements. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Identify where stop signs are to be located and move trees 20 feet from any stop sign. At comers keep all street trees at least 20-25 feet back from the edge of the sidewalk that crosses the intersection. RESPONSE: Adjusted to separation requirements. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Can street trees be added in the parkway on sheet L4 along Ziegler? Please review for addition of trees in this section. RESPONSE: Street trees added in the parkway along this section. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please add this statement on all of the landscape sheets that show street tree planting. Add this statement in a visible location on each appropriate sheet with larger print in a box with bold edge. "A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and curb and in street medians. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape Contractor must obtain approval of street tree locations after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. See landscape note number 3.° RESPONSE: Added to plans. Comment Number: 11 12/13/2013: Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 Comments on Street Tree Species usage and selection: Following are the approximated quantities of species used as street trees in parkways between the sidewalk and curb with requested changes in quantities used. 92 Skyline Honeylocust - OK 58 Shademaster Honeylocust - OK 76 Bur Oak - OK 101 Skymaster English Oak - nice tree but very limited availability. Please change all but 25 to a mix of some of these species -Greenspire Linden, Accolade Elm or Shademaster Honeylocust 147 Shumard Oak — change 70 percent to a mix of some of these species - Chinkapin Oak, Greenspire Linden , Hackberry or Accolade elm 80 American Linden - Please Specify as the Cultivar Boulevard 102 Redmond Linden - Change 60% to a mix of some of these species- Hackberry, Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree, Catalpa or Bur Oak. RESPONSE: Adjusted as requested. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Some street and median trees such as those on sheets L1 and L9 and possibly on some other sheets are not labeled as to type. Please check all landscape sheets for any street trees that may not be labeled. RESPONSE: Trees labeled. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Provide median design to the City of Fort Collins Streetscape and Median standards. Review design with Clark Mapes or Pete Wray, RESPONSE: After discussion with Tim Buchanan and Clark Mapes, it was determined that the project does not need to adhere to Fort Collins Streetscape and Median standards since the standards for medians only apply to arterial streets. This project contains Collector and Local streets. Comment Number: 14 12/13/2013: Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 Please review locations where street trees may be placed over storm drains such as on sheet L7, L14 and possibly on other sheets. Shift trees where necessary. RESPONSE: Trees adjusted. Comment Number: 15 12/13/2013: Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 Please label the Plant Legend Symbol for Turf to say Irrigated Turf. RESPONSE: Updated in the legend. Comment Number: 16 12/13/2013: Comments on Sheet L14: Is this City Property? How are these trees to be irrigated? Who is responsible for maintenance of this area? Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 Shift trees off of the storm drain line? If this is a dry land area where trees and shrubs are drip irrigated then please show a tree and shrub detail with a basin and mulch. RESPONSE: These areas are not on City property per the annexation, but are part of the Final Plat that will be recorded at the County. The area will be maintained by the Kechter Farm HOA. Trees will be drip irrigated and are 6' min from the irrigation line. Tree and shrub details are shown on Sheet L15. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224.6152, dmartine &-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013 09/26/2013: Electric utility service will be provided by Fort Collins Light & Power. Normal electric development charges will apply. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700 to coordinate power requirements. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013 09/26/2013: The utility plan doesn't show water or sewer services to each lot. Water services cannot be 'paired' at the comer of the lots, but must be separated toward the middle of each F toCotlins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 9T0.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.comIdevelopmentreview January 21, 2014 Lindsay Ex Project Planner City of Fort Collins RE: Kechter Farm Planned Land Division (PLD) Preliminary Plat (Final Plat submitted 11/26/13), CRF13001.9, Round Number 1 Please see the following Response to Comments from City staff. PLANNING RESPONSE: RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. ENGINEERING RESPONSE: JVA, INC TRAFFIC RESPONSE: DELICH ASSOCIATES Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Pete Wray, 970.221.6754, pwrav fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 10/09/2013: No comments. Department: Current Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224-6143, lex(&-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/13/2013: Staff understands the applicants have been working with the airport and feel that disclosure is an acceptable form of notice to the 26 lots impacted by the airport's area of influence. However, after discussing this issue with legal, easements will be required. 10/11/2013: Avigation easements - as this project proceeds to final plat, we will need to work together to have an avigation easement granted to the City, preferably via the plat. If you need an example of an avigation easement, we can help research that for you. RESPONSE: After discussion with legal counsels for the City, County and the applicant it was determined that an Avigation Easement would not be required, however, a disclosure statement will be provided. for review lot. Electric vaults, transformers, and streetlights will be placed at the comers of the lots. RESPONSE: Services were shown at the last submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013 09/26/2013: A landscape plan showing planned streetlights was sent to Ripley Design on 9-30-13. Street tree locations will need to be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 feet from lights (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type). RESPONSE: Street trees are placed according to above separations. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/30/2013 09/30/2013: The utility easement along the southerly side of Trilby Rd. will need to be increased to 15 feet wide to provide for a major underground electric line. RESPONSE: A 15' utility easement has been added. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218.2932, jschlam _fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: If this was submitted for the City, more erosion control information would need to be provided. Two standard template paragraphs that are very vague to the needs of the site; more information would be needed. The erosion control plans that were submitted need erosion control BMPs called out for. Redlines of suggested issues for the site have been placed in the Stormwater engineer's documents. It would be good to know and pass on the information that the site is >10,000 sq-ft so the SWMP will need to be applied for at least 10 day before construction starts. The site is also close to a water way, any dredging or filling this close might warrant the need for a 404 permit and should be inquired with Army Corps of Engineers. RESPONSE: The erosion control report was submitted with the last submittal. A pdf version is available Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416.2418, wtamargue(aifcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/16/2013: This is still needed. 10/11/2013: The City requires detailed lot grading plans showing building envelopes, lot corner elevations, and break points. RESPONSE: Detailed lot grading plans are in process. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013 12/16/2013: Please set up a meeting with City Stormwater staff to review the level spreaders and the details. A better understanding is needed to determine if the design will be sustainable. RESPONSE: A meeting has been held Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013 12/16/2013: Please provide the drainage easements that are being recorded by separate document. RESPONSE: Drainage easements are dedicated per MLD plat Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013 12/16/2013: The City would like to sit down with the applicant and look over the landscape plan to see if more separation can be obtained between some of the storm sewers and trees in several locations. RESPONSE: Ripley Design discussed tree separations from storm sewers with Wes and adjusted to 10' where possible per request. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013 12/16/2013: Is a PLD being proposed in the northeast landscape island located within the culd-a-sac? If not, this would be a good location for one. RESPONSE: This is not proposed to be a PLD. Water quality is enhanced via overland flow. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013 12/16/2013: The landscape plan has not been updated to match the utility plan set. RESPONSE: Coordinated. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013 12/16/2013: The development also needs to meet the City's water quality and LID requirements. Plesae refer to these requirements and a meeting can be scheduled to discuss alternatives in meeting these. The development may be close to meeting these requirements, but needs to quantify what measures are being met. RESPONSE: achieved through the use of the level spreader/rain garden. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: Please remove "Preliminary Plat" from the cover sheet. See redlines. RESPONSE: Preliminary Plat is not referenced. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: Please revised the hatching for the project area in the vicinity map on the cover sheet. See redlines. RESPONSE: The hatch on the vicinity map matches the plat boundary Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: Please correct the elevation of benchmark 18-01 on sheets 1 & 2. RESPONSE: Benchmark corrected. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: Please complete the information in note #16 on sheet 3. RESPONSE: Note 16 is to be deleted. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Line over text issues have been reviewed and resolved. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Line over text issues have been reviewed and resolved. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: There are cutoff text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text has been updated Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on several sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text has been updated Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: Please mask all text within the profiles. See redlines. RESPONSE: Text has been updated Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: There are still many issues that haven't been addressed. Please see our redlines from the previous review, and make the changes we show. Please make any changes to the new sheets that were added to this plan set. RESPONSE:Changed Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: Please remove "Preliminary Plat" from all sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Removed Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Adjusted Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Adjusted Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees on several sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Adjusted Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/04/2013 12/13/2013: Repeat comment. 11/04/2013: Please mask all text within hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: Adjusted Topic: Plat Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please add hatching to the site area in the vicinity map. See redlines. RESPONSE: Hatching has been added. submission. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please add a north arrow to the vicinity map. RESPONSE: North arrow has been added. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please add signature & notary blocks for the Owners and Lienholders per City of Fort Collins format. If there are no Lienholders, add a note stating that there are none. RESPONSE: Added signature blocks and lienholders. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please show a legend or spell out utility easements for the Tract Ownership And Maintenence table. RESPONSE: legend has been added to cover sheets Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please add a title commitment note per C.R.S. 38-51-106(b)(1). RESPONSE: This is not a land survey plat. No current title commitment was available at the time of Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: , Please add a Basis Of Bearings statement on sheet 1. Please State Board Rules for appropriate Basis Of Bearings statements. RESPONSE: Basis of bearing statement has been added. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please label all surrounding properties as either unplatted or subdivision name. See redlines. RESPONSE: Property labels have been added. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: There is cut off text issues on sheet 2. See redlines. RESPONSE: Cut off text has been addressed. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: All easements must be labeled & locatable. See redlines. RESPONSE: Easements have been labeled. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: All curves require chord bearings & distances. See redlines. RESPONSE: Added Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: All lines must be dimensioned & locatable. See redlines. RESPONSE: Redlines addressed. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: The 9' utility easement along the north side of Zephyr Road does not scale 9'. See redlines. RESPONSE: Easement updated and should be correct. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: All street rights of way must show width & dedication information. See redlines. RESPONSE: Redlines addressed. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Why is the easement between Lots 4-7 & 14-16, Block 5 not centered on the lotline? See redlines. RESPONSE: The easement has been corrected. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: There are many line over text & text over issues on sheets 2 & 3. See redlines. RESPONSE: Lines over text have been addressed. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: This Plat will need to be shown at a 1 "=50' scale, and a keymap should be shown on each sheet. A more detailed review will take place when the 1 "=50' scale drawings are submitted. RESPONSE: The plat has been adjusted to 50 scale. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Easement linetype/Hscale is difficult to discern from the boundary lines. Please change. RESPONSE: 50 scale addresses. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Block labels must be more prominent. RESPONSE: Block labels are more prominent. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: To whom is the irrigation easement to be dedicated? If it is an entity other then the City, an acceptance will be needed. RESPONSE: Irrigation easement ownership is labeled. Any irrigation easements dedicated via tract are currently being negotiated. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please add "the east half of to the sub -title on all sheets. See redlines. RESPONSE: Added. when recorded. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please show and describe the section comers on sheet 3. See redlines. RESPONSE: Added Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Fall Harvest Way is shown in 2 places as a street name. See redlines. RESPONSE: Street names have been updated. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please correct the spelling on "Ziegler". See redlines. RESPONSE: Spelling corrected. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: There are several easements by separate document that appear to be on the Kechter Farm M.L.D Plat. If so, please label these as being from that plat. See redlines. RESPONSE: The easements have been labeled as dedicated by MLD. Will update reception number Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 12/16/2013 12/16/2013: Please label the additional 3.5' of ROW along Ziegler Road on sheet 3. See redlines. RESPONSE: Added. will be necessary. These Master Street Plan changes are customarily done by City staff. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/12/2013 12/12/2013: Noting received. Comment continues. 10/12/2013: Please provide the design data of the roundabout (analysis, paths volumes, speeds, etc). RESPONSE: The turning volumes at the roundabout are in the Kechter Farm — Filing 1 TIS (Figure 12). The design of the roundabout is underway. