Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNTRY CLUB RESERVE - FDP180030 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview January 04, 2019 Jim Birdsall TB Group 444 Mountain Ave Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Country Club Reserve, FDP180030, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the Final Development Plan for Country Club Reserve. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Brandy Bethurem Harras, at 970.416.2744 or bbethuremharras@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: It would be helpful for the Project Narrative to describe the concept for 1) fencing and public access in the oil well buffers under different conditions at the wells; 2) establishment and maintenance of the extensive native grass areas with their extensive tree plantings. TB GROUP: Narrative updated to include fencing concept and treatment for native grass areas and planting. Comment Number: 2 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Fencing: Has there been any progress on the approach to fencing in the oil well buffers? We need to make sure the plans resolve the approach. TB GROUP: Narrative updated to include fencing concept. Fence plan submitted with 2nd Round. Comment Number: 3 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Mown trails: while you're grading, grade for those trails on the steeper side slopes? Do mown trails need to meet ADA requirements? The trails did not get graded in this round of FDP but can be revised if they need to meet ADA slope requirements. If they don’t need to meet 2 those requirements what are the requirements for slopes? Comment Number: 4 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Concrete walk at west end: should be graded and seeded and mown but not paved. Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 01/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: In my opinion the cottonwood tree we have discussed adds character and interest. Staff will discuss it again internally and with the developer. TB GROUP: Acknowledged Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Is the subdrain line out to Turnberry draining the sewer trench in Turnberry? The subsurface water report didn't show the line extending out into Turnberry - is this necessary? Correct this subdrain is not needed. The extension of the subdrain has been removed. Comment Number: 2 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please show subdrain cleanout locations on the plans. Subdrain locations are graphically shown on the utility sheets and are shown on the downstream side of the sanitary manhole it is next to. The Utility legend has been updated to show these cleanouts Comment Number: 3 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please specify the filter fabric to be used in the underdrain trench on the plans. There will be no filter fabric for the raingarden underdrains, unless you prefer it to be wrapped. For the subdrain a permeable geofabric wrap has been called out per the Boxelder detail. Is there a separate detail you would rather see? Please advise. Comment Number: 4 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: The parking count in Baltusrol Court still does not appear to provide 1 per The parking count now meets LCUASS requirements. See email sent on 2/18/19 from Blaine Mathisen that had an exhibit attached for additional clarification. Comment Number: 5 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: The T intersection of Kiawah and Winged Foot appears to be missing the third ramp. The third ramp has now been added Comment Number: 6 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please add typical street and sidewalk cross slope to the cover cross sections or create a typical cross section which shows cross slopes. Typical cross sections are on the cover sheet with slope arrows. Comment Number: 7 3 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Where midblock cross pans are shown, grade breaks are occurring more often than every 25 feet which does not meet LCUASS standards. Can vertical curves be utilized? Midblock grading has been revised to meet 25’ LCUASS standards. A vertical curve could not work because the k value and length would not adhere to the other LCUASS standards. Comment Number: 8 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: he 150-foot radius in Carnoustie does not meet minimum centerline radius requirements (165) can this be adjusted without major site implications? If not let me know. Centerline has been adjusted to 165’ Comment Number: 9 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please show how flowlines will tie to existing on Douglas and Turnberry. The flowlines will not be tying into existing Douglas and Turnberry flowlines. Stripping has been designed to tapper traffic back into the existing travel lanes. However, where we are ending our curb and gutter there are roadside ditches that we are doing temporary 4:1 tie ins to the existing grade. This does not alter the existing drainage patterns. We have also placed type III barricades at the end of our sidewalks. Comment Number: 10 12/28/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Missing labels: radii labels sheet R1 for Bethpage (2); transition length intersection detail D; fl grade in Winged Foot midblock cross pan. Missing information has now been added to all three sheets Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 11 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide silt fencing along all