HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS FIFTH FILING - PDP190018 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSCity of
Fort Collins
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
May 08, 2020
John Beggs
Russell + Mills
506 S College Ave
Unit A
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing, PDP190018, Round Number 3
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing. If you have questions about any
comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your
Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at 970-224-6119 or
via email at tbeane@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Tenae Beane, 970-224-6119, tbeane@fcqov.com for Brandy Bethurem Harras
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2019
11/27/2019-. INFORMATION:
I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and
permitting process.
If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers,
or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist
you and your team.
Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep
me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you!
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/27/2019
11/27/2019: INFORMATION:
As part of your resubmittal you will respond to the comments provided in this
letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format.
Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your
submittal, using a different font color.
When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as
environmental consultant to determine how to best enhance existing wetlands to
provide increased function and structural/species diversity.
TEAM: Per an additional meeting regarding the SW wetland — additional planting has been added to plans
to demonstrate enhancing the existing wetland in place. Weed treatment will be occurring prior to
construction to get a 'head start' on wetland enhancement in this area. Team (RMS/Galloway and
Environmental consultant) has worked together to demonstrate the intention for wetland enhancement in
the SW portion of the site. In regards to the stormwater runofff into the wetland area —that was discussed
to help potentially mitigate the loss of water in the area with the diversion of the ditch through this area.
Further analysis of the wetland has begun on site and further refinements will be made in order to retain
and enhance the SW wetland area.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/04/2020
05/04/2020: FOR HEARING:
Enhancements to Wetlands 2 will need to be coordinated with Environmental
Planning, Parks and NAD to ensure they meet mitigation, access/maintenance
needs.
TEAM: Comment noted. We are coordinating with Parks and NAD on the improvements needed to their
infrastructure surrounding Wetlands 2 and are awaiting issuance of the Letter of Intent.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
Thank you for providing a Wetland Monitoring Plan. Staff disagrees with the
evaluation that a detention pond can adequately fulfill a 1:1 replacement in
function of seep wetland. This will have to be corrected in the plan, and an
enhancement approach of existing wetlands should be included in this plan.
Enhancements should be robust to ensure mitigation is adequately addressed.
Team: The wetland mitigation diagram has been updated to outline the areas of enhancement. The
design team will still plan on enhancing the detention areas to provide areas of enhancement for the
project. The wetland mitigation plan outlines that we have fulfilled the requirement of mitigating for the
wetland in the S W area of the site.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING
Please refer to redlines on wetland mitigation plan for discussion. More
information will be required in the areas proposed as mitigation to ensure they
meet the intent of 3.4.1.
TEAM: Areas of enhancement have been identified on the plan and are detailed further on the landscape
plans. These enhancements include pollinator gardens along the trail running NIS in the site, areas of
mid -story planting within existing tree groves at the NW portion of the site, mid -story planting within the
detention areas and within the SW wetland.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-24189 wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
05/04/2020: AT FINAL COMPLIANCE:
Coordination will be required with Stormwater Utility, Environmental Planning,
and the Development Team on Landscape goals and design of the detention
basins to ensure all criteria is being met including any type of natural feature
mitigation.
Galloway: We are coordinating landscaping goals and natural feature mitigation within the detention ponds
10
with Environmental Planning and will collaborate through FDP. Refer to the Utility Plans and Landscape
plans for latest grading and improvements/mitigation associated with the ponds.
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Additional discussion is required regarding the ground water report. City
Criteria states that the bottom of a detention basin needs to be 2 feet above the
ground water surface elevation.
This requirement could be varied if it is determined that the basin bottom will be
designed for wetlands.
Coordination with Environmental Planning and Stormwater Utility is needed to
determine how the detention basins will be designed and landscaped.
Galloway: Based on groundwater information provided within the geotechnical report, estimated
groundwater elevation has been compared to the finished grade of the proposed development. Pond
bottom elevations have been set to be above at least 2' above the modeled groundwater elevations. We
will continue to coordinate with Stormwater and Environmental staff, as needed, if ongoing monitoring of
groundwater dictates a need for wetland mitigation within pond bottoms.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/04/2020
05/04/2020: FOR HEARING:
The Stormwater Utility has learned that there is another interest and existing
easement for the Robert Benson Lateral with the City Parks Department. A
drainage easement will need to be obtained from City Parks for the northern
outfall. Maintenance access will also need to be provided.
Galloway: Comment noted. Required easements, including drainage and access are being sought with
coordination between the design team and Parks/NAD staff. A maintenance agreement has been
discussed and will be required as part of the approval of the FDP. The required NAD easements and
improvements are called out within the PDP. We are awaiting issuance of the Letter of Intent from NAD.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/04/2020
05/04/2020: AT FINAL COMPLIANCE:
On the western end of the Robert Benson Lateral, three storm sewer outfalls
enter this area at a grade that is higher than the bottom of the channel which will
be an erosion issue. Mitigation for this will be required and will be reviewed at
final compliance.
Galloway: These outfalls have been adjusted to discharge closer to the channel bottoms. As requested by
Natural Areas, we will work with them and Stormwater Engineering on required erosion control measures
with FDP.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
05/05/2020: by hearing:
On sheet C4.6 a cross section was added from the CDOT US287 EOS. The
cross section shows the standard cross section, however it along with the plans
themselves do not appear to show the 25 foot offset that occurs along the
property (see next comment.) Please consider that the dedicated right-of-way
11
line is extremely difficult to follow on the plans along with the sidewalk. The
Landscape Plan does not label any of the various lines shown. On the Utility
Plans, the existing right-of-way is most prominent on Sheet 4.6 but is not
consistently labelled between the two views on the sheet (the bottom view I think
identifies "Existing Edge of Right -of -Way but points to the existing edge of
pavement?) Proposed right-of-way should be just as prominent as existing.
