Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD FOURTH FILING - FDP190009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPage 1 of 22 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 May 10, 2019 Katy Thompson Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Waterfield Fourth Filing, FDP190009, 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, please 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, Cedar Creek Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO APPROVAL/NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW: With the final details of the sidewalk circulation provided, we’d like to discuss ways to improve the convenient and direct routes associated with the FDP. In particular to the school site and to private walkways along Suniga. Response: Per our meeting on 5/17 and previous conversation with Ted Sheppard, the location of the future school’s access point is unknown based on recent conversations with PSD. In addition, the applicant desires to maintain a more naturalistic trail around the wetland which we believe is better achieved through a crushed fines surface. Additional access points to the school would be provided along the concrete sidewalks and bike lanes that follow the street layouts shown on the site plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO APPROVAL/NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW: In some scenarios with the lot typicals, driveway depths are less than 20 feet, such as 15, 13, and 11 feet adjacent to the alleys. The concern here is that Page 2 of 22 tandem parking will overhang and conflict with alley access to the 20’ alley. Response: The concern here is understood. Cases throughout the site where the driveway is a length that may result in vehicles overhanging into the alley will be addressed and managed through the HOA. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW, Elevations: Provide more complete final information for the elevations. All four sides of each building type must be provided with consistent linework shown and callouts or table indicating the general specifications of each material used. Response: Please note that all elevations have been revised (and corrected) based on a combination of City planning department comments as well as coordination review meetings. Each architectural style – 2 Story Modern Farmhouse, 2 Story Prairie, 3 Story Transitional, and 3 Story Contemporary, now show 4 sided elevations as well as revised material callouts and color tables to specifically eliminate ‘line over text’. Low porch railings are recommended on all elevations to provide transition and privacy. Response: Thrive Homebuilders acknowledges and agrees on the need for a semi-private space on the townhomes (single family attached) and believe this is accomplished with the low fencing along the front property lines. Open front porches are preferred as an architectural design feature/aspect. In conjunction with the open front porch area, we believe this creates an enclosed semi private space for residents to enjoy their front yard space while minimizing physical barriers between the porch and the front yard area, further encouraging the indoor/outdoor lifestyle of these units. Staff has concerns with the materials shown on the elevations and lack of information shown regarding elevations. Additional comments will be provided with the final comment letter and will likely be necessary when more finalized plans are provided. In general, the elevations provided should be consolidated in to finalized elevations and are at PDP level. Response: Please note that all elevations have been revised (and corrected) based on a combination of City Planning department comments as well as coordination review meetings to further understand the comments and implement corrections and revisions where needed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO APPROVAL: A note will need to be provided and finalized on the planning set for the affordable housing requirement. This will also go in the DA. Response: Based on feedback from Planning, the following note has been added to the FDP submittal on the site plan “Affordable Housing Notice: For affordable housing requirements, refer to approved City of Fort Collins Resolution # 2019-051.” Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW: On the fence details, provide general information regarding the stain color. Also some of the details indicate a clear sealant and others indicate a stain. Response: The fence details have been revised to indicate a stain on all elevations. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW: Page 3 of 22 With the crosswalk detail, can there be more information provided with the detail to clarify that these are intended to be raised crosswalks. Response: As discussed in our meeting on 5/23, the enhanced crosswalks which cross an alley will not be raised due to the fact that all alleys have an inverted crown section and a raised crosswalk would impede drainage. The crosswalks will be designed; however, to create a continuous surface between the adjacent sidewalk and won’t create a break in grade for pedestrians crossing the alley. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO APPROVAL: Standard notes on the site plan are not current. Please update these on the plan with the current notes on the city submittal requirements page. Notes 14 and 15 can be adjusted as necessary and should indicate that medians in Meadow Blvd. will be maintained by the HOA or metro district. Response: Standard notes have been updated. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO APPROVAL: All street names must be confirmed/approved by GIS. I am checking on the status of that. Response: All street names have been confirmed with Todd Reidenbach with the GIS dept. Those approved names are now being shown on the site plan. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO APPROVAL: Cash in lieu APF agreement will need to be finalized and approved by city prior to submittal of final mylars. Response: Acknowledged. Thrive Homebuilders understands that the APF cash in lieu dollar amount has been finalized and will now become incorporated into the final Developer Agreement between Thrive Homebuilders and the City of Fort Collins. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW: Appear that the scope and details for the building designs have changed from what was proposed at the hearing. Would suggest a meeting to discuss this and to walk through a game plan for finalizing the final plans. Response: A meeting was held on 6/7 to review the revised elevations and a game plan was established. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: NEXT ROUND OF REVIEW: Appears that building setback reductions are proposed. This is not an issue but more design documentation is needed on the plans to address this. Response: A table has been added to the Cover Sheet indicated the proposed setbacks. Setbacks are now labeled on the site plan enlargements. Page 4 of 22 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Kyle Lambrecht, 970-221-6566, klambrecht@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: INFORMATION ONLY A portion of the Suniga Road right-of-way (ROW) which will be dedicated to the City as part of this project is eligible for reimbursement through the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Program. The City is interested in finalizing this value to expedite the ROW reimbursement. Please contact Kyle Lambrecht, the City’s Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Manager, at 970-221-6566 to discuss. Response: Acknowledged. We have met with Kyle Lambrecht in regards to the TCEF Program and will continue to work with the City of Fort Collins in order to finalize a reimbursement amount related to portions of the Suniga ROW that will be documented and incorporated into the final Developer Agreement. Contact: Spencer Smith, 970-221-6603, smsmith@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL The full half ROW for future Turnberry will need to be dedicated along Tract O, along with the standard utility easement (15-foot). Where the ROW ties into the existing Conifer Street ROW, it should be dedicated to match what is on the south side of existing Conifer (see redlines). Response: Utility easements have been dedicated along with temporary access easement with this plat. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL Please submit a variance request as soon as possible for the street sections that vary from City standards. These have not yet been provided. These sections need to be vetted and approved before moving forward with final design. Please see redlines for typical section comments. Response: Variance requests have been submitted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL The elevated bike lane and sidewalk intersection transitions will need to be revised. I will provide some details of how the City is designing those transitions with our Capital Improvement Project. We will need a separate ramp for pedestrians to cross, rather than routing them into the bike lane to use the same ramp. Response: Ramps have been revised to match the example you attached to your redlines. Thank you for that. Page 5 of 22 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL The Suniga elevated bike lane needs to be concrete, rather than asphalt. Response: Callouts have been revised to say concrete instead of asphalt. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL The proposed sidewalk along Suniga will need to connect to existing walk on the south side of Timberline and proposed on the north. Bike lanes should be connected where possible as well. The future realignment of Timberline will not happen in the near future, therefore the interim designs should provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. UPDATE: Per our discussion during the staff review meeting, I think that using a portion of the on-site sidewalk as the pedestrian connection between Timberline and Suniga makes sense. Please up-size that portion of on-site walk to 6' (see redlines). Response: Connectivity from Suniga to Timberline during the interim conditions has been met. Sunigas sidewalk is now connected to the Bull Run sidewalk to the south and there is access through a 6’ sidewalk to the north along Timberline. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL The proposed sidewalk along Timberline needs to connect to the existing bridge near the northeast corner of the site. Response: Sidewalk now connects to the existing bridge Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL Pedestrian crosswalks should not be shown across Suniga. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/08/2019 05/08/2019: FOR APPROVAL Ultimate Vine Dr. improvements for the north half of the roadway, adjacent to the site will need to be designed and constructed with this project. Please include plans in Utility Plan set with next submittal. We will want sidewalk, curb and gutter, etc. with this project. Response: Vine Drive is now being shown in the utility plans. However, these designs will need additional work to reflect the changes that were discussed on the meeting on 6.17.2019. We will continue to work with the city to make sure that the new culvert design Page 6 of 22 will not have any adverse impacts on Waterfield 4th’s design. As of now these sheets have been revclouded with notes explaining the situation. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL It might make sense to have a street section meeting to discuss all the variances and atypical sections. Please work with the Development Review Coordinator (Todd Sullivan) to schedule a meeting with Engineering, Traffic Ops & FC Moves. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are several storm pipes that have less than minimum cover (see redlines). Response: A variance request has been submitted within the drainage report to address this issue. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Provide information in the utility plans for the 15' access road and retaining walls. Response: Additional spot labels have been included in the grading plan. See site plans for additional retaining wall information. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please make sure that you are showing and calling out all proposed and existing easements on all plans. Also, use the correct description when labeling/calling out an easement (refer to the plat as the standard). Response: Labels have been updated to reflect the actual call outs Response: Labels have been updated on the site and landscape plans to match the plat. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please use the correct name for Suniga Road (Suniga Drive is used on some plans). Also, Old Vine Drive should not be used in place of E. Vine Drive. Response: Street Names have been revised Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT SUBMITTAL Page 7 of 22 Please submit the required ROW vacation request and supporting documentation for the on-site ROW vacations as soon as possible. I would like to get all of the documents ready and take it to City Council soon enough to avoid having it delay the project. Response: This is being prepared we will work directly with staff to determine which documents are required. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL The median tract use designation should cover all uses (landscaping, irrigation, etc.) but I don't think they should be public access except for the two (OO and SS) that have pedestrian crossings through them. Response: Median tract designation covers all uses and Tract OO and Tract SS have additional pedestrian access designation. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL What uses are allowed in Tract 'J' of Waterfield 3rd Filing? It sits right where the standard 15' utility easement would for the south side of Suniga. We need to make sure that the 15' utility corridor is able to function as intended. We may need to include this tract in this replat to make sure it is designated for utilities. Response: Tract J is not a part of the 4th Filing therefore the designation will remain the same ass the 3rd Filing. It will be maintained by the HOA or Metro District. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Remove the erroneous grade labels on all profile sheets. Response: These labels have been vetted to make sure they are calling out the correct surface. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are two medians in Street D that have corners (see street redlines). Can you round these off a bit with a small radius, similar to standard median design? Response: Corners have been rounded off Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL See street p&p redlines for various geometry and profile comments, etc. Response: Street geometry has been revised per your redlines Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 Page 8 of 22 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL The angle of intersection between the ultimate Timberline Road and Suniga Road exceeds the allowable tolerance. This needs to be adjusted to be within 10 degrees of perpendicular. Response: Variance request has been submitted for this situation. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Some of the dimensions for Timberline Road don't match standards or your typical sections (see street redlines). Response: Additional information will be provided. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Consider some striping or other way to make it clear that the "extra" portion of asphalt along Timberline Road at the Street D intersection is not for an accel lane or parking. Response: Additional striping has been included Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Can you provide some supporting documentation for what you base your alley vertical curve lengths and K values on? Our design speed for alleys is stated as 15 mph, but the vertical curve length tables only go down to 20 mph. A lot of your curves don't quite meet the 20-mph standard, but since the design speed is lower than that, you are probably fine. I just would like to have some documentation that supports your values. Response: Per our engineering judgment we believe these curves to be adequate. These are private alleys and therefore out of the cities purview. These alleys are essentially drive lanes into a parking lot so we anticipate speeds to be around 10 mph. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are some areas that look like drainage may be an issue on some of the alleys and in street intersections (see redlines). Response: Labels were not referencing the correct area. Thanks Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please add speed limit signs on your on-site signing and striping plans that reduce the speed on the elbows that do not meet connector local centerline Page 9 of 22 geometry standards (per previous discussion with Engineering). Response: Internal sign plan has been created and now shows all speed limit signs, stop signs, and street names. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL We'll have signing and striping redlines for T-Line and Suniga. Response: Thank you for providing us these redlines Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL Can you please add a signing and striping sheet (or 2) for the internal areas? The signing is shown in the plan/profiles, but these are such short sections of road, it is very difficult to get an overall understanding when there are 30+ sheets to review. Once we get those sheets, we can review internal striping. Response: Internal striping and signage plan has been added Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR APPROVAL Can you please call out the signs on the landscape plans? We need to ensure that street trees are at least 50 ft from stop signs to ensure visibility. Response: All stop signs have been called out on the landscape plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Fee in lieu amounts for APF and off-site improvements will be forwarded shortly. Response: Acknowledged. Thrive Homebuilders understands that the APF cash in lieu dollar amount has been finalized and will now become incorporated into the final Developer Agreement between Thrive Homebuilders and the City of Fort Collins. Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: UTILITY PLANS: FOR APPROVAL Please include the City of Fort Collins Tree Protection Notes on the Utility Plans. The best place for these notes would be on the demo plan sheets. In addition, Page 10 of 22 please show existing tree locations and identify trees to be removed with a X over the symbol. Trees to retain should be clearly shown. Please refer to the landscape plan for the tree removal details. Response: We coordinated with Ripley on existing tree removal and now our plans reflect the exact and same tree locations and the same removals. Added tree protection notes to demo sheets. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL Continued: The distance between street trees should be approximately 30-40 feet. Ornamentals can be spaced 20-30 feet apart. Currently the distance is on average ~50 feet or greater (ex: sheet 16). I am wondering if the scale is off. Currently, you show a 30 ft scale, but it looks like it should be closer to a 20-ft scale. If it is in fact a 30 ft scale, then tree spacing from other trees and utilities throughout the development will need to be modified to meet standard separation. Space between street lights and canopy trees can be tightened in certain cases (ex: Sheet 16). The required distance from a street light is 40 feet from canopy trees and 15 feet from ornamental trees. Some trees do not have proper utility separation (Sheet 17 example with sanitary sewer line, sheet 20 for example of electric vault). Similarly, please ensure that trees are placed proper distance away from proposed driveways (~8 feet). Response: The scale has been updated to match the sheets (20 scale). Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL Continued: Thank you for including site distance triangles to the landscape plan. Please see Forestry redlines to modify a few tree placements within site distance triangles. See example on page 23. Response: Landscape plan has been updated per Forestry redlines. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL Continued: Did the applicant receive confirmation from the Greeley Water District that this tree separation from their water line is adequate? Possibly unrelated, but there is a line that runs through the center of the Suniga Median. If this is a utility line, please label it. Response: Yes, confirmation was received from Jamie Boelstler at the City of Greeley that a 40’ separation from their Page 11 of 22 water line was adequate. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL The tree mitigation table shows 31 trees, while the tree inventory includes only 28 trees. Where did the additional three trees comes from? Please show on plans with correct DBH, condition, and mitigation value available from City Forestry. Response: The mitigation plan has been updated to match the table. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL After consulting with Assistant City Forester, Ralph Zentz, it was brought to my attention that English Oak and Heritage Oak will not survive long-term. Please remove these two species from the plan and increase the number of Chinkapin Oak and Shumard Oak. Response: English Oak and Heritage Oak have been removed from the landscape plan and we have increased the Chinkapin and Shumard Oaks. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL Ornamental trees should only be used only when there isn’t adequate space for a canopy shade tree in the parkway. For example, sheet 16 shows three chanticleer pears on Merganser Dr., but there are no apparent utility conflicts that would necessitate ornamental species in this stretch. Please replace ornamental trees in right of ways with shade trees when space allows. Please also note that canopy shade trees must encompass at least 50% of all trees on-site. Right now, the development is just shy of this requirement (currently 49.1% of trees are canopy shade trees). Response: Tree species have been updated to reduce the number of ornamental trees to ensure 50% of trees are canopy. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please provide street labels on all landscape sheets. Please also indicate private alleys if it is not a public street. Response: Street labels have been added to all landscape sheets and alleys have been indicated as private. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL In some cases, the Tree Species Diversity Table does not match the number of trees or correct species names in the plant list. Please update the quantities and species names to reflect what is proposed in the plant list. Response: The Tree Species Diversity Table has been updated to match the plant list. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 Page 12 of 22 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL Regarding the note that states: COTTONWOODS IN DETENTION AREA ALONG VINE TO RANGE IN SIZE FROM 5 GALLON TO 2” CALIPER, please note that the minimum size for canopy shade trees is 2” caliper B&B. On another development plan submittal, 1”-3” cottonwood groves were approved to accommodate a naturalized look. If this is the objective of this area, please directly label which trees are 1”, 2” and 3” caliper as well as update the plant list. Response: The landscape plan has been updated to show 1”-3” cottonwoods in the detention area. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL On sheets 16, 17, 18, 19 there appears to be a very small planting space (less than 4 feet in width in some cases) that has ornamental trees proposed. I am not sure if trees are feasible in these locations as the tree would encroach the private property lot lines or fences(?). Smaller shrubs, ornamental grasses, and perennials might be more appropriate in these locations. Response: The plan has been updated to remove the ornamental trees. Smaller shrubs as well as narrow upright junipers have been added in their place. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please defer to the project planner, Jason Holland, regarding incorporating additional trees along private alleys. Lots 51-57 (sheet 16) – is the applicant not required to have designated parkways and street trees? Response: Per 6/18 email, additional trees are not required along the alleys; however, we have incorporated additional planting along alleys in places where we have the additional 5’ strip to add visual interest to the alleys. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL There are currently 8 existing trees along Merganser. On your plans, you propose new trees and the existing trees are not included in the tree inventory. If the existing trees are in good condition and the right of way is not altered, the existing trees should stay in place. If these trees are planned to be removed, please incorporate existing tree inventory and mitigation information on the plans and removal justification in the Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter. Response: The approximate location of these existing trees are now being shown on the plans. These trees are proposed to remain. The Existing Tree Removal Feasibility letter has been revised to reflect one tree that was missing from the previous letter. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/7/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please increase trees (shade trees and ornamentals only – no evergreens) and other landscaping between the homes and sidewalk along the south side of Suniga Road. This is in regard to the condition of approval. Please consult project planner, Jason Holland, to understand the reasoning behind this request. Response: Landscaping has been enhanced along the south side of Suniga to buffer the townhomes from Suniga Drive. Page 13 of 22 The approach taken is to have a layered screening effect with canopy/ornamental street trees, then an additional row of ornamental trees, followed by large and medium shrubs within the private lots. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 5/6/2019: FOR APPROVAL Will all existing overhead powerlines be undergrounded? If so, please show locations of buried electric lines. Response: The overhead powerlines along Vine Dr. are being undergrounded. We have labeled this on the landscape plan. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 05/08/2019 5/8/2019: FOR FINAL APPROVAL Please note that Traffic Operations and Forestry would like to see street trees spaced 50 ft from stop signs. Currently, the standard is 20 feet from stop signs, but due to many visibility issues throughout the City with trees and signs we are hoping that 50 feet provides enough room. Response: We have revised the street tree layout to provide 50’ separation from trees to stop signs. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Stephanie Blochowiak, 970-416-4290, sblochowiak@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN (FDP) APPROVAL. Much work is still needed to finalize naturalistic engineered fore-bay design in areas included in the main/largest natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) area to treat water 50% (minimum) prior to water entering the protected wetland area. In addition, more naturalistic design improvements needed in south detention area engineered along Vine Dr, for example, through combination of more grade contouring and addition of plant material in the form of 1-3-inch caliper cottonwood trees and 5 gallon native shrubs. Response: Additional steps have been taken to naturalize the detention area including the addition of more/larger Cottonwood trees ranging from 1”-3” caliper, the creation of a curvilinear transition between native unmoved grass and mowed native grass to give the perception of a more substantial grade contouring, and the addition of 5 gal. shrubs along the edge of this transition to greater enhance this contouring and provide additional habitat to the area. Response: We have discussed this in depth with Wes Lamarque and we believe we have now arrived at an agreed upon design for the forebays that Wes is in agreement with. In regards to the naturalistic design improvements for the south detention area, please see the revised plan for this pond. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN (FDP) APPROVAL. All Natural Habitat Buffer Zone areas must be delineated and labeled on the site, grading, utility, and landscape plan; add NHBZ to utility plans. All sheets showing the NHBZ must also have the following note: "The Natural Page 14 of 22 Habitat Buffer Zone is intended to be maintained in a native landscape. Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." This will help preserve the intention behind the buffer zones and the natural features into the future. Response: NHBZ has been labeled on the site and landscape plans. Per discussion about note on every utility sheet showing NHBZ: Applicant team can label Natural Habitat Buffer Zone clearly and do not abbreviate it as NHBZ on utility plans and with comment "see note (insert number) on cover sheet for allowable uses) - in lieu of full not on every sheet. Full NHBZ note must be included on cover sheet for utility plans. Response: NHBZ line is called out on plans see C0.00 for NHBZ note. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: INFORMATION ONLY. Thank you for submitting with Rd 1 FDP the Waterfield Wetland Restoration Plan dated April 2019. Weed management and habitat restoration is key to this natural habitat buffer zone feature to meet LUC 3.4.1 performance standards. The submitted report is comprehensive. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Regarding the Waterfield Wetland Restoration Plan dated April 2019. Weed management and habitat restoration is key to this natural habitat buffer zone feature to meet LUC 3.4.1 performance standards. Please clarify: a. the vegetation quantification will be done using line-point intercept method (see Herrick et al. 2017)? Response: Correct, the point-intercept (also known as line-point) method will be used to insure accurate, unbiased cover estimation. The method will be implemented with specially designed laser bars to increase efficacy and efficiency. See attached ‘Point Intercept Methodology’. b. weed management of Canada thistle will begin immediately once project receives Development Construction Permit issuance (DCP)? Response: Weed management of Canada thistle will begin with the commencement of the first phase of site plan development. Noxious Weed Treatment, including the elimination of Canada thistle will be in accordance with consultant recommendations and more specifically, per City of Fort Collins approvals as referenced in the Developer Agreement. c. p2-3: seeding will also not occur when conditions are too dry (e.g. July, August). Response: Correct, the goal of seeding in late winter and/or early spring is to plant during ideal planting conditions (suitable moisture, appropriate temperature ranges, soil conditions, etc.) and to avoid problematic conditions (i.e., too dry). d. p2-4: please include information on each species selected in seed mix as warm or cool season - may consider one or two cool season grasses and/or a nurse crop species that can germinate in spring. Page 15 of 22 Response: The seed mix table has been updated in the report to include the requested information. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Regarding the Waterfield Wetland Restoration Plan dated April 2019. This document will be included as an exhibit in the Waterfield Fourth Filing DA in addition to information submitted for overall natural habitat buffer zone(s) expectations and success criteria for security release. Response: Acknowledged. Wetland Restoration Plan will be included as a relevant exhibit in the Waterfield Fourth Filing Developer Agreement. Please add a figure illustrating scope of natural habitat buffer zone wetland area(s) to the Waterfield Wetland Restoration Plan. Response: A figure has been generated, and it has been included in the report and attached. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Note that the DA will include an exhibit illustration of all natural habitat buffer zone area(s) - most likely the Natural Habitat Buffer Plan sheet (11 of 58 in this submittal). The DA will include City staff written information for overall natural habitat buffer zone(s) expectations and success criteria for security release. Response: Acknowledged. Exhibit illustration of all natural habitat buffer zone areas will be incorporated into the Waterfield Fourth Filing Developer Agreement. Acknowledged that the DA will include written information for overall NHBZ expectations and success criteria as related to the release of securities. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. City Environmental Planner is drafting Natural Resources section of Development Agreement and is open to discussing special language providing some flexibility in success criteria required for the experimental grassland meadow plant community features included in the main/largest Waterfield natural habitat buffer zone area. Response: Acknowledged. Developer Agreement language has been received and is being reviewed. Flexibility in determining success criteria is appreciated and Thrive Homebuilders will continue to work with the City of Fort Collins Environmental Planning Department in order to finalize the Developer Agreement. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: INFORMATION ONLY. THANK YOU for selecting 3000K or less LED light fixtures and supporting City Night Sky Objectives. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: OTHER AGREEMENTS. City Environmental Planner would like to discuss potential covenant restrictions to include in HOA documents regarding expectations for natural habitat buffer zone area(s) management expectations, for example, that mowing of areas could occur 2-3 times per year and no more to manage weeds, encourage native plant growth and manage aesthetics. Response: Thrive Homebuilders is agreeable to potential covenant restrictions thru either the HOA or via the approved Waterfield Page 16 of 22 Metropolitan District to ensure the long term care and management of the NHBZ. Additionally: will there be pet waste stations and management? It will be important to keep pet waste out of the wetland and upland areas in particular. Response: The location of pet waste stations has been added to the site and landscape plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: FOR DCP. Please submit to Environmental Planning cost estimates for securities for installation of natural habitat buffer zone area(s) site prep (e.g. weed management), labor and materials in addition to cost estimate for wetland establishmaent and monitoring for three years (minimum). Once the estimates are approved and Environmental Planning receives the two securities at 125% cost then we can sign off on DCP issuance. Response: Acknowledged. Thrive Homebuilders has sent the relevant proposed cost information to Stephanie Blochowiak in Environmental Planning for review. City staff would like to discuss Waterfield Fourth Filing participation in new securities release phasing plan incentivizing certain steps and outlining "pathways to release." Response: Acknowledged. Thrive Homebuilders is open to discussion in regards to participating in new securities release phasing plans in reference to the NHBZ. Department: Light And Power Contact: Luke Unruh, 9704162724, lunruh@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: INFORMATION ONLY Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any necessary system modification charges will apply at owners’ expense. Please see the Electric Estimating Calculator and Electric Construction Policies, Practices & Procedures at the following link: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers Response: Acknowledged. Thrive Homebuilders has run the Electric Development Fee Estimating Calculator found online. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/29/2019 04/29/2019: PRIOR TO NEXT ROUND I recommend that a Utility Coordination meeting be held to discuss the separation requirements with other utilities. L&P only requires 3 ft separation from other utilities, however other utilities’ clearances are not met in some locations. Please work with Todd Sullivan to coordinate these meetings. Response: Luke, thank you for all your help this round to get these separations issues resolved. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/09/2019 Page 17 of 22 05/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please change the electric running line to the parkway. In the alleys the running line should be where the vaults are placed. Response: Linework has been updated Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/09/2019 05/09/2019: FOR APPROVAL Please show all the streetlights on the landscape plan. Some streetlights are missing. Response: All street lights are now shown on the landscape plan. Department: Park Planning Contact: Suzanne Bassinger, 970-416-4340, sbassinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/02/2019 05/02/2019: FOR FINAL: The developer is to provide a permanent barrier on the north side of the private walk adjacent to Lots 15-21 to prevent the opportunity for short cuts or social trails; the barrier cannot be located within the trail easement. In areas where fill would be required to construct the trail in this area, the final grading must be constructed with the project within the Public Access and Trail Easement. Final grading must meet trail design guidelines. No retaining walls, fences or other obstructions shall be allowed within the easement in this area. Response: Per our conversations a barrier wall is being installed outside of the easement. Final grading is also being shown as well as final grade for the trail. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/02/2019 05/02/2019: FOR FINAL: Grading Plans. For areas where the Public Access and Trail width is less than 50 feet wide along the north parcel boundary, the grading plans should include cross sections every 50' and show a trail alignment in conformance with regional trail design guidelines (including a minimum 3'level shoulder on each side). The cross-sections show include grading within the easement, placement of the 10' wide trail, and the location of a barrier or retaining wall between the private walk and the easement. No obstructions, barriers or retaining walls can be placed within the trail easement, and should be constructed with the project, outside of the easement. Response: A new sheet has been included to show these cross sections. (This is the same design that was presented to you a few weeks ago). Thank you for working with us on getting this final design completed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/02/2019 05/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: Thank you for working with Park Planning & Development to assure a regional trail can be constructed within the trail Page 18 of 22 easement, especially in the area where a significantly restricted easement width has been granted to minimize impacts to the development. Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, 970-416-2599, arosen@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/06/2019 05/08/2019: >After the meeting at the PFA offices 5-7-2019, the hydrant locations are all verified and correct. >There will be no parking in the Alleys >There will be no parking allowed on Meadow Boulevard or Blue Vine Boulevard in the areas where aerial access is required for the 3 story townhomes. >PFA will be included in phasing plans regarding access and hydrants 05/06/2019: The EAEs, including the Clubhouse Drive, are noted on the Site Plans. Thank you. No further action needed for EAEs. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/01/2019 05/01/2019: FOR FINAL: Please submit an Erosion Control Plans based upon the returned redlines to meet City Criteria. Response: Redlines have been addressed. See attached response to redlines for additional content. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/01/2019 05/01/2019: FOR FINAL: Please resubmit an Erosion Control Report based upon the returned redlines to meet City Criteria. Response: SWMP will be resubmitted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/01/2019 05/01/2019: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Please re-evaluate the site and create a phased escrow calculation to allow for escrow release for various phases of construction as corresponding areas are completed. Please submit an Erosion Control Escrow / Security Calculation Page 19 of 22 based upon each phased area, these areas should be based on construction order of the entire project, and on areas that are going to be seeded vs areas that are going to be landscaped. Response: Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: The forebays that are planned to partially treat storm water before entering the wetlands need to be designed. There was no discussion in the text of the drainage report or any design information. A meeting is needed to determine what design philosophy will be agreed upon and how the design will meet the early discussions and expectations of mitigating the inflow to roughly a 50% level of treatment. Please work with Todd Sullivan to coordinate this meeting. Response: We have discussed this in depth with Wes Lamarque and we believe we have now arrived at an agreed upon design for the forebays. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: The southern detention pond needs additional contour variations along the southern slope to achieve the natural look and to meet the Detention Pond Landscape Standards. Please revise. Response: As per Environmental Planning comment #1, above, please see the naturalistic design improvements for the south detention area, please see the revised plan for this pond. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: Please provide HGLs for all storm sewer profiles. Response: Please see revised plans. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: The minimum slope was not met for a few storm sewers. Please revise. Response: Please see the Variance Request now provided in the drainage report Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2019 05/07/2019: INFORMATION ONLY: The storm sewers designed not in the ROW will be privately owned and maintained. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/10/2019 05/10/2019: Please revise the text in the drainage report to state that 100% of the southern 32 acres is being treated with extended detention water quality which is __% of the entire site. Also, please clarify what percentage of the Page 20 of 22 entire site is being treated by the forebays and wetland. Response: Please see the revised drainage report. Basins have been slightly modified and the 32 acre number has been revised. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged and corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please revise the Benchmark Statement on all sheets as marked. See redlines. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please remove all reference to "Old Vine Drive". Now that Suniga Road has it's name, Vine Drive's name will not change. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are sheet numbering issues. See redlines. Response: Updated. Page 21 of 22 Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are matchline/stationing issues. See redlines. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response: Updated. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Updated. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged and fixed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged and fixed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: 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: Updated. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 Page 22 of 22 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: Please revise the main title as marked. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged and fixed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: The legal description is not necessary. The title serves as the legal description, since the plans are for the whole area being platted. Response: Acknowledged and fixed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged and fixed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/13/2019 05/13/2019: FOR APPROVAL: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response: Acknowledged and fixed.