HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAIL CREEK CROSSING - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2014-07-17Mail Creek Crossing June 6, 2013
Engineering Comments
The City will need to review the designs for the box culverts and the pedestrian bridge. I
do understand that the box culvert is a different project, but we will need to review the
design since you will want us to accept the structure.
The entire culvert (wing walls, headwalls, etc.) will need to be within the row. Currently
the plans are not showing this.
In addition to the pedestrian connections that you have shown on the utility plans, a
pedestrian connection off of Owl Creek Drive to the north and one through Block 7 is
needed to meet the standard requiring pedestrian connections every 660 feet along a
block face. I do not agree with your interpretation of the length of a block face, but since
there is a gap between houses to accommodate the drainage people will be able to walk
through this area.
Will ultimately need to provide a detail in these plans for the transition from vertical curb
and gutter to drive over curb and gutter.
The TIS indicates that a future `hard surface' trail will exist in the future. As I
understand it this is not going to be the location of this trail. The trail will actually be
located along the North side of Zephyr and looks as if the widened sidewalk along this
area is already built. This is more info — in case there is a desire to correct that statement
in the TIS before this document goes to hearing/ board.
The plan showing the fence and column locations. The columns and the fence need to be
located a minimum of 2 feet behind the right-of-way and ideally the columns should be
placed behind the 9 foot utility easement. The footer for the column may interfere with
utilities in this area. A note needs to be added to these plans that the Fence shall be
placed a minimum of 2 feet behind the right-of-way and/or sidewalk along the public
streets.
Access easements for the sidewalk connections need to be dedicated across Outlot B.
Currently this tract is only defined as a utility and drainage easement.
If the desire is to continue the underdrain through this site than a subsurface water
investigation report will need to be provided along with the design.
Show that a barricade per detail 1413 is placed at the NW end (cul-de-sac) of Spruce
Creek Drive. This will help to indicate that the roadway maybe extended in the future.
Signature blocks for FCLWD will need to be provided on the plans.
Directional ramps need to be provided on both sides (east and west) of Tilden/ Zephyr
intersection that is being constructed by you.
Larimer County Planning and Building Service Division Comments (Megan Harrity):
Department: Subs
Contact: Megan Harrity, 970-498-7065, mharrity@larimer.org
In regards to the preliminary plat for Mail Creek Crossing PLD/PD, Case # 12-S3133, I have just one
comment to make at this time. There is a group of eight lots listed without a block number assigned to
them. They are located between Blocks 1 and 2.
RESPONSE: Revised.
Larimer County Planning and Building Service Division Comments (Dan Kunis):
Department: Planning & Building Services
Contact: Dan Kunis, 970-498-7680, dkunisftlarimer.org
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2013
When approved by Larimer County and plat is recorded, the City of Fort Collins will annex and address
this PLD/PD.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Larimer County Planning Comments (Robert Helmick):
Department: Planning & Building Services
Contact: Robert Helmick, 970-498-7682, rhelmick@larimer.org
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/01/2013
Please provide tabular information on the lot sizes and housing types to display compliance with the
provisions of the regulations regard lot sizes and housing types. Specifically as described in Section
15.A.1. E.4
RESPONSE: We have reviewed Section 15.A.1.E.4 and based on our calculations the plan
is consistent with the requirements of that section of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
There are a total of 138 lots on approximately 39.6 net acres for an overall net
density of 3.48 d.u. per acre which is within the preferred range of density.
Per the standard for projects between 30 and 45 acres there is a requirement for a
minimum of two housing types. As this project proposes only single family
detached dwelling units it is required two have two different sizes of lots with the
difference between the average lot size for each type of lot being at least 2,000 s.f..
A single housing type shall not constitute more than 90% of the total number of
dwelling units.
This plan includes two different sized lots.
The larger lot type includes 14 lots (10.14% of the total lots)
The average lot size for these larger lots is 10,219 s.f.
The lots that make up the larger lot group includes: Lot 1, Block 1; Lots 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 7; Lot 3, 4, and 5, Block 10; and Lot 11,
Block 12.
The smaller lot type includes 124 lots (89.86% of the total lots)
The average lot size for these smaller lots is 6,620 s.f.
The difference between the larger lots and the smaller lots on average is 3599
s.f.
A table showing the lot size differences will be included on the Site and Landscape
Plan submitted with the Final Plat.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/01/2013
It is unclear how the rear yards of the lots backing to the ditch will be treated, please provide information
on this issue.
RESPONSE: The rear lots that back to the ditch will be fenced with the wildlife fence that
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 3
was included with the plans. It will be an open rail fence with wire mesh applied.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/01/2013
Please respond to the request form the City on the issues related to the cul de sac on Spruce.
RESPONSE: Please see the comments below to the City comments related to the cul de sac
on Spruce Creek Drive.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/01/2013
The geologic survey comments and the soils information seem to indicate a ground water issue with the
lots closest to the ditch, how will this be addressed. It is my understanding that a sub -drain system
is contemplated please advise on how this is to be installed and is intended to work.
RESPONSE: Please see the responses above to the geologic survey comments.
Response to Larimer County Development Review Services (Clint Jones)
Department: Engineering Department
Contact: Clint Jones, 970498-5700
Transportation / Access Issues
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
REPEAT COMMENT: This office requests that a Homeowners' Association be responsible for the
maintenance of the internal streets, since Larimer County no longer accepts new or additional
subdivision roads for maintenance.
RESPONSE: This property will be annexed to the City of Fort Collins prior to the
construction completion of the project. The streets will be City of Fort Collins streets and
will not be maintained by Larimer County. Covenants for the neighborhood will be
submitted with the Final Plat outlining the responsibilities of the HOA.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
REPEAT COMMENT: The cul-de-sac on the northwest side of the property should be designed to meet
the connectivity design standard stated in section 8.14.2-S of the Larimer County Land Use Code. To
meet this requirement the applicant should provide continuous right-of-way all the way to the property
line.
RESPONSE: Revised — extend right-of-way to property line.