Existing and proposed sidewalk should be shown and labelled with widths.
Galloway: This plan has been revised to clearly demonstrate the future right-of-way and proposed
improvements along and adjacent to the right-of-way. A section has been added to the plans set showing
the atypical section along the 287 R.O.W. This shows the proposed, ultimate, and existing conditions.
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
I'm unable to form any conclusions to gain an understanding of how the ultimate
cross section is accommodated on the plan. There isn't a cross section on the
cover sheet of the civil set, and the existing/proposed full width right-of-way of
College Avenue isn't being depicted on the plans to correspond with the cross
section. The sidewalk itself doesn't appear to correspond with the property
line/right-of-way, and the sidewalk itself isn't labeled for width, along with the
parkway based on the ultimate section.
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
Please provide an exhibit showing that the sidewalk along US287 is being
constructed in the ultimate location in accordance with the US287 EOS 144'
cross section (57th St. to Harmony Rd.). It does not appear that the existing
sidewalk and curb/gutter were built in the ultimate location. Please include
interim and ultimate widths for vehicle and bike lanes, and parkway. We want to
ensure that the sidewalk and trees are put in so that the roadway can be
widened in the future. If the sidewalk cannot be placed in the ultimate location
horizontally and vertically, an interim sidewalk may be installed and a payment in
lieu for the full cross section (pavement, curb, gutter, parkway, sidewalk) will be
collected. We also want to make sure that trees are not planted in a location
which will conflict with the widened cross section.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
05/05/2020: by hearing:
By my review, I do not see any reflection of a 25 foot offset in right-of-way to the
west and unless I'm interpreting the EOS incorrectly (or receive OK from CDOT
in what is proposed instead), the comment is considered unresolved. 144 feet
of total right-of-way is shown in the EOS. 72 feet is the half street width without
an offset. With the 25 foot offset, the right-of-way would need to widen to 97 feet.
At most, it appears the right-of-way from section line gets as wide as 75 feet.
Galloway: A 22' centerline offset has been agreed upon by CDOT The plans and plat have been updated
to show this right-of-way/easements dedication and to show the sidewalk at its ultimate location. We will
continue to seek feedback from staff and CDOT regarding the preferred means of addressing the ultimate
position of the sidewalk along 287.
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
The comment response indicated that EOS was considered outdated by CDOT
and would need to be revised. I reached out to Tim Bilobran with CDOT and he
indicated he would email the applicant confirming the 25 foot offset
12
requirement, with the input that the study may be considered old, but was still
relevant. The offset is still a requirement of CDOT and would need to be
accommodated for in the design.
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
Please dedicate right-of-way on US287 to the ultimate location per the 144'
Environmental Overview Study cross section. A link to the document can be
found here:
https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/US287EOS/eosrepogjanuary2007.pdf/at_
download/file
Please note that on Page 108 of the study that a transition to shift the roadway
approximately 25 feet to the west occurs partially along the frontage. We'll want
to ensure that this is taken into account and that CDOT has reviewed the
development proposal to indicate whether conformance to the plan is being met
(or accept a modification to the plan accordingly).
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
05/05/2020: by hearing:
Carried over as unresolved. The response indicated that the design engineer is
working with the ditch company to obtain a notice of preliminary acceptance,
which does not appear to have been provided at this time.
Galloway: We are continuing to coordinate with the Ditch Co. and their Legal Representation. We are
currently awaiting determination of their review and issuance of the LO1.
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Have we received a letter from Louden Irrigation for their OK in concept to the
plan? This is required prior to a hearing.
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
The plans appear to show work being done to an existing ditch owned by
Louden Irrigation Ditch. It appears that the civil construction plans would need a
signature block from the irrigation company, also the plat may need to have
Louden Irrigation Ditch signing as well.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
05/05/2020: by hearing:
The comment response referenced notes were added to the existing conditions
and demo sheet. I see notes referencing the removal of the drive approach on
Triangle. It does not appear to be shown for the drive approach on College.
Galloway: Comment noted. There was some confusion as to which drive cut was being referenced on
College. There is one farther south (not adjacent to our property) that was incorrectly called out to be
removed. As requested from Parks and Natural Areas staff, the existing approach on College, just north of
the Robert Benson Lateral, will remain in place to provide required access for maintenance of the Robert
Benson Lateral by Parks/NAD crews
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
The comment response indicated agreement to close these driveways however
the information isn't shown on the plans.
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
The existing curb cut on US287 (south of where the existing sidewalk ends)
should be replaced with vertical curb. Similarly, the drive approach off of
13
Triangle Drive that's no longer being utilized should be removed and replaced
with vertical curb.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
05/05/2020: information only:
The submitted signed/stamped variance request has been granted as of the
date of this comment. Please allow this comment to serve as the indication of
the approval.
Galloway: Comment noted.
03/03/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
The submitted variance along with the confirmation info from Traffic that this will
be a stop control intersection, would support the granting of the submitted
variance request. Please provide a final signed and P.E. stamped request to
complete the variance request.
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
Street plans: the vertical curve on Field View south of Avondale does not meet
minimum length requirements and the tangent length between the intersection
and pc also does not meet standards (LCUASS 7.4.1.A.2.a requires 100'
tangent between intersections and curves). Please look into this and provide a
variance request if this cannot be met.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
03/03/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN:
This comment will remain active until it is addressed.
Galloway: Comment noted. We will provide the signing and striping plan with the FDP.