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/12/2013 12/12/2013: TIS provides that the PM WbL movement at Timberline & Zephyr in the unsignalized condition will have a delay of 650+ seconds. The City's criteria allows unsignalized Arterial/Collector intersections to operate at LOS F, but 650 seconds of delay (nearly 11 minutes) to Wb motorists is unacceptable. Its not clear if the analysis was performed with the inclusion of the TWLTL lane on Timberline south of Zephyr. Please review and revise the TIS to include�the Wb two-step left turn ability, if not included already. RESPONSE: This is revised as a two-step left -turn in a memorandum addendum. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/12/2013 12/12/2013: The TIS states the site is in the "Mixed Use District" but its actually in the "Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood" zone. This zone requires all signalized intersection LOS's aspects to meet LOS D, unsignalized Arterial/Collector & Locals can be LOS F, and Collector/Locals to be.LOS C. The error doesn't affect any locations though as the LOS's are found to meet those levels. RESPONSE: This comment is acknowledged, but has no impact on the analyses or conclusions. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/12/2013 12/12/2013: The Scoping sheet states to review all access drives and there is one missing in the review. The Ziegler and Zephyr/Rock Park Road intersection should be reviewed. The City and the County are receiving a number of concerns and petitions from residents concerned that the Zephyr connection to Ziegler at Rock Park will cause/promote speeding and cut-thru traffic to/from the Kechter Farm project to/from Kechter Road. Please provide discussion regarding those concerns also. RESPONSE: This intersection analysis is in a memorandum addendum. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: This comment is a continued and enhanced. The Ziegler/Lady Moon/Trilby intersection remains a concern for City Traffic Staff. The City's comment is that staff is not confident normal intersection analysis is appropriate at this location due to the unique geometry and current operational characteristics (TCP) Staff feels there should be supporting discussion if the applicant believes it is appropriate. The discussion could include how the Trilby connection may alleviate the need for the additional traffic control currently in use during school ingress/egress hours or could include discussion about how redesigning the west median to place the EbL lane near the north side of the median could help reduce right-of-way confusion improving intersection operations, or other discussion items. 05/23/2012: To be further reviewed/addressed during PDP stage. 10/11/2011: Concern with the operating characteristics of the Ziegler/Lady Moon/Trilby intersection due to the very wide east west median and the sight distance issues created by the landscaping of the median area on the east approach median plus. Observing traffic during .orCollins �..Curren-f-- Planning PO Box 580 * Fort Collins, CO 80522 070.221.6750 * 970.224.6134 -fax DATE: July 2, 2012 PROJECT COMMENT TO: Development Review Engineering PROJECT PLANNER: Jason Holland SHEET ANX120003 Kechter Annexation and Zoning #1 ANX120004 Kechter Annexation and Zoning #2 ANX120005 Kechter Annexation and Zoning #3 Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: July 11, 2012 Please Note: Short Turnaround! Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference (Z� No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or ACCELA) Name (please CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report )Other?I&Ab i �qAu _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape • May 1, 2012 Keehter Farm General Development Plan Response to Comments The Applicant and inn Team have prepared responses to comments received from the following Federal and State agencies, affected Districts, adjacent towns, the City of Fort Collins and Lorimer County staff In regard to the Kechter Farm General Development Plan (GDP) submitted in September, 2011. For reference, the Applicant has included the comments, emalls, and letters In the order outlined below at the end of this letter. 0 1. Federal and State Agencies Colorado Parks and Wildlife — September 30, 2011 from Mark Leslie U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. -October 7, 2011 from Susan Unner Colorado Division of Water Resources — September 21, 2011, Tracy Kosloff Colorado Division of Water Resources —September 21, 2011, Joanna Williams, P.E. Army Corps of Engineers, September 23 from Scott Franklin for Timothy Carey 2. Affected Districts Fort Collins -Loveland Water District South Fort Collins Sanitation District, Terry Farrill, September 27, 2011 Fort Collins -Loveland Airport, September 29, 2011, Jason Licon Poudre Fire Authority, Ron Gonzales, October 11, 2011 3. Cities and Towns Town of Windsor Scott Balstadt Town of Timnath T.J. Dlubac, Town Planner City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services Environmental Planning, Lindsay Ex Current Planning, Steve Olt, Courtney Rlppy Advanced Planning, Pete Wray Engineering, Sheri Langenberger Stormwater Engineering, Wes Lamarque Traffic, Ward Stanford 4. Lorimer County running ano pwiotnQ aervtces plytslon Candice Phippen, Building & Code Compliance Dan Kunis, Geographic Information Specialist Department of Natural Resources Jeffrey Boring, Resource Specialist II Enaineerina Department Jeff Goodell, Development Review Engineer Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer Department of Heal -and Environment Doug Ryan, KKMW Farm General Development Wan Response to Comments Nay t, zM papa of 9 S. Summarized Neighborhood comments addressed by topic Federal and State Agencies Colorado Parks and Wildlife — September 30, toil from Mark Leslie The letter expresses agreement with Mr. Craig's letter dated August Wt, 2011 (see attached). The response is acknowledged. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 7, 2011 from Susan Linner The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had no comment. Colorado Division of Water Resources — September 21, 2011, Tracy KtWoff Tracy Kosloff acknowledges that the Fort Collins — Loveland Water District is the supplier. She requested a water supply plan. A water supply plan will be provided at the Preliminary Plat stage of the development review process. Rob Helmick replied to Tracy via email on 9-20-2011. Colorado Division of Water Resources — September 21, 2011, Joanna Williams, P.E. The Applicant acknowledges that a the Fort Collins Loveland water District will be required to file a report with the County and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. The Applicant also acknowledges that captured storm water run-off must Infiltrate Into the ground or be released within 72 hours. Any replacement of wetlands will not exceed a ratio of 1:1. Army Corps of Engineers, September 23 from Scott Franklin for Timothy Carey Teary McKee will be notified if any work requires the discharge of dredge or fill material or any excavation of aquatic sites is contemplated, Affected Districts Fort Collins -Loveland Water and Sanitation Dish Terry Farrill, September 27, 2011 The Applicant acknowledges that the FCLWSD will require access to the lines for maintenance, repair and replacement. Access will be provided in the gated community area. Widening of the dike between the Northwest Pond and Fossil Creek Reservoir will be determined during the Preliminary Plat process. Utility cross sections will be available to review at that time. Fort Collins -Loveland Airport, September29, 2011, Jason Licon The Applicant will work with the Loveland Airport Director to create an appropriate avigation easement or notification for lots within the property that are in the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Area of Influence, prior to development. Poudre Fire Authority, Ron Gonzales, October 11, 2011 K9chter Farm General Development Plan 114 ponce to Comments MOV 1,.2012 pose 3of9 The applicant will coordinate and ensure that the PFA has the ability to access the gated community in an emergency. The extended private drives will be dedicated as Emergency Access Easements on the Subdivision Plat. Private drives will be constructed to PFA structural and geometric standards. Hydrant locations and turning radii will be provided at the Preliminary Plat phase of development review. The Applicant acknowledges that houses constructed along private drives shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. The Applicant acknowledges that a sustainable and reliable water supply will be required. Cities and Towns Town of Windsor 5coit 8aistadt The Town of Windsor has no comments as the property is outside of its Community Influence Area. Town of Timnath T.J. Dlubac, Town Planner The Town of Timnath has no comments as the property is outside of its Community Influence Area. City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services Environmental Planning, Undsay Ex The Applicant acknowledges that the City's Natural Resource staff does not support its request for an exception to the 80/20 rule, contained in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, to allow the Grand Estate lots. The Applicant notes, however, that Grand Estate lot number 8 has been eliminated from the proposed development. The Applicant and Design Team have worked with the County Planning Staff and other referral agencies for several years to create a development plan that respects and preserves environmental resources in order to avoid the subdivision of the RMA Into unregulated 35-acre lots. Most of the referral agencies and outside consultants concerned with environmental protection have approved the proposed development plan, including the County's Environmental Consultant, Jerry Craig; the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division; the US. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Colorado Division of Water Resources; and the Army Corps of Engineers. For example, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department has stated that the development plan "will adequately protect and enhance the wildlife resources of the area;' that the proposed management measures "should ensure that wildlife and habitat is not adversely imparted," and that the project enhancements "should improve both the quality and quantity of habitat into the future." In any event, the proposed development plan is more protective of the wildlife, habitat, and environment than the alternative, unregulated 35-acre lots. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/13/2013: The County's standards require that the location of small neighborhood parks shall be highly visible and easily observed from the street system. Currently, the recreation center is highly screened from the main thoroughfare and does not meet the standard. The buildings should be oriented toward the streets (or other connecting walkways) and not the parking lot to achieve this standard, and ideally, this area should be oriented toward the Zephyr/Trilby intersection to reinforce this space. An alternative option is to provide a major walkway spine to meet the standard. See also the standards for non-residential buildings in the County's standards. Direct pedestrian connections should also be provided from Trilby and Zephyr. 10/11/2013: How will the neighborhood park comply with the facilities standard in the County's Land Use Code, which states, "Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple -use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches, or other features for various age groups to enjoy." Will this be determined at final plan? RESPONSE: The main entry on the west side of the clubhouse building does orient towards a'street (Eagle Roost Drive), although it was hard to distinguish it as the main entry. Paving at the main entry has been widened and enhanced to signify its importance. There are public sidewalk connections that bring pedestrians to the recreation center from both Zephyr and Trilby. We believe the centrally located park that includes a clubhouse and pool meets the Supplementary Regulations by providing a variety of indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities. Toll Brothers has not completed architectural design for the clubhouse and it is likely that the site plan illustrated on the Final Plat will undergo design changes after the Final Plat is annexed into the City. It is anticipated that changes to the proposed clubhouse, site plan and/or landscape plan will be reviewed by the City of Fort Collins as Minor Amendments in the future. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/13/2013: In addition to the GDP timeframe, the approved modifications should also be listed on the plan set. 10/11/2013: Should the approved appeal regarding the completion date requirement being extended from 3 years to 10 years be placed on the site plans? RESPONSE: The approved appeals have been added to the general notes on sheet L15. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: On the landscape plans, there are proposed planting areas outside of the area proposed to be annexed. This appears to contradict the IGA, in that any areas with final, approved plans have to be annexed within 30 days after final plan approval. How will this be rectified? RESPONSE: There are two areas where landscaping is proposed on property not included in the initial Kechter Farm Annexation. Both areas are part of the Kechter Farm Final Plat for Phase I as Tracts. The area adjacent to the Homestead Subdivision on the north will be landscaped in order to provide an immediate buffer between the existing estate residential area and the Kechter Farm residential community. This will allow time for landscape to mature before actual homes are constructed in the future. The landscaping will be owned and maintained by the Kechter Farm HOA and it is anticipated that it will be annexed with a future phase. Likewise at the southern part of the platted area landscaping will be installed in association with stormwater improvements that will be installed as part of the Phase I construction. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 Kedrter Fern► 6enernl development Plan No lao Comment; Maii`1, x011Z P"e4of2 Current misruling, Steve 00, Courtney Rippy, Pew Wray The line separation between the Mixed -Use Neighbathood (LMN in City) and the Estate Residential (UE In the City) is being changed to run along the f~er Wkwe of Trilby Road at the west edge of the Kechter property until it reaches the intersection with Zep*. lead. At that point it continues east along the centerline of Zephyr Road.. This change Is in rem tiomments from the County staff. The line change allows consistency with existing developiiit #pi densities on the east and west sides of the Kechter property. The proposed lot sizes meet the mk,*mm 3 DU/AC density requirement of the Mixed - Use Neighborhood District. The proposed Neighborhood Center has been noted on the plan. The Center is considered to be a combination of the Junior High School Facility and the 2-acre commercial site. There may one or more uses on the 2-acre commercial site In the future. The Applicant acknowledges that the City staff does not support the waiver requests or appeals for minimum lot size, lot width and associated setbacks in the Estate Residential area. The Applicant believes the plan as proposed accomplishes the Intent of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. It provides for urban level densities at the north end Of the property and gradually transitions. to larger lots and then to estate size lots in the RMA leaving significant amounts of open space (112 acres) around the Northwest Pond and along the Reservoir itself, protecting natural resources and significant wildlife features. It should be noted that the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan would allow 80 dwelling units to be clustered within the RMA on 30 acres of land. The resulting cluster with 80 dwelling units would produce a gross density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre with lots sizes averaging less than 1/3 acre. Requiring lots in the Estate Residential Area north of the RMA to be % acre in size, larger than lots allowed In the RMA doesn't fit in with the intended transition of density from north to south. The GDP Is proposing only 46 lots in the estate residential area within the RMA, clustered on less than 20% of the land (29.88 acres). However, the Applicant is proposing seven (7) grand estate lots as a compromise solution to avoid subdividing the RMA land into unregulated 35-acre tracts. it is the Applicant's understanding, that once the lot sizes and setbacks are determined through the subdivision plat process in the County, the site specific development plan will be annexed into the City of Fort Collins and the City will accept the lot sizes and setbacks that were approved through the County process The Applicant acknowledges that the City does not support gated communities. In this special case, the Applicant believes gating the area south of the estate residential lots serves to protect the natural resources around the Northwest Pond and the Peninsula. Jerry Craig, the County's Environmental Consultant, specifically. requested that the access to the grand estate lots be gated to prevent anyone, except for the owners and their guests, from accessing the area in order to protect the wildlife and habitat in the area. Engineering, Sheri Langenberger V Ked ter:Ferm General Development Plan Response to comnwnts May 1, 2012 pepsof9 Engineering comments will be