HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD THIRD FILING - PDP - PDP130037 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 -land planning landscape architecture urban design entitlement
December 18, 2013
Mr. Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Waterfield Third Filing, PDP130037, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of response to comments and the revised drawings of the above referenced project. If
you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter:
Stephanie Sigler, Ripley Design Inc. responses in red 970-224-5828
Bud Curtis / Cody Snowden, Northern Engineering responses in blue 970-221-4158
Mike Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates responses in Green
Joe Delich, Delich Associates responses in Purple
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/04/2013: For labeling purposes please use the following, including the clause in the
parentheses: "New Vine" Drive (Final Name to be Determined by City Council by Resolution.)
Response: The street name has been updated.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please add a note on the site plan identifying the approved modification to the mix
of housing types for this phase.
Response: Note has been added on the overall site plan sheet 2.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/04/2013: On the Site Plan sheet 2, please add a column between Gross and Net and show
what parcels / tracts, and their acreage, that are being netted out.
Response: This has been added to the plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 2 of 21
12/04/2013: On the Site Plan, sheet 2, the schematic that illustrates the Community Trail Section
is very helpful. For the other buffer yards, however, the plans are difficult to read at the 200 and
100 scales. For example, the Landscape Plan indicates a buffer yard between Block Six and
the future multi-family but the Plat does not show a tract for this buffer. It would not be an
effective buffer if the plant material were located on individual lots and located within a
perimeter fence. An effective buffer yard is needed and it needs to be in a separate tract and
properly designed to accomplish a transition between potential three-story buildings and single
family detached homes in close proximity. Also, a schematic or detail would be helpful to
show the buffer along the two arterials. The Planning Objectives indicate that this area will be
35 feet wide but these areas need further detail. For example, will there be any earthen berms
in these buffer yards? Also, the plans need to provide more clarity for the buffer for the Public
Service Gas Regulating Station. Is a buffer contemplated for this facility?
Response: Additional sections have been added to the plans and additional plant material has been added to the gas regulator buffer.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Why is the cul-de-sac on the north not included in the Line of phase one?
Response: The drawings have been revised to include the cul-de-sac.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/04/2013: Both the Plat and Site Plan would benefit from providing a Legend that describes
the purpose and size of the Tracts.
Response: Acknowledged. The Plat has added the tract legend. The Site plan will add the tract legend at final.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Where are the street trees along Old Vine Drive? Is there a sidewalk along here?
Response: Trees have been added. Yes, there is a sidewalk
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Where are the landscape details for Tract J?
Response: Additional trees and turf have been added to Tract J
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Where are the street trees along New Vine Drive in along the Public Right of Way
and the Existing Bull Run apartments?
Same comment for the other side of this the Right of way especially along Lot 1 and New vine
Drive.
Response: Trees have been added.
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Show the future Conifer Street alignment on the Site Plan. Also, the Plat should
dedicate the appropriate right-of-way for this collector street.
Response: Conifer has been added to the site plan and plat.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The proposed alignment of the extension of Mandarin Drive is shown to intersect
with Conifer Street at a location that appears to be too close to the bridge that will be needed to
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 3 of 21
cross over the Eaton Ditch. With all of the improvements necessary for a bridge structure, the
location of this intersection looks infeasible and would cause significant sight distance
problems. This intersection should be shifted to the west.
Response: This intersection has been discussed with engineering and modified slightly according to their comments.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: On the Plat, please provide two distinct Outlot designations one each for the City
of Fort Collins and one for the Poudre School District like shown on the Site Plan. It may be
confusing to have two owners of one Outlot. Also, please add a key map to pages 4 - 8 of the
Plat.
Response: Tracts have been provided on the plat for the future park and school
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please consider dedicating the appropriate right-of-way for Turnberry Road,
between "New Vine" and Conifer. It may be likely that when the park develops, it may not be
platting. And, since the Poudre School District receives its building permit from the State, a
Plat is not required. Waterfield Third Filing seems like the most opportune time to dedicate this
right-of-way to avoid the extra effort required for separate dedications by different entities at
dissimilar times.