12/03/2019: FOR FINAL
Please plan to submit a signing and striping plan. Stop signs should also be
shown on the landscape plan - ensure that there are no trees planted within 50 ft
of the approach to a stop sign to ensure sign visibility.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
12/03/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
The DA will need to address specifics (timing, construction, funding etc) on the
signalization of College / Triangle. No certificates of occupancy can be granted
until the signal is in place.
Galloway/GK: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
05/05/2020: UPDATE:
Calculations have been completed, and based on the available federal funding
for the capital project, and developer contributions from Capital Expansion
Fees, no further financial contribution will be required from Ridgewood Hills 5th.
Galloway/GK: Commentnoted.
14
12/03/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
The project will be required to contribute a proportional contribution towards the
College / Trilby capital improvement project. In coming submittals, we can work
with you to identify the impact from this development, and the expected fee in
lieu.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR FINAL
Please see redlines - includes comments on locations of sidewalk ramps and
diagonal parking comments, etc.
Galloway: Comment noted. Sidewalk ramp locations have been updated per discussions with the
reviewer.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR FINAL
The submitted signal sheet is very basic, and will need a lot of additional
information and design. Comments will be coordinated with City Traffic
Operations signal staff, and CDOT.
Galloway: Comment noted. This generic plan has been removed from the plans.
expected to be submitted to City staff and CDOT following submittal of this PDP.
coordinate with staff on approval of the signal plan.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
A signal plan is
The traffic engineer will
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/06/2020
05/06/2020: FOR HEARING
ELEVATIONS - I will need the applicant team to provide an exhibit to accurately
quantify building heights for the 3-story townhomes. While some elevations
suggest portions of these buildings are at or below 30 feet in height, it's clear
other architectural portions exceed 30 feet in height. In order to verify these
products meet IFC D105 requirements for Aerial Apparatus Access, I need
assurances that a minimum of 50% of the roof is accessible (i.e. at or below 30
feet).
Arch: Please refer to the provided exhibit, RIDGEWOOD HILLS TH BLDG HEIGHT PDP 2020.06.03.pdf.
design modifications have been made in order to get the majority of roofline below the 30' height threshold.
There is a chart included for each elevation style and plex configuration, each of which shows we're
exceeding the 50% target.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/06/2020
05/06/2020: FOR FDP APPROVAL
FIRE LANE SIGNAGE - A fire lane signage detail has been added to the plans
but I wasn't able to locate an exhibit noting the location of fire lane signs.
> Fire lane sign locations should be indicated on future plan sets.
> Signage also required at the fire -only access connection between Strasburg
Drive and the southern most multi -family building.
> Refer to LCUASS detail #1419 for sign placement, and spacing.
15
Galloway: Comment noted. Fire Lane Signage and striping will be provided on the Signage and Striping
Plan to be submitted with FOP.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 05/06/2020
05/06/2020: INFORMATION ONLY
EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT - Labeling: For consistency sake, please
label Tract L on page 3 of the Plat.
Galloway: Tract L has been labeled on the plat.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/06/2020
05/06/2020: INFORMATION ONLY
Follow-up to PFA comment recorded on 03/03/2020:
GROUP R-2 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS - Multi -family R-2 Group apartment
buildings (eg. A-24, A-42, & A-48) require full NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. Per
local amendment, 13-R systems are only allowed under the following conditions:
> Exception 1: M-F units with six (6) or fewer dwelling units per building will be
allowed to install 13-R fire suppression systems provided the units are
separated by one -hour construction (walls & floors).
> Exception 2: M-F units with seven to twelve (7 - 12) units per building will be
allowed to install 13-R fire suppression systems provided the units are
separated by two-hour construction (walls & floors).
> Exception 3: Or as otherwise approved by the building department when
buildings can provide flat roofs and with no unfilled void spaces (TBD on a
case -by -case basis). Contact the building department to approve this option.
GROUP R-3 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS - Group R-3 attached single-family
units (eg. townhomes) require a fire sprinkler system and building separation
per local amendment. Please contact the building department with questions.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
05/05/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN: Still keeping this one active as I don't know if
this would alter your site plan for HEARING. See comment number 10.
Galloway: The transformer locations are called out on the Utility Plan sheets.
03/02/2020: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Keeping this one Active, as this site is very constrained and it looks like it will
be difficult to find locations for electric equipment and still maintain clearance
requirements from other utilities.
12/02/2019: FOR FINAL PLAN:
Transformer and meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power
Engineering. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for
installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front
clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. When located close
i[
to a building, please provide required separation from building openings as
defined in Figures ESS4 - ESS7 within the Electric Service Standards. Please
show all proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
05/05/2020:
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING -UPDATED: Utility Coordination was held. Just
noting that neither XCEL Energy or COFC Stormwater were in attendance. Still
see areas with not enough separation to allow for electric vaults and maintain
required clearances from Fort Collins Loveland water and sewer services. At
Longmont St. & Fieldview Dr. along the curve there is no room, with the
driveways, to install a transformer and maintain clearance requirements.
Galloway: Please reference the Utility Plan sheets for the transformer locations. For the townhomes
(Fieldview & Longmont) it is proposed that a vaulted transformer serve two townhomes, where necessary.
Water and Sanitary services have been adjusted to accommodate
03/02/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED:
Highly Recommend a utility coordination meeting to discuss utility conflicts. In
many areas the electric cannot meet the clearance requirements of the Water
and Storm Utilities. Especially on the private drives, but even on the public
drives there many areas where it will be problematic to install vaults, streetlights,
secondary boxes, etc.. and meet clearance requirements from water and sewer
services.