addressed at the Preliminary Plat Phase of development review. Stormwater Engineering, Wes Lomarque Comments are acknowledged and more detail will be provided at the Preliminary Plat Phase of development review. Traffic, Ward Stanford There are 11 comments from 'Ward Stanford, City of Fort Collins. Ward Stanford`s comments begin on page 5 of the Fort Collins letter. For response purposes, each paragraph under the heading' Traffic Comments" was assigned a letter A through K. The following comments from Ward Stanford were addressed with a revision of the MTIS: E and F. The following comments from Ward Stanford were not Included In the scope for this MTIS or are more appropriate in a TIS related to a Preliminary Plat submittal: A, 8, C, D, I, J, and K. However, In the introduction of the revised MTIS, it was noted that comments A, 8, I, J, and K should be included in a future detailed transportation impact studies. Ward Stanford comments G and H are not MTIS issues, However, these comments are acknowledged and will be addressed by the development team. Larimer County Piannina and Buildine Senvkes Divlsion Candice Phippen, BuiWing & Code Compliance No building code issues to address at this time. Dan Kunis, Geographic Information Specialist The Applicant acknowledges that addressing of the lots will be the responsibility of the City of Fort Collins. Department of Natural. Resources Jeffrey Boring, Resource Specialist II The Applicant acknowledges that the City's Natural Resource staff does not support its request for an exception to the 80/20 rule, contained in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, to allow the Grand Estate lots. The Applicant notes, however, that Grand Estate Lot number 8 has been eliminated from the proposed development. The Applicant and Design Team have worked with the County Planning Staff and other referral agencies for several years to create a development plan that respects and preserves environmental resources in order to avoid the subdivision of the RMA into unregulated 35-acre lots. Most of the referral agencies and outside consultants concerned with environmental protection have approved the proposed development plan, including the County's Environmental Consultant, Jerry Craig; the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Colorado Division of Water Resources; and the Army Corps of Engineers. Kediter Farm Gomel Oevek)pmeit Plan Response to Comment; Msy 112012 Page 6 of 9 For example, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department has stated that the development plan "will adequately protect and enhance the wildlife resources of the area," that the proposed management measures "should ensure that wildlife and habitat is not adversely Impacted;" and that the project enhancements "should improve both the quality and quantity of habitat into the future." In any event, the proposed development plan is more protective of the wildlife, habitat, and environment than the alternative, unregulated 35-acre lots. Ong Department Jeff Goodell, Development Review Engineer All comments will be addressed with the Preliminary Plat Submittal. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer There are 11 comments from Martina Wilkinson, Larimer County, and they are numbered 1 through 11. The following comments from Martina Wilkinson were addressed with a revision of the MTIS: 3, 4, 5, 7, S, 9,10, and 11. The following comments from Martina Wilkinson were not included in the scope for this MTIS or are more appropriate in a TIS related to a Preliminary Plat submittal: 2, 6, and 11 However, in the introduction of the revised MTIS, it was noted that comment 6 should be included in a future detailed transportation impact studies. Martina Wilkinson comment2. "The current version of the HCM is 2010. Although not likely to change any conclusions or an issue for this study, a change to the current standard should be something to work towards." The HCM 2010 software was not available at the time of submittal. We obtained HCM 2010 software after this MTIS was prepared. We are working to apply the new HCM 2010 software in future transportation impact studies. Department of Health and Environment Doug Ryan A management plan for prairie dogs will be provided at the Preliminary Plat stage of development review. The Applicant Intends to allow some prairie dogs to remain for the benefit of the birds of prey in the area; however, the Applicant agrees that the health and safety of community residents will also have to be satisfactorily addressed. Summarized Neighborhood comments addressed by topic: Trilby Road Requests for slower speed Traffic congestion at school Request for more roundabouts, raised speed bumps Request for pedestrian stop lights Concerns regarding speeding and conflicts with pedestrian and bicyclists Widening of Trilby Road Additional street trees Kechter Farm General Development Pan Response to Comments May 1, 2011 pass 7 of 9 Responses: There is a round -about proposed at the intersection of Trilby Road and Zephyr Road. This wJ# provide some traffic, calming. Trilby Road is classed as a collector stoat The posted speeds on Fort Collins Collector streets are: major - 30-35 mph and minor - 25-3ti jVh. The posted speed limit is expected to be 25 mph, since Trilby is posted at 25 mph to the east and west of the Kechter Farm property. Currently there are no plans for speed bumps or other speed control measures, The City and- School District will decide if a typical 20 nWh Hashing school zone is appropriate. The location of the congestion is on Trilby and Ziegler, adjacent to Kinnard. Currently AU trait is forced to the ourrant J00000 because the Trilby connection through the Koehler Fenn does not exist. To some extent it is expected that the future Trilby connection will dissipate trS c loath: Typical pasted speeds on a collector strut ors noted in #4 (above). It is the Applicant's understanding that the current posted spoe* an existing Trilby are 25 mph, east and west of Kschter Farm. This is likely to be the posted q*od an Tnlbythrough KechterFarm. The Posted speed will not be reduced less than 25 wh. There are and w0l be skiswalks. The school dW t and the City will come up with -safe mutes to schools." They will designate schoolzone$ where appropriate. Street trees planted at 40 feet on center wN be required along a!1 public streets in the development, including Trilby Road. Zephyr Road Concern regarding three-way intersection at Rock Park Drive Response; Zephyr Road east of Tri"tby Road is planned to be a local street. Thera is nothing inherently unsafe about a three-way intersection and the traffic volumes are within the planned capacity for the streets and intersections In the area. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been submitted. Homestead Property Boundary Objections to high density adjacent to 10-acre lake Request for spatial buffer to protect habitat along 10-acre lake Concern regarding abrupt change In density from estate lots to small lot single family Request for fencing between the properties to prevent trespass Response: The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan requires a minimum 3 dwelling units per acre at the north end of the Kechter property in the Mixed -Use Neighborhood Area. The Mixed -Use Neighborhood Area regulations, would allow multi family development (up to six units per building) and a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per acre, with twelve (12) dwelling units per acre being allowed in any phase of a multiple -phase development plan. The Applicant has chosen to develop the north end of the project close to the minimum density allowed. Larger'lots are allowed further south in the development plan, in the Estate Residential Area. The County has not Identified the 10-acre lake as valuable wildlife habitat in need of buffers. The Applicant retained Mike Figgs, a wildlife consultant, to perform a habitat Kechter Fame General pevelopment Plan It"Ponse to Comments may 1, 2012 Page s of 8 value assessment and an impact analysis regarding the 10-acre lake north of the Kechter property. His report has been submitted along with the revised GDP Plan. The Applicant will provide a six foot privacy fence along the north side of the Kechter Form lots. Wildlife Habitats Concern for the existing trees between the Kechter Farm and Westchase Adequate buffers for wildlife Concern that proposed development will have severe impact to protected areas Concern regarding the Grand Estate lots In the RMA Response: It is the Applicant's intent is to preserve trees along the Westchase property boundary. The Applicant submitted a Resource Management Plan that describes all the natural resources that will be protected and describes and maps the required buffers. The Applicant and Design Team have worked for several years to create a development plan that respects and preserves environmental resources. The Applicant believes that the development proposal is better than a plan than would subdivide the area into unregulated 35-acre lots. Most of the referral agencies and outside consultants concerned with environmental protection have approved the proposed development plan, including Jerry Craig, the County's Environmental Consultant the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Division of Water Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Miscellaneous Concern for quality of architecture and landscape Response:. Although the ultimate home builder are unknown at this time, it is anticipated that the quality of the architecture and landscaping will be consistent with what exists in adjacent neighborhoods. Density Response: The fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan requires a minimum 3 dwelling units per acre at the north end of the Kechter property. Concern for what will happen with the Kechter Farm property Response: The Kechter Family is retaining ownership of the homestead on approximately 9 aeries. This 9-acne tract is not part of the development proposal at this time. The Kechter family does have interest in the Homestead eventually becoming a place that displays the history of this area through a numberlof means, but not a museum. Trail crossing should occur north of Trilby Road Response: The 10 foot wide trail in Westchose is a City regional trail that will extend and run along Trilby Road and connect into the fossil take community near Rookery Road. The proposed trail on the other side of the ditch is a smaller private trail that will be owned and maintained by the Kechter Farm HDA. Request for a larger pool and recreation facility to accommodate the Westchase neighborhood Kechter Farm General Development Plan Response to Comments May 1, 2012 Pap 9 of 9 Response.: The applicants will consider this idea. Thera are currendy no plans to share the recm hon facilities with other neighborhoods. Construction Timing Response: Infrash cture is expected to start 3-5 years from now, depending on market demand. Comments From Agencies COLORAW PARK! AND WRQM phoow (30a) T�1102 • FAX (3W W -7100 oW CWM&k*Fd& RECEIVED OCT - 7 2M gaplember 3% 2011 Rob Hsirrsiak senior Phn m Lwinw cmo plannint Phnmirtt and Buildiat SWAM Division P.O. a" 1190 Rout Cdlina, CO dOMI 190 Re: Keoi w Farm Remoniry Ksa>sAtr FWM GDP Dar Mr. Helmick: Colorado Parke mW WlMUf r bu nta" ad mi*WW the KMOW pe+opoal. We wt "with Mr. CmWs Mwdirtied 31, 2011 OW d"m rvt("i p[ostoRloa pltn ad pr*JW aMomommU at oudim d in the dmiopmw pbm wlil aoiegoa i* prxoeot ad wigme the wMilb r�esorrroes of do ouaL no o:onnr wdm dming AW p Mook bui*m Hit ad *oft mph• gad rtsakdm of aco by knum ad &ma a po dnorgi the Wmd soft lob td=M soon that rrildlHb and ha<biht is rqt adve ► hnpaattd. In addition, dw pwjm* snmaaraents %cladhOt the ta11 vetat4 "vioW sonm ft dw bald o*W rook trta tr mbW restrnadm wood om W and dweline has phmdW shmW M*row both tlrs *aft ad of habitat info tho lamm 7%wk you !br the oppottu* to bs iavolvsd In the p1 minS F mmo liar this pr*& if you have any gvesdons pleats conW Direi k iNildM MauW Nmy Howard at 9M17.1471. Mark I.alis Moot Wild>itb MaMW Cc S. YamesM41C. Gmp% M. LAwll% N. Howard, M. Own= 8TA'E OF COLOMOO Johnw.11pan o op , Go w wo wm Igmp, IO.ourr maw, DtptrinrnoterNteMioal tiams Iadc 0. Coklm Clodor, Cdoia* PaoMmdVMft POW NW VAM omdoo*m D" IL ftootm • vbw:jw* Chi Cttotn Doom Fmb •Mm QMnN Cite AMnJmwm W K Ww Petal m •JImPdbO * Jo Ah*% uy Mork Onih, e LwM VM = @ Dm VYig1�d Esc Olriclo Mtonbooa MM Ntinp and JoNM 8elattr �r^rIuED SEP 07 M August 31, 2011 Robert Hdu" AIC P Lodow County Planniitrg Dqwlment P.O. Box 1190 Font Collins, CO =22-1190 Dar Mr. Helmtalc: I haw reviewed the Resource blanogemerit Plaa ) for Kwh* Fans dated September 2011. I believe tbe Kedde r Farm RW sde pftly addresses, wildift impacts of Xechter Farm Developmat whin the Rmuft Maameneot Area of the Fossil Crack Reawvoir Area Plan. The second paragraph an page 6 ofthe K RW lively sizes do issues *9 I rimed dieing review W. h Plm- Most of my saggasdm haw been Woorpacasod and oottonvmod plant nstmation ofhayBiolds, cropland and disturbed grates will improve bmiW within the wM burrs. In addition, the numberof the Estate trots wale voluoWily reduced fiam 51 in the'fficetch plan to 46 and thaw agog the wile were also reduced is size and walled balk 100 to 250 feet fiom the buffer. As esPec� the WoMM co®ttoveesy involved than buMn annmd am of the bald eagle wmter roasts. The Kecbtr Form, RMP placed Grod EaMe lots 6 and 7 owe the recoxpmended muter ha mile (1320' buffer around the primary bald eagle winter roost on the shom southeast of the project (roost 2� The UW lot size and der inhabitants should be less disturbing rbiag to the eagles and will help ellim nete traTess within the buffir. Their periaeters will be'f aced as deed m pacseet wildlife. However, a conflict developed wide the occasional most on the souk shore of*e peninsula (roost 1). The 1320 foot burr for this roost was a wroubed by several of the Grand Eatata lots. I raooanmended the butferdistance to the nmvg lot could be reduced to 1,000 f+xt ss long as adequate vegetative smemng is established along the property line adjacent to the buff. The 1000 foot bdkt is centered at the largest terse on the west portion of the grovo, but oldie: trees within the bdk are more than 1320 !teat away and offer for more sensitive eseles. The Iota are now realigned so that do southeast boundary of Grand Estate lot 5 is outside the 1000 foot buffer. This bolmdary will be screened by mixed cotonwood, spr = and pine tree plant1w Seasonal limits on moauctim associ ed with the all of the pod=Ws Grand Estate kits should red xxdisturbance when wintering caglea are present. Finally, the Keabler Farm RMP well mgmeat the old growth cottonwoods an the p 's shoreline with sapling plantings. A iffi nmhnation, the groove may also stbact nesting herons once mcne. Roost 8 on the south shore of the reservoir is pratect+ed by Fossil C re elc R+eggional Open en Spas a conservation taseanent protects roost 3 and the roosts 5 and 6 were recxanly acquired. 7%e Kwhte r RW winter eagle most bins will seem roosts 1 and 2 (Fig.6) and the majority of the known roosts on Fossil Creak reservoir will then be protected. I realm my request to reintroduce prairie flogs to a portion of the wildlife buffer is beyond the scope of the Xechter RW, but the City and County should molder it aft habitat r tomtion. Prairie dogs are a keystone dies and important prey of red -Wed and fenuginous hawks, eagles, coyotes, foxes and badgers. The contkibwn to the Resome Management Flan did a good* snvanory►ing habitat condido n, wvilMM occu mee, sad im solutions. ews plan is applied, I believe the wildlife veso!uroes ossociated with the Fossil Creole Reservoir Resource Maaaganoat Plea wm be pt+aW tad and enhamxd. Sincerely, 4 'elf cold R. Craig 12/13/2013: At the next submittal, please provide full, printed sets of utility plans, site and landscape plans, etc. for the City. I can work with you on exact copies of each plan set. RESPONSE: Noted and coordinated with Lindsay Ex. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: The street tree placements do not meet the county's standards: 1. Trees are not spaced between 30-40', they.are often spaced further apart, e.g., 60' in some locations. 2. The trees are spaced further away from utilities than required, e.g., see Spindlebrush Lane where street trees are 60' from the streetlights instead of 40'. Please correct this upon resubmittal. RESPONSE: Street trees have been adjusted per this comment and several by Tim Buchanan, the City Forester. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: The PLS/acre are 16.0 Ibs, which is more appropriate for a clay soil than the loam soil that generally predominates the Kechter Farm site (per the ecological report). A rate of 24.4 Ibs/PLS/acre is recommended for loamy soils (and 19.2 Ibs/PLS/acre for sandy soils). Please increase the rate of seed applied to increase the success of the seed's establishment and reduce the rate of weeds entering into the site. RESPONSE: The seed specification chart has been updated on sheet L16 with one provided by Lindsay Ex. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: What is the turf proposed for the site? Would a warm -season, low water grass be acceptable? RESPONSE: We are using Reveille Bluegrass. Reveille is a Kentucky and Texas Bluegrass hybrid that uses considerably less water. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Midblock connections - Required when a block exceeds 700' in length. Please add midblock connections on Sunset Terrace Drive, Chicory Court. RESPONSE: A midblock connection has been added along Chicory Court. A midblock connection is not required in the Estate Residential Area per county code. This was discussed with Lindsay Ex at a meeting with Ripley Design. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Please label the future commercial area on the plan set so as to avoid confusion in the future. RESPONSE: Labeled. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Are there trash and recycling enclosures provided in the recreation center? RESPONSE: A trash enclosure has been added on the northwest portion on the parking lot. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/13/2013 12/13/2013: Is any lighting planned within the recreation center? If so, it should be specified on the plans and a detail provided to ensure compliance with the lighting standards. A photometric plan should be provided to confirm lighting levels are met. RESPONSE: There is only architectural lighting, no lighting anticipated in the parking lot at this point. P. 001 QCTI1312011/?n 0331 PI ES/CFO PROM 236 '7 :1_S it M III 60, 303 236 4005 OCt/13/201019 03 41 M ES/CFO PAY 0e.303 236 4005 P. 002 rm" tsy, U.2011 ED U. S. FM t Wt1.D M M MVIC94tTSANL PO 80X 2340do, DFC " "412) DENVEK CO i032S• M6 u1m m maVm OCT - 7 280 &dAwdb&pqpWlKa Chop ofY^ol tim*d DentopmM Plta *Abu bm aba P m "Depntww fbr traviaw. Pkitus ttovkrv`ar�d soaeeormt a: . Propow 2010"d I F,Alt1d 1Bt8?+01N>aia ! FA iM t3i)P C Wvmbert 11 1s601l1.334d2 Eommants Doellrp; Satm dsl►, Omber 08. 2011 PA am NO M As a ra t ot*is . do Hau Daptud4ert mb M+et peu plat e m 111�i vAhk2l do& if comefto aretoot IN, -ived 21 d�>ie �`�+eemmt vnitl aewme tityet or yow ap wy have so cool of or coam ms an** rAwdoad Vim If sddidooai dw h seeded m >t+e *=dm dds mai1W` pleas advbo dke sfpbnw wlf k ft 21 days wfb a Ibr addi�iaml amc tad an e�l�red time i de Mw tai Type; Larie,let CO Pleeaft cam mimim Meetimd T acgim. L vlmw Co my Cow Offioe, Raft Room - It Floor, 200 Wen Oak Sttt aK Fort Co11bv, Colorado. T#me` UndwdWM Pleas mW your mmom to** phoney >iM bdoaw aced f a take awles tot the #h)bwbS LDMADMW RIl'Z.EY >��+i II+ic 401 W bIDtJ1JTAIN AVJk SUM 160 MT COLLINS, 00 2021 Rob Helmick solar Paama 990-4M.7602 tt'hcltockgbtsLaarar3 Ari Rob Helmioh <INhlrknr�so.It/lltNcoo.u�0► —,a- rcl for Koch#cr Farm z m�aAem Kosloff, 'Tra4y eTIvWAoA, ff4mlRtam.oaums IW, ttap 19, 2041 at SAO PM Tin. fin-ckllarhnerarp D@w Rob I modysd this i Iiww drAbprnsnt pion thy. N seems to wneet to ddrMon do snbdhbbn. mwnw, I mm and the water supply plan br Oft de mki lei nest. i its sW to WSW supply to be p ow by tiw Foes C omn&4 om nd wdwdlsMot. N is s !ape sabmittal, hm l just mbsad dw watsrsUpph► plan? Plamw ed ise. Ttwh you. TreyCo c mob Melon of Wabr R soum" 3014e8s , wd e241 lief► Mob" - l 1pe-Owe .rouaar► Tb 9taslo 7iraay' <Ytraoy.iCosbeoo;us> Tue, Sep 39, 2011 at aO AN Th", wa a ttw hest phase and phos plan mbw of thls piojsot. l aid not mq" a w W sW* p m a thb Um boMme wee wi l be 90ft p pW q0tafto br each phase arrd to be honaet I am not to taw long We wNl talw to cams fops!her.. Trey are nwW Nanamted ftM rww in 90M the ow mN onftwwo and wtwft. I we r*W to pot You aomsinp ve can bd I do not fhft the "NOW item wWftV aaymW wety po*nkWy cxwni Worts hm the water suppber- Fort CdOm - t owetand Water GMid. so no you tM not miss anything I hod ntA w>N 4WW aan*q you ainirdtinq ftM ww but my admin bike did so may Lot ma know Ryou need sn #ft al this lime; PJAW text hwdanl Robert HOIM k AICP L wkw C r Pbwna Po Box Ii90 Fat CON CO 8=4 U l 9lbi496`T+�2 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RE90URCPS DIVISION OF 'WATER RESOURCES September 21, 2011 Rob Hohlck U tmer County Planning & Building Services Transmisslon via emall: rheirnidt&wknerrorg Re: Kechter Farm Rezoning ! Koehler Farm general development pie" 11-Z1a00 / 11-33M Part of Sections 8 and 17, TON, RGOW of the 81h P.M Water tIvision 1. Water District 3 Door Mr. Helmick. G► nW l�� tvllx FMtKYK V 114AWl,lr Fl,ttINNAMRR& 13ftPa0. Based on your submktM and follow up ernall of September 20. 2011. this is a wry prdffdn ry Plan Pvt phase general development and rw orlmg plat) that does not hokxle s water supply plea. This office will only perform a cursory review of the ralleft InIbrmilon and provide Rbormai comments. The comments provided hwakr cannot be used to guarantee a virfbM water supply plan or inbastnrcture, the Issuance of a well permit. or physical svailablilty of **W. The proposed water supplier is the Fort CoMna-Lawiand Willer Diehiot (DIstrlct), but a letter of commitment flan the District was not Included in to submittal moterish. We do not have recent Information from the District rslpsrding the DIsMcrs water rights and the anwunt or uncommitted firm supply avail" for use by the District for future deveipment. PUMMM to C.R.S. j 30-28- 1350 Kh)iti), a murky or u -mum . ftIs required to fit s county and the t3'tate Engineer documetttitrg ON am development without causing �y to p water rights. The State Engineer March 4.2005 and Much 11. 2011 memorarAm to county planning directors describe* the rwMremsnb for water supply reports when water Is to be supplied by a district (Mailable on our webaite at MtpAvater.stste.c o WAdmkt/Pages/ ubdivisi fANSP.apx). In aomordence with Mtschment A of tile rrterrlorarrdrtm, a water supply report or stelemordshould Include a summary of water nghte owned or controlled by the District, the anticipated yields of these right: both in an average year cod dry Year• the present dement on the system, and the anticipated demand due to commitments for service entered into by the District and the amount of uncommitted firm supply the M*k:t has available for the future. Pnvrr[y .mum rninuaw MW VMLURXMC13HU T#llaspect 10 t1M 0tam Within 72 hours e. a substitute 14W plan or an s - rt must be obtained to replaceavongw� loges. This office rsqutres tt»t replacement of wadends not exceed a ratio of 1:1. The creation of wstiands cans" depieid * to tiny trtrNot system through evaporation from the watersur ace and the consumQbve use of water by plant No If tho a tr pbon exceads this raft in an over - appropriated stream system. teen the stream system must be cornptn"Mcl for these deplabons in time ply and ammount through a court approved augmentation plan or a State Engineer approved subsbtule supply plan CRloti at on State Rugiaar 1319 shorman StrQ4 Suits in# • DIMM, CO Slam. Plum X04"-►fit . FW. 301.6fi6 YW w wwm etor.4i "I. W Lariniff 1141860 September 21, 2011 If you have any queftns, please contact Tracy KoaWff at Ns office. Sin rely+ .1oar1 a VWIMs, A E a r Resourrce Engineer cc Dave Nettles Division Engineer George Varra Water Commissioner District 3 JMW/rLK• Lwwn tr I141880 Kee tw GDP Do= Page 2 -� o : t : . a a •c a s. ♦ i r :�• �. . :s � slob � f % { a Mr. Rob IMmM LwiffiercmW Plawin and Building Services I ivision PO BOX 1190 Fort Collins, CO $0522-1190 RE: Ksscbter Farm Runioll, lase No. II-ZI= / i14r a Corfu File No. 2SOM320 near Mr. Helmick: ReSermw is made to the above manticmed project looded in Section. Sand 17, TO, R68W, Lerlmer County, Colorado. if any work raga ras the dimcha p of dr+e fled or fill msferK and any eowavat on associated with it dredged or fill project; Wdw tamporary or pew ,io an aqqaft sue, which may include dal and Perenoaal mrsa k wetlands, posads, dralAW ditches and tr*tioa di dw% this ol5a should be notified by a praponentof die project for Depeol neat ofd a Army parmift, disups in Pad requirements or jurltdi l date- ninaflo rs parawaio Section 404 offt clean Wa1wA L Work in an a lus c site should be id=MW by the went of the prgject and be drown on a amp identifying the Qu attw Satioq Tow+ ship, Xanga and C=W or Latitude tude and Longitude, Decimal Do ees (datum NAD 13) and the dimes of work in mob agastic sate. Any loss of = aquatic site may require mitigation. Mitigs" requirement's will be determined during the Department of the Amy pormialaga review. N there are any questions call Mr. TOM i kKft of my WYI= at 30-99l4= and rohrence Corps PRO No, 2006mm. S%Oft y, Twwthj► T. Caney n Chief* Donver Regulatory Office tin CC: Ripley Design Inc. Linda Ripley 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 90521 Comments From Affected Districts RECEIVED SEP a 0 MI 8,patmber27, 2011 W. ybk" gawmPb=W T Cmw P.O. Baas 1190 Foot C fts CO dMS? -11" BB: Zook at perm Farm mp 1141i60Vri-8d0i� Mw Fat Co1Yeu • Lowdo d WsAw t vt wd the t PW Gout SUi4 = Dko t bm mvbwad ** *a" mmdomd p vjm =d wbmit t w *li mb* wmmidL 8a otdo plOr a .4 WSW end umlmw mmw bw m d tw tocirtiad sewer Hm w* boad wJft&*mdwdmmw(rs*iftdenome� 7UDWrioy1NlU'regah, ecbem he ]lop A am lUDbW* rvillmgWm aooewto fhe j el m d"d ow tt is moat Hk* tbd die Mm bwero tM Nadwest Pmd emd h" Cmk Pmwv* wM and to be Iridaoed to s000mmalm do pi+op a - m wdw HaL The lypW mmreat m need is be coneafd tok diodo 3 foot b y dv& For the won lion. PMw do not h bme to cworme it 2MI% eoctmu im 104, itym Im mW qmo m or mpi e edditima hdbe N&M MrrpFGMK P.B. w Mr. Mimi D.DffvM0, Ub&W Mang Mr. Linda r $150 Baas D ft Rd 0064 00 OW Pions n"104 Fu (470) z"1i6 Rob HeiniM chsfiiilaap oo.tadiner co.us+ Proposed land clo olopm eint Jason Usen tIIeonj4 .lowland. wvW Thu, Sop 20, 2011 at 10.,W AM Cc: Kab Ressler rlIeesW4cl.bwIm i&mus>, Mike Fiarman ci -1-r- --01 gmcmP, tarp G*crpe <peor�ci.k>wsland.co.us> Dear W. Hdnik*, I would Ike to dbum with you the amcm,l piq=od d nent ad lhs KeWsr Far W+omV. As you know the abport Is locs4a�d appr000tmar two srrd a hslf mllas to the SouO► aft the dspriNM cite. 'Mmessis twpmft by dgmt alr"ft due to ate man afthe WMo is p k.wy nrnusy. Because dthts feat. I would wpost that the mrAy consider an w4gidoit easement brthe aura drAlopmert prim to its app ". I hays bmkm ed an eoiafzrplp dan *4p*n saeennrt that Is used by the CMu of Fait 0Am and Lowland land for imAm a xo. I befew fast tiii=<vwA be an tmputant piotec0or+ d#e airport, as it is an and to not only the twv cities, but to Ladmer Ommly as wall. t wound very much Ike to wok wOh you an this nwtfar In a+der to help protect the tidura of the bounty's aonrl omm SWWW abport. Jason R. Licon Fat cbinns - L.OWMW Airport Dir40W 4900 Esfisrt Drlro amend, co t1 m wasummain WMIM-= Direct MUM&MFox FORT COLLINS - LOVELAND .\ ( 1:11c?fI 1' C 5047 NW AviSetlon Easement Fo m.doc AVIGATION EASEM1g1VT WHEREAS, , hereinafter called (the "Grantor"), is the owner in free of that certain parcel of land a tusted in the County of Lorimer, Sete of Colorado, vxn Particularly described on Exhibit "A," attached hereto, haduaftcr called (Vranton' proi'l, WHEREAS, the CMES OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, and LOVELAND, COLORADO, haremafter called (the "GrWaWrX are w#mers of the FORT COLLINS- LOVELAND MUNICIPAL ADtPORT. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of sum of Tan Dollsts ($10.00) and odor good and valuable consideration the vecdpt and si fficiewy of which is hereby a mowb%ed, the for themselves, their , CXCC1ltOI8r and assign do buvby giacit, bargain, sell, and convey v the Orentec, its successors and assigns for the use and benefit of the public, on casement and agbt-ofway, appuctmaw to FORT COLLINS- LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT for the unobstructed on and passage of all types of ai =ft (as hereinafter deg in and ftcuo the aiespme above Oeamtors' Property, which restricted air sparse shall commence at a height no lower d= 0y.feet (501 above ground level to an infinite height with such use and passage to be na1ha ted as to frequermy, type of airaaR and proximity. Said easement shall be arpptntanaut to ad fbr the benefit of the real property now known as FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIItPORT including =w additions thereto wherever located, heredle r mob by FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AMPORT or its successors and aka guests. and invitees, i whAing my and all persona, Sena or corporations operating aircraft to or $run the airport. Said caseinent shall inedusde ail dbp which: may be alleged to be incident to or resulting feom the use and cooyment of said easamart, ineludi& but not limited to the right to cause in all air spece above or in the vidmity of the s xhm of G aotors' PmopwW such noise, vibrations, fumes, deposits of dust or other particulate matter, heel particles (which = incidental to the nomeal operation of said aircraft), Beer, interferam with deep and +eoamrtunication and tiny and all other effects that may be alleged to be iacidmt to or caused by the operation of aircraft over or in the via'mny of G aastocs' Prop" or in Lndlung at or taking off frees, or operation at or on said FORT COLLINS-LOVBIAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and C#raatora do hereby fidly waive, rwdse, and release any right or cease of action which fty may now have or which they may have in the future agaimat Greutet, its successor and assigns, due to such noise vibrations, fumes, dust, fuel particles and all other effects, that may be caused or may have been caused by the venal and customary option of aircraft landins as,, or taking off fiam, or opemt ng at or on said FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. As used herein, the team "aircraft"" mean any and all types of airwA whether now in exisbem or hereafter 1 i a, r 0 r I red and developed, to inclutise, but not limited to, let aircrW% propeller driven aircraft, civil aircraft, military aircraft, commercial aircraft, helloopters and all types of aircraft or vehicles now in existence or hwainafter developodr regardless; of existing or Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13: This was emailed but I still need a hard copy provided. 10/11/2013: A soils report with borings and water table information is needed. RESPONSE: A copy of the soils report is included with this submittal, along with the grou ndwater/u nderd rain recommendation letter. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Need to provide City of Fort Collins approval blocks on the utility plans. RESPONSE: The City of Fort Collins approval block is not included on all sheets. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13: 1 would also suggest that in Tract J that you not call the whole tract an irrigation easement and actually define where you want this easement to go — just so that when you replat this area you do not need the ditch companies signature to vacate the easement where you don't want it (future lots and row). 10/11/2013: Plat j Need to identify who the irrigation easement is dedicated to and they will need to sign the plat. RESPONSE: An irrigation easement is not shown. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Plat— Need to identify what the existing width of the row is along Ziegler adjacent to the plat boundaries. RESPONSE: The plat shows the existing width of Zeigler right-of-way. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13: This may or may not be there as I didn't see any landscape plan notes. 10/11/2013: Notes need to be placed on the site and landscape plan that indicate the development is responsible for the maintenance of the median in Trilby (in the Trilby Ziegler intersection adjacent to Lot 1), the roundabout and splitter island landscaping, medians in Street A-3 and any cul-de-sac medians. RESPONSE: Note is located on sheet L15, #16. Comment Number: 11 Comment.Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13: This note still reflects County. Either the note needs to be changed as I have it written above or it needs to be as follows: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the Local Entity Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. 10/11/2013: The following note regarding patching standards shall be added to the utility sheets in which pavement cuts and utility tie in6s will occur. Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards: RESPONSE: The note has been added to state "Local Entity Engineering Inspector" and "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards". Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Assume that there is an existing irrigation line that runs across the property -where is that and make sure there are notes addressing the removal, when and how that is to be done. The irrigation company needs to sign the sheets showing the removal of existing facilities and the installation of the new facilities. RESPONSE: The irrigation line will be removed prior to the development of the Kechter Farm. future noise levels, for time purpose of transporting persons or property through the air, by whomsoever owed or opwaWL It is specifically cally tacognmed that d mra#t operations will most likely increase in the futmtie wad 'this easenwat is not limited to the nomber of Opast ions at the airport on to date of Win. The easeuvot and right -of --way hereby grimed inchwex the cominu ng right in the Grantee to prevent the erection or growth upon grantors' Property of my building, abructure, tree, or other object within dne air space easement emnled booby, and to remove from said air space, or at the sole option of the Gmtee, as an ahnnadve. to ma* and light as obey ruWons to air navigation, any sucb building, strrdme, tree or other objects upon, or which in due lhtture may be upon O=ntors' Property, together with the right of hWm to, egress from, and passage over Grantors' Property for the above purpose. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said apt and right -of -ray, and all rights appertaining thereto unto the Grantee, its sumaso s and assigns, until said FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Shall be abandoned and sW cease to be mead for public airport PUMOMX- AND for the considen don hereksbove set forth, the tisantors, for themhselvat, their heirs, admnustratora, executors, s and unpuk do hereby sgsee that for and during the life of said a sse"mot and right -of -ray, 06Y will not haWJW Weck p,mmeit the erection or growth of, or permit or sut%r to rataain upon gnantor's Property any betiding, st ruckwe, tree, or other object extending into the aftealdd ptdWbiftd air space, and that they shell no hereafter use or permit or suffer the use of Osontears' Property in such a manner as to s =to electrical nterhm" with radio communication betwexn any Wtaliation upon said sigxnt and airwA or as to make it difficult for ©yes to distinguish between airport lights and otlws, or to permit any use of the Grantors l<ssd that causes a disaharga of forms, dust or smoke so as to impair visibility in the vicinity of due airport or as otherwise to en&uW the landirng, taking off or maneuve * of aircrdii. Qmturs furthermore waive all damftes and "ins for damages cad or aliened to be caused by or incidental io such activities. It being u ndentood and agreed that the efntowd covwm a and &VeMMjU shall run with the land and shall be forever binding open the heirs, sdministnhtors, executork MXcessors and assigns of the Glrantor. The Grantor does hereby covemunt with the Grantee that it is lawRhily .seized and possessed ofthe vial propntty above described, that it has a good and IwAd right to convey the easement heredn smated, drat the said essesnent is freer and clear of all its cumbraacea, and that Grantor will forever warrant and defend ft title thereto against lawAd claims of all persons whomsoever. 2 no Prewatioa Bur= Phone: 970-2214M 102 Ra®ispDaarr Sow PkL' M2214WW Fort Comm, co 80524 Ynt xmc- www.pou&&.nm.org TO: Rob Helu ek Laa maarcouwq Sedwplsoa w FRAM: Roan Cioaa AU4 AnWhiot fte MiesK Mw ReWaw 4" R& Reaahteer Fem Ramonlum I1ZISW I IM063 DATH: Oetoba r 11, 2011 Co.. RWsy Dmdip lit Uv&Rkft 401 W. Mouatda Ave, Suite 100 Fart Cow, CV 8021 Ln a000tdom wrft ft 97LCLUC 8.1.4C, Odwr Stailmde, do Poudre Fire Antra ft will eon m dre 06 ito<ieentdtwd Five Code dong with is a000mI No local adinsooee as fanaws: I. The aded ad des wilt be alloyed Uthese gates an be oremd upon the peg ome of the Pottdre Pis Audwrlty advidwat having personnel to lame the appesatne to open u7 wee. 2. The long and ateoded pdvass ddm shad be dedioded on than plat as Aoow Baeemeob. Thia sot on Witt dedlcde them as to ] om sad reguiarle they be bunt as O1-Wm&w Made that ace ft end baL They m wquieed to be mkdmn 20 Boot wkb snd r+eguind to have "bump oub." 3. Due to dw aadtraow haglh oftha Pdwaft difvn twumaemds saga req*W Wing a mim od" tam of50 Beet. 4. Do to the 100aft of ft ptfvft ddve4 all haves built dill be ad is be *a epadWlaneai. PFA wtll IWOa don qob maot ft a mood point ofmom S. A amble sod wlWa waft mp* dmU be roqub+a 1 The An flow wi11 be S00 paUons pear mioat atazm&W pnwm of 20 pet. No mb will be are #Wd at the dilowlag looanim along *a pdvab drivres: • One Ord otwfthin 300 hak but befoeae of lot 8 • One ig 60 "k the a>~ bdwamn lots 8 and 1 On wxmotwldr a 3W but boded balm tat 1 • One N dsma loomed a► tOw Cu14le-aac • One Wow locaW baeymd *a Vftaad within 300 feet of tots 6 dt 7. Comments From Cities and Towns ArmRob Haftnid<<h4Nnhxpo ledmrt cAip Kechter Faun Rmoning 11-Z1860 / 11 *S3063 referml n�assg. SwU 6stlandt gbsibtp Mon, Goo It, MI et 3M PM To: Fbob Helmick afisknlck mr alp H Rab, Mw Town cf Windsor hes no coatmwb mgwft Vft retisnal ss It is outside «w Commm Ay Any Thanks anyway. Good to see you at Ow 4 comets caws -wish fd had mom kdlbNty food logotlw v h you guys. Scott 8colt 5911dodk A1CP ChId Planner Town of Windsor 301 VWA*M Wed vwww, cabraft am MINN CIr1N�ir1' Rob Helmick 416e1mlcrpwo.larlmenc e.uep Kechter Farm Rezoning GDP TJ NUINe 41ANUM ,pans Too, Sep 24, 2M1 at 3:44 PM To. Rob Helmick <i"AlNakpeCo prk oo w. PN ROW IW* you br serer Ow Kaohht Farm PA&N t3 & GOP appNcdi o to me for my w4ew. Because the pgeot Is Outside of 11mrath's O AA aid pbw*V Irdum a area, we do rot hire any comim on the eppka iam. Yak. T.J. Dlubac row Planner. Tom ofTon nath Ph. 9T0.224 2i! Fr DZ�' L+JZ17 ~.MkMdMKM "ment NNp od 50 sad 281 Noah Codepe Avg, P.O. an no Fort COMM. CO e002241500 370= 4.Q134 -!ter ko", P AOO' , raiOrr*aaon�hion October 13, 200 l Lindy. Ripley RilkY Design, Em 401 west Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE; Kwktd r Faroe Renaningmd Gummral Dervelopatehht PLm City Comments Please We the following VISMAMY of comments ficon City Staff raprding the Koehler Farm Rswning and General Devoalopment Plan. If you have questions about any comments, you may contsct the individual conmunter for addidaW ddufficadon. Environmental Pbraoi Contacts Lindsay Ex, M224-6143,1es@fe pv.eo® The Fossil Creels Reservoir Ana Plan stipulates ft following in Clopter 4, Session 4.4.1.c "Closter Development": "Paresis that are located entirely within the Resource Mkt Area are eligible to Participate in the TDU pr VvAi as sending Parcels: however, ifdwelopm nt is purposed, the property would be required to chhstar at 1 unit per 2 acre density on 20% of the land with residual parcel domed as permanent 'span apace as outlined in the nual eonservadon development priociplss cowed in the adopted Larimer County (PLUS) Neater Plan The current proposal befom .City staff provides less units than this standard would stipulate, but provides only 709A open space (only 112.51 acres are included in this proposal, whereas 129 acres are required under the jointly adopted plan). The hardship arguments CmBularIy shaped lot, S6"K of the property w thin the RMA, and limitation of other butlars) are not supported by aWf OvMA staff ca4dnot and does not support the applicant's rapast for an MMption regarding the 80M Wile to allow the Grand Estate Lou. Staff is open to discussing the clustariing of the grand estate lots toward the RMA lira, while still pr+wvidiAg a miniwum of 80% open space in the RMA. Increased density within the Urban Estate District may be an option for addressing the economic impaas that the applyants are concerned with. While staff appred*ead the extensive work the applicant has done with Jerry Craig, staff still believes, and the applicant acknowledges, that the FCR Resource. Manegenheat Area is more than just the bald eagle and raptor use, and thus, the 8 Grand POW are simply out of line for what the City and County intended fbr the FCR Rzsouxce Maoanemrt Aran. In additim to the applicant's lack of open space provision that is consistent with the Fossil Credo i Resevoir Area Plan, the applicant's-Reso�mx Management Plan (required for any deveiopment proposed within the RMA) bs&quWy addresses the long4 m mauggemew of the opal space area. With this level of dwelopaneat proposed in the RMA, a canonvadon easement should be required that outlines how the long -teem g , public acoasao and resource protection and restoration will take place in peepetuity. Staff believes the sigrtiffino ancroa merit into the RMA proles by the Witcant requires sib management of the area's critical mourees to ensure dint this encroacimresat does not cause the adverse Impacts then the development restriction in the RMA was intad to prevent. Further, flu: Applicants are not proposing best mkt practices fbr activities within the RMA. For irnstume, the applicants art POPasibs to restore the crop and hr►ylancis with Introduced species that will provide little foraging and habiest value for the types of wildlife and ecosystems the RMA intends to protect and acahamoe. The County should especially in light of the proposed sigW icent encroachmart bft the RMA, that native Brasses and forts .(similar to the mix suggested by the County's NaUuat Resources Department staff in 2009 and in adherence to the Fong Cm* Reservoir Resource i Plan) should be used in the open space's rew tiom It is simply inadegqrte to wq=M a reduction in the amount of Open space provided in the RMA via the clumedag option and toes to also restore the tapes space to a level that provides such a WnW babies value. In addition, there is no mention in the Resource Mansgomeut Plan for how" appt aurts plan to n mate the population of pealde dogs on -site. The OPPHOSOU into we not providing any buffer, or even a temporary won limits of Development. ibr the gwWuscsf s Hawk i m the north portion of the site. Further, tiro irrigation pond to the normh of do p q=ty is not mentioned in the Resource plat — is this area also being used by migratory waterfowl? Should a buffer be placed around it? Staff canrnot comment on this issue bec mra we do not have the data to oommant on. It is also unrelear to what degree the gated sc cm and wiWft knee will actually restrict human access into tine site. RostrWons on the Grand Lots are also only related to caaauvction tinning —are there other rostric dm that dwWd be c>onsidared, mach as requiring full-eutoff light tixpM or nqUift increased signmge arm the lots that reinforce that these WOOS have restricted access? Each of these ham compoumds staffs concerns that the site is inadequately addressing do management goals and objectives; at forth in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. It is stWs fift that the mycrity *me ooaoe m could be ameliorated should the 8 grand estate kts to be removed. It is clear that while de--Ioponarrt is. allowed within the RMA, the Level atsd scale of develop ma t proposed by these applicants is not aligned with the es outlined in the joWy adopted Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Withwrt the appropdate management strategies, restoration plans, and Somata of proton of these lands in perpetuity, this development application does not mod the level of standards that City staff has come to expect from projects whose lands is adjacent to the RMA. CW =t Pbunkg Coatee ks) Steve: M M2214041, se+ltWgpv.,c m Covrtney RIM, 979416-2M a 4" IQit n► csraa Pete Wray (Advanced Plaambg), M221-6754, pwray@fgpv.eem Mked4he Nd`bborltood Aron Reviadoas The mixed -use neighborhood NUN) County land use designation meets the minimum density requirnme nts of 3 dwelling units per net acre with the proposed 3.77. 2 The proposed MUN designation is consist with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and City Structure Plan land un uqK SM for the 15 Lets located wid nt amen D tbat are 6,000 square feet in sin adjec ant to Zephyr Roadfi eclder Farm out pgrccl. Upon further review, City staff is rownsaeading dwso ad" shed W be reasaved or relocated to tie aeerth eitbw is ara, A, D, or D. This odfueftent will be more ammiawnt with the MUN din boundaries of the GDP, and amdstlnng ea to residential development to the east in Fossil Lake Ranch subdivision. The proposed MUN, non—didential designation is shown as 2 acres of commercial. This area should be described on the site plan as a char. A center rain be up to S acres in aide, so this proposed canter as shown comglios with this staudsni. Fdun land uses do not need to be deftnulned at this stage of development review. County Wistate Raidatbl (XR) Area Reguhtbm The F.etate Residential (SL) land use designation mats the maximum density of no more than 2 dwelling = to per net. sale with the proposed 1.96 net dwAty. 7hepc+oposeci ER designation is gmwallq cam with the Fossil Creek Rasm* Area Plan and City Structure Plan Ind use meM gigg for dw NUN lots modow Theis area of the GDP shoWW be revised to eit6ar show brga estate lob on the norlh side of Zopbyr Road, or be included as part of the Kedder Farms out pwv el. Request for appeal of the ER lot min and dlaneadosisl standards: The proposed ER des Sidon does comply with dw County Supplenruxntat land use starAards. The applicant's request for on appeal to the lot size and dimeasiomt standards for l3R are sigdMfe - I and challo w the Wait of this tranddonal designation. The proposed modifications to the standards are measurable as follows: - Minimum lot size (tom 21,78fl SF to 7,S00 SF) redacting a 66`% dauann in -Minimum lot width (from 100 foes to 70 foot) reficodng a 30 % dweasic in length. - Minimum depth of fx+ontt yard (fim 30 feet to 2S feet) reflocting a 17 % docrease in setbacL - Minimum side yard width (f m 120 feet to 10 feat) nfloo ft a So % decrease in setback. In review of fib County SuMles ewal Regulations Section 8.9.2 (I.C.2) Clustering Development, dwelling units shall be clustered on the site in the BR won to meet 9m allowed increased density above FA-1 Zoning. l iinimum lot gins nay be waived by tine bonny of county commissioners to glow the rcquimd density. The applicant Ins not described the proposed ER desiigniden as c4ust=i. In review of City Land Use Code Urban Estate standards (not included m Larimer County Code), if the clustering options was pit of open space to developed area also is not in compliance with use city Land Use Code standard of SO % residual open space. The proposed ER shows approximately S2 acres total, reflecting 37 acres of developod area, and 15 acres of open space. Compliance with this standard would reflect a combination of 26seres of developed and 26 acres of open apacL N this clustering option f lied with isms standard, Wen the; above request for appeal to Ste lot size and din unsionar standards could be waWed if reviewed as part of a City development review process. However, bomuse the smmmt oftesidual 3 open space is not even close to the prescribed percev4M this would not most the Intent of the UE designation with the City Land Use Code r+egsirements. City and County staff have received a notice limn a nearby resident in flu Fossil Lake lunch subdivision crated to do proposed GDP is not oonsist nt with adjacent estate raddewai devcloprneat to the east that' the ,ER with b>rcger mom aural furs. City Staff rccorrnnmds the 4PPIWmt either revise the ER to meet the tot size and dimensional seandar I required, or request these standards be waived by the moy in responat to a clustering configurat%n. In addition sbffrecommeends duu 15 MEN lots located 4amm to the Kwhter Farm out Percel described above be revised to be consisteatt with the ER designation and ad The City does mt allow gated indu ft gated public and private erects per LUC 3.6.2 (IQ ('7). and 3.6.3 (0). City Plan policies Wen" to need for neighborhoods to be walkable and intercomec ed network of streets, sidewalks and purls. The proposed GDP shows two gourd mess points to do RMA grand estsobe lots. Wbile firm a wildlife protectmn standpoint this will discounve public access new alit al natural rwozwmm it also ps+acludes neighborhood interaction and access between housing types in the sme aloe. The City does not Lave a com$etioa date requirement for ©mM Development Plans. This application requests for an appeal of to thm yew completion dsse requirement to a proposed 20 year timefiarne. Stan' is not sure why this project is say Mnut than majority of other devdop,aaact projects: that comply with the those yarn requirrement. Due do the. PROXImity of the site to the Fort Collins — Lovdand Airport and future City mmexatioa, an aiwdon easemerit will be requirW. Mw County has indicated that they are working with the applicant regarding this eat. Development Review EagiAedr�l - Contact: WWJ Laagsabetger, "$62214M, sls aba geed '.tom For all of the cul-de-sac you need to show that tfir= is a low I off -site parking space for each reaidenca that has frontage on a cul-dimm. As with some of to o w some of the cal- 6,= may need to be designed with parking area within them. LCUASS Section 19.2.3. Possil Lukas to the east has examples of this. Sight Dbbm Enso eo s - In a preliminary review of the plates I we 17 (maybe mote or less with smaller scale plans) was in which sight :..distance easaments will be needed. Saver of these locations impact open spsoe<arm the others impact lots. Are the proposed paths in addift to a strut sidewalk or intended to replace thorn? If intended to replace there these will need to meat all the standards and criteria for street sidewalks and snake == to function as the street sidewalk uleluding connections to the street at each intersection. Details of the Trail system is phoed and how it will work during the interim will need to be worked out (until an underpass is built the trail will need to run along the north side of the street to an iruersecdon where it is spprolniato for pedestrians to doss). The nsidsnthd road wit the median if a median is allowed within a residaa W area it will creed to be setback fi+om Zephyr so that the width of the road going north matches that of the 4 street on the south side of Zephyr. Also if this median is allowed the area whe m the median is placed will need to be public row and the devdopment will be responsible for all maintenance associated with it. Landscape and pavement Any allowed gated drives will neat to be setback from the public row and designed in such a WRY that the INIM size VOWO using this dAvWq can 8m off of the street and past the sidowslk before having to call for the gale to be opened. This needs to aeconuaodate a semi (deetivaties - fridge, furniture..). There will also teed to be a turn around area before the gale for those that mistakenly pull into this so they do not have to back out onto Trilby and block anyone else who maybe coming in. For me mixed -use ghbwhood area. Per the rode ibex block sizes are limited to no more than 12 acres and pe:de mian cow are to be provided every 660 fleet along a block fake. Within the document there wasn't anytl n swing to and addressing the fad that this is not being met for the areas sd)soeut to Heatbaide, the school and toes existing harm house. I realize the school will not allow any connections and theme am no existing patio: to tic into adjacent to Hearthside but this was not ae iamve►ledged or addressed in the report. it seems that space for pedestrian connection(s) could be provide Aaeaat to the fiarm, mace this at= will most libely redevelop into additional houses or as a museum as indicated. Is an noe ded since the code is not being met here? Is a subdrain system needed fear this project? A full soils report was not submitted. The depth to the water table may have an impact an base meats and lot end suvat Iles dsL The plan by NA indicates that there is eeeisft crow along the east property line south of Rock Park Drive. If this is not needed as row it might be a good idea to can* vacating it. sterswat— Eog1 Cewtaets Was JAUst+gtu, 9 70.416-2418, wIasoarget@fcgov cons An outfall fbr the site that meets everyone's orik& is required. Level sprnaden may be used, but these will need to be eoctdiaated and designed to Wingate all h pac m The City suggeft coordination early an in the design process. The drs tnage memo Grated a nozdm sub -basin draining into Poudre School District property. Drainage: can drain onto off -sift property if the dow de;velopta�ent planed for these flows. The drainage could be muted on site as well. There is City critexiu for both options that need to be followed and may limit the options or alter the site pis& Coordination should take place early on in the design process. TrMe Cownemts Ceeestach Ward SURID d, M221-U^ w►shwhrd@fe jov.e m Per City Resolution. ateenal-artmai and arterial -collector Inunecuons that will aquM impmvesme nts should include evaluation as a Rbt intersection. Please include Rbt evaluation for the following Intersections: Tunberline-Trilby, Timbwa ina-Zephyr, Timbexlino-Kechter. The study did not include any discussion of the Fossil Crack or W stchase intersections with 71mbe cline. Please include some discussion. 