Limits of Development on the site, around the existing wetlands pond as well as around the proposed rain gardens. Silt fence has been added around the wetland and rain gardens. How will the rain gardens be protected during site development in order to ensure that they do not get silted. Please note that these should be constructed at the last phase of development to minimize the potential for them to be clogged with sediment during construction activities. Please add a note to that effect. Note was added to Erosion Control Plan Please clarify the phasing of this development as the potential phasing will necessitate the ESC plans to be phased as well. At this time there is no phasing anticipated. There are very steep slopes in many areas on this site. The use of erosion blankets will be required along those areas. Blankets added at steep slopes near Junita Drive. How will the seeding be protected after construction to ensure the long term establishment of vegetation on these slopes ? TB GROUP: See landscape plan notes and specifications. Straw crimping and reseeding if needed to establish. 4 Temporary irrigation especially where steep slopes exist may be needed in order for these sloped areas to get proper vegetation establishment. TB GROUP: Acknowledged whenever possible especially near the wetlands pond, please eliminate the concrete drain pan and use naturalized wetlands bottom for detention ponds. Concrete drain pans have been removed and replace with grass lined swales. Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-305-5989, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: The proposed outfall to the No. 8 Ditch is noted. Please provide an agreement with the ditch permitting this outfall prior to final plan approval. The outfall also appears to be crossing other private property between the development and outfall to the ditch. Please provide easement across this property. Agreement with ditch has been submitted to them for review. We are currently working with them to finalize the language of this agreement. The outfall has been moved and no longer goes through the adjacent property and is now exclusively within our property, city ROW, and the ditches property. Part of finalizing the agreement is figuring out the easement that will run through the ditches property. Comment Number: 2 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please see redlined drainage report. Note many of these redlines are carried forward from PDP Round 3 as there were unaddressed. Redlines have been addressed Comment Number: 3 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: More information/detail is needed for the proposed rain gardens: - Sizing needs to be clarified (see redlines). - Forebays/energy dissipation is needed at outfalls into the rain gardens. - Clarification is needed on the proposed overflow paths and how these are to function. Please contact me to discuss. Comment Number: 4 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Storm Drain Line A includes a section sloped at 52.87%. It appears this section of pipe will be too steep to construct or that special considerations will need to be made. Please clarify this slope is acceptable with pipe manufacturer and is able to be constructed including any requirements such as restrained joints, etc. Alternative means, such as drop manholes, may be acceptable as well. This has been revised. The storm outfall is now higher up in the slope and no longer has such and exaggerated slope. This storm line configuration has been sent over to the ditch company to review so that we can get their approval. Comment Number: 5 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please clarify private/public ownership and maintenance of the storm system including the proposed subdrain system. All storm lines within the ROW are denoted as public. All subdrains are also public. 5 However, the raingarden underdrains are private. Let me know if you have a disagreement with this. A note has been added to the utility sheets to reflect this. Comment Number: 6 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: On the landscape plan, please clarify hatching in the legend for Native Prairie Meadow Grass. TB GROUP: Hatch delineates Native Grass which is Upland City of Fort Collins Mix. Legend revised to reflect landscape notes. Comment Number: 7 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Is phasing being considered for this development? Stormwater certification is typically required once 25% of the building permits (40 in this case) have been issued. Please contact me to discuss any proposed phasing and how phasing, or lack thereof, may affect this project. At this time no phasing is anticipated. Comment Number: 8 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). More information on this statute is available at http://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a spreadsheet to show compliance is available for download at http://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at (970)305-5989 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet. Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please add the following note to the proposed rain gardens on the grading and utility plans: Please refer to the erosion control plan sheets and report for temporary control measures and construction sequencing that shall be used to prevent loading of this drainage facility with sediment during construction. Note has been added Comment Number: 10 12/31/2018: INFORMATION ONLY: Please note that all City construction detail drawings are to be used in their original, unaltered state. ANY modification(s) must be clearly distinguished and all City logos/identifiers must be removed from the modified detail. Detail drawings can be found in both .pdf and .dwg formats through the links to “Construction Drawings” on www.fcgov.com/utility-development. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/02/2019: FOR FINAL: This is a holdover from PDP. Was this addressed somewhere? 12/22/2017: The updated TIS on page 7 shows an intersection of 6 "Douglas-Country Club" which doesn't exist. Please clarify in a memo or resubmit page 7 and any other pages required to address. TB GROUP: During staff discussion, we understood the TIS to be satisfactory as submitted. If the TIS needs additional updates, we are happy to adjust. Comment Number: 2 01/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Signing and Striping redlines will be submitted by Friday. Signing and striping redlines have been addressed. Thank you for the guidance. Comment Number: 3 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The estimated proportional share of fee in lieu contribution from Country Club Reserve to the signal at SH1 and Douglas Road is estimated at $28,000. The existing background PM peak hour traffic (982 vehicles) and the CCR site traffic at this intersection upon buildout is 85 vehicles. That is an 8% impact. Total project cost is estimated at $350k. Therefore an 8% contribution is $28k. (Total project cost has been reduced from an original estimate of $550k by having the City build the signal). Please let me know if you have any questions. Comment Number: 3 01/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Calculations for the proportional share contribution to the signal at SH1 / Douglas will also be forwarded within the next two weeks. Comment Number: 4 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are a number of trees shown very close to stop signs (some as close as 25 ft). This impacts visibility of the stop signs. Please move all trees to at least 50 ft from stop signs. Add a note to the landscape plans that no trees shall be planted within 50 ft of a stop sign. TB GROUP: Note added to Sheet LS1.0, Street Tree Notes, Note #6. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Add the following note to landscape plan and grading plan: 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. Note has been added to grading and plan TB GROUP: Note added to landscape plan Comment Number: 6 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: 7 Please explore other drainage mechanisms than concrete drain pans throughout the site to match the character and enhance the ecological function of native seed areas. Low sloping swales are now in place instead of concrete pans Comment Number: 8 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Environmental Planner will work with you to provide a seed mix and seeding specifications appropriate to the site. Planner will also provide examples of an integrated weed management plan. TB GROUP: Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Ensure hatching is turned on for all seeded areas. TB GROUP: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 01/03/2019: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: A development agreement will be required for this project which will outline requirements for buffer zone protection during construction, landscape establishment, and inspections (3 years). An approved weed management plan will be included as an Exhibit in the DA. A bond will also be required that is 125% of landscaping (materials and labor) and irrigation in the buffer zone. The bond will have to be received before the city issues a Development Construction Permit. TB GROUP: Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The Plant counts in the planting schedule do not reflect the combined number of shrubs represented in the oil and gas buffer planting summary table and wetland mitigation/NHBZ areas. Please ensure the bufferyard D table accurately represents the shrubs being planted throughout the site. Additional trees can be planted in lieu of shrub quantity requirements in buffer D areas to provide visual screening. If this is the design intent we can work together on an appropriate tree to shrub ratio for these areas. TB GROUP: Plant counts verified and updated in Bufferyard D Table. Proposed design is intended to screen rear lot line, while maintaining open space. Calculations result in far more trees provided than required and less shrubs provided than required. Can we discuss the ratio of trees and shrubs relative to design and bufferyard requirement? Comment Number: 5 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please ensure the location of Calamagrostis Karl Foerster is not within the NHBZ/mitigation areas or within non-irrigated areas. TB GROUP: Karl Foerster grass is not located within NHBZ/mitigation area or non-irrigated areas. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: PLAT: The Land Use Code requires disclosure about the presence of oil and gas operations on the plat. Please include a note informing subsequent property owners that certain lots shown on the plat are in close proximity to an existing oil and gas operation.01/03/2019: 8 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The NHBZ is incorrectly labeled on the site plans (currently shown as the 50' wetland buffer on S.0 and the Wetland boundary on S 2.0). TB GROUP: NHBZ label updated on both plan sheets. Comment Number: 7 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please include a note on the site plan of the condition that any fencing installed around the oil wells shall not reduce the total open space of the development to less than 50 percent. TB GROUP: Note added to Area Coverage on Cover Sheet Department: Light And Power Contact: Austin Kreager, 970-224-6152, akreager@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 01/03/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Light & Power's nearest electric primary is located south of this proposed development at the intersection of Brightwater Dr. and Turnberry Rd. Those facilities will need to be extended to the north along the west side of Turnberry Rd. It may also be feasible to tie-in single phase power from the south west (Hearthfire Subdivision.) Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 01/03/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Light and Power would like to remind you that all of our facilities must have a ten foot clearance away from all water, wastewater, and storm sewer facilities. We also require a three foot clearance away from all other utilities with the exception of communication lines. Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 01/03/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply to this development. Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 01/03/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: 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. Acknowledged Comment Number: 5 01/03/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: You may contact FCU Light & Power, project engineering if you have questions. (970) 221-6700. You may reference Light & Power’s Electric Service Standards at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ElectricServiceStandar ds_FINAL_18November2016_Amendment.pdf You may reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at 9 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Acknowledged Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/21/2018: INFORMATION ONLY: 2018 IFC CODE ADOPTION: Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins (Town of Timnath, Larimer County) are in the process of adopting the 2018 International Fire Code. Code adoption is anticipated in early 2019. Building plan reviews shall be subject to the adopted version of the fire code in place at the time of plan review submittal and permit application. TB GROUP: Acknowledged Comment Number: 2 12/21/2018: INFORMATION ONLY: STREET NAMING: It is noted that Streets Royal Troon Ave, Kiawah and Bethpage Ct have been changed as requested by PFA 12-17-2017 TB GROUP: What have the above street names been changed to? Comment Number: 3 12/21/2018: FOR APPROVAL: HYDRANT: Per PFA comments dated 12-19-2017 the hydrant at Winged Foot Dr and E Douglas Road can be eliminated. It is still shown on the plan. It has been removed. Thank you. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 11 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Please revise the Benchmark Statement as marked. See redlines. Updated Comment Number: 12 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: The Basis Of Bearings statement should match the Subdivision Plat. Updated Comment Number: 13 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: The sheet index does not list all of the plans in the set. Comment Number: 14 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: All Benchmark Statements must match on all sheets. Benchmark statements now match Comment Number: 15 10 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Line over text issues were revised Comment Number: 16 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Some of the easement descriptions shown are incorrect. If they are going to stay on the plan, they should match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. If the easement did not portray information pertinent to the sheet the callouts were removed. No need to have them all over the place. Comment Number: 17 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Text over text has been revised Comment Number: 18 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please make sure all sheet number references are added. See redlines. Sheet number references have been added and updated Comment Number: 19 01/02/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Text has been masked Comment Number: 20 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are spelling issues. See redlines. Spelling issues have been resolved Comment Number: 21 01/03/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Text cut off has been revised Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Some of the sheet titles are incorrect. See redlines. TB GROUP: Sheet titles revised Comment Number: 6 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: The sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the sheet numbers on the noted sheets. See redlines. TB GROUP: Sheet index and numbers revised. Comment Number: 7 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: There are spelling issues. See redlines. TB GROUP: Spelling revised Comment Number: 8 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Remove addresses. With this project being platted, the current address could change. If an address has been assigned by GIS, we will need verification from them to allow the address to remain. TB GROUP: Addresses removed 11 Comment Number: 9 