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
There seem to be quite a few areas where maintaining clearance requirements
from other utilities will be problematic. For instance, Storm water is in the
parkway or encroaching on the parkway in many places and the proposed utility
easements don't seem to account for all of the utilities and clearances.
Coordinating transformers, vaults, secondary boxes, and streetlights early in the
process will be needed.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING: Please show proposed transformer locations for
all of the apartment buildings and the clubhouse. Most likely, on the four larger
buildings, two transformers will need to be set, one at each end of the building
depending on where you place your meters. Please show these proposed
locations so we can see that they meet our transformer requirements and meet
all required clearances from wet utilities. Thank you.
Galloway: Please reference the Utility Plan sheets for the transformer locations. The apartment building
meters will be banked on only the east side of the buildings.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR FINAL: Please field locate and show on the plan set all
existing electric facilities, including vaults, along Triangle Drive adjacent to this
site. We want to know what may have to be relocated due to new curb cuts and
street extensions. Thank you.
Galloway: We will coordinate those facilities along Triangle Drive with the FDP.
Department: Planning Services
17
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
05/08/2020: A Modification of Standard is required for 3.5.2(F) for the
townhomes located on the south side of Longmont Street. Please reach out to
staff with any questions.
RMS: The modification has been submitted.
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING and DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
Garage doors lining Longmont Street near the south edge: a modification of a
fundamental standard limiting garage doors to 50% of a building's frontage will
probably be needed.
Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, kkleer@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
12/03/2019 FOR FINAL PLAN:
Water conservation. the landscape plan will need to include a water budget
chart that shows the total annual water use which cannot exceed an average of
15 gallons a square foot for the landscape. Please delineate hydrozones
according to this section. 3.2.1(E)(3)
Refer to LP100 for the hydrozone calculation table.
Parking lot perimeter landscaping. a minimum of one tree per 40 feet is
required within the 5-foot parking lot perimeter setback area. 3.2.1(E)(4)
The final landscape design will address the perimeter setback requirements, we will work with staff during
FDP to ensure the intent of the code is being addressed.
Additional landscaping is required around all parking lot perimeters to block at
least 75% of light from vehicle headlights. Screening should be emphasized
where parking areas are adjacent to street frontage and consist of a wall,
planters, earthen berm, plant material, or a combination of such elements.
These elements must have a minimum height of 30 inches and extend a
minimum of seventy percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot
and 70 percent of the lot that abuts any nonresidential use.
The planting design will be fully developed during FDP, planting will be placed along the perimeters to block
at least 75% of the light.
Parking lot screening. The plan set should depict the parking lot screening as
seen along streets and street -like private drives. Keep in mind that plant
material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its
winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular
use area to be screened.
The planting design will be fully developed during FDP, planting will be placed to appropriately screen the
parking lot.
Parking lot landscape islands. Parking spaces cannot span more than 15
parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape
peninsula. There are several instances around the proposed multi -family
it]
buildings where the project does not meet this requirement. 3.2.1(E)(5)
The parking lot islands have been added to meet the 15 parking spaces maximum.
Please provide calculations for interior parking space landscaping. The
standard in this section requires at a minimum landscape area of 6% for all
parking lots with less than 100 spaces and 10% for all parking lots with 100
spaces or more. Within this internal landscape area at least one canopy shade
tree per 150 square feet is required.
The calculations for interior parking space landscaping has been provided on LP100.
Regarding 3.2.1(E)(6) Screening, building elements with low visual interest such
as garages, trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks and
blank walls must be screened on all sides except where an opening is required
for access. Please add additional landscaping around trash enclosures, ramp
extending from college into site and along the rear side of the garages that front
College Avenue.
The planting design will be fully developed to meet the intend of LUC 3.2.1(E)(6). Screening along College
Ave. will need to be coordinated with CDOT and Staff as the planting areas are within the Utility
easements.
Regarding Tree Preservation and Mitigation. it appears that most of the
mitigation trees will be located in the ROW is there any opportunity to provide
the mitigation trees as evergreens along the College Avenue frontage? 3.2.1(F)
The mitigation trees have been updated to provide a diversity of trees, including evergreens along the
wetland enhancement area, and along College Ave.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
05/06/2020 FOR HEARING:
All lighting associated with multi -family, townhomes, and duplexes will need to
be demonstrated on the plan. This includes but is not limited to, building wall
packs, parking lots, walkways, plazas or the landscape. Please include fixture
details as well as photometrics.
RMS: The plans have noted that all building mounted lights shall be full cut off down directional and
meeting all dark sky regulations.
Arch: A general note has been added to the building elevation sheets, stating "LIGHTS, ONCE
SPECIFIED, WILL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS. ALL BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING SHALL
BE FULLY SHIELDED, DOWN DIRECTIONAL, AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT."
Building mounted lights (wall packs) are now shown on the multi -family building elevations at the main
building entrances.
Townhome buildings shall include exterior lights at the garage doors as well as primary entry and
porch/patio doors.
Detached garages and clubhouse building are now showing proposed building lights in select locations as
well.
As stated previously, porch and patio lights are not included in the photometric calculations as these
fixtures are independently controlled by the residents and therefore cannot be factored into the site design
as it would be an inconsistent source.
12/03/2019 FOR HEARING:
Lighting: In the model elevations there appears to be lighting mounted to
residential units that is not represented as part of the lighting plan. Please
provide notes or specifications for the proposed lighting to ensure that it is fully
19
all comments should be thoroughly addressed.
Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments
have not been addressed, when applicable.
Please avoid using acknowledged, noted, or other non -descriptive replies.
Comment Number: 4
11/27/2019: INFORMATION:
Comment Originated: 11/27/2019
This proposed project is processing as a Type 2 Project Development Plan.