Response: The right-of-way for Turnberry road is shown on the Site Plan and will not be vacated between the park and school. It will be
vacated south of New Vine.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please provide a walkway connection to the trail that loops around the wetland at
the tee intersection of "New Vine" and Cape Teal Drive. This will allow easy access to the trail
for the residents south of "New Vine."
Response: The trail has been added.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The loop trail around the wetland is specified to be only five feet wide. This
seems too narrow for such a significant amenity and given the length that the loop provides.
Since this trail will be used by walkers, joggers, dog-walkers, etc. it seems a wider trail should
be provided. At five feet, it will be difficult and awkward for users going in opposite directions
to pass one another.
Response: The trail has been enlarged to 6’ wide and several smaller spur trails have been added along with enhanced vegetation.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: In general, there are a variety of redline comments that relate to legibility, font size,
line weight primarily due to the fact that the Site Plan is at 200 scale and the Landscape Plans
include contour lines and plant symbols. This results in plan features that do not stand out.
Let's discuss how best to make the plans more readable.
Response: Plans have been modified.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: The cross sections for timberline appear to be the same on the cover sheet for
ultimate and interim. Additionally, Timberline is a 4-lane arterial per our master street plan and
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 4 of 21
only 115' right of way. Please change plans and plat accordingly.
Response: The cross section for Timberline has been revised to distinguish between
interim and ultimate. Timberline has been revised to represent a 4-lane arterial.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Will the project be phased for construction? If so, how many and which portions
will be phased?
Response: Phasing for the project will be provided at final. Initial conversation and
conceptual phasing is as discussed at review.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet DE6 - why is all of Merganser being demolished and than rebuilt? If the
road is completely demolished and rebuilt is it still the desire to have it collector width or would
it be rebuilt as a local? During construction access will need to be provided to the Bull Run
apartments.
Response: Merganser will require reconstruction due to the reclassification of both New
Merganser and Old Vine and the realignment of New Merganser.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Local streets intersecting with arterials should be a minimum of 36' wide at the
intersection to allow for an informal through/left and right turn.
Response: The intersection of New Merganser and New Vine has been modified to
supply 36’ wide roadway. Cape Teal has remained local width due to the restricted
access.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please show the appropriate line work for the medians on New Vine and
Timberline for the right in/right out and 3/4 turn lanes.
Response: The medians for New Vine and Timberline has been revised.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U2 - Please revise all concrete drainage chases on New Vine to drainage
structures/inlets. For an arterial it is not desirable to have drainage through a curb chase.
Response: Per our discussions, the City’s standard detail for Sidewalk Culverts is being
used for New Vine Drive.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U3 - Ensure that all storm drainage meets cover requirements of 36" from
top of pipe to top of asphalt.
Response: Adequate cover requirements are being met for all storm drains. Plan and
Profiles will be included at final.
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 5 of 21
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U4 - Please revise some linework breaks on many of the sheets
Response: Line breaks were a printing error and hope to be resolved within this next
submittal.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U4 - the center drainage median in Garganey drive has divided the travel
lanes of a normal local street. The plans show 14' travel lanes on each side with is assumed to
have parking as well. Engineering will support at a minimum a 20' travel lane with parking.
Poudre Fire Authority may have requirements above 20' in width and additional discussions
should be had with PFA and Engineering.
Response: The travel lane within Garganey has been increased to 20 feet.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U5 - Multiple sheets appear to have the Keymap incorrectly showing the
sheets in the legend.
Response: The Keymap has been revised.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: SHeet U5 - Per the demolition plan it appears that the water and sewer mains are
being removed and replaced, how will service still be maintained to the existing bull run appts.
during this time?
Response: The sewer and water mains have been revised to allow for Bull Run’s services
to remain uninterrupted throughout construction.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet G4 - shorten the island noses on the medians on Garganey to allow for
vehicles to turn around at the end of each median.