5 Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13:Fall Harvest Way- still applies. 10/11/2013: Street A-3 The proposed landscaping in the median will need to be reviewed to make sure that sight distance at the intersection remains acceptable. Need to see the bikes, peds, and cars approaching the intersections and gaps on the other side of the street. RESPONSE: The landscape in the median is turf grass. Trees on the ends of the median are large canopy shade trees with branches 6' or higher (allowed within sight distance areas). Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13:This hasn't been incorporated into the plans yet. 10/11/2013: Street A-3 The median needs to be designed with an underdrain system. The details of this will need to be provided in future submittals. Spray water systems are not allowed on the island unless the island is designed with inflow curb and gutter with inlets 4 so the plan is grass then inflow curb and gutter and inlets will need to be provided unless an underground system is to be provided. RESPONSE: An underdrain within the median is included. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13:Fall Harvest Way I this still applies. 10/11/2013: Street A-3 Profiles of the medians will need to be provided - A center line profile for this sheet is usless and does not need to be provided. You can certainly use it for your design parameters, but I don It need to see it in future submittals (except at the intersection) RESPONSE: In reference to the redlines received, adequate spot elevations was acceptable and has been detailed in the plans. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13: Please make sure that the parking areas in the cul-de-sacs are shown and labeled as being constructed in concrete. 10/11/2013: Street D-2 The inset parking areas in the island need to be constructed in concrete and in accordance with the cul-de-sac island with parking detail. The detail 19-1 also identifies that no more than 6 spaces can be together. RESPONSE: The parking stalls within cul-de-sacs (including D-2) have been updated to be constructed in concrete. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13:Chicory Court 10/11/2013: Street D-2 Need radii and curve information. Depth and dimensions of the proposed parking stalls. RESPONSE: Line and curve tables are provided. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12115/13:Chicory Court 10/11/2013: Street D-2 The median needs to be designed with an underdrain system. The details of this will need to be provided in future submittals. RESPONSE: The landscaped area within Street D-2 is graded to drain to 2 area inlets and curb cuts at the low points within D-2. As it has been coordinated, an underdrain was not needed as long as the landscaping adequately drained to the inlets. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Street A-5 Assuming that Mail Creek plans are approved prior to these the design for the tie in will need to match their plans. RESPONSE: Spruce Creek Drive has been updated to match Mail Creek Plans. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Trilby Road -West end — If you are not going to continue the vc that was designed to the west you need to show how that curve calculates out and that it meets standards. RESPONSE:. The west Trilby design has been updated to incorporate the VCs designed with West Chase The TIS should provide some discussion related to possible traffic issues with most of the west bound traffic from Kwt farms using Zephyr to access Timberline. Speeding, noise, cut Ci ttuough, ect. will most likely be problems faced with Zephyrs main corridor function. What mitigation may combat expected problem In the subsequent PDP subndttals, it should be expected at the Zlegier and Kechter right bound hash a that a more extensive and thorough analysis will be required much like at an existing signalized intersection. The westbound volumes at the Timberline tit Xachtex intersecdon do not correlate with the • volumes from the Zie& & Keebter right -bound tmnlana. I know tbot+e we drivieways and a development along Kec hter but nothing was shown on the graphics or discussed to provide for the volumes not matching up. Thwe was no discussion in the TIS about the Day Care or Commercial lot. I assume they are one and the same but some clarifying discussion sironld be provided. /. Reviewing the provided GDP plan time we numerous locedons that,a sight distance easement l`X may be required which might sheet lou%caping opportunities in those wens. The median in the residential arrest in the north part of the devalop cent will need to be 1� eliminated, pulled back or designed in such a way that the median does not cause opposing lane misali. Concern with the operating characteristics of the Ziegler-KecMw ini action due to the vay wide cast -west median and the sight distance issues cnoated by the laadtrcaping of the median wee on the east gproach median plus. Obsmving traffic during morning school drop off periods provides some unique issues due to the long,turning movers to mu to intersection. Pe l e m runs and cats and both act and ing up in the intersection at the =roc time somewhat being caught off guard and sometimes wilh fiv omed actions/emotions wildbited. Smooth operation and WWtive decision making seem much more difficult at this itteruction. Please discuss the various operations and insaactions between school Podesbiac Vb lees, school motor vehicle hsffc, exiling motor vehicle non -school related traffic on Trilby and on Ziegler at aria non- signaliwd intersection. The discussion should discuss existing operad m and bow the additional traffic Kona this devetopmemt moat' iMP" the future oiler dmL Please include possible design ideas that could reduce andfor mitigate possible intarsectian safety degradation with the additional fibre traffic. 5 There are concerns about cut thru traffic on Trilby front the se dons east and west of Ziegler, especially easterly travoelimg traffic cutting thru the neighborhoods east of Ziegler. Please discuss this passibility and possible means to binder &a possibility. �.. Analysis of the Timberline - Fossil Creek intersection should be expected with mbcaittd of the future PDP submittals 6 Comments From Ladmer County RO. ■et 1190 MOdlr^ Odmnb@DM04 0 PION klo Pat WM~711 auM�g Prt � M�7 hMPdlwwMt:at0lptmttipo CODE COMPLIANCE SECTION LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION (TAPE UPORT Date: October 11, 2011 From: Candace Phlppen, Building B Code Compliance Supervisor To: Rob Helmick, Senior Planner Planning File No: 1141860 and 11-S3063 Name of Reviews: Kechlw Farm Rezoning and Kechter Farm GDP Parcel No: 8608000002 and $617000001-6131 Ziegler Rd., Fort Collins Thera are two requests: 1) fair a rosvning from FA-1 to PD for a development of 388 residential lots on 286 acres In the Fossil Creek Reservoir Planning Area; and 2) for a general development plan for the development of 388 residential lots on 286 acres. No known building code issues. Pursuant to the Assessor's Office, aq exImIng structures were constructed prior to building permit requirements, gaff comments: As there are no known building code Issues, a copy of this staff report has not been provided to the applicentjowner. hARiMElt COUNTY P.O.Bell 1190 ` O'iet C��, t�0 N�7•l1l0 PIS � �!/-'fib t�MMO p7� �Il: 7700 Pla�1K lh�t (17�1}+rls-TT�l1i iaildla0 fig (!70) gilt-1if'f bgps!lwww. `M�iw�ror�rddiot PROJECT NAME: KECHTF3t FARM ODPIRFZONING CASE NUMBER: 11-S3063 DATE: 10/0512011 Project Saps REZONING FROM FAI-FARMING TO PD-PLANA ED DEVELOPMENT FOR A DEVELOPM NT OF 388 RESIDENTIAL LOT 4JNM ON 286 ACRES IN THE FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR PLANXM AREA. Shff Co®aeob on AddrosbW UPON APPROVAL OF THIS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING BY THE LARIME R COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE SUBSEQUENT REWRI)DW OF THE PLAT ALONG WTCH THE CONcuRRENT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, THE ADDREESS NG OF THE LOTS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. Addnmipg wbaltdl req ta: NONE. Sent to: ROB HELMICK, SENIOR PLANNER, JILL WLSON, CTfIZEN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN, LINDA RIPLEY, RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. Respectfully sues, DAN KUNIS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING SBVICES DIVISION 970-499-7680 dk�mia(Ril,rcim_�.axt DEPA&Uff& OF NATURAL RESOURCES • %WWANWM • OPOL" *wadM•es tat y low 80a car Ao.d a'f Lovdw dl, co SM r RECEIVED OCT -1 Stf rswwlr6�r .a9A -111 .OM411 v s October S, 2011 Mr. Rob Helmick Sador ftuwar Ladmer Cotmty Plumb Depatmect 200 W. Oak Sheet, 71M Float Fort Cows, CO SMI RE: Xec6ter Farm Reannins and GDP Dear W. Hdmidt: The Lauber Con* Natural Resources Dqmbnw ban my ewed and oommembd an m=Wplane for the Kachter Farm property and appredssea do oppoftt to psovide comment on doe cunad papoeal. Our interest is p+otacdng wrLdlife hOw associated with Fossil Crean Reservoir, arenowned binding Brea in northers Colorado. Our con marls we related to;- ap g a e d devdc11 , - in the Remount Mantgnamat Area (RMA), an an desipsted in dw Fossil Creek Reswvoir Area Plan (Fossil Creek Plan). The am'aut proposal includes 46 Bsats Lots whbin the RMA, a Wmila wide buft around Posail Creek Reservoir dedPO d In the, Fossil CrookPla& Based an the Foul Crack Plea, limited development may be allowed in the RMA Wit is demcnstoated that there are so negadve imp" to wildlife or the i %pUy of the RMA. The Fosell Credo Plan also antes dW fire goal is to mai *k a wsbw s wIMS corridor of an average width of W-mile, with no dlawlcpiment 000 mini in 09 couldo9r(Pa a 29D. We applaud the recast changes in the poposal rep rft the aft of Bstels Lot deveelopmat. Compered to pvvion proposals, the Estate Lots we more clu coed and cover love me. within the RMA, down flue 34% to 20% of floe RMA. The ea&wdon in d owily comes der to meeft the dal of the Fossil Creak Plan to cluster era}+ developroeadt on 20% of the land (Page 301 but fills short wbaa the Grand Bob" Lots an included. In addition to the Esuft Lots, *k Grand Estate lob are p vpooW in the RMA. Thew aight late brie the total lid ev A of devo lopaeat to the RMA to pester than 2OVe.1he brand Bat oe Lob also come within 300 feet ofthe northwest pond and dvoraDne of Fossil Creek Reeaersrok. Items shoreline own provide eooeellart wildiiib habitat,-s4W1ter open water where dWk tug ducks and other anterAW eo zW epie and provide roostiq and meeting areas fiosrreptom Proteeft tha variety of habitats £err waawfowl, wediag birds and raptors ist a pciamy pu gxmo behindthe Fossil Credo Plan and the dedgrbadon of Fossil Creek Reservoir as a Nadonal Audubon Society InVortent Bing Aram. The development of too Grand Estate Lots would came sigrddcaat adverse impacts to wildlife and therefore would not damply with the Food Creek Reservoir Ana Plea. For then means, the Dqm m a of Nat<sa1 Rewda+aes cannot m4goit the auraat GDP p+ospoal. ?he Depa rbneat of Natural Resources moommmde 69 the apniicent presser rho of the RMA by DEPARTMENT OF NATL?at RSOl��t 1a00 31 LLa�wi�rid EA SO(W On) 6704M PM) 094574 FAX wWWWO"W r oaphaoAANbeaaoom Pwoft vary► limited rwubmaat and oonmvht8 the un fewoped pm*m oftbe pmnp" with a aonaawatlon eraaumtdmilesrfo tba Fomil IA= and Swift Pom con vadm mo maoab along the norlb dwe of Foadl Crook Reaaa wk. Steely, U Jeffrey Boring Remo= Sped fiat B Natural RiouR es Dqmtnmt Larlmer County Cc: Ripley Daiga Inc. ENGINEERING DgEAMENT Post OMM Boot 1190 Fort Coins, Cokra b •OtiW 100 (DM 49t!•Qi00 FAX MM 4W7M MMOMM M M. Rob Helmick, Lorimer County Planning Department FROM: Jeff Goodell, P.E. Development Review lEngineer �► DATI£: Dactobor 13, 2011 BUWECT: Keohter Farm — General Development Plan This is a Sketch Plan review for a Fossil Creek Plan PDAPLD for 388 dwelling units on 296 acres of develop" land. no site is located on the east side of Ziegler Rand approximately % mile south of Kerb road. The projed site No within the City of Fork Collins Gtowth Management Area and will therefore need to comply wkh do requ oe nsttts contained in the lnteaagovanrneaaa! Agreement (IGA) between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collier. Review Cdtaria: Than intent of the Sketch Plan is to provide a general de c tW= or the project, The materials submitted need to provide adequate information to accurately assess the drainages and won aspects for the entire site. isrimer County Engineering Department staff has reviewed the materials that were subtnitied to our office under these guidelines and per the criteria found in the [eraser County Land Use Code (LCLUC), Lamer County Urban Ara► Street Standocis (LCUASSj, Lorimer County Stormwater Design Standards (LCSDS) and patinart httergovsrnrtnergal Agreements. 1. Elmorgency service providers are finding it increasingly difficult to locate residoms in Lorimer County. Therefore, BnOneering Staff recormnaends drat unique road names should be assigned to all roads (including access eamments) that access more than one lot, Whether they are public or private. This project proposes eight Grand FAM lots that will utilize two separate a000ss easements. Therefore, the appiic of should show a proposed street name in a subsequent submittal. (LCLUC Section S.11.5 - Standards for Street Naming) 2. With the next submittal, the applicant needs to request an appeal to portions of Section S.14.1. The appeal should address dead and lengths, privale access roads, pled 1ivate access roads, and connectivity. The appeal should include the applicaWs justification for die appeal. 3. The p oposed private socess road that leaf to 6 grand estate lots tiuouid meat the design standards of the County's Local Low Volume Road or the City of Fort Collins'AmW Residential LocaaLSuw CADocuments and Settingslhelmicrp%My DocumentslDownlos&Wechter Farm GDP.docx 4. If approved as a privaye wed access road. the gate needs to be setback autl<iicia* from Trilby Road to allow for vehicle s oeking without impeding the flow of traffic. Tbene should also be ampia Space for a vehicle to UmurowA 3. The applicatt needs to provide location and sight distance information for the praptsed access with the preliminary submmfftal. Tyre appears to be numerous lots that no& be need sight diets m easements. The sight distance must be shown to meet to minimum 'requi is specified in Chapter 9 ofLCUASS. 6. A 60' righwf-way along 71aglar Road exists south of Rook Pink Drive. Since its unlikely dwe will be a connectivity need to extend Zieglar to Fossil Creek Reservoir, the applicant might want to consider vacating their portion ofgo right-ofway. 7. TralEC report review was provided by the County's traffic engineer and those comments were provided under a separste memo. S. The Couty eoghwering department salts that all existing fawn and xftcbAu be moved out of the arising and proposed dedicated rim -of -way as part of this development proposal. Landscapes, inclnding edges, monument ra"Okes, and odw entry hetures, in the public right-of-way is 8t"crany not allowed. 