The decision maker for Type 2 is the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff would
need to be in agreement the project is ready for Hearing approximately 3-5
weeks prior to the hearing.
I have attached the 2020 P&Z schedule, which has key dates.
Comment Number: 3
11/27/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Comment Originated: 11/27/2019
When you are ready to resubmit, please make an appointment with me at least
24 hours in advance. Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with
Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week.
Department: Parks
Contact: Aaron Wagner,
Topic: General
aawagner@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 18
03/18/2020: FOR HEARING:
Comment Originated: 03/18/2020
Please show the existing floodgate and associated pipe from the Louden Ditch
to the Benson Lateral. The floodgate needs to meet the City of Fort Collins
requirements. Any proposed changes to this infrastructure need to be
coordinated with and approved by the ditch owners.
Galloway: The development team met on -site with City staff, including members from parks, natural areas,
environmental planning, and forestry to discuss the changes to the infrastructure associated with the
Benson Lateral. The plans have been updated to call out the changes to this infrastructure. Please refer
to the grading plans and utility plans for this information.
Comment Number: 19
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING:
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
The development would appear to require modifications to the Robert Benson
Lateral Ditch (ditch), which is owned and used by the City (though Natural Areas
and Parks) and another water user. The development would also deliver
stormwater into this ditch. These aspects of the development thus trigger the
need for an agreement with the Natural Areas Department (NAD) that will cover;
1. Ditch Crossing; 2. Ditch Modification; 3. Ditch Maintenance; 4. Stormwater
Discharge. The NAD Easement Application is the process for creating the
agreement for these elements. Dave Myers (dmyers@fcgov.com) from Natural
Areas along with Jill Wuertz Owuertz@fcgov.com) from Parks will guide the
applicant through the easement application process.
Galloway: Comment noted. We are coordinating with NAD on the easement application and agreement.
The Preliminary Utility Plans have been updated to show the extents of the drainage easement, crossing
easement, and improvements herein. We will continue to work with NAD staff for submittal of the
application and approval in conjunction with the final plan.
shielded and down directional.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
05/05/2020 FOR HEARING:
As discussed, a Modification of Standard will be required for 3.8.30(F)(2)
Variation Among Buildings.
RMS + Arch: The modification has been submitted. There are (3) different apartment building plans
proposed for this site (A-24, A-42, and A-48). Refer to site plans for building configurations on -site. Each of
these building types are unique in their footprints, unit type mix, exterior finish material and color palettes,
and architectural detailing. A variety of perspective renderings have been provided to depict the
architectural character of the buildings from various angles throughout the site, including new views from
College Avenue and one looking south from Strausburg as requested.
03/03/2020 FOR HEARING AND DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: Model
variation in m-f buildings: standards require significantly different footprints with
no two similar models next to each other. Could different footprints be used to
shine more sunshine into the central spine area?
Also, what is the concept for the multi -family building with zero trees along its
south side? It does look conceivable that small, narrow trees could be grown up
against the building to meet general requirements for tree plantings, but this is
one more factor to consider in adding a different model into this area.
There is significant staff concern over how the 42- and 48-plexes vary the
footprint size, shape and building design. Staff finds the following will be needed
to better evaluate compliance with this standard.
42 & 48-plexes: These four buildings do not have significantly different
footprints. Differentiation must be provided by a creating unique architectural
elevations, entrance features, roof forms, massing proportions, and other
characteristics along with footprints.
A perspective rendering from College Avenue looking northwest towards the
Shenandoah Barn is needed; southwest. Also, a perspective renderings from
Strausburg looking south along the street showing the multi family buildings.
3. Window and wall detailing that show how elements such as frames, sills and
lintels, and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and
establish human scale and proportion.
Comment Number: 25
03/03/2020 FOR FINAL PLAN:
Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
LANDSCAPE: A detail spec for metal edging should be a point of attention.
Staff has seen unfortunate examples of poorly installed metal edging becoming
a dominant negative feature that detracts from the architecture and landscaping.
RMS: The design team will look at this detail and potentially other ways to define planting bed edges.
Comment Number: 28
05/05/2020 FOR HEARING:
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
There are several comments and corrections that need to be addressed in staff
redlines. Generally, they include: walkway connections, questions about parking,
20
and interior parking lot landscaping.
RIMS: The redline comments have been reviewed and addressed. Two separate phone/video meetings
took place to address the comments.
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
mbzdek@fcgov.com
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
12/03/2019: FOR HEARING:
The site plan indicates very close proximity between the existing historic barn
on the neighboring parcel and the proposed improvements. It is important to
create an appropriate buffer around the barn for its protection and to maintain
an appropriate separation between the two. Federal guidelines for this scenario
state that "new construction should be appropriately scaled and located far
enough away from the historic building to maintain its character and that of the
site and setting." This is particularly important for meeting the plan of protection
requirement for historic resources, in section 3.4.7(E)(3) of the land use code. A
plan of protection details the particular considerations and protective measures
that will be employed to prevent short-term and long-term material damage and
avoidable impact on the character of identified historic resources on the
development site and within the area of adjacency from demolition, new
construction, and operational activities. Satisfactory completion of this standard
generally hinges on creating a meaningful buffer between any site
disturbances/improvements and the historic resource(s). Please contact me to
request the plan of protection document template when you are ready to
complete this step.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
03/03/2020: Note that it is important to preserve views of the historic barn
within the development. The six-foot wood fence shown on the plans will impact
the visibility of this focal point. Please explore alternatives to mitigate this
problem. Otherwise, it will fail to satisfy land use code Section 3.4.7, Table 1:
"New construction shall not cover or obscure character -defining architectural
elements, such as windows or primary design features, of historic resources on
the development site, abutting or across a side alley."