Response: Medians within Graganey have been revised. Further discussions and
design will occur at final design along with full median plan and profile design.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - Show preliminary offsite design for New Vine Drive to the east for
1000', the plan currently only shows 500 feet.
Response: Offsite design is provided with this submittal.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - At final review we will need to see 4 Flowline profiles for timberline and
new vine that includes both median flowlines and both outer roadway flowlines.
Response: Acknowlegded.
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 6 of 21
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - end the median short of the end of New Vine and pave the middle to
allow for vehicles to make a u-turn in the interim. Provide a callout for barricades at the end of
New Vine and rip rap rundowns to protect the roadbase where the curb and gutter ends.
Response: The median at the western end of New Vine has been revised to allow for
vehicular turnaround.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - Revisit vertical curve lengths for New Vine which has a design speed
of 50 mph, vertical curve lengths should be calculated based on the 50 mph design speed.
Response: Vertical curves on New Vine have been revised to conform to Figures 7-17
and 7-18.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R2 - Please revise labeling of sidewalks, it appears that the labeling is
calling out the parkways as sidewalk instead of labeling the detached walks.
Response: Labeling has been revised.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R4 - Additional discussion will need to be had if we will allow a sub standard
vertical curve for the interim tie in at existing Timberline for the interim condition. Show existing
timberline in the plan view on this sheet as well and callout accordingly. At final we will need an
ultimate design sheet showing timberline and new vine and then a separate interim design
sheet showing new vine tying only to existing timberline.
Response: The interim intersection has been revised to conform to all street standards.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R9 - revise callouts for vine drive that should be existing timberline.
Response: Callouts have been revised.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R10 - Show median for a right in right out intersection. Label and design
timberline accordingly for a 4-lane arterial instead of the 6-lane arterial as shown.
Response: Timberline has been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R10 - Arterial roadways need to be preliminarily designed to 1000' offsite of
the project.
Response: Offsite design has been included within this submittal.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Street Sheets - see redlines for comments on vertical and horizontal curve design
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 7 of 21
on local streets.
Response: Plans have been revised accordingly.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Sheet R12 - what is the angle at the intersection of New Vine and Merganser?
Response: The angle at the intersection of New Vine ang Merganser is 5 percent and is
label on the plans.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Medians require an underdrain to drain them, show on the plans where these
underdrains will tied to storm sewer and how they will outfall.
Response: Underdains beneath the medians have been included with this submittal.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: There are numerous areas where the grade break on the centerline profile is
greater than the allowable .40 percent. Please revise or add vertical curves.
Response: Grade exceeding standards have been revised.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Sheet R16 - Pavement on Merganser and the other 2 roadways that are proposed
to have the center v-pan and cross pans will need to be constructed with concrete pavement.
See redlines.
Response: The surfacing of the local streets with modified sections has been revised to
concrete. A Striping and Paving Plan will be included at Final.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Sheet R19 - Dedicate right of way for Mandarin all the way to Conifer Street right of
way. The roadway may be phased and only constructed to the cul de sac shown. However,
do not build a formal cul de sac, construct the roadway and rollover curb as a normal street,
end with a barricade and provide temporary turnaround outside of the rollover curb with
temporary asphalt, road base, etc. The turnaround area may be dedicated as an access
easement instead of the right of way as shown.
Response: The ROW for Mandarin has been included.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Show the offsite design for existing vine street 500' outside of project boundaries.
Response: The design for Old Vine has been extended to 500’ outside of the project
boundaries.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Right of Way may not be vacated by Plat. It will need to be vacated by separate
document and go through City Council approval which includes two readings after the project
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 8 of 21
has been approved through public hearing.