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. TB GROUP: Line over text revised Comment Number: 10 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. TB GROUP: Text masks updated Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: 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. Acknowledged Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: The sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the sheet numbers on the noted sheets. See redlines. TB GROUP: Sheet index and numbers revised. Comment Number: 3 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: Remove addresses. With this project being platted, the current address could change. If an address has been assigned by GIS, we will need verification from them to allow the address to remain. TB GROUP: Addresses removed Comment Number: 4 12/31/2018: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. TB GROUP: Line over text revised Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/17/2018: FOR BUILDING PERMIT: 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 TB GROUP: Acknowledged Department: Forestry 12 Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 1/9/2019: Continued: There do not appear to be any street lights shown on the landscape plan at FDP round 1. Please work with City Light & Power to determine street light locations and include them on the landscape plans. Adjust street tree locations to meet set back requirements; replace canopy shade trees with ornamental trees to ensure that there is a street tree placed every 30-40 feet (with exception to lots 50 ft and less in width). Canopy Shade Trees: 40 ft from street lights Ornamental Trees: 15 ft from street lights TB GROUP: Email sent to Light and Power 3/14 to coordinate street light locations. Lots are 50’, one tree will be provided per lot once street light locations have been established. In response to the applicant omitting trees at Bethpage and Winged Foot Drives, please see Forestry redlines. LS 2.0: Please note that trees can be as close to 20 ft from stop signs. This tree is set back >50'. Forestry comment 2 states that there was a tree less than 20 ft from the sign. It did not need to be omitted entirely. Please add this tree back if it is at least 30 ft away from the tree to the south TB GROUP: Conflict with traffic comment. Traffic recommends trees not be closer than 50’ to stop sign. Please advise which setback to comply with, will revise plan accordingly. Provide symbols for street lights and stop signs in the legend on all sheets. TB GROUP: Symbols will be added to plans once locations are established with Light and Power. 12/14/2017: Continued: Street lights pending – Forestry will review at FDP. There are a few trees that need to be eliminated or adjusted to meet the 20 feet separation from stop signs: - LS 2.0 – Linden on the east side of Bethpage Ct, just south of Douglas Rd - LS 4.0 – Bur Oak on the east side of Winged Foot Dr, just south of Douglas Rd 9/22/2017: Continued: Street lights pending. 3/17/2017: Show locations 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. TB GROUP: Conflict with traffic comment. Traffic recommends trees not be closer than 50’ to stop sign. Please advise which setback to comply with, will revise plan accordingly. Comment Number: 3 1/9/2019: Continued: Please confirm that all utilities (water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric vaults, fiber optic, etc.) are shown on all landscape sheets. There does not appear to be sewer, gas, and water utilities feeding the lots. 12/14/2017: Continued: Final utilities to be shown at FDP – Forestry will review at that time. 9/22/2017: Continued: 3/17/2017: Include locations of any water or sewer lines on the landscape plan. Please 13 adjust street tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation. 10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines 6’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer service lines 4’ between trees and gas lines TB GROUP: Utilities were mistakenly not shown on last submittal. Plans updated. Comment Number: 5 1/9/2019: Continued: Please note that lots greater than 60 feet or less should have street trees spaced 30 ft minimum and 40 ft maximum. There are still a few areas on the plans that have larger lots and very wide tree spacing. Please adjust. TB GROUP: All lots are 50’, one tree per lot will be provided per land use code. Additionally, tree lawns that are adjacent to open space tracts show tree spacing greater than 40 feet. Please adjust so that all street trees in these areas are 30-40 ft apart. TB GROUP: Plans updated to 40’ tree spacing where adjacent to open spaces. . 12/14/2017: Continued: Thank you for adjusting some of the ‘60 feet or less’ lots to have one tree. There are still quite a few lots that are 60 feet or less in width that have more than one tree in front. Please adjust so that all lots this size only have one tree. 12/5/2017: 9/22/2017: Continued: The majority of the lots are 60 feet or less. The LUC states that only one street tree per lot is required on lots that are 60 feet or less. The current plan does not incorporate this comment. TB GROUP: All lots are 50’, one tree per lot will be provided per land use code. If two (2) or more consecutive residential lots along a street each measure between forty (40) and sixty (60) feet in street frontage width, one (1) tree per lot may be substituted for the thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing requirement. Such street trees shall be placed at