Department: Building Services
Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
12/02/2019: Submit a site -wide accessibility plan for review per CPS 9-5. This
applies to townhouses.
Contact: Linda Hardin, Ihardin@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
21
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 02/20/2020
02/20/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
Final construction waste management plan and documentation for entire project
required before C.O. See prior comments/holds for additional needs prior to
C.O./L.O.C.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, *county@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
04/27/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
03/03/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
12/02/2019: INFORMATION ONLY:
Unless required during PDP, a complete review of all plans will be done at
FDP.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/02/2019
04/27/2020: FOR HEARING -UPDATED:
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 reclined sheets and/or in response
letter.
Galloway: Comment noted. Please note there will be no lienholders.
03/03/2020.- FOR HEARING -UPDATED:
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 reclined sheets and/or in response
letter.
12/02/2019: FOR HEARING:
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.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Mark Fairchild, Century Link
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 04/20/2020
04/20/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
CenturyLink appreciates the opportunity to provide the Ridgewood Hills Fifth
Filing with its future communication needs. In response to the request for a
22
commitment to serve, CenturyLink will work with the developers on determining
what the needs will be. Upon such determination, CenturyLink will undertake an
analysis of the construction required and the cost to complete that construction.
It is only at that point, and given the prevailing Terms and Conditions of the
Local Terms of Service that CenturyLink will make a determination whether it
can or cannot provide service.
Response: Comment noted. Engineer has reached out to CenturlyLink and forwarded on information to
the Owner for request for inclusion on the project.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 04/20/2020
04/20/2020: INFORMATION ONLY:
The services to be requested will be provided for under the prevailing Terms
and Conditions of the Local Terms of Service posted on our CenturyLink web
site at www.CenturyLink.com/tariffs.
Response: Comment noted. See response to Comment #1.
Contact: Megan Harrity, Larimer County Assessor
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 04/21/2020
04/21/2020: FOR HEARING:
Current ownership for the five parcels involved in this plat is listed below. It
looks like the prelim plat has a signature block for a different owner than what
we currently have on record.
9614413001
NEXTOP HOLDINGS LLC (.79)
BETTER LAND LLC (.21)
9614413002
SHENANDOAH OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
9614413007
NEXTOP HOLDINGS LLC (.79)
BETTER LAND LLC (.21)
9614000004
NEXTOP HOLDINGS LLC (.79)
BETTER LAND LLC (.21)
9614000026
NEXTOP HOLDINGS LLC (.79)
BETTER LAND LLC (.21)
We currently have SHENANDOAH OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC and
NEXTOP HOLDINGS LLC (.79) and BETTER LAND LLC (.21)
These owners will need to sign if the current ownership does not change before
the final plat is recorded.
Galloway: The current ownership information is shown on the plat. This will be updated, if necessary, if
23
the ownership changes before time of recordation.
Contact: Nate Ensley,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
03/03/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please see attached Redlines
24
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING:
As dictated by the NAD Easement Application an administrative fee of $1,500
is required to cover staff time in processing and guiding the applicant through
the process. Once the $1,500 has been exhausted the applicant will be notified
monthly of additional staff time charges. The payment to NAD will be required
prior to submittal of the NAD/Parks letter of intent to the applicant. Please
contact Dave Myers with NAD for details on payment processing.
Galloway: Comment noted. We will coordinate payment of administrative and subsequent fees with the
submittal of the NAD Easement Application. The owner has been notified of the requirement of the
administrative fee for issuance of LO1 and should be coordinating with NAD directly.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING:
NAD and Parks will jointly submit a letter of intent indicating NAD and Parks
staff intend to work with the development to create the agreement needed for
the above mentioned four requirements. For hearing, the letter of intent needs
to be filed with Stormwater Utilities from NAD and other water rights owners for
the lateral and the Louden Ditch Company for the impacts to the main ditch.
The applicant is also required to solicit and obtain a letter of intent from the
other owner of the ditch, Jeff Bundy, who can be reached at
jrbpal2@hotmail.com or (970) 215-0824. In addition, NAD will attempt to
coordinate with Mr. Bundy so his interests in the ditch are addressed within the
agreement. The applicant is also required to supply a letter of intent from the
North Louden Ditch Company. Letters of intent will need to address the four
elements of the agreement.
Galloway: Comment noted We have provided the applicable information on the Utility Plans to
demonstrate the improvements within and extents of the required easements with the intent to work with
Parks/NAD staff. Please review the extents of those items for sufficiency to issue letter of intent from
Parks/NAD. We are coordinating with both North Louden Ditch and Mr. Bundy on issuance of their own
letters of intent.
For Final Plan (FDP) approval: Stormwater utilities requires that all pertinent
easements and ditch agreements are finalized and executed before Mylars can
be signed. Please see Engineering's comments for other requirements related
to proposed improvements to the irrigation ditches.
Galloway: Comment noted. We will coordinate with all reviewers on recordation of required easements
prior to approval of the FDP.
c
Comment Number: 22
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING:
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
Please show and label the top of bank of the ditch. Label the 20 ft offset: 20 ft
Access Easement and show on Site, Landscape and Utility Plans. Please
coordinate with NAD and Parks for ingress /egress points and specifications.
NAD and Parks respectfully request a site visit with representatives of the
applicant to determine if acceptable adjustments can be made to the access
widths for maintenance of the ditch. Specifically, to address staff concerns for
accessing the south side of the ditch with heavy machinery in a space that is
narrower than 20.