Response: The ROW is to be vacated by separate document.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Some right of way that is existing should not be vacated and should remain. The
right of way on Merganser, Conifer and the portion of Turnberry between conifer and New vine
should remain. Per state statute it is very likely that most of the "Tract J" on the plat will be
given back to Bull Run once it has been vacated. We should discuss further how this project
will approach this vacation, if at all. We will not support vacating the portion until Merganser is
constructed and accepted. Perhaps the applicant would pursue a separate agreement or quick
deed to transfer this land for Tract J.
Response: The existing Turnberry and Conifer ROW is included within this submittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: It appears that the intent is to vacate right of on the North side of existing vine and
rededicate as a Collector Street. Please label the width that is being proposed as the plat
currently shows 115' right of way.
Response: Due to the node side of Vine being dedicated as ROW through Filing 2, the
portion of ROW being vacated is out of the property limits and will be vacated by separate
document.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Merganser is a local street on our master street plan. The plat is showing
dedication of 76' of right of way and it appears from the Civil drawings that Merganser will be
removed and replaced so what is the reasoning for keeping the 76' of right of way?
Response: The ROW has been revised to be a modified local street.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Timberline is a 4 lane arterial per our master street plan so 115' of right of way is
required and it appears the plat is dedicating right of way for a 6 lane arterial.
Response: Timberline has been modified to represent a 4-lane arterial.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: See the Civil plans for comments on Garganey Drive but additional right of way will
be required to be dedicated to allow for wider travel lanes.
Response: See plat for revisions.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Mandarin Drive should have it's right of way extended and dedicated to tie to
Conifer.
Response: Mandarin Drive has been extended to the existing ROW of Conifer.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 9 of 21
11/26/2013: Public right of way should not be dedicated in the alley in Block 11, this could be
dedicated as an Access Tract instead. Please label width.
Response: The private alley has been included within a private Tract.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/18/2013
11/18/2013: The project owes and additional $6532.68 for the TDRF PDP fees. This is based
on the total land being platted being used in the fee calculations.
Andrew Gingerich - excluding some portions of land being platted could reduce these fees,
i.e. the outlots, some tracts, etc.
Response: Per a phone call and email with Sheri, final fee amounts will be determined after this submittal and submitted prior to final
plans.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Please add the Environmental Planner signature to the Utility Plans.
Response: The Environmental Planner signature has been included on the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Please add the following statement to the notes on the Utility and Grading overall
plans, and on any sheets that show the wetland or canal: Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land
Use Code for allowable uses within the buffer zone.
Response: Notes have been added.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Please also label the buffer zones on the utility plans
Response: The buffer zones have been included within the Utility Plans.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: 11/27/2013: The ECS for the project indicates the total wetland is 8.46 acres and
0.18 acres are proposed to be developed through the project. The wetland is
non-jurisdictional, per the ACOE letter, and only City regulations apply to this wetland. The
applicants have proposed to mitigate the 0.18 acres of wetlands through upland enhancements.
I've reviewed the ECS and the proposed plans and do think that the ecological value lost from
the 0.18 acres of wetlands could be replaced through upland habitat enhancements, especially
as the hydrology data from 2013 (and observations since the early 2000s) indicate the large
wetland may be drying up.
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 10 of 21
However, the plans as they are currently proposed need to provide a much higher level of
buffering and vegetation enhancements to achieve the standards set forth in Section 3.4.1 of
the Land Use Code. I've tried to graphically depict the areas where I think additional
enhancements are necessary, but perhaps a meeting with the applicants, Cedar Creek
Associates, and myself would be beneficial? Let me know if that would work for you.
The ECS also needs to address the removal of the Russian olives and how that will be
mitigated for, in accordance with recent Land Use Code updates.
Response: The ECS Report will be revised to provide more information on buffer zone enhancements and plantings. The ECS
Report will also add information on mitigation plantings for the removal of non-native Russian olives in the buffer zone.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Can the lineweights be clarified on the site/landscape plans so that the difference
between the buffer areas and the wetland boundary can be more easily read?
