Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOX GROVE PHASE 2 - PDP190002 - 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 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview March 08, 2019 Klara Rossouw Ripley Design 419 Canyon Ave Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Fox Grove Phase 2, PDP190002, Round Number 1 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, Tenae Beane, at 970-224-6119 or tbeane@fcgov.com. RESPONSES 3.11.2019 CLIENT; NORTHERN ENGINEERING; RIPLEY DESIGN; CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES; DELICH Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: The developer should provide a public access easement that can accommodate a future regional trail. A 30-foot PAE should be shown on the plat and site plan and shall be included on the property. This was discussed with the CR plan and has not been shown or accommodated on any of the plans. I believe this would be different than the general access that is part of the Outlot descriptions. The easement should be extended around the northwest corner of the site as necessary to provide overlap with the trail easement provided with the Interchange Business Park Plat. The trail easement should be provided in a location that satisfies Parks and Engineering staff and any related standards. For example, the regional trail easement on the north side is shared with a water line. Confirm with staff that this is not an issue and that grading is not an issue. The conceptual alignment was adopted by the MPO Planning Council back in 2 March 2013, which included an affirmative vote from Councilmember Gerry Horak. The trail is also listed as a “Regional Trail Corridor Priority” on page 69 of the Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan. Response: A trail easement and cross section has been accommodated for on the plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Provide a lot typical setback and easement detail, similar to what was provided with Phase 1. Response: A typical detail is provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Landscape Plan: Tree locations provided in the NHBZ will conflict with the regional trail. Response: Tree locations have been adjusted to accommodate the future trail section. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Landscape Plan: More evergreen material should be provided if this is acceptable to environmental planning staff. Response: Additional evergreen material is provided along the natural habitat corridor where appropriate. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Landscape Plan: All turf notations should specify that this is sod. Show a planting detail for the sod planting, so that these areas get fine graded and to ensure that the sod is not installed too low. Response: Turf notations have bene changed to ‘SOD’. A sod detail was also added to the Landscape Notes and Details. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Landscape Plan: Trees should be shown along Vixen in the areas where trees have not yet been planted. Please confirm this is not a plan issue. Response: Trees are now shown along Vixen Drive. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Landscape Plan: Show street light locations, confirm locations with staff so that the tree spacing requirements can be confirmed. Response: Street Lights have been coordinated with Utilities and are now shown on the plans. Tree locations meet separation requirements. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Landscape Plan: Provide a fence detail (same as phase one) and clarify on the detail what the homeowners should build and to what common specification. Show on the lot or fencing detail where fencing can go in relation to easements, walkways, etc. Response: Fence detail now shown on a typical detail provided on the site details sheet. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: I need confirmation from GIS that the street names are acceptable. Additional names may be required. Response: Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR FINAL: Landscape Plan: We will need to have much more information on the plans (detail drawings and specifications) showing how the 3 native seed mix and sod areas will be planted, established, irrigated and regularly maintained. The drawings should also address how the grasses (or other planting in lieu of seeded grasses) will be established and maintained on slopes. Response: Details and specifications of native seeded areas will be provided at final. Response: A 30’ trail easement is delineated on the plans. This trail lines up with the adjacent trail easement to the north for a total easement width of 60’. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: See site plan and cover page redlines. Response: Site plan redlines received and incorporated into the revisions. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Add a note to the site plan notes clarifying that public access shall be allowed throughout the walkways provided on the plan. Signage shall not be allowed that limits access as private only. Response: Note has been added to the plans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR FINAL: Add pet waste stations to be provided and maintained by the HOA in appropriate locations. Response: Pet waste stations are provided on the Site Plan. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: Are the on street parking requirements for the cul-de-sac being met? Response: Off-street parking requirements are being met with this plan. Each housing model will provide a two-car garage. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2019 03/06/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: ADDED COMMENT: Need to schedule a meeting to discuss the location of the trail easement and likely alignment of the trail. Planning staff suggests that the current development's trail should be located in the same general place where the regional trail would go. Tree locations along the trail corridor may be too close. It will likely also be beneficial to provide more shoulder grade transition along the trail path in several locations. See redline comments and suggestions. An updated exhibit from the applicant and cross sections for this meeting will be helpful. Response: A meeting was held on 3/18/2019 to discuss trail connections/sections, and the relationship of the trail within the buffer zone. See updated plan for new location and grading plan that accommodates the new trail section. Response: Grading was updated to provide a minimum benched area of 18’ width (allows for future 10’ concrete trail, 4’ separator section, 4’ gravel trail) sloped at 2%. Due to the constraints of the existing pond, existing floodway and desire for trail to have gentle curvature (for bikes), the shoulder grading varies from 4:1 to 10:1 in the most constrained areas and 2% to 5% in less constrained areas. In the constrained areas we recommend that the 4’ separator section be removed from the trail section. This would allow for a 14’ wide trail section and 2 foot shoulders at 2%. Per Parks input, a 10’ trail section is acceptable in constrained areas. Additionally, we provide widened trail easement in the northwestern corner of the site for future rest areas, pull outs, viewing areas, etc. Lastly, we paired the trail easement on the northside of the site next to the existing adjacent trail easement for a total width of 60’ of easement, this will allow for more meandering of the trail if the City deems it desirable. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/07/2019 03/07/2019: PRIOR TO HEARING: ADDED COMMENT: Would like to see the landscaping along the connecting sidewalks changed from sod to a shrub planting bed. Would suggest a simple palette and large massings of 4 triangulated plant material with the plants arranged so that the sidewalk does not get crowded by plant growth. Design for the hearing can be a PDP level general design. Response: A simple landscape plan is provided with this submittal that includes a native palette. Differentiation between mulch and rock cobble will be delineated at final. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Morgan Uhlman, 970-416-4344, muhlman@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: Before Hearing: The parkway is not shown at the correct width on the utility plan sheets, they should be 7' in width not 6'. Response: Updated Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: Before Hearing: The waterline easement to ELCO that is shown as being vacated by the plat will need to be vacated by separate document. The easement should remain until the line is physically relocated. Response: Updated Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: Before Hearing: Most of the vertical curves for the roadway centerlines meet standards, there are a few that need to be lengthened. Response: Updated Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: For Information: Please see my redlines for clarification and smaller comments. Response: Please see redlines for responses. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR INFORMATION: The traffic study has been received and reviewed and the conclusions accepted. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: FOR HEARING: The pedestrian Levels of Service for destination to the north do not meet City standards. We understand when there are off-site constraints - but the TIS notes that "it is unlikely that a connection will be provided". Has an effort been made to explore the option or at least ask the question of the neighboring community? Response: An analysis and memorandum outlining the findings is provided with this submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 5 03/05/2019: FOR FINAL: We'll need to review detailed signing and striping Plans Response: Signage and striping will be provided at final design. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO SCHEDULING PROJECT HEARING. Unfortunately, the majority of Environmental Planning comments provided to applicant December 6, 2018 (CDR180088) have not been addressed fully or in some cases, have not been addressed at all. Similar comments were provided by City Environmental Planning in 2014 delivered to Ripley Design 3/18/2014 for Fox Grove including: "On the modification regarding allowing single family detached within Phase 2 of the project, it appears that some of the lots within the conceptual drawing are within the 100' buffer. Please be aware that this lotting plan will not be approved with the modification, and that only after an ECS has been received and evaluated with a future PDP can the buffer zone be established." Response: An addendum ECS has been provided and reviewed by Staff. A meeting was held on site as well to discuss points for wetland determination. A revised natural habitat buffer zone has been submitted with this round of review that considers the provision of native plantings, and off-site mitigation for the Boxelder Corridor has been proposed. Response: An ECS was provided to the City January 2019, and a revised ECS submitted on May 21, 2019. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Please note that several outstanding items need to be addressed including improved baseline data collection for: Boxelder Creek top-of-bank; edge of wetlands (soils, vegetation, hydrology); total acreage of adjacent wetlands. The standard setback is 100ft for Boxelder Creek from top of bank and/or edge of wetlands and the standard setback for wetlands greater than one-third acre in size without significant use by waterfowl is 100ft from edge of wetlands. Remove lots from 100ft buffers. Response: The revised ECS provided the results of the Boxelder Creek top-of-bank delineation and seasonally-appropriate wetland survey. No wetlands were found. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Repeat comment from 6 Dec 2018 states "Current site plan does not comply with stream corridor requirements or requirements related to wetlands greater than one-third acre in size; this will affect concept site plan as currently proposed". The site plan submitted did not change in response to this City staff comment. Applicant letter response mentions "using information in the ECS we applied the 100ft buffer requirement from top of bank to determine the required amount of buffer area within our project boundary", however, this appears to be inaccurate based upon drawings submitted and the site plan remains out of compliance with the 100ft natural habitat buffer setback for Boxelder Creek. The ECS data is currently incomplete, does not delineate top of bank and does not clarify total size in acres of wetland area(s) associated with Boxelder Creek and adjacent to proposed development site. 6 Response: A revised natural habitat buffer zone has been submitted with this round of review that considers the provision of native plantings, and off-site remediation for the Boxelder Corridor has been proposed, that will help enhance and preserve the natural feature. Response: The revised ECS provided the results of the Boxelder Creek top-of-bank delineation and seasonally-appropriate wetland survey. No wetlands were found. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Currently there appear to be two major flaws in the ECS submitted: 1) the location of top-of-bank does not appear to be entirely accurate as shown on current submitted plans; 2) a full wetland delineation does not appear to have been completed nor at an appropriate time of year during growing season (March-October) for such a high-value ecological resource such as Boxelder Creek and wetlands located within Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). The standard setback is 100ft for Boxelder Creek from top of bank and/or edge of wetlands and the standard setback for wetlands greater than one-third acre in size without significant use by waterfowl is 100ft from edge of wetlands. Remove lots from 100ft buffers. Response: The revised ECS provided the results of the Boxelder Creek top-of-bank delineation and seasonally-appropriate wetland survey. Wetland surveys conducted on May 14, 2019 during normal climatic conditions did not reveal the presence of any wetlands. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Repeat comment from 6 Dec 2018 related to ECS states "Please contact me to discuss the scope and requirements of the ECS further and/or to schedule an onsite meeting." Unfortunately, City staff were not contacted prior to ECS work including field work being completed and ECS report being submitted. The ECS document submitted is incomplete including potential absence of vegetative species relevant to wetland delineation including those having Facultative Wetland (FACW) classification based upon National Wetlands Plant List designation. On currently submitted datasheets FACW species were not included and this could potentially be an error based upon City staff onsite observations completed early March 2019. Response: S. Blochowiak (City Planner), K. Rossouw (Ripley Design), S. Thomas (Northern Engineering), and S. Benton (Cedar Creek) conducted a site visit on March 20, 2019 to discuss S. Blochowiak’s concerns with the first ECS and to clarify what she and the City requires. S. Blochowiak approved of the wetland sampling date of May 14 and was invited to conduct a site visit on that date, but was unfortunately not able to attend. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Complete full wetland delineation when ditches are running (mid-April to mid-May) for accurate hydrology indicator testing. Confirm wetland delineation approach with City staff prior to field work being completed. Response: Wetland survey was conducted mid-May (May 14) when ditches were running. The ditch that branches off of Boxelder Creek on the west side of the Fox Grove Phase II site actually removes the flow from Boxelder Creek downstream from the ditch headgate. Full flow on the entirety of Boxelder Creek was observed during the site visit on March 20. The wetland evaluation was conducted following the methodology described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region. To gain an understanding of the 7 hydrology, soil test pits were dug, dominant vegetation was observed, and hydrologic indicators were noted at each of the eleven soil test pit locations. Sample locations were selected in areas that presented the highest likelihood of meeting all criteria of a wetland, based on local topography and vegetative composition. Data was recorded on Corps of Engineers data sheets and photographs were taken to document site conditions at test pits and data sampling points. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Clarify how currently shown top-of-bank for Boxelder Creek was determined and when. Was the ecological consultant involved in delineating the top-of-bank? Are there pocket wetlands along the top-of-bank? Standard natural habitat buffer zone setbacks are measured from top of bank and edges of wetlands. Response: Cedar Creek was not involved in the top-of-bank shown in the first ECS dated January 2019. S. Benton (Cedar Creek) delineated the top-of-bank shown in the May 2019 ECS using methods and principles outlined by the Rosgen method, and results were confirmed by a site visit from B. Rosgen. No pocket wetlands were identified during the May 2019 wetland evaluation. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. An onsite visit should occur among City staff and applicant including Ecological Consultant. Currently this is scheduled for Fr 3/8/19, weather depending. Updated ECS information needs to be submitted including full wetland delineation based upon sample points and approach approved prior by City staff; ditches should be running during the delineation (thus mid-April to mid-May to capture accurate hydrology information). More sampling points needed as hydric soils are known to be in the area adjacent to this proposed development site. The ECS is due a minimum of 10 days prior to PDP submittal. An alternative would be to measure 100ft from edges of north and west parcel boundaries. Establishing the natural habitat buffer zone through measuring 100ft from the parcel boundaries on the north and west would ensure this proposed development project could meet Land Use Code 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features protection and mitigation standards through the setback and addition of appropriate habitat-enhancing plant material. Response: S. Blochowiak (City Planner), K. Rossouw (Ripley Design), S. Thomas (Northern Engineering), and S. Benton (Cedar Creek) conducted a site visit on March 20, 2019 to discuss S. Blochowiak’s concerns with the first ECS and to clarify what she and the City requires. A total of eleven wetland sample points were analyzed for wetland criteria, a number of which were selected by S. Blochowiak. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Note the Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 5 definition of Top of bank: shall mean the topographical break in slope between the bank and the surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank. Response: The top of bank for this study was identified following identification of the bankfull dimensions. The bankfull stage is the dominant channel-forming flow over time and has a recurrence interval of approximately 1.5 years. Bankfull flows may occur every other year or even several times within a year. Following identification of bankfull dimensions, the top of bank was determined by locating the first major break in the slope of the stream banks above the stream’s bankfull level. Pin flags were placed at the top of bank and recorded with a handheld GPS device. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. The updated ECS should 8 address all items (a)-(l) of LUC 3.4.1(D)(1) available for view online and specifically: 1) Provide reference to "Sensitive or specially valued species" and "Special habitat features" as identified by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department and per LUC Article 5 Definitions. Response: S. Benton could not locate a list defining the “sensitive or specially valued species” and “special habitat features” on the Natural Areas Department website or located by S. Blochowiak. However, no species observed on Site are considered special status (endangered or threatened) by USFWS or listed as sensitive species by CPW. USFWS’s Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool was utilized to ascertain the possible presence of federal special status species and analyze potential habitat. See the revised ECS (May 2019) for further details. 2) Include revised and field-informed top-of-bank for Boxelder Creek and edges of wetlands. Response: Provided in the revised ECS (May 2019). 3) Include full extent and total size(s) of adjacent existing wetland(s) in the form of acreage. Response: No wetlands were observed, therefore there is no acreage. 4) Include full extent and total size(s) of adjacent existing riparian vegetation in the form of acreage. Response: Acreages were not determined for herbaceous riparian vegetation, however a delineation of riparian forest was provided in the map included in the revised ECS (May 2019). 5) Include location of Salix spp., Genus and species designation, that is currently located within 15-20ft of existing soft trail as well as the soils and hydrology associated with this vegetation at this location. Response: The willows are coyote willow (Salix exigua), and likely extends up the slope from Boxelder Creek because of their location in a mini-draw that collects drainage flow from the upland. While coyote willow carries an indicator status of FACW and is one of the dominant species at the sample plot, the other dominant species (as well as minor species) were either FAC or FACU. As a result the vegetation did not meet either the Dominance Test or the Prevalence Index requirements for hydrophytic vegetation. The soil did not meet any primary or secondary hydric soil indicators (although the Riverwash soil type, classified as hydric by NRCS was encountered below 10 inches of depth). Three secondary hydrology indicators (B6 – Surface Soil Cracks, B8 – Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface, and D2 - Geomorphic Position) were observed and thus indicating the presence of wetland hydrology, however it is quite possible the indicators were the result of abnormal hydrology due to a blocked culvert (observed March 20, 2019) backing surface water up on to lower reach of Boxelder Creek. All three criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology) must be present to be considered a wetland. More details can be obtained in the revised ECS (May 2019). 6) Provide mapped extent of active black-tailed prairie dog burrows on and adjacent to site (west). Response: The revised ECS provides the extent of the black-tailed prairie dog colony on the Site, which encompasses 0.39 acres. The on-Site colony is an extension of a larger colony located immediately to the west, but likely experiences limited use due to the Site being inaccessible to the larger colony for most of the year when Boxelder Creek is flowing normally. The prairie dogs gain access to the Site when Boxelder Creek is dry when its flow is diverted in to the ditch. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Clarify how currently shown top-of-bank for Boxelder Creek was determined and when. Was the ecological consultant involved in delineating the top-of-bank? 9 Response: Cedar Creek was not involved in the top-of-bank shown in the first ECS dated January 2019. S. Benton (Cedar Creek) delineated the top-of-bank shown in the May 2019 ECS using methods and principles outlined by the Rosgen method. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/06/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. Clarify whether it is possible the ecological consultant could perhaps have overlooked existence of Phalaris arundinacea in the areas within 50-100ft of the proposed development site? Response: Phalaris arundinacea, or reed canarygrass, was overlooked by the consultant during the first field efforts (December 2018) due the senesced state of vegetation. The May 2019 field efforts yielded a more accurate picture of the vegetative communities, including the presence of reed canarygrass. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/06/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND SUBMITTAL. There is a steep drop-off to the north of the proposed project parcel boundary along Boxelder Creek meander(s). Note LUC 3.4.1(H)(1-2): (1) Ridgeline Setback. So that structures blend more naturally into the landscape rather than being a prominent focal point, no development shall intrude into any ridgeline protection area identified in conjunction with the establishment of the LOD and the buffer zone. The designated ridgeline protection area shall include the crest of any hill or slope so designated, plus the land located within one hundred (100) horizontal feet (plan view) on either side of the crest of the hill or slope. (2) Building Height and Profile. Multilevel buildings shall follow the general slope of the site in order to keep the building height and profile in scale with surrounding natural features. Response: The 100’ ridge line setback was applied to the top of bank delineation to the north of the boundary line. The house footprint will not reach within the 100 foot ridgeline setback. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO SCHEDULING HEARING. Projects in the vicinity of major stream corridors including Boxelder Creek must also comply with Section 3.4.1(I)(1) of the Land Use Code, which states the following: "Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors, including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor, shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques such as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner that scenic views across or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities are screened from off site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area. These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any aboveground utility installations." Currently City staff does not support the design approach as it is not visually complementary to the Boxelder Creek context including setback from meander and ridgeline setback from steep drop-off north of the proposed project parcel boundary. 10 Response: With the proposed lot layout, the footprint of the buildings on the lots to the north will not be within the 100’ ridgeline setback. Architecturally, the homes will each feature one of 12 multi-colored earth-tone color schemes created by a professional design firm. The homes will include stained wood brackets and corbels along the roofline in accordance with the above color schemes as well as architecturally interesting use of shake siding and board and batt siding elements. Additionally, the required fencing design cedar wood which will tie to the wood features of the home and provide a natural blend to the surrounding landscape. An ‘Architectural Color Palette’ is included in this submittal for review. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2019 03/04/2019: INFORMATION ONLY. Boxelder Creek is a significant ecological resource in the City of Fort Collins GMA similar to that of both Spring Creek and the Cache la Poudre River. Currently as proposed City staff does not see how this proposed development project can meet City of Fort Collins LUC 3.4.1 standards for LUC defined natural habitats and features, specifically, the 100ft setback from top of bank for Boxelder Creek and 100ft setback for wetlands greater than one-third acre in size without significant use by waterfowl. Response: The applicant team recognized the important of the Boxelder Corridor, and believes that the proposed plans will help enhance, protect, and add value to the corridor, that would otherwise not be memorized or negotiated. Response: An accurate top-of-bank delineation and wetland evaluation conducted at a seasonally-appropriate time (mid-May), conveyed in the revised ECS (dated May 2019), provides the necessary information to aid proper planning of the development to insure protection of Boxelder Creek and other valuable natural resources of the City. Department: Forestry Contact: Nils Saha, nsaha@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND OF PDP Thank you for including a landscape plan and forestry notes. Any reason as to why there are no proposed trees along the west side of Vixen Dr. (in front of lots 44-47)? Response: Trees are now shown along Vixen Drive. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND OF PDP Forestry has spacing guidelines to ensure newly planted trees have adequate space as they grow. We generally recommend 30-40 feet between canopy shade trees, 20-30 feet between coniferous evergreens and 20-30 feet between ornamental trees. Please ensure all proposed trees meet the above guidelines. Ex: shade trees proposed in front of lot 4 & 5 are approximately 20 feet apart. Response: The proposed tree layout has been revised to reflect the above guidelines. Please see updated plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2019 03/04/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND OF PDP Please ensure that the following separations are provided between trees/shrubs and utilities/traffic signs: 40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES 6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM 11 SEWER SERVICE LINES. 