Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD FOURTH FILING - MAJOR AMENDMENT / PDP - PDP180009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview September 28, 2018 Jay Garcia Thrive Home Builders 1875 Lawrence St Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Waterfield Fourth Filing, PDP180009, 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 Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan, at 970-221-6695 or tsullivan@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Ripley Design, Northern Engineering, Thrive, APS, Delich Associates, Mike Phelan, Architect Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 09/26/2018: Staff needs further clarification as to whether or not any portion of the front yards will be needed for utility easements. Also, please refer to the comment below about needing a common area or open space easement to ensure the 35-foot Major Walkway Spine. Response: All utility easements are proposed in the rear yards for alley-loaded units which face onto a green court or open space with the one exception being 3 single-family attached buildings located in the NE corner of Merganser and Suniga. See site and utility plans for details. 08/08/2018: The area south of Suniga Road, between Street H and Alley 16, the green courts, or green belts, upon which the units front, are only 10.5 feet wide. As noted at the project review meeting, this common area is supplemented by adjoining private front yards such that there would be approximately 30 to 40 feet between the facing units. Please indicate on the plans or on a Lot Typical this condition. Also, please indicate that each unit has 2 a direct walkway to the common walkway. Also, please investigate whether or not any of these private front yards will need to also be dedicated as utility easements. Response: A 35’ easement has been provided where Major Walkway Spines extend into private lots. As shown on the site plan, a minimum distance of 40’ will occur in all 4 places where the Major Walkway Spine extends into the private lots. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 09/26/2018: Please indicate the locations of the electric easement for Light and Power and the natural gas easement for Xcel. Response: Light and Power and Xcel will be located in the 8’ easements located along all alleys and public streets within the development. These easements are shown on the utility plans, site plan, and lot typicals. 08/08/2018: Also, regarding this 10.5-foot width, is this sufficient for the utilities that cannot be accommodated in the alleys? Please be aware that utilities may need to be installed in the greenbelts where units do not front on public streets, or, as noted above, utilities may need to be installed in private front yards. Please note that Light and Power cannot serve from a greenbelt. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 09/26/2018: There are numerous examples of where streets and alleys turn 90-degrees without a name change. In order to conform with the City's addressing system, any 90-degree turn will require a name change. 08/08/2018: On sheet 6 of 20, Alleys 16 through 22 will need to be named for addressing and wayfinding. (Note there are two Alley 16's.) Please consult the Larimer County Street Name Inventory to ensure that duplicate names are not selected. Response: Street names are to be finalized and updated during final plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 09/26/2018: See new comments below regarding the Request for Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(1)(b). 08/08/2018: Staff is concerned about the length of Alley 10 number of lots it serves, particularly the lots that face north. There are seven lots that are greater than 350 from Street C and five lots that are greater than 350 feet from Timberline Road. As you know, 350 feet is the maximum length of a major walkway spine and such a walkway is cannot be counted if it crosses an alley. The applicant and design team are encouraged to explore design solutions that meet the overall intent of the standard versus seeking a Modification of Standard that appears to be self-imposed. Response: Refer to response to comment Number 21 below. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 09/26/2018: There remain buildings served by alleys that do not front on public streets, and do not feature a person door on the alley, where there is not a walkway along all three remaining sides or the walkway is not clearly indicated. Please add or clarify these walkways accordingly. Response: Single-family attached units which do not have a person door along the alley and which face a green court/open space have been updated to show a walk on all 3 sides. 08/08/2018: Staff remains very concerned about the lack of person-doors along the alleys that would connect directly into the units that do not front on a public street without having to either go through the garage or around the structure to 3 the only door. It seems obvious that failing to provide this access for emergency providers increases response time. If person-doors cannot be provided, then the three other sides of the structure must have a walkway. (The comment response letter indicates a key pad access system to the garage but this does not solve the problem of emergency providers being encumbered by cars, bikes and other miscellaneous objects typically found in garages.) Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 09/26/2018: For Lot Typical B, single family attached 2-story, there are two units where the front porch could be lengthened without impacting privacy. As discussed, these front porches are the only places for outdoor enjoyment for the single family attached product. Response: Please refer to Comment Response number 26 for a discussion of architectural changes made since the last Submittal. 08/08/2018: The response to Conceptual Review comment number eight is that all front porches will have minimum dimensions of 7-feet by 9-feet. For the single family attached units that do not front on a public street, why not simply allow the length of the porch to reflect the entire width of the unit? This would seem practical and allow for greater enjoyment of outdoor space. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/13/2018 09/26/2018: For the building next to five guest parking spaces, it is not clear if there is a walkway on all three sides. Please clarify. 08/13/2018: For the seven buildings on the south side of Suniga and face north, please note that emergency providers prefer to not stage on an arterial street. If these units don't have person-doors on the alley, please provide walkways on all three sides of these structures so emergency responders can get around from the alley to the front door. Response: Dimensions and labels have been added to walkways for clarification. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/13/2018 09/26/2018: It is very likely that this roadway is within a prescriptive easement, not a recorded easement. 08/13/2018: Along the west side of the property, between Vine Drive and Suniga Road, please verify with the property owners to the west (Don and Beverly Weiss) as to the status of the existing farm access road. Does this road need to be preserved in some form for their benefit? Response: Access will be maintained for the property owners to the west via a 15’ wide access road along the west side of the Waterfield property. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/13/2018 09/26/2018: Please see comments below regarding Request for Modification to Section 3.8.30(F)(2). 