Response: The plans have been revised to show a solid hatch for the buffer areas.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: The buffer zone around the canal also needs to be labeled and additional
plantings should be discussed in this area as well. I'd also like to see a stronger relationship
between the wetland area and the canal, e.g., can there be a direct connection from the trail
around the wetland to the canal? Are there plans for ped access along the canal? Is there a
seed mix proposed for the buffer along the canal? If so, can that be specified and made
clearer?
Response: A direct pedestrian connection has been added from the wetland to the canal. The canal buffer will be seeded with the
same upland seed mix as proposed for the wetland.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Please note that fugitive dust requirements from Larimer County may apply.
Contact their Health Department for more information.
Response: Acknowledged
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: What is the improvement on the southwest corner of the wetland? It appears to be
another trail/path, but it's also outside of this phase? Does the phasing line need to be changed
or should this detail be removed?
Response: A water quality area and has been labeled as such.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: A note should be added to the site/landscape/utility plans that the wetland and
canal areas are meant to be maintained in a native landscape. This will help preserve the
intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future.
Response: A note has been added to the site and landscape plans
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: On the fence detail, it appears the scale is off. Also, I would prefer to see the wire
mesh be required and not optional to prevent domestic animals from entering into the wetland
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 11 of 21
area unleashed.
Response: The fence detail has been updated to remove “optional” wire mesh.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Please contact the City Forester to review in an on-site meeting any existing trees and possible
mitigation. If there are existing trees to retain they should be shown on the plan and the tree
protection notes added that are found in in LUC 3.2.1 G.
Response: There are only existing Russian Olive trees within this PDP. There are no other existing trees. All of the Russian Olives will
be removed and mitigated.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Identify any existing trees by species, size, condition, to retain or mitigate and the number of
mitigation trees. Place this information in a table. Provide upsized mitigation trees in the
required numbers based on the following sizes.
Canopy Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper
Conifer trees 8 feet height.
Response: There are only existing Russian Olive trees within this PDP. There are no other existing trees. All of the Russian Olives will
be removed and mitigated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Select all street trees from the City of Fort Collins Street tree list.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
If not already provided add a note with all of the utility separation standards in LUC 3.2.1.
Response: Please see note 2 in the landscape notes sheet 6.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Provide street tree placement that meets all of the utility separation standards in LUC 3.2.1.
Show street light locations and tree placement to the separation standard.
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 12 of 21
Response: Acknowledged. We will show street light locations when we receive them.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Provide a street tree design based on guidelines in the City of fort Collins Streetscape and
Median Standards.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Address how landscaping in the medians of the future Vine Drive is to be addressed and
installed. Consult with Clark Mapes and Pete Wray on design standards.
Response: Further detail will be shown in the final plans.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Ash trees and the Freemont Cottonwood are shown on the wetland mitigation and enhancement
list. These species are not recommended. Please review for suitable substitutions using
regionally native species.
Response: These species have been removed.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
For lots that are 60 feet or less in width (which appear to be most of the lots) provide only one
street 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: Acknowledged. Tree spacing will be updated as utility locations are decided.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Check that street trees are shown at 40 feet spacing along streets that are not fronted by
homes.
Response: Trees are 40’ o.c.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
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
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 13 of 21
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 have been added.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: PRIOR COMMENTS
All prior PFA comments have been addressed to this point.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: GARGANEY DRIVE TRAVEL WIDTHS
The proposed 14' travel lanes for Garganey Drive (on either side of median) may pose a
problem for emergency vehicle access. If parking is to be allowed on Garganey, then the net
available road width is insufficient to allow for fire apparatus movement and operations. Further
review and discussion is needed.
Response: Garganey Drive has been widened to 20’ travel lanes.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control
Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the
Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3.
Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit;
Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need
clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam
970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Response: An Erosion and Sediment Control Report and Plan will be provided at Final.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 14 of 21
11/26/2013: Please quantify how the site is meeting the LID requirements. List LID measures
that are being proposed for the various sub-basins and preliminarily calculate the volume
required and where these measures will be located.