4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES Additionally, please note that in order to minimize obstruction of regulatory traffic signs, trees should be planted at least 50 feet from the nearest stop sign. Response: Separation requirements, as well as setback from Stop sign is accommodated for. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2019 02/26/2019: PFA has no further comments at this time. All are resolved. >The two hydrants are noted on the plan in appropriate locations. >The Emergency Access Easement from Foxgrove Phase 1 to the Sunflower Community will remain in place until the connecting road is built to Prospect. Response: Thank you. Yes, the EAE on Sunflower will remain in place until the road is built to the south. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: FOR FINAL - In 1.C (Floodplain), There are no buildings proposed within the floodplain, so notes 4, 5, and 6 are not necessary. Response: Updated Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: FOR FINAL - On all applicable sheets; along the western boundary of the property, the boundary should be noted as a floodway boundary, not flood fringe. Response: Updated Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: FOR FINAL - Please remove Floodplain Notes 4,5, and 6 on the Drainage Exhibit. Response: Updated Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: FOR FINAL - Please add cross sections---including stationing and elevations---as well as BFE lines to this sheet. Response: We will provide at final. Topic: Drainage Report Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: FOR FINAL - In 1.C (Floodplain), The Boxelder Floodplain LOMR 12 has been approved, so there is no need to reference it now. Just refer to the FEMA regulatory floodplain, and the report title, dated, etc. as would be done for any other property in a floodplain. Response: PLEASE SEE REVISED REPORT Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: FOR FINAL - In 1.C (Floodplain), Please include a FEMA FIRMette in the report, and reference it's location. The property must be outlined in red within the FIRMette. Response: NOW PROVDED, PLEASE SEE REVISED REPORT Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 02/28/2019: FOR FINAL - Along the western boundary of the property, there is a floodway bounday. What is shown as the flood fringe should be labeled floodway. Response: Updated Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 02/28/2019: FOR FINAL - Please make the floodplain boundary more distinct. It is hard to distinguish between it and other lines along the southern edge of the property. Response: Updated Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/28/2019 02/28/2019: FOR FINAL - Along the western boundary of the property, the boundary should be noted as a floodway boundary, not flood fringe. Response: Label revised. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/01/2019 03/01/2019: FOR FINAL - A detailed lot grading plan will be required. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Light And Power Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tsiegmund@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Light and Power has conduit stubbed at the Fox Grove Dr and Vixen Dr road extensions for phase II. Light and Power will extend conduit and electric facilities in the parkway to feed phase II. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this development. Please contact me or visit the following website for an estimate of charges and fees related to this project: 13 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees Response: Updated Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Streetlight placement on public roads will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Shaded trees are required to maintain 40 feet of separation and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of separation from streetlights. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting requirements can be found below: http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Ch15_04_01_2007.pdf Response: Street light locations have been coordinated and street trees are adjusted to meet separation requirement. Response: L&P provided a street light design. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the site plan, utility plans, and landscape drawings once approved. Response: Noted. Response: CAD was provided. L&P has started their design. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: INFORMATION: Please contact Tyler Siegmund with Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 970.416.2772 Please reference our policies, construction practices, development charge processes, electric service standards, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at FDP. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/27/2019 02/27/2019: 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. Response: All comments have been addressed. 14 Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Boxelder Sanitation, HBrian Zick 970-498-0604, Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2019 03/05/2019: The District hereby advises as follows: --There is no objection to this proposal. 1) For Final Platting the following needs to be submitted. a. Sanitary Sewer plan and profiles b. Services line locations for all lots c. BSD standard notes and details d. BSD approval blocks on all utility sheets The District has adequate capacity to service the property referenced above. The District is in full compliance with federal and state water quality requirements. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Response: Thank you.