least eight (8) feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys, and forty (40) feet away from any streetlight and to the extent reasonably feasible, be positioned at evenly spaced intervals. TB GROUP: All lots are 50’, one tree per lot will be provided per land use code. 3/17/2017: According to Land Use Code 3.2.1 D2A, lots that are less than 60 feet require 1 tree to be planted. Adjust plans to show 1 street tree for each of these lots. TB GROUP: All lots are 50’, one tree per lot will be provided per land use code. Comment Number: 17 1/9/2019: Regarding the comment originating on 12/14/18, has a Certified or TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified) arborist been hired to perform an evaluation on trees #5, 7, 8, and 9? I should note that all trees that have a condition rating of Poor or Dead, including trees/tree groves #5, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18 and 19 should all be evaluated by a certified/TRAQ arborist. During FDP round 2, City Forestry would like to review a written report prior on safety and condition to determine if these trees should be removed. If these trees are deemed hazardous and 14 determined to be removed, mitigation for each tree should be determined by City Forestry and implemented on the landscape plans. TB GROUP: A certified arborist has not been hired to evaluate the above trees. Is this a requirement? On Sheet LS8.0, #16 Tree Grove appears to encroach property lot lines and sit on top of the trail. At least two of the southern-most trees appear too close to lot lines and potentially buildings as well. Other Cottonwoods closer to the trail should be re-evaluated as well if their condition is poor or dead. If these trees are deemed hazardous and determined to be removed, mitigation for each tree should be determined by City Forestry and implemented on the landscape plans. TB GROUP: A certified arborist has not been hired to evaluate the above trees. Is this a requirement? 12/14/2017: Please explain the planned use for the large open space at the southern portion of the property. City Forestry is concerned about some of the ‘Poor’ and ‘Dead’ condition trees, such as trees #5, #7, #8, and #9. A qualified arborist shall be hired to perform an evaluation on trees #5, 7, 8, and 9 and shall provide a written report on the safety and condition to determine if these should be removed. If they are to be removed, proper mitigation shall be implemented on the landscape plans. TB GROUP: Large open space to the south will be utilized as passive open space. A certified arborist has not been hired to evaluate the above trees. Is this a requirement? Comment Number: 18 1/9/2019: Continued: The existing tree schedule details 5 trees/groves to be removed, totaling the mitigation to 11 trees, not 46. Please update total mitigation numbers in the existing tree schedule and on previous landscape sheets. TB GROUP: Plans updated. 12/14/2017: The total mitigation underneath the “Existing Tree Schedule” should depict the number of mitigation trees required based on the trees to be removed on-site. After completing the changes proposed in comments 13 and 17, please update the total value of required upsized mitigation trees. In addition, please reflect the required number of upsized mitigation trees in the Plant List. For example, if there are 15 upsized mitigation trees, 15 trees must be specified at the following sizes: Canopy Shade Tree: 3” caliper ball and burlap Ornamental Tree: 2.5” caliper ball and burlap Evergreen tree: 8’ height Mitigation trees should be shown on the landscape plans using a bolded “M” or labeled with text. This helps the landscape contractor see where larger trees should be planted. TB GROUP: Plans updated. Comment Number: 19 1/9/2019: Thank you for adjusting the plant list from last round. Please review the following species recommendations and adjust the plant list to increase diversity of the urban forest. 15 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 on plan proposals. On this project, there are 41 Honeylocust and 48 Bur Oak proposed out of 342 canopy shade trees. Please omit all Honeylocust from the plan and significantly decrease the number of Bur Oak. Replace Honeylocust and Bur Oak with a combination of Chinkapin Oak, American Linden (include Boulevard, Legend, and Sentry cultivars), and Elm (include New Horizon, David, and Discovery cultivars). The quantity of Hackberry may be increased as well. Please include the following evergreen species to diversify the coniferous landscape and urban forest palette: Southwestern White Pine, Black Hills Spruce, European Larch, Baker Blue Spruce. Please omit Austrian Pine from the list as we have seen this species affected by Pine Wilt Nematode in recent years. Please significantly decrease the number of Colorado Blue Spruce in order to make room for different species. Please include the following ornamental species to diversify the ornamental landscape and urban forest palette: Japanese Tree Lilac, Spring Snow Crabapple, Red Barron Crabapple, Thunderchild Crabapple, Crimson Pointe Plum, Scarlet Letter Oak, Crimson Spire Oak. Please note that Saskatoon Serviceberry is more shrub-like and should not be specified in the right-of-way. Final plant counts will be confirmed by City Forestry during the next round of review. TB GROUP: Plans updated to reflect species recommendations. 