08/13/2018: Staff is concerned about the response to PDR comment number 30 which requires three distinctly different building designs for the single family attached structures. The response indicates that only two will be provided but that the intent of the standard will be addressed by groupings ranging from 3 to 5-plex buildings. This solution does not meet the intent of the standard and further discussion on this aspect is needed. Response: Please refer to Comment Response number 26 for a discussion of architectural changes made since the last Submittal. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 4 09/26/2018: Staff remains concerned about alleys that are only 16-feet wide that serve buildings that do not front on a public street. This may cause problems for the installation of utilities. First, there must be proper horizontal separation between water and sewer lines. Please verify with Elco Water and Boxelder Sewer whether 16 feet will provide adequate separation. Are utility easements needed outside this 16-foot width? This needs to be resolved before proceeding to a public hearing. Also, if there are stormwater lines, in these alleys, then additional horizontal separation will be needed. Please note that this may result in some utilities (electric, gas, cable) serving the buildings from the front along the green courts which will need to be placed within proper easements. Response: The alley configuration has been completely revised. In alleys where there is both sanitary and water mains there is a 30’ tract. On top of the 30’ tract there is also 8’ Utility Easements on both sides so it is now possible to meet all the separation requirements. The gas and electric lines are within the utility easements and they are depicted on the Utility Sheets. Additionally, all of the storm lines in the alleys have been removed and replaced with a trench to concrete system to collect the minor storm events so that it is not discharging across the public sidewalks. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Another problem with the 16-foot alley width is that it will not accommodate two cars approaching each other going in opposite directions. Has any consideration been given to making these alleys one-way only? Response: With the revised site plan included in this submittal, 16’ alleys only occur in a few places throughout the site. In a majority of these locations, the 16’ alleys will be designated as one-way; however in 2 places where the alleys dead- end would still function as 2-way. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Regarding the Request for Modification for two Major Walkway Spines (MWS) that exceed 350 feet, four improvements need to be made in order for staff to find the proposal to be equal to or better than a plan that otherwise would have complied. First, for the MWS that extends west to the public sidewalk on Street B, the alignment needs to include a softer curve or longer sweep where is changes direction from east-west to southwest-northeast. A 90-degree turn is not direct. Response: The MWS has been updated to provide a softer curve. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Second, for the MWS that turns 90-degrees south and crosses Alley 10 and connects to the public sidewalk on Street C, trees need to be added on both sides of the walkway, on both sides of the alley in order to be “tree-lined” in accordance with the standard. Response: Trees have been added along MWS. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Third, for the aforementioned MWS, the crosswalk must be enhanced, and not merely consisting of special paving. Per Section 3.2.2(C)(5) (b), “the material and layout of the pedestrian access shall be continuous as it crosses the driveway, with a break in continuity of the driveway paving and not in the pedestrian access way. The pedestrian crossings must be well-marked using pavement treatments, signs, striping, signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques, median refuge areas and landscaping.” (Emphasis added.) Please adjust the grades accordingly. Response: Crosswalks will be enhance using pavement treatments. Signage will also be added along the alley to indicate a pedestrian crosswalk. 5 Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Fourth, for the green courts bounded by Alleys 16 – Street G, the area of the front yards that are needed to comprise the required 35-foot width must be placed within common area / open space easements in order to preserve this space from being encroached upon in the future. Please note that certain encroachments, however, may be permitted to allow flexibility and should be noted on the site plan and in the easement dedication language. Please refer to Section 3.8.19, Setback Regulations, for guidance. Also, please be aware that some utilities may need to serve from the front so easements need to sized accordingly. Response: A 35’ Common Space Easements have been depicted on the plat and on the utility plans at the aforementioned locations. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: The applicant’s submittal indicates that achieving a high level of walkability is of utmost importance and where walkways cross alleys in order to comply with connectivity standards related to Section 3.5.2(D)(1), crosswalks are treated with specialized pavers. Again, referencing Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(b), compliance can only be achieved by also providing a break in the continuity of the driveway paving and not in the pedestrian access way in addition to specialized pavers. Also, please add the crosswalk symbol to the legend. Response: A crosswalk symbol has been added to the legend. The crosswalk will be designed to be flush with the adjacent sidewalks which connect into the crosswalk to avoid a break in continuity. Response: Every dwelling unit has access to a sidewalk out their front door so we are in compliance with Section 3.5.2(D)(1) now. Additionally where the walkways cross along the alleys, there will be either pavers or colored concrete to comply with Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) to facilitate a safer crossing. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Regarding the Request for Modification to Section 3.8.30(F)(2), variation among repeated buildings for single family attached, and no similar buildings to be placed next to each other along a street, Staff needs further discussion and clarification to ensure that there are indeed the required three types. Note that the Lot Typicals indicate a single family attached four-plex but the elevations provided include only three and five-plexes. Please provide a table that indicates the three types and their distinguishing characteristics. At this time, staff is reluctant to allow the staggering of the individual units within multi-plex buildings to be considered as a distinctly different building design from similar buildings where the entrances are not staggered. Response: For easy reference we have include Section 3.8.30(F)(2) below with a discussion of how we believe we meet the standard following. (2) Variation Among Buildings . For any development containing at least three (3) and not more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building designs. For any such development containing more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building designs. For all developments, there shall be no similar buildings placed next to each other along a street, street-like private drive or major walkway spine. Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape. Building designs shall be further distinguished by including unique architectural elevations and unique entrance features within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. Such variation among buildings shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. The standard clearly calls for 3 different building designs that vary in foot print size and shape and demonstrate a degree 6 of architectural differences. The Waterfield PDP proposes 2-story single-family attached buildings, 3-story single-family attached buildings, 2-plexes, 3-plexes, 4-plexes, 5-plexes and 6-plexes. These varied buildings are further distinguished with rectilinear and staggered or saw-toothed footprints as well as variation in door and window placement, roof form differences, material changes and color variation. Our design team contends that the various buildings proposed exceed the standard that requires three building designs.. The proposed architectural changes were created with the LUC Section 3.8.30 Purpose Statement (see below) in mind. These standards are intended to promote variety in building form and product, visual interest, access to parks, pedestrian- oriented streets and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. We believe the proposed single-family attached buildings offer a great deal of architectural variety, building form and product types, while still creating an overall neighborhood theme that provides cohesiveness and compatibility within the proposed Waterfield neighborhood. Please note that the 45 single-family attached buildings are distributed throughout the neighborhood to create visual interest and variety in architectural forms. In addition, the architectural mix creates housing diversity in the neighborhood for a variety of income levels. Thrive is committed to ensuring that ten per cent of the attached units meet Fort Collins affordability criteria. We believe it’s also important to consider that the Waterfield neighborhood will included 316 single-family detached and two-family homes that include up to ten different models that add to the overall visual interest of the neighborhood. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: The Parking Requirements table on the cover sheet needs to be revised. Tandem parking is allowed but cannot be counted towards meeting the required minimum number of spaces. If 171 spaces are tandem, then only 85 can be counted. Response: The parking table has been revised to remove tandem parking spaces. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Since the table indicates that the two-family dwellings and the single family attached dwellings are being provided two spaces per unit, please add a note that, per section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), attached and two-family dwellings cannot contain more than three bedrooms. If they contain more than three bedrooms, then three spaces are required per unit. Response: A note has been added below the parking table on the cover sheet. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/28/2018: Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: The table indicates that there are 79 off-street parking spaces. In the case of Waterfield, this category needs more description. Please break this down and provide the number of guest parking, clubhouse parking, and other forms of off-street parking (if any), excluding all private driveways and garages. Response: The parking table has been broken down to distinguish between guest parking, clubhouse parking, and garage parking. Tandem parking spaces have been excluded from the required table; however, a note has been added to below the table to indicate that more parking will be available. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: In general, Staff advises that by providing only one parking space for Lot Typical F, single family detached, alley loaded ¿A¿, may cause spillover parking. Since the lot exceeds the minimum lot frontage (40 feet) for requiring two spaces, (but only by one foot), compliance with the standard is achieved. Given the suburban nature of the site, and with a single family detached product, staff cautions that there will be a high likelihood that buyers will bring two cars. 7 Where this condition occurs, staff recommends adding one additional parking space per lot or provide a sufficient amount of guest parking spaces also be located in close proximity to handle the anticipated spillover. Response: In all cases for Lot Typical F units, a minimum 18’ long driveway will allow for an additional parking space. In addition, guest parking spaces have been provided near these types of units. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: The Xcel natural gas pressure regulating station is located in the southwest vicinity of the site. Please label as such on both the Site and Landscape Plans. Per Section 3.8.26, this facility is classified as a heavy industrial use and the Landscape Plan is required to comply with the specifications of Buffer Yard C. This standard consists of a base standard that is a combination of setback and landscaping but can be adjusted based on three additional performance methods. Please demonstrate compliance with this standard. Response: The regulating station has been labeled on both the site and landscape plans. A table has also been added to the landscape notes and details sheet indicating the standard has been met. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Does the Lake Canal traverse the site in the southwest corner? If so, please indicate and show the appropriate buffer. Response: Lake Canal is located just outside of Waterfield property, however the 50’ buffer encroaches slightly into the southwest corner. This is now reflected on the NHBZ plan. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 09/28/2018 09/28/2018: Please contact Staff to set up a meeting prior to re-submitting. Response: A pre-submittal meeting took place November 1st. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: At final design, please include the referenced "Ultimate Discharge Location" design from the Waterfield 1st Filing Construction Plans. Response: We have added the outfall location for Waterfield 1st Filing to our plan set. More detailed information will be added at Final Plan. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: Please remove the erroneous "Proposed Grade" and "Existing Ground" callouts from each street profile. Response: All erroneous callouts have been removed. Please note that the callouts along the bottom of the profile are typical callouts specifying which side are related to the proposed grade elevations versus the existing ground elevations. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: Label the width of the proposed street neckdowns on the plans. Response: Labels for the bumpouts have been added to the street sheets. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: On the west end of the Suniga Road profile (Sheet C4.16) identify the grade that is being extended (appears to be the future profile). Is it "by 8 others", etc. Response: We have added labels for the future design to show that it can be constructed when that site gets developed. That design could change as that site gets developed to better service that site. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: FOR HEARING: On some sheets, it is still not completely clear what linework is proposed (interim), proposed (ultimate), existing, etc. We may need some additional callouts/labels to make it more clear. Response: We have removed the Ultimate Linework from all sheets except for the Street Plan and Profile for the Ultimate Design of both Timberline and Suniga. Hopefully this helps to clarify what we are proposing with this project and how it will work in the future with the Future Design of Timberline and Suniga. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/21/2018: FOR HEARING: Applicant has indicated that variances will be submitted prior to next submittal. 08/07/2018: There are a couple proposed typical street sections that do not meet City standards. Variances will need to be approved for these. I recommend that these be submitted as soon as possible to confirm that the varied sections will be acceptable. Response: Variance Requests have been submitted with this submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/24/2018: FOR HEARING: Some of the proposed utility alignments have been revised to help alleviate some of the concerns with the alley widths. There may still be areas that will need to be looked at. I would like to have a follow up meeting to discuss, once we see what comments ELCO and Boxelder have. Please work with Todd Sullivan (City Development Review Coordinator) to schedule meeting. The narrow alleys (16' width) seem like they may be problematic in many areas, aside from the emergency access aspect. In many instances, there are multiple utilities within the alleys and it seems like there may be issues with constructability, maintenance, etc. There will need to be some further coordination with appropriate City staff, ELCO, Boxelder San. Dist. and the applicant. The project Development Review Coordinator, Todd Sullivan will coordinate a meeting. Response: We have met extensively with ELCO, Boxelder, City Light & Power and Excel. We have revised the alleys and roadway cross-sections to ensure all parties have enough room for their individual utilities. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/24/2018: I believe the typical lot layouts should still include utility service locations (prior to final design). I don't think service lines need to be shown on the utility plans until final design. 08/07/2018: The typical lot diagrams need to contain more information. We will need to see driveways, all utilities (wet and dry) and any other above and below grade improvements to ensure that the narrow lots are feasible. This information would be helpful when we have our utility coordination meeting. Please send exhibits to Engineering prior to meeting, so that I may review and distribute to all City and outside municipal staff as necessary. 9 Response: We have added both water and sewer services to the utility plans to ensure it will work before hearing. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 09/24/2018: FOR HEARING: Engineering staff is okay with Street G and Street D being public ROW since the street section that would be maintained by the City is generally the same as a Connector Local. The maintenance of the enhanced center medians will need to be the responsibility of the HOA. This can be detailed in the Development Agreement for the project during final design. The City would like the medians to be dedicated as tracts on the plat. Coordinate with City staff ast to the extents of the tract boundaries and the use to list on the plat Land Use Table. Please note that these streets are considered local street sections per City Street Master Plan and the additional construction costs above the local street section are not eligible for reimbursement by the City. Response: The center medians have been dedicated as separate tracks. These have been defined as public access with ownership and maintenance being dedicated to the HOA. Response: Acknowledged. 08/08/2018: Will the HOA/Metro District be maintaining the enhanced (widened) medians in Street G and Street D? I will need to confirm whether these would need to be included within Tracts on the plat or not. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/08/2018 08/08/2018: Please see accompanying redlines for additional comments and clarification of these written comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/24/2018: FOR HEARING: Street G centerline geometry is still a little confusing. The utility plans and plat aren't showing the same linework. I believe that the utility plans are showing a curve and the plat still shows the same angle that does not meet LCUASS criteria. 08/07/2018: Please verify that all street centerline geometry meets LCUASS criteria. Variances will need to be requested for any instances where the standards are not met. Some alley centerline radii look to be less than min. as well as a couple of the widenings (see redlines). Response: The centerline alignment has been revised on the plat to match the Utility Plans. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: FOR HEARING: The medians in Street 'D' and Street 'G' will need to be dedicated as tracts with the plat. The Land Use Chart will need to be updated to account for the median areas in Street 'D' and Street 'G' not being included in the overall ROW area totals. Response: The center medians have been dedicated as separate tracks. These have been defined as public access with ownership and maintenance being dedicated to the HOA. Response: The land use chart has been updated to remove the medians from R.O.W. calculations. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General 10 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: We're checking on geometry at Timberline/Vine that was assumed in the study to verify that it is correct. We'll let you know if it's different. Response: The geometry was given to me by Tim on June 14, 2018. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: For Final: Please refine median shape on Street G on the approach to Vine and to Suniga to provide for widened approach and ease of turning large vehicles. Response: The median shape on Street G has been revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: For Final: Please provide a sight distance exhibit for medians. It should identify locations where landscaping needs to be low, and it should be consistent with the landscape plans. Response: A sight distance exhibit will be provided at final. Contact: Tim Tuttle, 970-221-6820, TTUTTLE@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/25/2018: City staff is meeting this week to discuss Alternative Mitigation Strategies related to Adequate Public Facilities. We'll be in touch with details on Lemay/Vine. Response: Acknowledged. Response: Acknowledged 08/07/2018: Traffic Operations will need to work with you on the alternative mitigation that will be needed for the Vine and Lemay intersection once the new APF code language is in place. Response: Acknowledged Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/25/2018: For Final: Signing and Striping will need to be reviewed and finalized 08/07/2018: Please provide signing and striping plans for the development. An interim striping plan will be needed to show traffic operation in the short term as well as an ultimate plan to show operation at full build out. Response: Signage and Striping will be included at Final Plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 08/07/2018: Traffic Operations will work with you during FDP on the proportional amount of funding for the Timberline and Vine signalization. Response: Acknowledged Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/25/2018: Comment response letter says this is updated in TIS. Actual variance requests should be submitted as soon as possible. 