9. As soon as possible, a phasing plan shall be submittal, so the agiaeering department can aecuretely review the planed Impaas upon the road system, the traffic, the drainage plan and the public utilities. Please see Section 8.14.4 of LCLUC for additional irio motion about phasing plans. 1. Per Section & 12.3-A of the LC= with tine nesu submittal, a Preliminary Drainage Plan and Rgart will be regmirv& Also, a prellmhwygrading plan will used to be submitted with existing snd proposed contours. The formats and required h*rmadbn fbr then planakeports are available in the Lorimer County Land Use Code Stormwater Report Submittal Requirements as well as in the Larimner County Stormwater Design (LCSDS). For a complete preliminary review, die Prelimisry Drainage Report and Phan most address all boas found In the Drainage Report Submittal Requiremneats Section starting on page 3 of the LCSDS Addeadrsn and include all pertinent item stated in tiro Stamwater R,epott Sub lit pinemenM 2. In the Preliminary Drainage Report, Staff regodeas a discussion on how stonnwater dawtion and wow quality meosuras we going to be in plemanted on this suite. Addkkml y, the development must release Into a hishMa drainage path or drainage essamerns must be provided for the transport of the site drainage to a def ed drainage path. The drainage co weptuah drainage report irdketesr NPIC will allow undaMW stormwMar flown io discharge into the Norduwest pond. The applicant needs to provide written docnumerntatiortemwPic. 3. On the plans,, plan irnd1kate by what means stormwaser runoff will be conveyed from the north property through clan development until it outWb Into the Northwest pond. Will *a conveyance be with bloswales, stormnsew er infits ruotur+s, water quality or detention ponds, Vic. 4. The plans suggest using level spreaders as a wow quality measure. Please provide more information including details and calculations. TAa+a is a concern about the proposed location ,of the level spreaders. It appears stormwoer will have amble distance and grade change to recluunneiim after it passes through the level sp m iris, thus defeating the purpose of the structtue. S. Pima am that all drainage facilities; and ponds need to be located In dedicated tracts on the plat. 6. This office will require that the applicant addrass the issue of awlotn am* 1, as per Section 8.12 of the LCLUC:. Pro posed erasion control measures must be briefly described In a narrative and also shown on the preliminary plon(s). The plan must include measures to control arosion and sedimentation during all phases of construction and a plan for pem wwnt erosion control after development is completed. Erosion control measures must be based on calculated parforroarm standards. An example of the acceptable foraw for an Liar control plan can be reviewed in Volume 3 of the Lorimer County Storanwater Dasign Standards (LCSDS). C: UXcmments end Settinigs%WmicrpWy Docume nbWownloadsWedrter Farm GDP.docx FJ 7. A gootechnical report will be required with the next submittal. The geotochnical report needs to discuss groundwater levels and should address any lots that will not be allowed to have basements. Any t+eoonurendations Ibr dealing with potential high groendwater should be discussed and the results of the report will need to confirm that groundwater will net +enter the detention ponds. The appilaw shall talcs into consideration the groundwater characteristics of than site when the finished floor elevedons are sat. This department raga ka that lowest floor levok including basements, be at least 3 Ax t above ggoundwsow level. It should be noted dint the bternadonal Building Coda calls fix lowest floor levels to be at least S feet above groundwater l+wl. Additionally, any proposed subdrains ate not allowed in the right of -way. I The bounWas of this project include or are adjacent to the Mail Credo itrig tion ditch and the MV*M Mich. Tfiarefore, l w Ditch Companies will need do amity to review and comment on this proposal as it relates to their easements, setbacks, access, and she drainage. The Lwinner Courxy FUgkwwigg Department does not have any major concerns or issues with dw conceptual submittal of this proposal. It appears from the mmp%W iuibrmetion that the preliminary is Sasible and in compliance wish County F.ngin eedug ahndw& and LCLUC r+s Uketnenta. Additional design information and detail will still be necessary with do net submittal prior to our next review. Plow feel fife to contact me at (970) 4WS727 or *-mail mead if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: file ley resign, Attn: Linda Ripley, 40I W Mountain Ave Suite 100, Fort Collins, Co 80521 CADocuments and SettingMehnicrpift DocumentslDownloadsNI(achter Farm GDP.docx IARIMER courrr�r T0: Jeff Goodell, Uri: erCounty► Etmineerins Department FROM: Mard= Wftkw n, Lwk*r Cew tyTraffk Engbnew OATW October 12, 2011 SUNWr*. Kwhter Farms —Omm ai Devebpm&* Man TIS wmnm nti P" Me am 1190 Fad Collins. Cobrsdc 0=2-11 W t0)40-11700 FAX (870) 4gly-?M This Is a General DevelopMent Plan (6DP) for a primarily residential devabproent in southeast Fort Collins. The project Site ties within the Clay of Fort Cradling Growth itAwdWmbnt Are, and mrhst of the.area Intersections are wMM the City of Fart CoRm dty limits. Rariew will be based upon the tanner County urban Area Streat Standards (LCUASS). and Is being completed In conjunction with City of Fort Collins tmfPh mfE 1. Thank you for forwarding thesppouft material from the study to both the Clay and County. R Is an important piece of the review. 2. The current version of the MCM is 2010. Although not Iihety to change any conclusions nor an issue for this study, a change to the cummt standard *mold be something to work towards. I A scophe meeting was MW on Wedrmday, Judyr 136 wits Clty, County and the developer's traffic engineer. follow, up sumnary of the meetingvm anelled the foiiowke dry to the developer's trait engineer. That "was intended to saw as overview and gwdmw for the study, bat was not included In the TIS. It b attached again with this rrano to ensure documentation of sco ft requests, and remains valid. 4. It would be extremely helpful to have a figure withexi geometry on it, Including turn lanes andthrough lanes, roadway classification etc. Needing to cormb through the team, raalew acrid photos and ather plans, etc and then transfer the Information to a hand drawn graphic in order to understand the TIS takes quite a bit of time for a reviewer. 5. In Table 1(and Table 3), please Indicate what the numbers slaoMm for the roundabout Indicate. A review, of appendix matwbl km§odw it oppearstc be v/c and that this is analysh that comes out of Symchro7 Some level of discussion that this is a cursory and high level evaluation only and that a more detailed analysis using dedicated roundabout analysis software will be appropriate with future Tls subn*tsk is needed. 6. The study does not mention the Intersections of Fossil Creek / Timberline and Westchme / Timberline These roads and intersections will be impacted by Keddw Farms end may see cut4rouigh traMc. Residents currently OWN along dm* roadways are concerned. A recognition of this is important with some narrative on options, Improvements, orfurtheranaysis in the future is needed. 7. The scopina email indWAW tho link volumes are very Important to understood the impact of Kmchter Farm on existing are# roadways on addition to intersections) and the potential for diverted trips due to the completion and matching existing elevations. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 improvements. 10/11/2013: Trilby Road - East end — the transition from a section with parking to a section without parking needs to be done as a bump out rather than a transition to better define the end of the parking area. RESPONSE: The transition has been updated with a 10 ft inner radius and a 15 ft outside radius. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Zephyr Road - Need to show tying into the existing improvements. RESPONSE: Zephyr Road has been updated with the correct existing surface and ties to the existing Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Zephyr Road - The western most vc needs to be longer. It is not meeting the minimum length for the design parameters. As shown the crest of this curve is also within 2 feet of the beginning of a horizontal curve. RESPONSE: The vertical curves have been updated. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Ziegler Road -How are you proposing to end this street at the south end? If the street is not going to extend (which seems to be the case) it makes sense to extend curb across and install a driveway. The street needs to have a permanent end. RESPONSE: The end of Zeigler has been updated to convey runoff across the intersection of Zephyr to continue south as existing. The plan and profiles show how the proposed improvements tie to existing. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Ziegler Road - The plans need to clearly show what is to be built and installed and what row and or easements are needed to do so (if needed). RESPONSE: The Zeigler typical cross sections have been updated to delineate what is to be constructed. The right-of-way and easements have been dedicated with the MLD plat and also proposed to be dedicated with the Kechter Farm — Filing 1 plat. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Ziegler Road -Need to show the grading contours for this road on one of the plan sheets. Need to see how grades will tie in. RESPONSE: Contours have been added to the plan & profile sheet. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: It appears an off -site easement will be needed for the extension of the irrigation line. Please provide a copy of this recorded document when it is obtained. RESPONSE: All offsite easements are currently in negotiation Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Off -site easements are needed along the south property line to perform the grading shown and allow for the drainage. The drainage easements need to be dedicated to the City. The grading easements can be a private easement dedicated to the developer — I will just need to receive copies of the recorded documents before the plans can be signed. RESPONSE: All offsite easements are currently in negotiation Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Add the following note to the utility plan sheets: All sleeves across public streets shall be installed per Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard requirements. RESPONSE: Note has been added. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 of Trilby. K would be hdpful for the Figure 11 graphic to include the road classftation and a hand that fists assumed capacitive for each type of cl•ssifladon. (06vrted trip moib is would also be graati) plocusoon especially about Zephyr Road is needed singe Ked*o farm Is adding 1,lOC+ AM to this log (please chadc Its dassificatiorn). S. The cornMadai parcel is only mentlared in one sentence on page 10. is the daycare center assumed to oaupy this p~ No discussion Is Included regarding amiss points for the commercial parcel. ti this is unlmown, then a note of that should be harkndad, ands statement made 6whaps in the conclusions) that it Wei need to be evaluated In future Ms. 9. The lofonnation, dtscassiorr and conclusion regarding Ttmbergne / hephyr b probiarnatic. The study simply kWkaw that the L OS Is IF In the a oft dmefharae will rsmdn'P in the future, and krdlcates that this is natal for unsignalked.Intersections and Is acceptable per the stammer& kview of the technical appendix indicates that for the wastbaxnd approach the peak hoar delay is currantiy'SZ momb and in the long ranee tlmeframe with Ked ter Form bulldout, the delay will be #AjdgMW& This Ii neitlw normal nor acceptable. The scopNq small indicated that the study should 1110m y tahepotenttaF t npoct an orw roods and MWsecdord, and Our lmpnrmem nb that xW be eaeded' Although lire study doe "c" that a signal warrant Ie Miry to be mft' that Mtoment doesn't nanNymdhsct the Ornpoct of the dewopment, nor rewp*e the absolutely nary improvements to make the roadways Oem, feasible. 10. The scoping aanaN7ndicated s request fora graphic of potential improvements. This request remains. The study dfd inclade a graphic with Itecommended Li Range pea-wayVigura 12L butthis is for Mroersection tum lanes only quad throe is no way to ianow hewthet compares to 1111cathrbtons (ainc+there isn'ta graphic for a*dng condittonsakher-see commerw #4). The scophng emagIndlcetes: %ImtVy Jiut+wa lmprovernagts dW maybe roMW I0 Or rood span in tfte lntpoct amm Ws`nd► not � te idprt�yd�peri�c allocution or respontlWW of kap►avements but rotten to 11nNivde opretq►boruq r+e"for ddw that wN need to be add„rrsed.• ForkMancv,4knoteppytodscern irom tbs sk* (oW not m tad In ow conclusion) that TknWOns south of Kechtaris assumed to be widened to 4 isms In order for the roadway network to function in the Ions tern ttmetiarm U. The conclusion as curter writsm prim rW rays: "The development is feasible; and the area will operate somptably with the recommended deomatry." It is up to the reader to figure out whet the impacts are, and what Improvements may be needed. Per the Wiping meadna, what was hoped for was a broad overview of what mob to change in order to make *a development feesNrle, and other kmw that will need to be addressed in anon dates In the future. This should include: • General network dtta+addion-Importance, beraiit and knead of the completion ofTdIby • changes to roadway classifications that may be needed? • Detailed list of assumed / neceaary inpraimeents (new turn lone& additbnd through lams, eta:.) • Intersection control changes (TlmborYne / Zephyr) • list of hem mal u bons (more robust roundabout analysis, dMWd review of commercial property - impact and accea, addressing of cUlVi orrigh traffic WON Wescdrase and Fossil Creak, eta). • A note that determination of phaft will be crltiesl to developing an anipoing improvement plan (what improvements happen wham!). For instance, an important ham question Is at what point roesthe Tdioy comrarsion need to ba bulk? • Its ok to include a statement that improvements area based on a combination of Ked ter Farm end other wee growth and that respo> s6ft for them wip need to be better detailed and determined is the Future. It is requested that the applicant complete a TIS addendum to address the above oommems. Please fed free to contact me at (970) 495-5731 at Mokinson0ladMKM It you have any questions. Thank you. IARIMB UMNIV Kochter Fann swping Mardns WNUMM <wilklrna+@eo larNmr ooarsw Marna Mlllldrrrrerr smwNldrrson drastr We Thu, JW 14. 2MI at 4M PM Ta Matt Ddh* "ImnsideNrlfOF. corn*, !as pi a1101iGhafCC.Com M. Joe Omn 4 mison corrp H Matt and Joe - As a Now up to yesterday's nwidr p. I wonted to try surrnrke the hens that we gww* agreed upon br the soope of (fie KnoMer Fenn Mover 78. Owdl, we wodd Ike to see a stray that to plWins kderON Wist the dWAWpmNtt is, MW (s pmpmed, Me roadway nabm* to suve k the type of heft It YA gsnsmis and whm it W M go (dt1buoiMp), tars pats" Nnpocts on arms roadNMtersaallorw, and Urae Improves gate #0 may be needed to the rW system in the krrpaat area. Sims phssbp b not mrnmlty known. Its Ins to deal ordy wMfi the 1ti bAdotd long tam. The Nnpact arms shmid kwkrdo Isom Tlrrrbmbw to . and Kedder to Ti(II4►. ftyad the me* bur (rrtsrseotteens, piemW abo inok�drthe intersection at 2spb�►r end TBrlbmtine, and p�orAlfwt dens dhprss(on about any othsraccnss POW. Pl.m dlo m $ the Qened pop mad Medway nwwwk, oonrract(orrs, new loads, FAWN (nt reection control type (to x%Mbcrrt at ZsAhyd` tMby A dlsmsslon of Nnk **mm {fir a o Q ZvOW and TAby) would be important. This should kwkx b dkcuWm sbout pdanOW diverted ultra on ft coed system not aaaccletsd with Kschlor Farm. Some nwrOw about how Urle pa *0 On Master Stunt Pion may be hwpu as WON. Inge m a dbn arrUysb can be prdW broad w(np wintmer counts ors owls*. Pleses note your mreumpom (such a growth riles). f you decide to use WR MPO tdP" voknn. please b* at them tlret to see if they nake any some at al. M m t, then a powth bdw msybe more moNaft. FirwNy - the msuRs oral ooncluelorar shotdd i+wkW@ a priok of I to mi l kop mernonts, and a Nat of a y other horns / Issues Itad wN need to be added in upoandnp specMc T{Ses In the wturs. WAW not me much Vft to NWI or exdude earns hem nor NWKW the spodk olk aaf(on afresponoWty, but rather to lack de a pretty broad reach fordttW that wNI nod to be addressed In (fie Il*m Lot um know if your undamtw dng Is sirrdler to this, ortf I may have miesed anyti ft Thanks and we look brwwd to ararktrp +Mth you on (irks... Martina 0. WiMtkreon, P.E. PTOE Larbw County Tndk 200 West Oak, We 30M P.O. am 1190 Ft. CoMns, 00 SM-1190 FrT.xF-fi° t} ' 0 caurm-41 LARIMER M 'M, lu • .: ;el.