Response: The LID requirements have been quantifies within the revised report.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please label on the grading plan the grading proposed for each lot, Type A or
Type B to ensure the lots can be graded per City requirements.
Response: Per our meeting, all lots were discussed and lot types depicted. It is
understood that rear lot swales will not be allowed within our design. Further FHA grading
design will be included at Final.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please see redlines for other minor comments.
Response: See plans for minor corrections.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: An off-site drainage easement is required for the sub-basin 13 drainage that is
being directed off-site. A letter of intent from the property owner is required before a public
hearing.
Response: The drainage generated from sub-basin 13 is less than the historic runoff
currently being routed to this area. Please see the revised report for clarification.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: There is a "R" missing from sheets R20-R22 in the sheet index.See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: Please change the benchmarks shown on sheet CS2 to Fort Collins benchmarks.
The benchmarks on sheets CS1 & CS2 should match. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: Please change all "Vine Drive" for the proposed realignment to "New Vine" Drive
(Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 15 of 21
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: There is text on several sheets that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See
redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: There is cut off text on sheet R16. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: Please increase the size of the marked text on the cross sections. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets 3, 4 & 5. There are many more issues
than what is marked. Removing the contours would clean these sheets up a lot. See redlines.
Response: Existing contours have been removed however proposed contours have been retained. Text masks have been added.
Topic: Plat
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please remove "P.U.D." from the title on all sheets.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add "A Portion Of" to the sub-title on all sheets. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add "except the south xx' of the East Vine Drive right of way" to the legal
description. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please revise the legal description. See sheet 3.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The boundary & legal description close.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please check the next to last call in the boundary. The legal description & plat do
not match for the distance. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 16 of 21
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliqout corners
shown on the Plat.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: If you are vacating Boxelder's easement (Reception #98090191), an
acknowledgement and signature from them will be necessary.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: If you are vacating Poudre School District's drainage easement (Reception
#98094713), an acknowledgement and signature from them will be necessary.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please update the title commitment information as appropriate.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add a note for the ownership, maintenance and proposed usage ( i.e.
easements) for all Tracts & Outlots.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Conifer Street should remain. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Is the easement(as drawn in on sheet 3) dedicated by Waterfield P.U.D. Second
Filing being vacated by this Plat? See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Waterfield P.U.D. Second Filing shows a Public Service Co. easement. Is it to be
vacated ? If so please show it on sheet 3 and provide an acknowledgement block for PSCO. If
not, show it on sheets 4 & 5.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please adjust the outer boundary shown along Vine Drive on sheet 3. See
redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Rights of way shown on sheet 3 as being vacated by the Plat, must be vacated by
City Council action.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 17 of 21
12/04/2013: Please change all "Vine Drive" for the proposed realignment to "New Vine" Drive
(Final Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please change "Outlot A" to "Outlot B" on sheet 3. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Outer boundary bearings & distances would be helpful as an overview on sheet 3,
along with ties to section corners & section lines. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add a key map to sheets 4-10.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please show the sidelines on all easements. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: All easements must be dimensioned and locatable. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add marks for all point of tangency. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add bearings & distances to all lot lines. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: All existing streets must show dedication information.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Street names need to be shown on all sheets. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please label all surrounding subdivisions. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please label & describe the aliquot corners. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 18 of 21
12/04/2013: Is there non continuity in the curves on sheet 6? See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The outer boundary distance along Timberline Road does not match the Waterfield
P.U.D. First Filing. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please label the line marked running parallel to Timberline Road on sheets 7 & 9.
See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: All centerlines must have bearings & distances and/or curve data.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: All street & alley rights of way must show the width.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please show the record distance at the east end of Outlot A on sheet 9. See
redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please switch the bearings and distances marked on sheet 9. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please show the east right of way line of Timberline Road on sheets 7 & 9. See
redlines.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please show Conifer Street across Outlot A on sheet 10. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 19 of 21
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: Please add "Third Filing" to the title on sheet 1. See redlines.