08/07/2018: What Traffic related variances will be needed? For example Pedestrian LOS and intersection LOS at Vine and Lemay. Response: Variance requests are included in this submittal. 11 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/25/2018: For Final: This intersection should be noted in plans and in DA that it may be restricted in the future. 08/07/2018: Street D or Garganey Drive from the previous submittal was shown as a right in right out however the TIS assumes full movement, please clarify. Response: This intersection is full movement. Department: Park Planning Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 All "Public Access and Trail Easements" must be shown and LABELED on utility plans, site plans and landscape plans. Response: The “Public Access and Trail Easements” have been labeled in the Utility Plans. Response: Public Access and Trail Easements have been added to site and landscape plans. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: Drainage features, such as swales and detention volumes cannot encroach within the "Public Access and Trail" easements. Where drainage infrastructure is adjacent to the easement, provide a cross-section (see comment 10) to illustrate how the trail could be constructed without interfering with other infrastructure. Response: The drainage facilities have been removed from the areas for the trail. Additional storm can be installed if there does not seem to be enough space along Timberline. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: Several storm drainage features are shown on the southeast corner of the park site (bio-swale, storm drain). The design and purpose of these facilities is not clear, either in the utility drawings or the drainage report. Please clarify the purpose and design assumptions for these facilities. The drainage report must clearly identify the drainage outfall for the PSD and Park site, and indicate the design flows accommodated in the pipe discharging under Suniga to the detention area. Response: From the previous report for Waterfield 3rd Filing the sizing of all of these storm facilities took into account the future development of both the school and parks properties. Both properties will detain within the existing wetlands and will be routed through our property to the southern detention ponds and ultimately discharged to the outlet pipe located at the southwest corner of the detention ponds. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: It must be shown that site grading on or adjacent to the Public Access and Trail easements can accommodate, or be reasonably modified to accommodate, the future construction of the Paved Recreational Trails on the site: both south of the L&W ditch and west of Timberline Road. If future grading is required for construction of the trail, it cannot extend beyond the dedicated easement. The applicant should provide a projected grading plan for the trail easement showing how to tie to the site grading. Cross-sections of the trail easement must be provided at minimum 200' intervals to demonstrate the 12 regional trail could be constructed in the allowable area, including areas of potential fill/cut that may be required for construction. For purposes of illustration, use a representative trail cross-section constructed within the dedicated easement . The design cross-section is approximately 24' wide and essentially level. The optimal cross-section includes 3'shoulders both sides, 10'paved surface, a 4' crusher fines path, and 4' of separation between paved and crusher fines paths. A vertical alignment of the trail easements must also be prepared and submitted to show maximum grades do not exceed 5-8%. The cross-sections adjacent to Timberline Road must show Street Right-of-Way, planned sidewalks, and utility and/or drainage easement locations, or infrastructure within or near the Public Access and Trail Easement. Please contact Park Planning & Development if additional information is required regarding this requirement. Thank you. Response: Cross-Section have been provided and we plan on meeting the Friday after the submittal for further coordination. Through these meetings, we hope to come to an understanding of those areas that all parties feel comfortable with. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: Along the L&W ditch a minimum 50' wide "Public Access and Trail Easement" cannot be measured from the ditch centerline. The north boundary of the easement can begin at the identified top-of-bank. The easement must be labeled: "Public Access and Trail Easement". Response: The “Public Access and Trail Easement” has been added to the plat and is measured from the top of bank. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: West of the Timberline Road Right-of-Way: a minimum width 50' wide "Public Access and Trail Easement" should be located outside of the Timberline Road Right-of-Way. The Utility Easement can be co-located if it can be shown there is adequate room for a paved 10' wide trail within the "Public Access and Trail Easement". Response: The “Public Access and Trail Easement” has been added to the plat. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/21/2018 08/07/2018: ALLEY DEDICATION > All private alleys required to meet minimum fire access shall be dedicated as Emergency Access Easements and be constructed to minimum fire lane specifications. > Fire lanes shall support 40 tons. > Minimum inside and outside turning radii are 25' & 50' respectively. > All dedicated fire lanes shall be identified with No Parking - Fire Lane signage and/or red curbing. Sign locations shall be labeled on plans. > As previously indicated, PFA will only support 16' wide private alleys where they are designated as one-way. Two-way alleys require 20' in width. > As previously indicated, PFA has substantial concern regarding the ability of 13 fire apparatus to turn into and out of the proposed 16' wide alleys. There is a reasonable expectation that fire apparatus are able to arrive at the front or back door of any unit. No alley should prohibit the ability of fire apparatus to access a residence. All alleys shall be designed to allow for fire truck movements within all areas of the site. An AutoTurn exhibit will be required for verification of all alley turning movements. Response: An autoturn has been provided for alley turning movements. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/21/2018 08/07/2018: ALLEY LOADED UNITS As already stated, there is a reasonable expectation that emergency services personnel can quickly arrive at a man door to the residence. This is usually the front door; however, plans containing alley loaded lots present an added obstacle to access. PFA recommends that alley loaded units be provided with a man-door off the rear (alley) side of the structure. In lieu of a rear-facing man-door, front doors onto a greenbelt or other landscape feature shall be provided with an approved sidewalk to the front door that connects to with the alley so as to provide direct and efficient access to any individual unit. Future plans should include all walkways to the front door. Response: For single-family attached units which face a greenapce and do not have a man-door along the alley, a walkway will be provided around 3 sides of the building to access the front door. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/21/2018 08/07/2018: ALLEY NAMING All alleys required for fire access shall be named or otherwise provided with a detailed monument signage plan to allow for wayfinding throughout the site. Response: Formal street and alley names will be generated at Final Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/21/2018 08/07/2018: WATER SUPPLY > A hydrant capable of providing 1000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure is required within 400' of any Residential Building as measured along an approved path of vehicle travel. This maximum allowable separation distance has not been achieved in all portions to the project. > The project is also responsible for meeting hydrant separation distances along all bordering roads associated with this project to include Suniga Drive, Old Vine Drive, Timberline Road, Conifer Street, Street E (Merganser), and any road bordering the western limits of the ODP. > See Redlines. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/21/2018 08/07/2018: CLUBHOUSE > The drive aisle to the Clubhouse shall be dedicated as an Emergency Access Easement. > Perimeter access to this building is not able to be met with the current Site 14 Plan and this building will require a NFPA13 automatic fire sprinkler system. > A building in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. will require a fire sprinkler system. So shall an A-2 assembly group occupancy with an occupant load greater than 99 persons. Response: Acknowledged. Response: Emergency Access Easements have been added to the plat for the Clubhouse. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/21/2018 08/07/2018: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING Even though addresses are yet to be assigned, the project shall provide a detailed posting plan not later than at time of FDP. As previously indicated, and residence that has fire lanes on sides other than the addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane. Response: A detailed posting plan will be provided at time of FDP. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: AUTOMATED FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM The single family attached buildings will require an appropriate fire sprinkler system. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Jerry Howell with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 09/24/2018: The outfall location that was never built is off-site and not where it is labeled on the plans. This location needs to be identified on the plans. 08/06/2018: The outfall for the entire development area appears to have never been completed per the originally approved Waterfield Filing 1 and 2 development documents. This development will be required to complete these improvements per the original plan or have another outfall option approved by the City. Response: Acknowledged. Please see discussion of this issue in the revised drainage report. We will provide plan and profile sheet(s) at Final showing the proposed continuation of the siphon with completion of the outfall into Vine Drive ROW. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/24/2018: At final, a detailed design needs to be finalized for these forbays. The locations identified as forbays are adequate for the project to proceed to a public hearing. 08/07/2018: As discussed in the project meeting held on August 6th, 2018 with the Applicant, coordination is required with Environmental Planning to determine what is required for storm flows to enter the existing wetlands and if this area can be used for LID treatment. Response: Acknowledged. 15 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/09/2018 09/24/2018: The public storm sewer looks to have the required separations from other utilities. The City recommends the private storm sewers have better separation distances from the water and sanitary sewer lines, or an alternate alley grading design be proposed to eliminate some the these private storm sewer stubs. 08/09/2018: The proposed public storm sewers in some locations are not meeting the 10 feet separation requirement from other utilities. There may be some circumstances where the alleys become private and the storm sewers in these private alleys can become private as well. Please provide 10 feet separation for any remaining storm sewers that stay public. Response: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: There are a couple locations where a different storm sewer alignment may reduce the amount of storm sewer pipe and utility crossings. Please see utility plan redlines. Response: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: At final plan review, a detailed lot grading plan will be required. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/28/2018 09/28/2018: The City's Detention Pond Landscape Standards will need to be followed specifically for the detention pond along Vine Drive. Due to it's rectangular shape, considerable landscaping will be required to help mitigate any unnatural appearance of the pond. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/28/2018 09/28/2018: Please revise the text within the drainage report to better describe how the LID and standard water quality requirements are being met. The north basins are being treated for 100% of the area by wetland extended detention which will count as a LID treatment for all the area draining to the wetland. The forebays are pretreatment to protect and help clean the water before entering the wetlands. The south detention basins are being treated by 100% standard water quality by the method of extended detention. Both these scenarios should be sized for 100% of the area draining to them for each of their specific treatments. Response: Please see the revised drainage report. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General 16 Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: It appears adequate space is planned into design to be capable of achieving natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) and low impact development (LID) standards, in mutually beneficial ways. Note that details of the design of facilities for pre-treatment of water (Environmental Planning prefers at least 50% to 90% water quality treatment) prior to water entering the protected wetland and detailed design of the wetland itself, especially if using any of the wetland for meeting any City Low Impact Development (LID) standards will be critical to achieving Final Plan approval. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: By Final Plan clarify how cottonwoods, Siberian elms and Russian olive groves will be mitigated for. See ideas provided at staff review for mitigating groves by designing into the NHBZ pockets of native plant communities containing: 10-15% structural plants like A. gerardii, J. virginiana, Sorghastrum spp, S. scoparium, P. smithii; 25-40% seasonal theme plants like Aster spp., Rudbeckia spp., Achillia spp., Penstemon spp., B. curtipendula or Solidago spp.; 50% ground cover plants like Carex spp., B. dactyloides, Eriogonum spp., Erigeron spp., Callirhoe involucrata; 5-10% filler plants like Delphinium spp., Achillia spp., Gaillardia spp., Lobelia spp., Coreopsis spp., or Gaura spp. Ideas are based on principles outlined in Planting in a Post-Wild World by Thomas Rainer and Claudia West. Response: Mitigation is provided through grassland community planting features located around the wetland. Mitigation for the cottonwoods that are being removed in the detention along Vine will be provided by replanting cottonwoods in that area at varying sizes from 5 gal to 2” caliper to restore the potential habitat in that area and also buffer noise from the train south of Vine. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Add 3 (three) 2-inch caliper P. deltoides (Plains cottonwoods) to planting plan for NHBZ. Response: Populus deltoides have been added to the planting plan. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Thank you for updating quantitative natural habitat buffer setbacks and proposed NHBZ areas. The proposed NHBZ meets LUC 3.4.1 natural habitats and features standards with details to firm up by Final Plan design. Per discussion during site visit 8/24/18 weed removal and treatment prior to installation of desired plant material will be critical for success for this NHBZ, especially addressing the prolific Canada thistle currently found throughout the former wetland areas that are drying up. Response: Acknowledged, thank you. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone needs to be clearly delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plans. Add Environmental Planner signature to all utility plans showing portions of the NHBZ. Response: The NHBZ is shown on site and landscape plan. 17 Response: The Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is shown and labeled throughout the Utility Plans. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Is there any reason in particular that 3500K LED is selected for fixture EE whereas all others have selected 3000K or less. Response: The IES photometric files from fixture manufacturer only listed 3500K data, we will be sure and specify this fixture as 3000K on the Lighting Fixture Schedule for the Construction/Permit Set of drawings. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Environmental Planning is ready for project Hearing. There are wetland design and low impact development design details to confirm prior to approval of Final Plan. Specific natural resources language including weed management plan and wetland monitoring plan to be included in Development Agreement and securities collected for natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) installation and monitoring ensuring establishment of the area in three years or less. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Per discussion at staff review meeting 9/26/18 the Lake Canal comes within close proximity to the southwest corner of this proposed project site. Include label of top-of-bank and 50-ft setback from this Lake Canal and how much of the 50-ft buffer extends into this proposed project property. Response: Top of bank has been labeled and a 50’ buffer is now shown on the NHBZ plan. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 9/25/2018: Continued: Please directly label species abbreviations on the landscape sheets. Include a legend that details symbol and species abbreviation on all landscape sheets, if space allows. 8/6/2018: I WILL NEED MORE LANDSCAPE DETAIL ON THE NEXT SUBMITTAL. PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF PROPOSED TREE SPECIES, QUANTITY, CALIPER SIZE, AND DIVERSITY PERCENTAGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SPECIES COUNT AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ALTERS FROM ROUND TO ROUND. HOWEVER, I NEED TO REVIEW PLANT LISTS, SPECIES LOCATION AND SEPARATION AS WELL AS DISTANCE FROM UTILITIES, AND STREET LIGHTS, STOP LIGHTS. PLEASE SHOW SPECIES SPECIFIC SYMBOLS OR LABELS OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH. ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE SCHEDULE A TREE INVENTORY WITH CITY FORESTRY STAFF TO OBTAIN TREE INVENTORY AND MITIGATION INFORMATION TO INCLUDE ON THE NEXT SUBMITTAL. 1/3/2018: 18 Please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code and 3.2.1 requirements. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 9/24/2018: Continued until FDP. Response: Acknowledged. 8/6/2018: Continued: This comment was acknowledged by the applicant; however, it does not appear that stop signs and street lights have been incorporated into the plan set. Please address. 1/3/2018: Show location of any stop signs and street lights. Identify these fixtures with a distinct symbol. Space trees if needed as follows. Stop Signs: 20 feet from sign Street Light: 40 feet for canopy shade trees and 15 feet for ornamental trees Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Species Selection: City of Fort Collins Forestry Division is close to reaching the maximum percentage of Honeylocust and Bur Oak in Fort Collins’ urban forest. During the development review process, we see it as an opportune time to educate landscape architects to use fewer Honeylocust and Bur Oak on plan proposals. On this project, there are 62 Honeylocust and 56 Bur Oak proposed out of 787 canopy shade trees. Please do not specify Honeylocust on the plans and significantly decrease the number of Bur Oak specified, while incorporating other Elm and Oak species, such as New Horizon Elm, David Elm, Discovery Elm, Heritage Oak, Shumard Oak, English Oak, and Chinkapin Oak. Lanceleaf Cottonwood appears to be specified twice in the plant list – please include Plains Cottonwood to the Plant List to diversify this species. Please note that Eastern Redbud should be used in fewer quantities and located in very protected sites. They species is highly sensitive to winds and severe winters. In addition to decreasing the number of Redbuds on the plans, consider planting them on the northeastern or easterly sides of homes and buildings so they are protected from strong winds. Please only use American Plum, Serviceberry, and Chokecherry in Natural Habitat Buffer Zone or native planting areas. These species are not considered particularly good street trees due to their thorns and suckers. Other ornamental street trees to use include: Red Barron Crabapple, Thunderchild Crabapple, Japanese Tree Lilac, Purple Robe Locust trees are susceptible to Black Locust Borer and are not successful in Fort Collins. Please remove from the plans. Please correct Buckley Oak to Texas Red Oak in the plant list. 19 Please confirm nursery stock availability of all species, especially Texas Red Oak and Shumard Oak as these can be particularly challenging to find. They are a highly desirable species, but are not widely available in large numbers at nurseries just yet. Additional species you might want to consider specifying in low quantities include Ginkgo, London Planetree (‘Exclamation’ or ‘Bloodgood’), Turkish Filbert, Autumn Splendor Buckeye, and Red Horsechestnut. Confirm nursery availability of these species. City Forestry is measuring the success of these species and it would be great to try a few of each in this development! Response: The landscape plan will be updated at Final to incorporate several of these species. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Due to the ever-changing nature of landscape plans at this stage, separation distances from tree to tree, tree to utilities, and tree to street lights will be measured during FDP. Final plant counts will also be checked and confirmed during FDP. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: A majority of the inventoried existing trees do not meet City Forestry’s requirement for mitigation due to species (Russian Olive and Siberian Elm) and size (<11” if Siberian Elm or Russian Olive, <6” any other species). However, Environmental Planning will need to account for wildlife habitat value for these trees and will provide wildlife mitigation values to include in the mitigation table. When this information is provided, please update mitigation tree sizes in the plant list. So far, a total of 5 (4.5 rounded up) mitigation trees are required by City Forestry. However, there does not appear to be any trees noted with upsized caliper. Please update the plant list. Please show all mitigation trees on the plans with a bolded and capital “M”. Provide a detail in the legend. Response: 5 mitigation trees are now shown on the landscape plan and are indicated with a capital “M”. These trees can be seen on sheet 18 of 43 and are located within the median on Street D. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Please include a column in the Tree Inventory and Mitigation table that details if the tree is to be removed or retained. Response: The table has been updated Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Please clarify the symbol “Future Tree”. Response: A tree legend has been added on the Landscape Notes & Details sheet to indicate these trees will be installed by homeowners. A proposed list of trees that homeowners could choose from is also listed. 20 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: Will all streets be publicly owned City street? If not, please label private streets on the plans. Response: All streets are publicly owned. All alleys are private. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/25/2018 09/25/2018: The street tree permit note used on sheets 11-30 appears to be a little outdated. Please use the most recent version of this note, which is shown on sheet 10. Response: Street tree permit note has been updated. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Forestry would like to further understand the reasoning behind removing 84% of existing trees on this site. We understand that a good percentage of trees are undesirable species such as Russian Olive and Siberian Elm. However, the existing Cottonwood stands that persist along the Vine Drive corridor are in Fair to Fair Plus condition and provide wildlife habitat and other benefits. Please explore preserving the existing Cottonwood stands, specifically tree groves #11-17. Retaining these groves would provide a nice existing buffer for the back of homes that look out onto Vine Drive. Response: A tree removal feasibility letter has been included to explain the reason for all tree removal. Further, cottonwoods are proposed to be planted in the place of the tree groves #11-17 which will replace those removed. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 9/25/2018: A new requirement, titled the Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter, has been included in the Development Application Submittal Requirement checklist (updated 9/4/2018): Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter detailing the reason for reason for tree removal. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. This letter should be submitted prior to Hearing. Response: See tree removal feasibility letter included with this submittal. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/28/2018 21 09/28/2018: Please make a note on the landscape plans that all landscape islands and medians are to be maintained by the developer/HOA. City Forestry will not be responsible for maintaining trees within these islands and medians. Response: Noted has been added. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/28/2018 09/28/2018: On the landscape plans, please provide site distance triangles for the median that approaches Vine Drive. Lower growing shrubs and grasses that do not exceed 30 inches should be specified on the ends to avoid site distance conflict. Trees should also remain set back to avoid clearance and site distance issues. Response: Site distance triangles will be added to the plans during final when shrubs are added to plans. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 08/06/2018: Please provide a transformer location for the community clubhouse. The transformer must be within 10 ft of a drivable surface and have 8 ft clearance in front and 3 ft along the sides and rear. \Response: A transformer has been located on the plans for the Clubhouse. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 08/06/2018: Will the water service lines be paired on the lot lines? Please show the water service stubs on the utility plans. Response: All service lines are now shown on the individual Utility Plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 08/06/2018: Light & Power only installs electric services to single family detached dwellings. The electric service to all other building types will be the responsibility of the owner. Please gang electric meters on single family attached and multifamily buildings on the opposite side of gas. Please coordinate meter locations with L&P. Response: Acknowledged. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 08/06/2018: Streetlights will be placed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and streetlights. Light and Power does not provide streetlighting along alleys and private drives. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2018 08/06/2018: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any necessary system modification charges will apply at owners expense. Please see the 22 Electric Estimating Calculator and Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/24/2018 09/24/2018: Commercial service information forms (C-1 forms) and a one line diagram for each building /meter bank will need to be completed and submitted to Light & Power Engineering for review before Final (FDP). A link to the C-1 form is below: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development- forms-guidelines-regulations Response: Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: As discussed in the previous utility coordination meeting, the alleys and private drives are problematic for maintaining required clearances from other utilities. L&P must have 10 ft from water and sewer and 5 ft from gas. 3ft X 6ft underground vaults will need to be placed throughout these private drives in the utility easements, these vaults cannot be placed in a roadway or driveway. Response: Per our meeting between submittals, we feel like the revised plan gives all parties adequate spacing and room for maintenance. Please see revised utility layout. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Crossing Agreements may be necessary to serve the proposed development. The developer is responsible for obtaining all Crossing Agreements at their expense. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: Electric lines, vaults and transformers will need to be added to the utility plan with appropriate clearances from other utilities at Final. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/26/2018: A complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. 08/07/2018: A complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/26/2018: Please make sure all references to Suniga, are labeled as Suniga Road. This is the official name per City resolution 2015-011. 08/07/2018: Please make sure all references to Suniga, are labeled as Suniga Road. This is the official name per City resolution 2015-011. Response: This has been revised. 23 Response: This has been revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/26/2018 09/26/2018: The titles need to match on all plan sets. Response: All Titles have been revised to Waterfield Fourth Filing. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2018 09/26/2018: No changes were made. Please revise per 8/8/18 redlines. 08/07/2018: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in response letter. Response: Please see the revised Plat.