►� RECElvE2 OCT -1201! To: Rob Pmkft Larimer Ommty Planning Deparbnent From: Doug R"RPM Date: September30, 2D11 Subject: Kochler Farm Ruing 8 GDP —Ptbic Hearing Su al Im onspina. D&A FM cam. C*fs o sou$- o ftMM MMntM4esaroo r 4�rs A 4es.sM The Koehler Farm Rezoning and General Development Plan is a proposal for a 388 dwaft unit development on 286 .sues In the Fossil Creek Reservoir Ping Area. I have reviewed the infonn ion provided, and have f i**" conrrmnts. REVIEW CRITERIA: Weber is th be died by the Fort *M*LowWW Water Dieft to their letter dated February 18, 2010 the DisM kdeded 11B 01y 11D supply wderhi corr(aMwe W11% fie design dtendwds outllned In Section &1.2 of the LarirnerCo my Land Use Cale. This Is in wnbra we with Ie Code stardod for domesk wrier service for the General Devoiopmwd Plan. Sow Is b be suppiisd by South Fort Collins Sardbft District. The District wed its Mty to provide sewer service Meeting the dosipn sUrgloods outlhad In Secficn &1.1.8.1 ofthe Land Use Code in their letter edFebn vq 18, 2010. That letter fifes our cr< ww regarding public server service for the Genera? Devebpmant Plan. As eaM itdtrre devsk>pnraM phase is ooneidered forpnelirNnary plat conceptual plans for the water and wwor systems A be wArA d by the . The SCW UXWAW M plans aml specifications forthose Miss are required to be appmvW by the dbhb atdofires plat stage. As the project moves to fulum review phases, Ire issues d wand walerqudty dL ft the cm*ucsion ptrose wil need io be addMosed. SIsle-level pwM1tS are r qqM priorio beghft conducion. Cobabsi mwder+d mhwp perms ars n gAW ibrcotwindm pr*cds YratwS inwive grads g ordia4r ft mots fm one sae. Sires fugiio duslemiesion pemfe are neoessary for landdea ft pmjeus such as the Ked terFwn propmatwhere more than 25 am wE be . OTHER HUM-. Prattle Dogs. The submittal incwdes a detailed eouagical chaff d the subject poperty and adjacent reservoir. It addresses WA use In the Resoume MonegementAwe above the reservoir Identified in the Fosse Oeek Area Plan. The materials online a proposed wee management buW which dedrmates speck aalbadts from impafe M feai M such as held eagle Perch and most she$, the hlslo ical heron ant, the adve red4ded ttawk nest, and the W*mm Pond shoe to dhed by braging American while pditar>s. The wOb pmbtdiort plims have been reviewed by the natural resources and wi ft agencies. The nport robs thane is an MOW blade= &W prairie dog colany ID the IJorftut Piond thatcontp lum about nineaaea in area. Prairie dogs are Mttporlardbogt from the sly drjt Of AM cateervatiph and public hearth. WfMh MW is the pubk heft asacts. git is deb m*md that probt bn of the oolony Is not rotpdrsd for wWN & management reasons an important Issue to consider A be the tirtttrtg, WdW and ff*#W of paable dog cortkol. Timing is important because rwiaoea rdlonsoocta if ombd don not ptecade oft graft or u r oonetrtxdon. The eatbrttOfoontrol is an issue b be ddffm red by ft applimtpon trg boh consfnudion and convervallim goads. to outer bpreve 9 cg*laoem d of prate dogs dift constracdort, cmmta ages should include those mas that vA be dictated hough graft, UtRytat Won, and actual buftV aontdnolion. Beyoad that the Issuenseds b be balanced with Odwgoals such as wOb p nwvdion and the dAly to mWnbh control in the dieiwbad area. The me W ofc wit mWas io how the prakb dogs WMl berm mpl if bI hd methods are to be used, they A nwmW tethe use of a b=W poet conirol applicator, Oncil oonstn,cdon is 0wnPW nWdWft why need to consider prairie dogs on an on -going basis. One of the most irnporfant element In this mgwd concerns con oft hmm*w peas. Dogs and cats shots not be dowed io roam bough prdtie dog ctttiorAs Cos are highlysusoep" b plaque, which is later gnotdiagrtosed end traebd properly. BoI h d0p wW cats cwq +lase from the prairie dog cofmy bade io the ownees hom i bft" teas that can bib hurtherts and transrrft the phgn bareeria. The wMdille" pla m, b sepnb the soWw tfarof mddwft lots tbm the TmdA open apace wiM halt cheep dogs art of ft bft aft Cab will of course require more disci W byowrma. Mosquito Cor" This pr*d win Mcorporab a mbs of grass Mrted swabs end laud epNders for water quality paote©Ibn. The concept of the levh3l almedem b b develop sheet low ft the northwestpond Insbsd ofcoruxntraied dt wals. The lOW epISMd0m fiurdion asdesenUm hdit. Mm dbes v M try and udliae thous areas as breeding aes. Conb+oNirtg mosW%= is an t PracMoe b p�evst>tsp sad of the West Nile Yinu. Lining the design webrqumky detention tans b less than 72 hours gmwdy prevent mcw*& ggpe from nwift io the a&* stage. AddNiorally, regularmabtbrnrawe ofihedeKliort faMw wW ouiMskwbuss is necessary In order to beep ihem fhxtct w ft pmpaly. Prdsatristnt Acoshiaa. The General Developrrte d Plat inoorpmales extension cf ate regk W bbe path►together wiMh a neighborhood trail syMon in the ghewft b with cortrtecbm b sbmWb along the R roadways. Studies ham shoMm that this cohtcept of MWIIple corned m with opportunities for pede*M and We #meal has bprW pubic heakh bmft in brute of ftess and safety. It will also be intpctrtant to coordinate pedestrian access with to school diatft Thank you for the opportu*io oomrnert I can beached at (970) 4964M N there are gtreseons about any of Vim Issues. oc: Linde Way. R#q Design Inc. Page 2 or2 ;. 11�t. Kechter Farm Review by Engineering October 11, 2011 Questions and Thoughts — o Has PFA seen and commented on the long shared driveways? What are the limitations and requirements for this? Yes — Ron G was at the joint city county meeting confirming. o Is the park to be a public or private park? o Is a subdrain system needed for this project? A full soils report was not submitted. The depth to the water table may have an inpact on basements and lot and street design. o The documents indicate that the project will be phased. How will this work? I would like more information on this and how it will work between the City and the County process. What gets annexed when. o Pete Wray confirmed that Craig would like to ultimately construct a pedestrian underpass under Trilby Road and the trail would tie into the development at this point. Comments — 1. For all of the cul-de-sac you need to show that there is a least 1 off -site parking space for each residence that has frontage on a cul-de-sac. As with some of the other some of the cul-de-sacs in the region some may need to be designed with parking islands within them. LCUASS Section 19.2.3. Fossil Lakes to the east has examples of this. 2. Sight Distance Easements — In a preliminary review of the plans I see 17 (maybe more or less with smaller scale plans) areas in which sight distance easements will be needed. Seven of these locations impact open space areas the others impact lots. 3. Are the proposed paths in addition to a street sidewalk or intended to replace them? If intended to replace them these will need to meet all the standards and criteria for street sidewalks and make sense to function as the street sidewalk including connections to the street at each intersection. 4. Details of the Trail system is placed and how it will work during the interim will need to be worked out (until an underpass is built the trail will need to run along the north side of the street to an intersection where it is appropriate for pedestrians to cross). 5. The residential road with the median — if a median is allowed within a residential street it will need to be setback from Zephyr so that the width of the road going north matches that of the street on the south side of Zephyr. Also if this median is allowed the area where the median is placed will need to be public row and the development will be responsible for all maintenance associated with it. Landscape and pavement. 6. Any allowed gated drives will need to be setback from the public row and designed in such a way that the largest size vehicle using this driveway can get off of the street and past the sidewalk before having to call for the gate to be opened. This needs to accommodate a semi (deliveries - fridge, furniture..). There will also need to be a turn around area before the gate for those that mistakenly pull into this so they do not have to back out onto Trilby and block anyone else who maybe coming in. 7. For the mixed -use neighborhood area. Per the code the block sizes are limited to no more than 12 acres and pedestrian connections are to be provided every 660 feet along a block face. Within the document there wasn't anything speaking to and addressing the fact that this is not being met for the area adjacent to Hearthside, the school and the existing farm house. I realize the school will not allow any connections and there are no existing paths to tie into adjacent to Hearthside but this was not acknowledged or addressed in the report. It seems that space for pedestrian connection(s) could be provide adjacent to the farm, since this area will most likely redevelop into additional houses or as a museum as indicated. Is an appeal needed since the code is not being met here? 8. The plan by JVA indicates that there is existing row along the east property line south of Rock Park Drive. If this is not needed as row it might be a good idea to consider vacating it. City, of FdtCollins �,�� COUNTY REFERRAL Planning a� COMMENT SHEET COMMENTS TO COUNTY PLANNER: Rob Helmick DATE: February 9, 2010 FROM: Engineering TYPE OF MEETING: Sketch Plan Review PROJECT: KECHTER FARM GDP THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department CITY PLANNER: Emma McArdle City comments must be received in the Current Planning Department by: February 25, 2010 ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) v Date: �/I � l /0 `J cam+, �'t u�aA L� 1�� i� �.. �o►cL c� LO t+` ►.i!c;� r ��ve►� architecture ■ land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ interior design January 25, 2010 Mr. Rob Helmick Director of Planning Larimer County 200 West Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Kechter Farm Sketch Plan Review Dear Rob, The Kechter Farm Sketch Plan review process began in 2007. Originally the Sketch Plan was submitted with a proposed Limit of Development (LOD) and proposed development use areas. As a result of input from County and City staff, the Applicant has spent two years analyzing the issues attempting to find a development solution that could achieve the goals of the County, the City, the Colorado Department of Wildlife, the Applicant and the Kechter family. We believe the Amended Sketch Plan addresses the complex set of objectives and represents an intelligent and balanced approach to the development of the Kechter Farm. 4-0 The Sketch Plan achieves the following: • Preserves and protects important existing wildlife habitat areas along the edge of Fossil Creek Reservoir and around the Northwest Pond. • Provides needed buffers for important wildlife habitat areas. • Replaces agricultural areas with grassland meadows, trees and shrubs, which provide better wildlife habitat and increase biodiversity. • Respects the intentions of multiple government agencies. • Creates a well -planned community containing 376 homes and 139 acres of open space and an extensive trail system. • Preserves value for the Kechter Family. The specific chronology of events, meetings and discussions regarding wildlife habitat issues can be found in the Executive Summary section of the Ecological Characterizations and Resource Management Plan under Tab 7. We look forward to your review of the Amended Sketch Plan. As always we are ready to respond to any questions and/or suggestions you may have. Sin rely, VF Design, In 4 Lin a Ripley 0 VAUGHT FRYE RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Ave.; Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.1191 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.vfrdesigninc.com 12/15/13: The ramp configuration and number of ramps to be installed needs to be shown correctly on the plans. We have been having issues as plans go to construction when they do not correctly show the correct number of ramps and the intended configuration. 10/11/2013: At T intersections 4 make sure that the appropriate number of ramps are provided. At some intersections you are showing directional ramps going both directions when you do not have a receiving ramp across the street. There are some T intersections in which you are not showing a ramp across the T. Ramps are to be provided at at least 3 legs of the intersection. RESPONSE: The ramp configurations have been updated and include T ramps. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Need to show the sleeves that are to be provided for the irrigation line crossings. Need to see the profiles of these. These crossings need to meet the minimum depth requirements as well. RESPONSE: The proposed irrigation lines are to be reinforced concrete pipe. Encroachment agreements may be needed. The irrigation pipe crossings will be shown in the plan and profiles for confirmation of meeting minimum depth. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Geometric information is needed on the plan and profile sheets. What are the radii and curves? RESPONSE: Line and curve tables have been added to the street sheets. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 12/15/13: Continue to have multiple locations in which the maximum allowed grade break is being exceeded. 10/11/2013: Road profiles - Have 2 location where the shown grade breaks is not meeting maximum grade break standards. RESPONSE: The grade breaks have been revised. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Road profiles - Have a couple locations where you have horizontal curves that start or end near the top of a crest vertical curve or near the bottom of a sag vertical curve. This is not allowed. The profiles need to be adjusted. RESPONSE: In review with the County, one of the VCs was not adjusted on Street A-1 (Espalier Lane/Court). The basis being that the horizontal curve has a long radius of 660'+. We also needed to include emergency spillway for the sump inlet and to be able to maintain a free outfall to the east, the sump/low point could not shift further south due to the locations of Kinard's landscape berms. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Road profiles - Need to show the existing profiles and grades being tied into. RESPONSE: Existing grades are shown. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Road profiles - Sight distance easement lines need to be shown on the utility plan sheets as well. RESPONSE: The sight distance easements are shown. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Roundabout -This needs to be designed in accordance with the updated design standards. Dated: March 1, 2013. RESPONSE: The roundabout has been designed in accordance of current standards. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Roundabout- Has a scoping meeting occurred? Is this intended to be the conceptual design or has that already been submitted to someone. I have not seen anything prior to this. RESPONSE: A scoping meeting has been held with the City and County. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Roundabout -The design notebook/ exhibits/ RODEL analysis/ turning templates/etc. have not yet been provided to the City for the roundabout. RESPONSE: A RODEL analysis has been completed and the analysis is included in this submittal. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Roundabout -A roundabout generally is designed to slope away from the center and have drainage inlets located along the outer curb line. Your detail is showing some of the roundabout to slope into the center. RESPONSE: The roundabout grading has been adjusted to slope away from the center. Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Roundabout -Will need to provide concrete joint design and details for the concrete portions of the roundabout. RESPONSE: Joint patterns on shown on the roundabout detail. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Roundabout - Sight distance easement needs seem to have been calculated and are shown for the other intersections but it does not appear that they have been shown for the roundabout. RESPONSE: Sight distance analysis is included in the roundabout analysis. No easements are required. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/1112013: Final plan will need to include all the detail and information on the utility plan check list — profiles, cross sections, intersection details .... RESPONSE: The plan set has been updated. Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: 1 don't know what the timing of this project is, but eventually I will need information for the development agreement. I also need to know what your proposed phasing is. RESPONSE: Kechter Farm — Filing 1 is proposed to be constructed in one phase. Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Depending on the phasing plan, temporary turnarounds easements may need to be dedicated. These can be dedicated on the plat or by separate document. RESPONSE: A temporary turnaround has been added to the end of Street B-3 (Eagle Roost Drive) Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: A fence detail was apart of the landscape plan, which indicated that there was a separate fencing plan. The fencing plan needs to be submitted to the City for review. A note needs to be placed on this plan that identifies that fencing is to be placed a minimum of two feet behind any public sidewalk and cannot be placed within any sight -distance easements. Additional easement widths maybe needed depending on where the fences are located. The brick fence if place along rear or a side lot line would take up 1/3 of a 6 foot easement and may not leave enough room for the utilities to place their lines and pedestals. RESPONSE: Fence Exhibit dated 11.18.13 is included in the submittal. Note has been added Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: Plat— Need to provide a tract line along the boundary that is to be annexed. Or you ultimately can provide me a legal description of the portion of Lot K that will not be annexed into the City. For the Development agreement with the City it will only encompass those areas that are within the annexation plat, on that document I will need to exclude out the