The transportation impact study was reviewed by Martina Wilkinson and her comments are as follows:
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
1. A general comment is that for ease of review, it would be very helpful if the study conclusions would
identify changes to existing conditions assumed in the analysis. The conclusions simply state
"everything is acceptable with recommended geometry and control". That requires the reviewer to
compare by hand the recommended geometry to the existing figures as well as existing table to
short/long range tables to identify changes.
RESPONSE: Changes were called out in the conclusions, as well as highlighted in the
figures
2. It appears that in the short term, the following changes are assumed:
• Adjustments are made to signal timing
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
• A westbound left turn lane at Kechter and the access, and
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
• A northbound right turn lane at Timberline and Kechter
RESPONSE: Acknowledged
The westbound left turn lane at the access needs to be constructed. If it is not constructed with
the Kechter Crossing project, then it would be expected to be constructed with this project. The
northbound right turn lane volumes are not impacted by this development and will be
constructed by others.
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 4
RESPONSE: It was verified by City staff that this WB left -turn will be constructed with
Kechter Crossing
The scoping requested a specific discussion about multi -model connections to the north as this has
been of significant citizen interest in the area (sidewalks along Timberline and a trail across Kechter).
Although the study met the city's requirements for bike/ped influence area review, it did not address
this specific interest. The developer's team should be prepared to address this if it becomes an issue
in the hearings.
RESPONSE: A mutli-model connections to the north was discussion was added to the
TIS
Drainage/Floodplain/Erosion Control Issues:
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
In the Preliminary Drainage Report, Staff requires a discussion on stormwater detention and water
quality measures on this site. Additionally, the development must release into a historic drainage path or
drainage easements must be provided for the transport of the site drainage to a defined drainage path.
The report submitted by the applicant appears to address these issues.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
REPEAT COMMENT: This office will require that the applicant address the issue of erosion control, as
per Section 8.12 of the LCLUC. Proposed erosion control measures must be briefly described in a
narrative and also shown on the preliminary plan(s). The plan must include measures to control erosion
and sedimentation during all phases of construction and a plan for permanent erosion control after
development is completed. Erosion control measures must be based on calculated performance
standards. An example of the acceptable format for an erosion control plan can be reviewed in Volume 3
of the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (LCSDS).
RESPONSE: Additional information has been provided in the narrative of the report. An
erosion control plan has also been added to the plan set.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
REPEAT COMMENT: The boundaries of this project include or are adjacent to the Mail Creek irrigation
ditch. Therefore, the Ditch Company will need the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal
as it relates to their easements, setbacks, access, and site drainage into the ditch.
RESPONSE: We have been in communication with the Ditch Company about the issues
described. The documents and language for the easements for the ditch and associated
facilities will be supplied by the Company and will be recorded according to their
procedures. Information regarding the easements will also be identified and noted on the
Final Plat and included in the Covenants. These documents will address Company access
as well as maintenance practices that may occur on the ditch.
Site drainage will not enter the ditch.
Fees and Permits
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
REPEAT COMMENT: Per Section 9.5 and 9.6 of the LCLUC, Engineering Staff would like to notify the
applicant that Transportation Capital Expansion Fees will be required at the time of building permits
issuance in accordance with duly enacted transportation capital expansion fee regulations then in effect.
If this development annexes into the City, this fee would no longer be applicable.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
REPEAT COMMENT: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will be required for construction of the
site improvements. All necessary DCP fees and associated conditions (Section 12.5 of the LCLUC will
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 5
apply. The DCP fee is collected at the time of DCP issuance in accordance with duly enacted DCP fee
regulations then in effect. According to current regulations, Staff Estimates the Development
Construction Permit fee for this development to be $20,550 (at $150 per lot x 136 lots), this development
annexes into the City, this fee would not longer be applicable.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2013
REPEAT COMMENT: If one acre or more of land is disturbed with this development, the applicant is
required to apply for a Stormwater Construction Permit from the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Staff Recommendations
The Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any major concerns or issues with the
submittal of this proposal. It appears from the conceptual information that the preliminary design is
feasible and in compliance with County Engineering standards, LCUASS, and LCLUC requirements.
Additional design information and detail with still be necessary with the next submittal.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Larimer County Planning and Building Service Division Comments (Candace Phippen):
Department: Planning & Building Services
Contact: Candace Phippen, 970-498-7683,
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/28/2013
There is one outstanding building permit of record.
Permit 12-M1083 issued on 8/29/2012 to demolish an old white farmhouse. The permit is valid until
2/20/2014. Final inspection approval must be obtained by this date.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Larimer County Heath and Environment Comments (Doug Ryan):
Department: Health and Environment
Contact: Doug Ryan, 970498-6777, ryandl(fto.larimer.co.us
Water
Sewer
Water is to be supplied by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. In their letter dated February 22,
2013, the district committed to supply water in conformance with the design standards outlined in
Section 8.1 .2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. This is in conformance with the code standard for
domestic water service.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Sewer is to be supplied by the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The district has committed to
provide sewer service meeting the design standards outlined in Section 8.1. 1 .B. 1 of the Land Use
Code in their letter of February 22, 2013. That commitment satisfies our concerns regarding public sewer
service.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Pedestrian & Bicycle Access
Developments in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Planning Area are anticipated to be urban density
communities with high levels of urban services. Examples used in this project include detached
sidewalks within greenways, and connections to the regional trail system. Studies have shown that this
concept of multiple connections with opportunities for pedestrian and bike travel has important public
health benefits in terms of -fitness and safety. It will also be important to coordinate pedestrian access
with the school district and our Natural Resources staff.
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 6
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Stormwater Management during Construction
All construction activities are required to obtain coverage under a State level stormwater management
permit if they disturb one or more acres of land. The permits are administered by the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. The main pollutant of
concern for construction activities is sediment. The permits require holders to control or eliminate the
sources of pollutants in stormwater through the implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan,
developed as part of the application process. These Stormwater Management Plans must include best
management practices (BMPs) that include treatment of stormwater discharges along with source
reductions. The permit application and guidance documents are available from the Water Quality Control
Division.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Fugitive Dust during Construction
Colorado's air quality regulations contain requirements for controlling fugitive dust emissions during
construction activities. The steps necessary to comply with those standards depend on the amount of
land disturbed, and the duration of the disturbance. Development that involves clearing more than five
acres of land must incorporate all available and practical methods, which are technologically feasible
and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust emissions.