Galloway: As discussed during the on -site meeting, a 20' access easement is required along the north side
of the ditch with access points from US 287 and internal to the project site. A 15' access easement will be
provided along the south side of the ditch with access points from US 287 only. Refer to the PDP Utility
Plans for delineations of these easements.
Comment Number: 23
05/05/2020: FOR HEARING:
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
NAD and Parks require a 20'wide, minimum, width on top of the piped portion
of the ditch. Due to limitations in details of the design at this phase, the
easement for the piped portion will be finalized during the FDP phase and will
be based on access and maintenance needs, which can only be evaluated
upon knowing more details, such as the size and depth of the pipe.
Galloway: The 20' drainage easement is shown along the top piped portion of the ditch. Parks and NAD to
notify engineer if additional easement is needed on top of the 20'. The additional width can be shown on
subsequent plats and the FDP plans, as necessary, pending final design information.
Comment Number: 24
05/05/2020: FOE HEARING:
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
The maintenance portion of the agreement will address the improvements and
impacts made within the ditch, the ditch infrastructure and erosion control
measures for the storm water discharge. Please coordinate with NAD and
Parks during the required easement process to identify: Who will be
maintaining these infrastructure elements, what potential maintenance activities
will be required and any associated fees that will be required for maintenance
activities. The agreement may require a maintenance fee for long term
maintenance and underground utility work, inspections, and/or replacements.
We anticipate having these associative costs finalized during the FDP phase
when we have more details.
Galloway: Comment noted. We will work with NAD and parks on the maintenance portion of the
agreement following review of the PDP and as we work toward FDP.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: GENERAL:
For future planning purposes NAD and Parks will require more intensive
erosion control measures for pipes conveying and/or discharging into the ditch.
These details will be worked out during the required NAD easement application
process.
Galloway: Comment noted. We will coordinate with NAD and stormwater at time of FDP for permanent
erosion control measures conveying into the ditch.
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: GENERAL:
Additional fees for conveying the rights associated with the agreement may
apply and are addressed in the NAD Easement Application Packet. Details will
be discussed during the easement application process for the agreement.
Galloway: Comment noted.
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: GENERAL:
There may be other comments that we cannot foresee with this level of detail
and we will finalize during the FDP phase for this project.
Galloway: Comment noted.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Kai Kleer, 970-416-4284, kkleer@fc oc ov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 03/06/2020
03/06/2020 FOR HEARING:
Parts of the trail easement are within the ditch easement. Please provide a
letter of intent that the ditch company agrees to allow this path to exist within
their easement.
Galloway: We have spoken with the ditch company's legal representation regarding the inclusion of the trail
within the ditch easement. We are awaiting issuance of the Letter of Intent.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 03/06/2020
03/06/2020 INFORMATION ONLY:
A 10' trail width is suggested (8' was shown in the Nov Plans) of Portland
concrete (no color). We typically pour to a 5" thickness. Within ROW it goes to
6" to match sidewalk standards.
RMS: The trail has been widened to 10' and 12' where the trail combines with the sidewalk near Triangle.
All other sections of the trail are shown at 10' wide.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 03/06/2020
03/06/2020 INFORMATION ONLY:
Please look carefully at trail intersections with streets should not be offset —
requiring a trail user to travel on the roadway or sidewalk for a short distance is
not desirable if it can be avoided.
RMS: The crossings have been updated.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcqov.com
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
5/4/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL— UNRESOLVED
Continued: Comment carried through to FDP.
RMS: Stop signs and street lights will be provided during FDP, all trees will be adjusted accordingly.
3/3/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL— UNRESOLVED
Continued:
The applicant's comment response was "noted" which does not give enough
information to the status of the initial comment. It doesn't appear that stop signs
and street -light locations have been identified and shown on the landscape
plan. Please provide stop signs street -light locations and proper tree separation
for the next round of review.
40-50-ft between street trees and stop signs
40 ft between Canopy Shade Trees and street lights
15 ft between ornamental trees and street lights
12/2/2019: FOR HEARING:
I am not sure if all street -lights and stop signs have been included on the plans.
Please verify and provide proper tree separation.
40 ft between Canopy Shade Trees and street lights
15 ft between ornamental trees and street lights
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
5/5/2020: FOR HEARING — UPDATED
Continued:
Thank you for incorporating trees along College Ave. However, upon Forestry's
and Engineering's review, it is not entirely clear whether the placement of these
trees fall within the future right of way. Please note that it is believed that once
College Ave improvements are made, the overhead powerlines will no longer
exist or conflict with street trees, therefore shade trees could be incorporated in
place of ornamentals (which is preferred). Without more information about future
College Ave improvements and design, Forestry and Engineering are not
comfortable with the ornamental tree design moving forward. Please provide
further detail regarding the right of way lay out and incorporate shade trees in a
location that would be considered the future tree lawn.
RMS: The street trees and parkway have been identified in the full build -out location.
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING
This comment is carried over until further information is provided by CDOT
regarding their plan for College Avenue. In order to incorporate street trees,
ornamental trees will be allowed under overhead powerlines. What underground
utilities are thought to be in conflict with future trees?
12/2/2019: FOR HEARING:
Due to the required improvements along College Ave as a part of this submittal,
please include a 10 foot parkway strip and street trees along this stretch for
Forestry's review. Please do not specify Lindens in the right-of-way along
arterial streets due to their issues with deicing salts.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
5/4/2020: FOR HEARING — UPDATED:
Continued:
Please clarify if the mitigation numbers provided are included in the overall plant
list or if the species numbers are in addition to the plant list numbers.
RMS: The overall schedule and notes page has identified the mitigation trees for both Forestry and
Environmental requirements.
