Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN'S EDGE (FORMERLY 2430 OVERLAND TRAIL - RESIDENTIAL) - PDP - PDP160045 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (2)1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview March 3, 2017 Kristin Turner TB GROUP 444 MOUNTAIN AVE Fort Collins, CO 80513 RE: Mountain's Edge (formerly 2430 Overland Trail- Residential), PDP160045, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 03/01/2017: Both a variance and modification of standard will be needed as discussed previously. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A modification and variance have been provided 01/17/2017: A modification of standard will be needed for not providing a temporary turnaround at the end of Hillock Street. Engineering supports this modification since Private Drive E provides a route to the dead end street. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A modification and variance have been provided Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 01/17/2017: More conversation is needed regarding the improvements at Overland Trail and Drake Road. Conversations are needed to discuss the ultimate configuration of the intersection. RESPONSE: Improvements have been coordinated with Engineering and Traffic Operations Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 01/17/2017: More information is needed for the flow line of Overland Trail, especially where it transitions from Drake Road. Incorrect VC's are used on Overland Trail. Grade Breaks are also being exceeded. RESPONSE: The VC’s have been adjusted to meet 0.4% standards. At the curb return for the intersection the grade break is 0.87%. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: If fire lines are needed, please show the exact locations and lengths that will be needed for fire lines during FDP. RESPONSE: PFA has indicated that these buildings will not require firelines. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: As previously discussed, the City does not need the extra 12' of ROW along Overland Trail for the right turn lane. The second through lane will serve as the right turn lane in the ultimate. Please revise cross sections as well. RESPONSE: ROW dedication has been coordinated with Engineering and Traffic Operations Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: Show the proposed inlet on the Overland Trail right profile sheet (Sheet R2) RESPONSE: Inlet has been added to profile Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com 2 Topic: General Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/27/2017 02/27/2017: If the project achieves approval a reminder that prior to issuance of Development Construction Permit (DCP) the following will need to be approved and accepted by Environmental Planning: A. Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) Monitoring Plan and Weed Management Plan as prepared by a qualified ecological and/or natural resource management professional. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. B. Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) itemized estimate of costs of material and labor for the NHBZ for Brick Stone Apartments project. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. C. Security in the form of an escrow, letter of credit, or bond covering 125% of the total cost of material and labor for installing and establishing the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/27/2017 02/27/2017: Waiting until FDP to show proposed shrubs is appropriate for this project and this natural habitat buffer zone. Some recommended native shrubs include: Chokecherry (P. virginiana), American plum (P. americana), Saskatoon serviceberry (A. alnifolia), Indigobush (A. fruticosa), Four-wing saltbush (A. canescens), Sand cherry (P. besseyi), Mountain mahogany (C. montanus), Antelope bitterbrush (P. tridentate), Golden currant (R. aureum). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Native shrubs will be added to the plans at FDP. Thank you for the plant suggestions! Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/27/2017 02/27/2017: Add total seeding rate to native grass seed mix (looks like 20.77 total). RESPONSE: Revised. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/27/2017 02/27/2017: Add to Native Seed Mix notes on landscape plans. a. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. b. TREAT NATIVE SEED MIX AREA PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SEED WITH APPROPRIATE HERBICIDE TO HELP CONTROL HERBACEOUS WEED SPECIES. ONLY AFTER APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD THEN APPLY NATIVE SEED AS CALLED FOR ON APPROVED PLANS. c. PRIOR TO SEEDING SOIL WILL BE AERATED AND SOIL AMENDMENTS ADDED AS NECESSARY. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF OR AGRICULTURE SEEDING EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED). d. THE GROUND SHALL BE CULTIVATED LIGHTLY THEN SEEDED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENTLY OVER ENTIRE AREA. e. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH DEPTH. FOR BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD - DOUBLE SPECIFICIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES. f. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER. g. THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL-LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING OCCURS IN NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS DO NOT MOW LOWER 3 THAN 6-8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH. h. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY-PERCENT TOTAL COVER IS REACHED WITH NO LARGER THAN 6-INCH SQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. RESPONSE: All of the above notes have been added to the plans. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/27/2017 02/27/2017: Update songbird nesting note on landscape plans to: "NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.” RESPONSE: Revised. Reminder: no tree removal or tree work (beyond healthful pruning) is to occur until a Development Construction Permit (DCP) is issued for the approved project. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/27/2017 02/27/2017: Thank you for clearly highlighting which luminaires are to be ordered and installed and for choosing 3000K or less. This significantly aids enforcement staff if and when there are post-construction discrepancies. Several departments within the City of Fort Collins have been working together to address lighting issues; they are referred to as the City’s Night Sky team. Results of the team’s work can currently be viewed on the City’s Public Records website in Resolution 2016-074, a summary of City of Fort Collins City Council Intent and General Policy Regarding Night Sky Objectives. For further information regarding health effects please see: http://darksky.org/ama-report-affirms-human-health-impacts-from-leds/ Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/19/2017 03/02/2017: Continued: Accurate street light locations need to be shown with trees placed at the separation standard. RESPONSE: Street lights were provided with the previous submittal. Please let us know if there are any concerns with separation. Locations and separation will be finalized at FDP. 01/19/2017: Show locations of water and sewer service lines for all lots. Adjust tree locations to meet the utility-tree separation standard of 6 feet (between any water or sewer service line). RESPONSE: Please refer to Forestry specific response letter and general note information. Show locations of all front-entry driveways and adjust street tree locations to be 8 feet from driveways. RESPONSE: Please refer to Forestry specific response letter and general note information. Show street light locations and proper tree separation Shade trees: 40 feet separation Ornamental trees: 15 feet separation. RESPONSE: Street lights were provided with the previous submittal and trees were adjusted to meet separation standards. Please let us know if there are any concerns with separation. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/19/2017 03/02/2017: Continued: 01/19/2017: Provide a typical lot detail showing location of street tree, water and sewer service lines, driveway, and street lights. RESPONSE: Provided. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/19/2017 4 03/02/2017: Continued: Forestry generally does not recommend Prairiefire Crabapple due to disease issues. Please use Red Barron Crabapple or Thunderchild Crabapple as replacement options for these trees. RESPONSE: Revised. 01/19/2017: Along Drake Road, please provide street trees in the parkway in a similar fashion to what has occurred east of this project’s location. Because of overhead electric lines, species selection should include Red Barron and Thunderchild Crabapples. RESPONSE: Trees were provided with the previous submittal per your species recomendation. Please let me know if there are any concerns with the placement. Please provide irrigated turf in the parkway along Drake Road. RESPONSE: Per our previous response letter, there is existing turf located along Drake Road. Our plans show turf in all areas where there is not currently turf. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/19/2017 Continued: Please incorporate some Ponderosa Pine in the tract seed detention area.Forestry generally does not recommend Prairiefire Crabapple due to disease issues. Please consider using the following ornamental species: o Red Barron Crabapple o Thunderchild Crabapple o Spring Snow Crabapple RESPONSE: Revised. 01/19/2017:Private Property Trees Increase the diversity of ornamental trees used, reducing the large groups of single species to a more diverse collection. RESPONSE: Ornamentals were diversified on our previous submittal and an additional species was added to the plan. Please let me know if there are still concerns. Please provide additional conifer tree species, such as Austrian Pine and Colorado Blue Spruce. Throughout the project, try to incorporate these species into defined groups or groves. RESPONSE: Austrian Pines were added for our previous submittal. Forestry generally does not recommend Prairiefire Crabapple due to disease issues. Please consider using the following ornamental species: o Red Barron Crabapple o Thunderchild Crabapple o Spring Snow Crabapple Consider using other ornamental pear species in place of some of the Korean Wild Pears. RESPONSE: The number of Pears was reduced and an additional ornamental tree was added on our previous submittal. Please let me know if there are still concerns. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 03/03/2017: Please contact Platte River Power Authority to set up an on-site meeting with a PRPA representative and Forestry to review tree placements near powerlines along Drake Road. Scott Rowley has been a good PRPA contact in the past; he will likely assign a field person to take a look at the site (rowleys@prpa.org). Wider spacing between trees may be required, as well as keeping trees a defined distance away from transmission line towers. Please arrange for this meeting to occur prior to next submittal. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 03/03/2017: It appears as though only 50 mitigation trees are accounted for on the plans. Please be sure to label the required 53 mitigation trees on the plans. RESPONSE: Three additional trees have been labeled on the plans for mitigation. Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Light and Power has single phase electric facilities along Blugrass Dr that can be extended into the site to feed this development. Will 3 phase power be needed? RESPONSE: As of now, 3 Phase has not been requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 5 01/18/2017: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-development-fees RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. Transformers must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. RESPONSE: Transformer locations will be further refined at final design. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and Power. Please show proposed meter locations on the site and utility plans. It is recommended to gang the electric meters on one side of the building, opposite gas meters. RESPONSE: Meter Locations will be further refined at final design. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Secondary electric services for multifamily units will be the responsibility of the Developer to install and maintain from the transformer to the meters. RESPONSE: Acknowledged Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Streetlights will need to be installed along public streets and coordinated with Light & Power. Shaded trees are required to maintain 40 feet of separation and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of separation from street lights. A link to the City of Fort Collins streetlighting requirements can be found below: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf RESPONSE: Streetlight locations have been coordinated with L and P. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approved site plan, utility plans, and landscape drawings before design of the electric facilities will begin. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Multifamily buildings are billed as commercial services. Commercial Service Forms (C-1 forms) and one line diagrams must be submitted to Light & Power for each building. The C-1 form can be found at: http://zeus.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf RESPONSE: Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Light and Power will need to extend primary electric lines into the site and through the private drives to feed the transformers. 10ft minimum separation from all utility mains is needed. Additional utility easements may be needed in the private drives to meet separation requirements. RESPONSE: Additional utility easements have been provided to allow for a total easement width of 40’ through each private drive. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 01/18/2017: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Cal Sheesley, 970-416-2599, csheesley@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: FIRE LANE SIGNS Fire lane sign locations to be provided with final plans. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION & WAYFINDING 6 A plan for addressing and address posting remains under discussion. A revised plan will need to be resubmitted to PFA by time of final plan approval. Please refer to the email sent from Jim Lynxwiler to Kristin Turner on February 21, 2017 with a highlighted addressing/wayfinding plan. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will continue to work with PFA on the appropriate identification and wayfinding as the project moves forward. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: WATER SUPPLY > The additional hydrants along Overland Trail and Drake Road meet minimum separation requirements set forth by the fire code. > Relocate the hydrant on the southeast corner of Bluegrass and Hillock to the northeast corner of Bluegrass and Hillock. > The northern most hydrant currently shown at Overland Trail should be relocated internal to the site. Relocate to the alley intersection at the northwest corner of Building E. RESPONSE: Fire hydrants have been relocated as indicated. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS The Utility Plan indicates a fire line to each building. Lot lines between units will allow each to be independently sprinkled with a domestic system (eg. P2904) without a separate fire line, so long as minimum fire separation is provided between units. Contact the Building Department for further details. RESPONSE: Fire line has been removed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: FIRE ACCESS An Emergency Access Easement has been added to Tract H; however, minimum fire lane standards have not been applied. > Tract H EAE connections to Bluegrass need to include the required 25' inside turning radius. > Tract H EAE needs to meet standards of 25' turning radius on the curves within the tract (the southeast curve is shown as 17'): C108 = 25' & C109 = 50'. RESPONSE: Turning radius has been updated to meet standards. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY In order to allow effective medical access to the front of every dwelling unit, the sidewalk plan should be amended to include the following (See redlines): > Include a sidewalk connection to Private Drive "D" as shown, on the SE and NE corner of Building I. > Include a sidewalk connection to Private Drive "B" as shown, on the NW corner of Building H. > Include a sidewalk connection to Private Drive "A" on the SE corner of Building S. RESPONSE: The requested walks have been added to the plan. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: PLAT LABELING Tracts F, G, H, & I, need to be labeled as Emergency Access Easement on the Land Use Table (Sheet 2) rather than as Access Easement. RESPONSE: The plat indicates fire access easements throughout the private access roads. Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: In general, the overall layout, while practical, appears overly rectilinear and regimented and would benefit by softening the overall layout at least to some degree. While the principles of new urbanism are on full display, there is an over-abundance of right angles and repetition. For example, could Buildings Q and R be further differentiated either by providing greater separation or off-setting orientation to the private alley? Could Building O ben angled relative to its juxtaposition with Building P to add interest? Could Buildings H, L and N be offset from each other relative to their alignment along both the private alley and the open space to add variety? Within the single family attached buildings, could individual units or entrances be varied and offsetting? Otherwise there may be no privacy on the front porches. Could the long private alley on the west feature a long sweep or 7 curve? It seems the entire project would benefit from some curvature or variety in building placement, individual unit placement and/or private alley alignment so that the overall arrangement is less rigid. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Let's discuss other measures that address this issue. RESPONSE: Please refer to response to 3.24.17 comments. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Similarly, the plans are not clear as to whether or not the project will construct a common rear-lot privacy fence along the east property line. Is a common fence proposed or will rear yard fencing be left up to each individual lot owner? Or, does the developer plan on relying upon the neighbors¿ existing fencing? This issue will likely be a topic at the upcoming neighborhood meeting. In comparable projects, staff has seen a unified common rear yard fence, with masonry columns at the property corners, offered as the successful solution to this design issue. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Staff recommends that the proposed six foot privacy fence along the east property line be upgraded in order to promote neighborhood compatibility. Since there is a likelihood that the Lots 12 through 28 may be placed at a different grade than the existing homes in Brown Farm, the role of the fence takes on an important role as the sole transition between the two projects. This fence should be upgraded to include masonry columns and other wood fence design features so that the fence adds to the quality of life for both existing and new residents. In a similar project recently approved and now under construction, masonry columns were placed at the property corners of the existing lots. Pleases provide a detail of this fence. RESPONSE: A 6’ wood privacy fence will be provided along the property line. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Is there a sufficient amount of guest parking? There are similar projects where guest parking is distributed throughout the project. For example, guest parking at the mail cluster box will double as a handy pick up point. Guest parking could also double as good locations for plowed snow. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Thank you for adding guest parking. But, there are multiple areas where one or more guest parking spaces adjoin a connecting walkway. The problem is that these walkways are made less direct by having to go around the space(s) in an awkward fashion (90-degree angles in some cases) which is not conducive to normal walking. Please coordinate so that walkways are prioritized and direct and not impacted by the parking spaces. RESPONSE: These spaces have been removed or relocated per your redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: The aerial maps indicate that there are a significant number of trees along the west property line that may be in the existing Overland Trail public right-of-way. What is the status of these trees after the 7.5 feet dedicated for additional public right-of-way and the 15 feet dedicated as a utility easement? These trees are not addressed either in the project narrative or on the Landscape Plan. Please provide a detailed response as to the status and proposed disposition of these trees. Hopefully, a significant number of these trees can be preserved. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Planning defers to the City Forester on this issue. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will continue to work with Forestry on any comments they may have. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: The existing trees that are totally on private property and are slated to be removed will need to be identified and mitigated per Section 3.2.1(F) in conjunction with a site inspection by the City Forester. Then, the Landscape Plan needs to indicate the extent of the tree removal, reason for removal and tree mitigation both in table form and on the Plan. As we have required on other projects, a separate Tree Mitigation Plan sheet may be needed. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Staff defers to Forestry on this issue. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will continue to work with Forestry on any comments they may have. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: In the private alleys, with the garages arranged as proposed, staff recommends a landscape strip between driveways. Such landscaping should be sufficiently dense and vertical to prevent informal parallel parking from spilling over onto the neighboring driveway. This landscaping will also improve the overall aesthetics of the private alleys. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: The strips between driveways have been added but now need to be landscaped with vertical plants to break the monotony and repetition. Evergreens that are suitable to the space, and achieve a measure of verticality (no Carpet Junipers), must be mixed in and emphasized so that there is year-round interest. This is especially important along Private Alleys A E where townhome garages face single family detached lots. 8 Simply relying on tall grasses would be insufficient. This has been done with success in comparable projects such as within portions of Rigden Farm. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A hatch has been provided to demonstrate where there will be landscaping. Trees have been added only where possible with utility easements. Shrub planting will be provided at FDP. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Regarding the architectural elevations, staff would like to discuss with the design team on how best to introduce a higher level of variety among buildings so the project does not seem overly monotonous. RESPONSE: I believe this has been resolved with our last meeting with the architect. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: On the architectural elevations, it would be helpful to know the dimensions of the front porches. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Staff is concerned that for the single family attached, there is too much reliance on the 6’ x 6’ porch to the point where it becomes repetitious. This project appears to be need of an increased measure of variety and mixing the porch dimensions would be beneficial from an overall perspective. This comment is not meant to suggest that porches that are any smaller than currently shown as this would result in porches becoming mere entryways or stoops. RESPONSE: Porches have been revised to larger sizes with variation in size/shape/location between units. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: Please describe the side slopes of the central green / detention pond (Tract C). In order to be effective as a central green, these slopes should be as shallow as possible. RESPONSE: Approximately one quarter of the detention pond perimeter ranges from 8% to 16%, approximately one quarter the perimeter has a 4:1 slope, one quarter of the perimeter has a retaining wall that can be used as a seat wall, and one quarter of the perimeter has 5:1 slopes. The detention pond is relatively shallow for the majority of the pond with only a 3’ to 4’ depth for most of the pond. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Please provide a detail of the retaining wall. RESPONSE: Provided. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/18/2017 01/18/2017: If not a public street to the southern terminus, then a public access easement needs to be provided for public access to the open space. 