If land development creates more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance (such as the case for this
project), or exceeds 6 months in duration, the responsible party is required to prepare a fugitive dust
control plan, submit an air pollution emissions notice (APEN), and obtain an emissions permit from the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The APEN and specialty permit application
form for land development is available from the Air Pollution Control Division.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Mosquito Control
Mail Creek Crossing will utilize a series of stormwater detention/water quality ponds on Outlots D and E.
Mosquitoes will try and utilize the ponds as breeding sites. Controlling mosquitoes is an important
practice to prevent spread of the West Nile Virus. Limiting the designed water quality detention time to
less than 72 hours generally prevents mosquito eggs from maturing to the adult stage. The water quality
ponds for this project have been designed with a 40 hour drain time, as outlined in Appendix C of the
Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report prepared by Northern Engineering. This is consistent
with the recommendation. Additionally,
regular maintenance of the ponds and outlet structures is necessary in order to keep them functioning
properly.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Larimer County Department of Natural Resources Comments (Jeffrey Boring):
Department: Natural Resources
Contact: Jeffrey Boring, 970-679-4570,
I review development proposals for the Larimer County Natural Resources Department and recently
reviewed the preliminary plans for the Mail Creek Crossing project. Your project is situated in a very
interesting location with Bacon Elementary to the west and the Kechter Farm development on the east.
One suggestion I have is to construct a trail in the outlot areas and cross the irrigation ditch to Bacon
Elementary. Your project is situated perfectly to develop a safe route to school, allowing kids and their
parents an opportunity to walk or ride a bike to Bacon Elementary. This could be an asset to your
development as parents are looking for pedestrian access to local schools.
The neighboring Kechter Farm GDP also shows a trail and neighborhood park on the north side of
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 7
Zephyr Road. Your trail could connect to this trail and park, thus providing an additional amenity to your
development. As you know, linking developments with trails is very common in Larimer County and with
a neighboring school and park, and it makes sense to incorporate a trail in your plans.
In addition, I am the Park Fees Administrator and assess the Regional and Community Park In -Lieu fees
for each residential development planned in Larimer County. You may be able to avoid these fees if you
dedicate the outlots as a park. Otherwise, you'll need to pay both a regional and community park fee,
since the site is located in the Fort Collins UGA.
The purpose of these fee programs is to allow new residential growth to pay a proportionate share of the
impacts to Regional Parks and Open Lands. The regional fees are kept by the County and dedicated for
the acquisition of Regional Parks and publicly accessible Open Lands, such as Fossil Creek Reservoir
and Horsetooth Mountain Open Space. Community Park Fees are collected by Larimer County and
returned to the City of Fort Collins to build community parks. These parks range in size, can be as large
as 120 acres and allow for a variety of recreation activities.
Below is a table of the fees collected, for each type of residence. Again, these fees may be avoidable by
dedicating park land and building a trail.
Type of Residence
Larimer County
Fort Collins .
Total Fees
Regional Park
Community Park Fee
Fee
Single Family
$701
$669
$1370
Attached
Single Family
$547
$522
$1069
Detached
Duplex
$526
$501
$1027
Multi-famil
$435
$456
$891
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Poudre Fire Authority Comments (James Lynxwiler):
Department: Community Safety Services
Contact: James Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869
Fire access roads shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
2006 International Fire Code 503. 1. 1
RESPONSE: At this time we are not proposing fire access roads with this project. When we
get into final construction phasing it may be possible to re -visit this issue but at this time
we are proposing public right-of-way for all access. Prior to development of this property
access will be installed through the Kechter Crossing development connecting to Kechter
Road. This project will include connection to the exisiting Zephyr Drive on the south
boundary of the Property and a future connection is also planned with the Kechter Farm
project to the East. It appears Emergency Access requirements have been met.
Fort Collins Current Planning Comments (Lindsay Ex):
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, Iex(&fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: This comment was not addressed in the submittal letter. Has this been addressed?
10/16/2012: The applicants should continue to work with the County and our Planning and Engineering
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 8
departments to align the roadway connections with the surrounding developments, e.g., Kechter Farm to
the East and Westchase to the south (especially with the Tilden Street discussion). Let us know how we
can assist with this discussion.
RESPONSE: We expect to continue working with the County and City Planning and
Engineering departments to coordinate and align the roadway connections. The developers
of the Kechter Farm project have acknowledged their acceptance of the location of Spruce
Creek Drive connecting to their development.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: From my discussion with Craig Foreman, this comment is being resolved in the following
way: I've visited with Stan E. on site about the trail and we are using a widened sidewalk along Zephyr
Road since we want to cross Timberline at the school where a future pedestrian light should be located.
This seems like a better place than up where the ditch crosses north of the school.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
We'll go straight west from the street crossing to a planned neighborhood park near the existing wetlands
at the tracks. So a shift from what we show conceptually in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan; but a
better on the ground placement of the trail and park.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
10116/2012: How is the project proposing pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding developments, e.g.,
to the regional trail in the Kechter Farm development? For example, the block face containing lots 1-20
(Block One) is longer than 700' (see LUC standard 4.5(E)(1)(b) and County Land Use Standard
15.2.2.1.E.5.a(2)).
RESPONSE: The existing walkway along the North side of Zephyr Road has been
acknowledged by Craig Foreman to be the Regional Trail connection from the Power Line
Trail to Fossil Lake Ranch. Mail Creek Crossing has roadway and pedestrian bridge
connections from the neighborhood to this trail. To the north is the Kechter Crossing
neighborhood and there are additional roadway and pedestrian trail connections from Mail
Creek Crossing into the Kechter Crossing subdivision. The lots in Block 1 back to the Mail
Creek Ditch. We have been in contact with the Ditch Company who has made it clear to us
about their concern of allowing pedestrian access towards or along their ditch. If a
connection is provided here the ditch company will require a fence that will preclude any
pedestrian access to their ditch. Most likely a high chain link fence similar to that on the
east side of the Bacon Elementary site. We don't think that this solution meets the intent of
the standard.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: This comment was not addressed in the submittal letter or in the drawings? How is this
being addressed?