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING — UNRESOLVED:
Thank you for labeling mitigation trees on the plans. Please also include the
specific number of mitigation trees provided for each species in the plant list.
12/2/2019: FOR HEARING:
Please label all mitigation trees in the plant list. Clarify the number of each
species that are called out to go towards the required mitigation total.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 12/03/2019
5/4/2020: FOR HEARING — UNRESOLVED:
Continued:
Thank you for adding matchlines. However, no street names are provided.
Please provide street names on the landscape plan.
RMS: This has been updated to show street names.
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING — UNRESOLVED:
The applicant's response was "noted", however no changes were made to the
landscape plans. Match lines were not labeled and street names were not
provided on the landscape plans. Please provide prior to hearing.
12/2/2019: FOR HEARING:
Please label all match lines and street names on the landscape plans.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
5/4/2020: FOR HEARING — UPDATED:
Continued:
Please darken the outline of tree canopy edges on all sheets. Currently, it is very
difficult to see the edge of canopy without zooming into the PDF.
RMS: The outline has been updated to be darker.
3/2/2020: FOR HEARING:
Please provide surveyed locations or outline the total canopies of all trees in the
inventoried groves on the landscape plan, both those to remain and to be
removed. Currently the plans do not provide an accurate depiction of the
number of trees that exist on the site today.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17.1
Comment Originated: 03/03/2020
5/4/2020: FOR HEARING
Continued:
Thank you for providing some of this information on the Tree Inventory Plan,
however it is not displayed totally clear. Please add a separate column for
wildlife/habitat mitigation values provided by Kelly Smith. Add another column
that totals Forestry's and Environmental Planning's mitigation requirements. As
the information is currently displayed, the total number of required mitigation
trees and shrubs do not align with the information given from Forestry and
Environmental Planning.
RMS: The table has been updated to identify both Forestry and Environmental mitigation requirements.
3/3/2020: FOR HEARING
Please include wildlife mitigation values in a separate and labeled column
within the tree inventory and mitigation table (which were initially provided by
Stephanie Blochowiak) on the Tree Protection Plan.
Comment Number: 18.1
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
05/05/2020: 5/4/2020: FOR HEARING
Several redlines from last round were not addressed in this submittal. There are
numerous tree -utility conflicts highlighted on the redlines. In addition to those
that are highlighted by City Forestry, please review all tree -utility separations
and adjust trees to meet separation requirements. It would be helpful if there
was a utility legend provided on the landscape plan to understand what lines are
services versus mains.
RMS: The trees have been adjusted to accommodate the separation for utilities.
Comment Number: 19.1
5/4/2020: FOR HEARING
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
In the tree removal feasibility letter, please include the following explanation for
removal to tree S7: The tree is in conflict with the proposed parking lot access.
Although the tree is not in direct path of the drive approach, it is approximately
10 ft from the edge of curb and may present sight distance issues for vehicles
making right turns onto Triangle.
RMS: The explanation has been updated.
Comment Number: 20.1
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
5/4/2020: FOR FINAL APPROVAL
On the Tree Inventory Plan, please clarify the following questions:
- What does "trees near tags" mean?
The trees near tags has been clarified. It was to identify groups of the trees within the ID number.
- In the Tree Inventory and Mitigation table, please show trees 50 and 51 to
remain since they are off -site.
This has been adjusted to retain the dead trees off site.
- No mitigation is required for tree #58 since it is less than 6" in diameter.
This has been noted and adjusted on the inventory plan.
E
On Sheet TR403 - some of the trees shown to be removed in grove 14 are
shown to stay on the landscape plan. Please show these to remain and adjust
mitigation numbers.
This has been fixed.
- On sheet TR405 of the Tree Inventory Plan, please refer to Forestry redlines
and clarify the following:
- On the previous submittal, there was a tree symbol shown on sheet TR405
and now it is no longer shown on the plan. Forestry requested the following
information: please provide a species label for this tree. If it was not inventoried
by city forestry, it needs to be - especially given its removal status.
The new survey has been updated with the current tree locations. There were some symbols that were
previously shown which we not on -site. During the walk all trees were inventoried by Forestry and Russell
Mills.
- Please label all off -site trees as off -site trees to remain.
The note has been added to the plans — refer to note #10 on the inventory plans.
Comment Number: 21.1
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
5/4/2020: FOR HEARING - UPDATED
Species
As previously requested, please remove Acer miyabei 'Morton' from the
planting list. Green Mountain Sugar Maple may be used it its place.
RMS: The species has been replaced with Green Mountain Sugar Maple.
Comment Number: 22.1
Comment Originated: 05/05/2020
5/4/2020: INFORMATION ONLY
Final Forestry redlines on the Tree Inventory Plan and the Landscape Plan will
be provided to the applicant no later than Friday May 8th, 2020.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/04/2020
05/04/2020: FOR HEARING
Please see attached redlines to tree mitigation plan that outlines the habitat
mitigation values for trees being removed.
RMS: The provided values have been updated.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/04/2020
05/04/2020: FOR HEARING:
It appears stormwater runoff into the SW wetlands will not contribute to
enhancing and expanding the existing wetlands, but is instead creating new
wetlands adjacent to the existing through a stormwater feature. As discussed
over our last phone conversation, the removal of Wetland 1 (seep) will require
more than a 1:1 replacement ratio because it is a unique high functioning
wetland with structural diversity. Staff recommended enhancing the SW wetland,
which is not demonstrated on the plans. To adequately replace the value of the
impacted wetlands, enhancing the protected wetlands through additional
plantings and weed treatment will be important. Please work with your
9