12/14/2017: SPECIES SELECTION AND DIVERSITY - Rocky Mountain Maple is typically sourced in the Pacific Northwest and are not cold hardy. They are also not readily available in nurseries. City Forestry suggests using Canyon Maple, ‘Rocky Mountain Glow’ Bigtooth Maple, or several other ornamental species in place of all (66) Rocky Mountain Maples proposed on the plans. - Please increase the diversity of ornamental species by incorporating the following: Chanticleer Pear, Japanese Tree Lilac, Spring Snow Crabapple, Red Barron Crabapple, and Thunderchild Crabapple. - City of Fort Collins Forestry Division is close to reaching the maximum percentage of Honeylocust 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 on plan proposals. On this project, there are 71 Honeylocust proposed out of 343 canopy shade trees. Please significantly decrease the number of Honeylocust and incorporate additional Hackberry, Kentucky Coffeetree, Linden, and potentially add some Texas Red Oak. TB GROUP: Old comment, plans revised and addressed on 1st Round PDP. Comment Number: 20 1/9/2019: Continued: Please clarify what the parkway widths are on each street type (Douglas Road, Turnberry Road, and all internal streets). The parkway width requirement varies based on the street type. TB GROUP: Internal streets are local sections and have 5’7” parkway width. 16 Douglas Road has a 9’6” parkway width. 12/14/2017: How wide are the public street parkways? It is hard to measure exact width due to the small scale. TB GROUP: Old comment, see above. Comment Number: 21 1/9/2019: List the percentage of each tree species used and check for compliance with the minimum species diversity standard LUC 3.2.1 D 3. The percentages should derive from the total number of trees on-site (canopy shade, ornamental, and evergreen combined) which is approximately 651 trees. TB GROUP: Plan list updated with percentages. Comment Number: 22 1/9/2019: On Sheet LS8.0, please show all trees to be removed with a X over the symbol. On all other Landscape Sheets that show existing trees to be removed, please omit these from the plans. Only show existing trees that are remaining on-site. TB GROUP: Plan updated Comment Number: 23 1/9/2019: There is an existing tree symbol shown in the top left corner of sheet LS2.0. To the best of my knowledge, this tree was not inventoried, nor did it receive a mitigation value. I assume that this tree will be removed since it falls within the right-of-way. Please contact Molly Roche to receive inventory and mitigation information for this tree and include in the Existing Tree Schedule. TB GROUP: After reviewing the street view on Google Maps, this tree appears to be outside of the property line. We can verify, and if inside the project boundary, evaluate and/or assign a mitigation value. Comment Number: 24 1/9/2019: Please increase the scale to 1" = 30' or 40' minimum. The 50' scale is difficult to review precise distances and measurements. TB GROUP: In order to adjust the scale to 30 or 40, this would take a considerable effort. Is there an alternative solution for this project? Noted for future project scales and plans. Comment Number: 25 1/9/2019: The irrigated turf hatch only covers half of the right-of-way along Douglas Road. Please show irrigated turf in entire tree lawn/right-of-way. In addition, several parkways throughout the development are missing irrigated turf hatch. Please show irrigated turf in all tree lawns. TB GROUP: Plans updated Comment Number: 26 1/9/2019: Some tree symbols are shown encroaching or on the sidewalk. Please adjust all symbols to line up with the tree lawn. TB GROUP: Some symbols have a larger center component for graphic purposes. Trees are to be installed in center of parkway regardless of symbol. Comment Number: 27 1/9/2019: The Planting Details are hard to read due to size of text. Please increase type 17 size. It is okay to move this detail to a notes page instead of squeezing it on each sheet. TB GROUP: Planting details updated for better legibility. Comment Number: 28 1/9/2019: On sheet LS3.0 there are three trees along Douglas Road that appear to sit directly on top of a water line. Trees must be 6’ from water service lines. Please adjust tree separation from utility – possibly shift further to the east? TB GROUP: Utility plans updated Comment Number: 29 1/9/2019: There are a few locations on site that could incorporate additional plants such as shrubs, perennials, small maturing shade trees, and fastigiate tree species. Please see redlines and evaluate if there is indeed room for additional plantings. TB GROUP: Trees and shrubs added where feasible. Utility conflicts did not allow for areas not updated. Comment Number: 30 1/9/2019: Please provide the number of mitigation trees per species in the plant list. Please also call out the 3.0” caliper size for these mitigation trees. Example: ## Catalpa speciosa 2.0” caliper ## Catalpa speciosa (mitigation tree) 3.0” caliper TB GROUP: Plans updated Comment Number: 31 1/9/2019: A new requirement, “Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter” should be submitted to City Forestry and the Project Planner for review. City Forestry can provide a template letter for formatting reference. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. (Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation requirements. TB GROUP: Acknowledged Comment Number: 32 1/9/2019: 18 Please identify the land cover identified with a + symbol and include in the legend. TB GROUP: Hatching with + symbol is native grass as indicated in plant legend. City of Fort Collins upland mix is specified until soil sample is taken to confirm compatibility.