10/16/2012: How does this proposal meet the standard relating to neighborhood parks?
Section 4.5(E)(6) of the Land Use Code.
RESPONSE: Neighborhood parks in both the Kechter Farms and Kechter Crossing
subdivisions fulfill the requirements of this section of the code. 100% of our lots are within
113 mile of a neighborhood park. We provided the County with an exhibit at our sketch plan
hearing showing that we comply.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03106/2013: This project is choosing to comply with the County's regulations of between 3-8 du/acre.
However, I could not assess whether the two housing types required by the County's standards have
been met - are there more than 10% of the single-family lots that are a minimum of 2000 SF difference?
RESPONSE: Please see breakdown above.
10/16/2012: The project should comply with the City's minimum density standards of 4 dwelling
units/acre.
See Section 4.5(D)(1) of the Land Use Code.
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 9
RESPONSE: We are complying with the Larimer County Land Use code and the
supplementary regulations for growth management areas which govern the development of
property within the Fossil Creek Reservoir area.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: This comment was not addressed in the submittal letter or in the drawings? How is this
being addressed?
10/16/2012: Screening (both from a materials and from a vegetation perspective) of the ditch head gate
on the eastern portion of the property should be prioritized.
RESPONSE: This is a ditch company facility that is located primarily off of our property.
The Ditch Company has expressed a willingness to allow cedar pickets to be applied to
their existing fence as a means of aesthetically screening these facilities. Said pickets will
be stained to match other fencing in the neighborhood and the HOA will be required to
maintain this fencing. Landscaping around this area is not acceptable to the Ditch Company
since it may interfere with their maintenance.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: In general, City staff believes the mix of housing types, the provision of a neighborhood
park, and the overall connectivity standards are the most important issues moving forward. We would
suggest that a joint meeting with County staff be held to resolve these issues prior to hearing.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: In addition, more shrubs and additional trees should be added along the ditch corridor to
increase the buffering between the neighborhood and the ditch.
RESPONSE: The proposed plan takes into consideration the maintenance of the Ditch
while trying to add some character and screening. Extensive landscaping in this area is
unacceptable to the Ditch Company.
Fort Collins Engineering Development Review Comments (Sheri Langenberger):
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger(Mcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: 1 have not received a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for this project. I need to get a TIS for this
project so it can be reviewed.
RESPONSE: A Traffic Impact Study was forwarded after these comments were received. In
the future the traffic study will be delivered directly from the applicant to the City of Fort
Collins Engineering Department.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: 1 also did not receive site or landscape plans with this submittal.
RESPONSE: In the future site and landscape plans will be delivered directly from the
applicant to the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The City will need to review the designs for the box culverts and the pedestrian bridge.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The entire culvert (wing walls, headwalls, etc) will need to be within the row, so once we
information about the proposed design and agree upon a proposed design there maybe some changes to
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 10
the row limits being dedicated around the culverts.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: In addition to the pedestrian connections that you have shown on the utility plans, a
pedestrian connection off of Owl Creek Drive to the north and one through Block 7 is needed to meet the
standard requiring pedestrian connections every 660 feet along a block face.
RESPONSE: The mid -block pedestrian connection through Block 7 has been addressed
above. We are not proposing a mid -block pedestrian connection off of Owl Creek Drive at
this time. The standard in Section 15.2.2- Supplemenatary Regulations for Growth
Management Areas Section 1.E.4.f. is for block faces longer than 700 feet requires a mid -
block pedestrian connection. This block face is 681.3 feet long, not requiring a mid -block
connection.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Will ultimately need to provide a detail in these plans for the transition from vertical curb and
gutter to drive over curb and gutter.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Sight distance easements may be needed at some intersections and pedestrian
connections. Right now it looks like easements will be needed at the intersection of Tilden Road and
Spruce Creek Drive.
RESPONSE: Sight distance easements have been added where appropriate.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: As indicated in the information the two developments will need to coordinate plans so that
the streets match and meet between this development and Kechter Farms.
RESPONSE: We have been in contact with the developer of Kechter Farms to coordinate
the extension of Spruce Creek Drive.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Spruce Creek Drive (west end) needs to be designed so that it can eventually extend into
the adjacent developable property. It can have a cul-de-sac at the end of it, but it would be a temporary
cul-de-sac. This project will need to provide funds for the portion of the street not built to the property line
and the ultimate removal of the cul-de-sac and changes needed at such time as the road is extended
north.
RESPONSE: We have designed Spruce Creek Drive so that it may be extended in the future
to provide for access to the property to the North. We understand that we may be required
to provide funds in escrow for the extension of this street. We do not understand the need
for the removal of this cul-de-sac in the future. In our opinion it would be appropriate to
keep the cul-de-sac in place and simply extend a new street to the North. We would also
see it being possible that this connection would be emergency only precluding the need to
remove the cul-de-sac. We have seen similar circumstances in the past work well.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Piney Creek Drive (considered a connector roadway) — It doesn't look as if the vertical
curves on this street were designed to meet connector standards. Three of the curves do not meet
minimum required length for a design speed and algebraic difference. The most southern one also does
not meet the minimum K value.
RESPONSE: The vertical curve lengths on Tilden have all been increased to meet the
connector requirements. Piney Creek is no longer a connector.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Will need off site road design for Spruce Creek future extension to the north.
RESPONSE: An offsite design has been added.
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 11
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Sheet R8 — missing information on the vertical curve shown at the east end of Lodgepole
Creek Drive.
RESPONSE: The missing information has been added.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The storm pipe under Owl Creek Drive is not meeting the minimum cover requirements.
RESPONSE: The storm pipe location has been changed, and adequate cover has been
provided for a 24" pipe.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The outlots in which the pedestrian connections run through need to be dedicated as
access easements.
RESPONSE: Access easement added to outlot.