Response: Plans have been revised
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines.
Response: Plans have been revised
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: There are text over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines.
Response: Plans have been revised
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: New Vine Drive and also New Timberline Drive P&P sheets: Please design the
median noses to conform to LCUASS Standard Drawing 801.
Response: Precise design, including median plan and profiles will be included at Final.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: No Signing and Striping Plans. Ok to provide at FDP stage.
Response: A Signage, Striping and Paving Plan will be provided at Final.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Just a note for clarification: the TIs states the land use classification as Low Density
Mixed Use District, which should be corrected to L.D.M.U. Residential.
Response: Will revise in TIS
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please review the organization and analysis documents in the Short and Long
Background and Total appendices. It seems to have repeat and missing analysis documents.
The long term total, Appendix F, is presented before the ST Total, Appendix G.
Response: Will revise in TIS
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please revise the the label of Stop Sign to Signal for Lemay & Vine, ST Total.
Response: Will revise in TIS
Topic: Variance Request
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Traffic Operations recognizes there's no applicable solution to the existing Lemay
and Vine intersection condition and recognizes that without development west and north
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 20 of 21
providing their appropriate New Vine roadway improvements the problem at Lemay & Vine will
continue until major funding can be found to build the ultimate overpass/underpass
improvements to mitigate the condition. This only delays improvements in the area to provide
relief from the current operational issues at the intersection. As such Traffic Operations accepts
the Variance Request for relief from the LOS standards at Lemay and Vine.
Response: Noted
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/05/2013: This comment was discussed by transportation staff and staff believes the policy is
approriate for this project. Therefore the previous comment has been upheld and turn lanes are
required.
11/26/2013: LCUASS Figure 8-1 requires left turn lanes at all intersections and all-movement
accesses on arterial streets. Therefore left turn lanes are required at Timberline and New Vine
and at Timberline and the north site access. The applicant will need to submit Variance
request(s) for the City to consider alternatives to the standard.
Response: TIS will be revised
Response: Per our meeting, the widening of Timberline to include left turn lanes and an interim striping scheme has been
included within this submittal.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Eric Garner, ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet EX2: Existing District infrastructure is incorrectly labeled. The existing BSD
sanitary sewer is 10-inch diameter (10¿) , not 8-inch diameter (8¿)
Response: Labels have been revised per our meeting.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet EX2: Label existing District manholes using District labels. Beginning at
northernmost manhole (PDI 0820), and decline in increments of ten (10) to the final southwest
manhole located north of Vine Drive (PDI 0750). Please let me know if clarification is needed.
Response: Labels have been revised to depict the District’s standard labels.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet DE3: The existing District sanitary sewer crossing Vine Drive is 16-inch
diameter, not 12-inch diameter shown.
Response: The existing sewer crossing Old Vine has been revised to a 16- diameter.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet OU1: Coordinate callouts of existing District sanitary sewers with previous
comments; 10-inch and 12-inch. Sheet OU1 indicates 8-inch, 10-inch, and 15-inch.
Response: Labels have been revised per our meeting.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Waterfield
PDP Revision 1_Comment Responses
Page 21 of 21
11/26/2013: The District has more than adequate treatment plant capacity to service the
property referenced above. Any written agreements required to complete sanitary sewer
connections to the property will be completed subsequent to the land approval process.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: The District is a participant in the region’s 208 Water Quality Planning Association.
The District is in full compliance with applicable federal and state water quality requirements.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: If there are questions, please contact me at 970-498-0604. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Garner, P.E.
District Engineer
Response: Thank you.
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Water service in this area is provided by the ELCO Water District. Revise the
drawings and notes on Shts OU1 and U1 to indicate connection to the ELCO main in the vicinity
of the cul-de-sac on Mandarin Drive.
Response: Sheets OU1 and U1 have been revised to indicate connection to ELCO
Water.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom,@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: No comments