3/01/2017: Carried Over: Let's further discuss. The private roadway will need an access easement for because it acts in lieu of a street. The purpose of the comment is to allow residents of Brown Farm to use the roadway to gain access to the open space without trespassing. RESPONSE: A blanket access easement has been dedicated within all private drives in addition to Tract K. Tract K contains the Open Space and trail. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: The Lot Typical for the single family detached lots should be at the same scale as the plan sheet. Also, for practical purposes, please locate the building envelope at the minimum required front setback line as this seems to be a common construction practice. Also, be sure to add a front porch that is no less than 6’ x 8’ (but can be larger) and add a garage that is no less than four feet (but can be greater) recessed behind the front porch. Please include the street tree. Since the Lot Typical will be at the 40 scale, please add dimensions. RESPONSE: Provided. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: Also, please provide two Lot Typicals for the single family attached, one for the alley load and one for the front load along the north property line. Please use 40 scale and show the lot, front yard, building envelope, front porch, garage and the landscape strip between garages/driveways. Please add dimensions. RESPONSE: Provided. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: Staff acknowledges that the front yards of the single family attached may be relatively small compared to the single family detached. Nonetheless, the front yard, even though fairly small, is an important element for this housing type. Without a front yard, the project runs the risk of appearing as apartments or condos, not townhomes which may affect long term values. RESPONSE: The townhomes have ‘front yards’ which have increased in size with the updated walk layout. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: Please indicate on the Lot Typicals for the single family attached whether or not there is a rear patio area or small yard between the dwelling and the garage. Where does one place the grill? Staff is concerned about 9 the extent to which this housing product is truly a townhome or more emblematic of an apartment or condo project. RESPONSE: There are not rear patios or small yards in the back of the townhomes. Per our discussions, the porches have been enlarged and community gather spaces have been added. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: All internal connecting walkways must be tree-lined to the maximum extent feasible. Please add a healthy mix of trees so that the walkways become an attractive feature for the project as a whole. RESPONSE: Revised. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: Staff is concerned that there is still not enough differentiation among the three architectural styles for the single family attached. It’s not a question of whether the three styles indicated are of sufficient quality. Rather, it’s the scale of the project, with a relatively high number of a single family attached dwellings, that requires a close look at how this project will appear and be experienced. Please note that if the project size were two acres larger, a third housing type would be required. RESPONSE: Per a meeting with Planning and the architect, I believe this comment has been resolved with the new building exteriors. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 03/03/2017: Regarding Comment Number 5, having had further discussion with the design team, I became aware that there is to be a separate drainage tract located between the rear property line of the single family detached homes and the eastern property line of the project site. This tract is specifically intended to be owned and managed as a common area for the purpose keeping the tract exclusive for drainage conveyance and not to be encumbered by sheds, gardens, patios, play equipment, or any other appurtenances associated with private backyards. As a result, it may be necessary to provide a common fence along the rear property line of the lots as well as the six foot privacy fence along the project’s property line. Staff recommends that this fence be no more than four feet in height so as to not create a canyon between the fences. Further, this fence should feature an open rail design so there is no temptation to throw grass clippings into the conveyance channel. If there is a concern about keeping dogs in the yard, the fence can include hog wire to keep the open feel. RESPONSE: Fences along the rear property line of the Mountain’s Edge lots will be required to be a 42” spit rail fence. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 02/28/2017: Repeat comment. An easement or documentation that as easement will be agreed to is needed prior to hearing. This easement will need to be dedicated prior to final plan approval. RESPONSE: No easement is being pursued. The design has been revised to show all stormwater release to Dixon Creek. I see the outfall from Detention Pond #2 is now a pipe that ties into the proposed improved channel. Is it possible to extend the grading to the outlet and use the channel as the outlet as well as the emergency overflow path? My concern is that the spillway doesn't show a clear path at this point. RESPONSE: No improvements are being pursued on the Holiday Twin property. The emergency overflow for Mountain’s Edge will be routed through the outlet structure to Dixon Creek. 01/17/2017: An easement is required for the NE outfall. Please provide off-site easement and show that conveyance exists in the proposed outfall. RESPONSE: No off-site easement is being pursued anymore. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 02/28/2017: Additional information is needed to determine if LID requirements are currently being met. Please see redlines and contact me for discussion. RESPONSE: An updated LID exhibit shows 49.8% of proposed impervious area as being treated through an LID measure. 01/17/2017: Please review acceptable Low Impact Development (LID) methods and show that LID requirements are being met. Grass buffers do not meet the requirement as they are not volumetric, quantifiable treatment. RESPONSE: LID has been provided rain gardens. All LID measures have been sized for their tributary area. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 10 02/28/2017: The altered grading is an improvement and is more in line with the guidelines. Additional landscaping (trees, shrubs, boulder features, etc) would further improve aesthetics and feel of these areas. RESPONSE: See Landscape Plans 01/17/2017: Please review the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities and adjust proposed landform and slopes to help improve aesthetic qualities. RESPONSE: Detention Ponds A and B are shown with varying slopes and undulating sides. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 02/28/2017: Please see updated redlines. RESPONSE: Updated 01/17/2017: Please see redlined plans and drainage report. RESPONSE: Updated Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: Is the proposed storm drain line on the eastern edge of the site an underdrain? It is unclear how this functions with the proposed bioswale (grass swale with infiltration section). Please clarify and also show underdrain locations for all rain gardens and bioswales on the next submittal. RESPONSE: The eastern storm drain is also an underdrain. Due to the limited grading opportunities within this tract, this stormline will allow for conveyance. The bioswale was removed due to maintenance concerns. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/28/2017 02/28/2017: Please note that concrete chases will be required for the proposed chases on Bluegrass Drive. Are the swales that these chases drain to proposed to be bioswales? These areas could provide LID if downstream facilities are undersized. RESPONSE: These chases were provided to allow for the required storm cover. As a side benefit these chases allow impervious areas to discharge to pervious areas. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 03/01/2017: Repeat, I saw the response note that materials will be submitted at FDP. 01/17/2017: 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 do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan, an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017 03/03/2017: No plans were provided for review, so we cannot verify this was addressed. 01/20/2017: Please change the title to match the other plan sets. RESPONSE: Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017 03/03/2017: This has not been corrected. 01/20/2017: Please change the Basis Of Bearings statement to match the revised Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE: The basis of bearing now matches the Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017 03/03/2017: Some of the right of way descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. 01/20/2017: Some of the right of way descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. 11 RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017 03/03/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. 01/20/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017 03/03/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 01/20/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 03/03/2017: There are text over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The text over text issues have been corrected. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 03/03/2017: Please make changes to the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision as marked. See redlines. RESPONSE: Updated. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 03/03/2017: Please add title commitment information as available. RESPONSE: Title commitment will be updated as available. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/03/2017 03/03/2017: Please make changes on sheets 3-5 as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. RESPONSE: Updated. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2017 03/03/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 01/20/2017: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The redline provided on sheet 2 has been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Nicole Hahn, 970-221-6820, nhahn@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2017 03/01/2017: Please see striping redlines. RESPONSE: Updated per redlines. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-416-4320, slorson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 01/17/2017: TRANSFORT The Transfort Strategic Operating Plan calls for bus service to this area. Please install a Type II bus stop pad along Overland Trail in front of Building K (see Figure 10 in Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines: http://www.ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standards.pdf). A fee-in-lieu can be paid for the amenities (bike rack, bench, and trash can) until service is started to the area. RESPONSE: Per a meeting with Planning and Transfort, the bus stop location has been added south of Bluegrass Drive. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/23/2017 02/23/2017: TRANSFORT The previous comment is still relevant. The bus stop pad location for Mountain’s Edge was discussed in the Fixed 12 Route Service work session. The group evaluated Drake as an alternative but felt that it would not be satisfactory operationally due to traffic safety and secondly, due to its poor proximity to proposed units. RESPONSE: Per a meeting with Planning and Transfort, the bus stop location has been added south of Bluegrass Drive. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2017 01/10/2017: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/17/2017 02/28/2017: Please see round 2 redlines. 01/17/2017: Please see plan redlines. RESPONSE: Updated per redlines. Department: Zoning Contact: Ryan Boehle, 970-416-2401, rboehle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/12/2017 01/12/2017: The LMN setbacks apply for both the single family detached and single family attached . The setbacks are 15' front - 5' side - 8' rear. Please include a typical setback detail on the drawings. Please provide a typical for the single family attached. Many of the attached units are encroaching on the rear setback. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Per a meeting with Planning and Zoning, a modification will be accepted to allow for some variation in the setbacks to allow for more staggering of buildings and a better overall layout for the site.