Fort Collins Current Planning Comments (Lindsay Ex):
Department: Forestry
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(&fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please contact the City Forester to review in an on -site meeting any existing trees and
possible mitigation. If there are existing trees to retain they should be shown on the plan and the tree
protection notes added that are found in found in LUC 3.2.1 G.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will plan on setting up a meeting with the City Forester
prior to preparing our final plans to coordinate mitigation and the required notes.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Select street trees from the City of Fort Collins Street tree list (attached). There are trees
shown in the plant list that are not on the City Street Tree list. Autumn Blaze Maple and Red Sunset
Maple do not survive or thrive in Fort Collins soils and are not recommended to be planted. Triumph Elm
is not on the City Street tree list but Accolade Elm is and could be used as a substitution.
RESPONSE: We have modified our tree list to address this comment.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Trees and shrub species selected for planting in the non -irrigated grass areas should be
drought tolerant. Please add a note that says trees and shrubs in non -irrigated turf areas to be irrigated
with a drip or bubbler system.
RESPONSE: We have added the requested note.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Tree planting by residential lots should be identified as being planted by the builder and not
the homeowner. Please make changes that say the builder will plant the trees in the parkway by
residential lots. These changes should be made to the street tree table and the associated notes.
-Builder to install trees on individual lots. Builder to install trees in the parkway by individual lots as
shown on the landscape plan, but are not required to be installed at the time of the public improvements.
These trees will be required to be installed at the time of certificate of occupancy if weather allows. A
letter of credit or other form of financial security may be posted with the County/City in lieu of tree
planting if weather delays installation.
RESPONSE: The notes have been revised as requested.
-Species used as street trees by residential lots should be from the City street tree list. Some of the trees
listed are not on the list and should be changed.- Please identify the tree species for planting by all the
residential lots by labeling them. Include residential lot street trees in a plant schedule with number, sizes
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 12
The proposed grades shown at the NW corner of the site don't appear to tie into existing
grades. If grading cannot be tied into on site off -site grading easements will be needed.
For the lots that front onto Tilden Street stationing for the driveway locations will need to
be provided when the flowline stationing is provided.
Can minimum grades be used to go into the low point on Spruce Creek Drive at least on
the south side of the road? As designed the minimum cover is close to being met along
the centerline, but will be less on the south side of the street due to the pipe slope and the
road x-slope.
The east end of Spruce Creek Drive will need to have rip rap installed to protect the end
of curb, gutter and pavement from undermining. Please make sure this gets shown on the
final plans.
The storm pipe under Sand Creek Drive is not meeting the minimum cover requirements.
How wide is the proposed attached sidewalk at the culvert crossing? We will want the
sidewalk to stay detached for as long as possible before transitioning into a wide attached
sidewalk at the culvert..
and species listed. (Minimum size shade tree 2.0 inch caliper).
RESPONSE: The tree list has been modified as requested.
-Note #2 under the lot street tree planting table should add that tree locations should be adjusted for
street lights and signs as well. I suggest this wording note #2. Tree locations may be adjusted to
accommodate driveway locations, utilities street signs and street lights. Street trees to be centered in the
middle of the lot to the extent feasible.
RESPONSE: The note has been revised as requested.
-We request that Note #3 pertaining to Lot Street trees say in effect. Any change in Tree species or
varieties must be approved by the City Forester.
RESPONSE: The note has been revised as requested.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please include all the tree utility information in note #6 found in LUC 3.2.1 K.
RESPONSE: This information has been added.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: These are some additional notes that the City requires on landscape plans. -The soil in all
landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less
than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape
areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least
three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area.
-A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are
planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and
curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted.
Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of
occupancy.
-The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of
each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan.
Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain
approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy
for future phases of the development.
RESPONSE: These notes have been added.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Check to see that numbers of tree used are within the Minimum species diversity found in
LUC 3.2.1 D 2
RESPONSE: We have verified that we can comply with the diversity requirements.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please provide repetition and diversity of street tree species groups as illustrated in the City
of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines.
RESPONSE: We have provided this design as requested.
Fort Collins Light and Power Comments (Doug Martine):
Department: Light and Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
02/26/2013: Electric utility service will be provided by Fort Collins Light & Power Utility. The developer
will need to contact Light & Power Engineering at (970) 221-6700 to coordinate power requirements.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 13
Comment Number 2: Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
02/26/2013: Light & Power Engineering will need a copy of the preliminary landscaping plan as soon as
possible. This plan can be sent as a pdf to Doug Martine at DMARTINE@FCGOV.COM. A
streetlighting plan will be prepared and street tree locations then will need to be adjusted to provide
minimum clearances between the trees and lights.
RESPONSE: A landscape plan will be forwarded to Doug Martine once these comments
have been addressed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
02/26/2013: Please send a copy of the preliminary utility plan to Doug Martine.
RESPONSE: A preliminary utility plan will be forwarded to Doug Martine.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
02/26/2013: After the plat is finalized and recorded, please send a paper or pdf copy to Doug Martine.
Also, (when available) please send an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) of the recorded plat to Terry Cox
at TCOX FCGOV.COM.
RESPONSE: A paper copy of the plat will be forwarded to Doug Martine.
Fort Collins Traffic Operation Comments (Ward Stanford):
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-224-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: In regards to sub -basin C3: A flow comparison should be provided comparing historic
drainage to the east with proposed. If the character or nature of the flow changes to the property to the
east, or any negative impact results in the design, than a off -site drainage easement would be required.
Also, the drainage can not flow along the back property line for more than 3 lots per our criteria manual.
This would suggest drainage should flow east off of each lot onto the neighboring property.
RESPONSE: Additional information for the sub -basins along the east property line has
been provided. As described in the report, flows draining to the east (i.e., toward Kechter
Farms) have been reduced since the previous submittal and limited to a single lot,
undeveloped area and 0.06 ac of asphalt. These flows should have a negligible impact on
the future development to the east. The remaining area, delineated as sub -basin D2, drains
toward the northeast corner of the project site. This runoff is consistent in rate and
character with existing conditions. Please see the drainage report for additional
information.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: Permission from the Mail Creek Ditch Company is required. Letter of intents should be
provided as soon as possible, with formal agreements before signing of mylars.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: Many elements of the design will be reviewed with the next submittal including hydraulics,
individual lot grading, etc. The development is meeting our criteria at a "PDP level" and if in the City
would be allowed to go to a hearing after comments 1 and 2 were addressed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: The development is responsible for a reimbursement to the Kechter Crossing Development
to use the outfall storm sewer to McClelland's Creek as shown on this submittal. The City can assist in
these negotiations if requested.
RESPONSE: We have a contract in place between the Kechter Crossing developer and
ourselves addressing the oversizing and use of these facilities. The storm water pipe has
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 14
already been oversized to accommodate future storm water flows from Mail Creek Crossing
and has already been installed under Tilden (AKA Piney Creek Drive).
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/20
03/08/2013: The development is responsible for a reimbursement to the Kechter Crossing Development
to use the outfall storm sewer to McClelland's Creek as shown on this submittal. The City can assist in
these negotiations if requested.
RESPONSE: See above.
Fort Collins Current Planning Comments (Lindsay Ex):
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(&fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013
03/07/2013: Traffic staff will need a copy of the Utility Plans, Landscape Plans and Plat with the next
submittal.
RESPONSE: This information will be provided as requested.
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Easements
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013
03/06/2013: Do not see any sight distance easements on the curving roadways. Please evaluate the
intersection of Tilden and Spruce Creek, north side and also the lots on the north side of Lodge Pole
across from Tilden.
RESPONSE: Sight distance easements have been added where needed.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013
03/06/2013: Continue the following unanswered question from the earlier review.
10/18/2012: Concern with cut-thru traffic from the north leg of Tilden passing thru private driveway on
The Timbers Condo'e site to get to Owens. Anything on the Timbers driveway to help deter that activity
RESPONSE: The southern leg of Tilden (AKA Piney Creek Drive) has been converted to a
pedestrian walkway. Vehicular cut through traffic should be eliminated with this change.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/07/2013
03/0612013: TIS states on page 19 that the Timberline/Kechter intersection operates acceptably with
timing adjustments. Please provide discussion of the various adjustments utilized and their effects on the
analysis. The analysis in the Appendix show numerous changes but time does not allow the depth of
review to dig out all the changes and determine, if appropriate, the reason a given change/adjustment.
Simple timing adjustments do not require discussion for their change but other changes such as factors,
lost time values or other similar type changes should be accompanied with discussion.
RESPONSE: Only timing adjustments were made.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: TIS shows all westbound left turning traffic using unsignalized Zephyr and Timberline and
zero traffic choosing the signalized Timberline and Kechter intersection to make westbound left turns. I
can't say I agree with that due to the difficulty of making left turns onto Timberline during peak hours.
With that said though, moving all 20 vehicles to the Timberline and Kechter intersection (in the City
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 15
model) does not cause much impact so whether traffic needing to go southbound chooses to use
Zephyr, Kechter or even Trilby the impact is negligible.
RESPONSE: Any site generated traffic that finds it to difficult to make a left turn at the
Timberline/Zephyr intersection will likely go south on Tilden to the Timberline/Trilby
intersection. We have assigned a portion of traffic heading south on Tilden.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Traffic is unable to learn if the Kechter Crossing project is adding a west bound left turn
lane on Kechter at Tilden. If not this project would have the responsibility to provide it. Please verify if the
west bound left turn lane on Kechter at Tilden is being built with the Kechter Crossing project.
RESPONSE: It was verifed by City staff that this WB left -turn lane will be constructed with
Kechter Crossing
Fort Collins Current Planning Comments (Roger Buffington):
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2013
02/25/2013: Water and wastewater services in this area are provided by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water
District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Fort Collins City Forestry Comments:
Department: Forestry
Contact:
Fort Collins Street Tree List
4-18-11
Botanic Name
Common Name
Selected
Water
Drought
Cultivars
Need
Tolerant
Catalpa speciosa
Northern Catalpa
L-M
Y
Celtis occidentalis
Northern Hackberry
M
Gleditsia triacanthos
Honey locust
Shademaster
L-M
Y
inermis
Skyline
Imperial
Gymnocladus dioicus
Kentucky Coffeetree
L-M
Y
Quercus buckleyi
Texas Red Oak
L-M
Y
Quercus macrocarpa
Bur Oak
L-M
Y
Quercus muehlenbergii
Chinkapin Oak
L-M
Y
Quercus shumardii
Shumard Oak
L-M
Y
Quercus robur
English Oak
Species
L-M
Skymaster
Tilia americana
American Linden
Species, Boulevard
M
Frontyard, Legend
Sentry
Ti/ia cordata
Littleleaf Linden
Chancellor
M
Dropmore,
Greenspire, Norlin
Olympic, Prestige
Shamrock
Tilia x euchlora
Redmond Linden
Redmond
M
Tilia x jlavescens
Glenleven Linden
Glenleven
M
Ulmus sp.
Accolade Elm
Accolade
L-M
Y
Y
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 16
Notes:
Don't use lindens along roads that are treated with deicing salts.
Use Accolade Elm in smaller quantities.
Approved cultivars are listed by each tree name. The term species indicates that trees grown from seed as well
as the listed cultivars may be used.
Those species marked as drought tolerant should be the only species used on sites with limited irrigation.
Only ornamental trees that have these characteristics should be selected as street trees.
• Can readily be trained to a single stem with the first branch high enough to avoid conflicts
• Sterile, sparsely fruited, small fruited or with persistent fruit
• Crown form that grows or can be maintained appropriate for the site
• Disease resistant
• Thornless
Contact the City Forester for approval to use ornamental trees and shade trees not listed.
RESPONSE: We have revised the preliminary landscape plan to address these comments.
Fort Collins Loveland Water District (Terry Farrill)
Department: South Fort Collins Sanitation District
Contact: Terry Farrill, 970-226-3104
The Fort Collins- Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District are willing and
able to provide service provided all District requirements are satisfied.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
The project can be served by an existing 16 inch waterline. The District's existing facilities are capable of
providing domestic water service in accordance with Section 8.1.2 of the Larimer County Land Use
Code.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
An existing 8 inch sanitary sewer line can serve the project. The District's existing facilities are capable
of providing sanitary sewer service in accordance with Section 8.1.1 of the Larimer County Land Use
Code.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
New Mercer Comments (Stan Everitt):
Rosanna, I want to let you know the status of this referral, in particular the crossing designs. We have
been working with Terry McGee of the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure we are not impacting the
ditch in a way that might require a Wetlands permit. Apparently, there are new regulations that require
the State of Colorado to evaluate the historic impact to a ditch (all ditches are now considered historic by
the Federal government) if an Army Corps permit is required. Jim Birdsall and I met this morning with
Terry on site to discuss crossing design options that may allow us to avoid the need for a permit or what
the consequences of getting a permit would mean to the land owner/developer and the Ditch Company.
Based on that conversation we want to design a crossing that avoids the need for the permit if that
design is economically feasible. That design will be coming in the next few days and at that time I plan to
contact John Moen to meet on site and discuss the plans with him to make sure we both understand the
Ditch Companies ideas about these crossings. Hopefully we can agree to a design that works for all of
us. I'm sorry for the delay and seeming confusion. We have had many discussions with Terry but it took
a site visit for us to completely understand the various options and the consequences of getting a permit.
Now we have the information needed to proceed and I believe we can address the issues quickly and
efficiently. I will keep you informed of our progress.
Response: We are continuing our discussions with the New Mercer Ditch Company. The
remaining outstanding issue is the vehicular crossing 'bridge' for Tilden Road coming off of
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 17
Zephyr Drive. This crossing is located in an area of the ditch that the Company would like to
change to reduce erosion and help with the flows of irrigation water. Final design of this crossing
should be forthcoming and will be according to City of Ft. Collins requirements.
Neighbors:
Thomas Northrop — Westchase Resident
I live in the Westchase development and have received several mailings describing various new
developments in our area. These include:
1. Latter -Day Saints temple at Timberline and Trilby.
2. Crowne on Timberline, west of Bacon Elementary School.
3. Mail Creek Crossing, northeast of Bacon Elementary School.
4. Kechter Farm, east of the Westchase development.
In general, I am for the development of the area. I currently work in the construction industry so an
increase in homebuilding will benefit my work.
My main comment/concern on these developments is the resulting traffic flow (or lack thereof).
If you have ever travelled on Timberline between Trilby and where it expands to four -lane just south of
Battlecreek in the morning (around 7:30-8:30) or afternoon (4:00-6:00) you would realize it is jammed.
Drivers will exit their cars at Fossil Creek Parkway to push the crosswalk signal just to get a chance to
pull onto Timberline. Kechter Road heading west from Ziegler to Timberline also backs up significantly.
These new developments would make the traffic flow even worse. I live on Carmichael St. and I think
drivers in a hurry will drive at high speed along Carmichael to avoid Timberline.
I think these problems could be dealt with if there are plans to widen Timberline and Kechter and to
install traffic signals at key intersections. Also, limiting the access roads into these developments to keep
most traffic on Timberline and Kechter and prevent "cutting through" would also help.
It appears that the Latter -Day Saints temple project has plans to widen Timberline so that problem may
already be solved.
A traffic light at Zephyr and Timberline might be nice but I don't claim to know the best place for one.
I think what I've said has probably already been thought of but I wanted to express my opinion as a
resident of the area. Thank you.
Response: Most of these issues are addressed in the TIS. Any information from the City of Ft.
Collins regarding the Timberline/Kechter improvements would be helpful. These improvements,
along with widening Timberline from Zephyr to Kechter should be a Street Oversizing project
funded by building permit fees, but the timing is unknown.
Robert Wideman
I like the idea of trails, sidewalks, and access to other parks in the area.
I have lived in the limbers since July 2, 2012 and am very happy. I still have some concerns about only
one access road to the north from mail creek crossing, while we will have two access roads to the south
onto Zephyr Drive. It seems to me that we should have another access road to the north through the
Ketcher Crossings Subdivision to prevent traffic overload on Zephyr. In the alternative, I will be more
comfortable with an access road to the west or northwest of Mail Creek Crossing. Is the Outlot on the
Spruce cui-de-sac designated for access to the north, northwest, or west should future traffic increase?
I think the developer has done a good job of laying out Mail Creek Crossing and of addressing the
concerns of most respondents. I had no idea all the stuff he had to contend with to get this project off the
ground.
Response: When the land to the north develops we have accommodated another roadway
connection with the cul-de-sac at the northwest end of Spruce Creek Drive.
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 18
June 06, 2013
Jim Birdsall
TB Group
444 Mountain Ave.
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Mail Creek Crossing PLD/PD and Change of Zone, CRF130004, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the
above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct
your questions through the Project Planner, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or
lex@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex .fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
06/05/2013: The applicants have noted that they comply with this standard due to the parks
provided in the Kechter Crossing and Kechter Farm projects. However, City staff would note
that the Kechter Farm project only has a GDP approved and not full plan approval. The
stormwater detention areas on the site could easily be adapted to meet these code standards
by providing walkways, e.g, crusher fines trails, around these areas to provide walking paths for
the site's future residents. These simple types of amenities increase property values, the
experiences of the future residents, and City staff believes, are required by the County's Land
Use Code.
03/06/2013: This comment was not addressed in the submittal letter or in the drawings? How is
this being addressed?
10/16/2012: How does this proposal meet the standard relating to neighborhood parks?
Section 4.5(E)(6) of the Land Use Code.
Since this comment was made, the developer has a letter of intent with Craig Foremen to
develop the Lehman Farm MILD parcel to the west.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221.6573, slangenberperAfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The City will need to review the designs for the box culverts and the pedestrian bridge.
6/6/13:1 do understand that the box culvert is a different project, but we will need to review the design
since you will want us to accept the structure.
A plan and profile sheet of the proposed box culvert design has been provided as a part of the
Final Plan submittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The entire culvert (wing walls, headwalls, etc) will need to be within the row, so
AL
once we information about the proposed design and agree upon a proposed design there maybe some
changes to the row limits being dedicated around the culverts. 6/6/13: Currently the plans are not
showing this.
The ROW has been adjusted to include the wingwalls as requested. We understand that
there may need to be some refinement as a final design is settled on.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: In addition to the pedestrian connections that you have shown on the utility plans, a
pedestrian connection off of Owl Creek Drive to the north and one through Block 7 is needed to
meet the standard requiring pedestrian connections every 660 feet along a block face.
6/6/13: 1 do not agree with your interpretation of the length of a block face, but since there is a
gap between houses to accommodate the drainage people will be able to walk through this area.
A pedestrian access is now included.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Will ultimately need to provide a detail in these plans for the transition from vertical
curb and gutter to drive over curb and gutter.
A detail of the transition from vertical to rollover is now provided.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: The outlots in which the pedestrian connections run through need to be dedicated
as access easements.6/6/13:Access easements for the sidewalk connections need to be
dedicated across Outlot B. Currently this tract is only defined as a utility and drainage easement.
See revised Plat. Outlots D, E and I are Pedestrian Access Easements.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
06/06/2013: The TIS indicates that a future 'hard surface' trail will exist in the future. As I
understand it this is not going to be the location of this trail. The trail will actually be located along
the North side of Zephyr and looks as if the widened sidewalk along this area is already built.
This is more info — in case there is a desire to correct that statement in the TIS before this
document goes to hearing/ board.
TIS has been revised. See page 29.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: The plan showing the fence and column locations. The columns and the fence
need to be located a minimum of 2 feet behind the right-of-way and ideally the columns should
be placed behind the 9 foot utility easement. The footer for the column may interfere with utilities
in this area. A note needs to be added to these plans that the Fence shall be placed a minimum
of 2 feet behind the right-of-way and/or sidewalk along the public streets.
Response: Columns and fence will terminate at the utility easement. A fence easement has
been included as a part of the plat
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: If the desire is to continue the underdrain through this site than a subsurface water
investigation report will need to be provided along with the design.
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: Show that a barricade per detail 1413 is placed at the NW end (cul-de-sac) of
Spruce Creek Drive. This will help to indicate that the roadway maybe extended in the future.
A barricade has been added.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: Signature blocks for FCLWD will need to be provided on the plans.
The signature block has been added.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: Directional ramps need to be provided on both sides (east and west) of Tilden/
Zephyr intersection that is being constructed by you.
Ramps are provided on both the east and west side of the intersection. Directional ramps
have not been used at this location in an effort to match the existing receiving ramps to the
south, and to preserve the existing fire hydrant and tree on the northeast corner of the
intersection.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: The proposed grades shown at the NW corner of the site don't appear to tie into existing grades.
If grading cannot be tied into on site off -site grading easements will be needed.
The contours have been updated with the final design, and now tie to the existing contours in
this area.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: For the lots that front onto Tilden Street stationing for the driveway locations will
need to be provided when the flowline stationing is provided.
Driveways are now shown, and stationing is now provided.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: Can minimum grades be used to go into the low point on Spruce Creek Drive at
least on the south side of the road? As designed the minimum cover is close to being met
along the centerline, but will be less on the south side of the street due to the pipe slope and
the road x-slope.
The profile grades have been left as is, and the minimum cover of 3' is being provided over
the storm drain.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: The east end of Spruce Creek Drive will need to have rip rap installed to protect the
end of curb, gutter and pavement from undermining. Please make sure this gets shown on the
final plans.
Riprap is now provided.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: The storm pipe under Sand Creek Drive is not meeting the minimum cover
requirements.
The storm pipe is now meeting the minimum cover requirement of 3'.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013
06/06/2013: How wide is the proposed attached sidewalk at the culvert crossing? We will want
the sidewalk to stay detached for as long as possible before transitioning into a wide attached
sidewalk at the culvert..
The attached sidewalk is 6' wide. The attached walk becomes detached where the wing walls
are proposed to end to the south. To the north, we anticipate a crossing of some sort for the
ditch rider road, so we have kept the walk attached until north of the ditch rider road.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, Iex(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 0310612013
03/06/2013: Please contact the City Forester to review in an on -site meeting any existing trees
and possible mitigation. If there are existing trees to retain they should be shown on the plan and
the tree protection notes added that are found in found in LUC 3.2.1 G.
Response: Acknowledged
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/0612013: Select street trees from the City of Fort Collins Street tree list (attached). There are
trees shown in the plant list that are not on the City Street Tree list. Autumn Blaze Maple and Red
Sunset Maple do not survive or thrive in Fort Collins soils and are not recommended to be planted.
Triumph Elm is not on the City Street tree list but Accolade Elm is and could be used as a
substitution.
Response: Tree species have been revised
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Trees and shrub species selected for planting in the non -irrigated grass areas
should be drought tolerant. Please add a note that says trees and shrubs in non -irrigated turf
areas to be irrigated with a drip or bubbler system.
Response: Note has been included on irrigation notes sheet 2
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Tree planting by residential lots should be identified as being planted by the builder
and not the homeowner. Please make changes that say the builder will plant the trees in the
parkway by residential lots. These changes should be made to the street tree table and the
associated notes.
-Builder to install trees on individual lots. Builder to install trees in the parkway by individual lots
as shown on the landscape plan, but are not required to be installed at the time of the public
improvements. These trees will be required to be installed at the time of certificate of
occupancy if weather allows. A letter of credit or other form of financial security may be posted
with the County/City in lieu of tree planting if weather delays installation.
-Species used as street trees by residential lots should be from the City street tree list. Some of
the trees listed are not on the list and should be changed.
-Please identify the tree species for planting by all the residential lots by labeling them. Include
residential lot street trees in a plant schedule with number, sizes and species listed. (Minimum
size shade tree 2.0 inch caliper).
-Note #2 under the lot street tree planting table should add that tree locations should be adjusted
for street lights and signs as well. I suggest this wording note #2. Jree locations may be
adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utilities street signs and street lights. Street trees to
be centered in the middle of the lot to the extent feasible.
-We request that Note #3 pertaining to Lot Street trees say in effect any change in Tree
Mail Creek Crossing September 12, 2013
Engineering Comments
The City will need to review the designs for the box culverts and the pedestrian bridge. I
know that we will have notes and information that will need to be added to the plans. Jin
is out and I will work with our Capital group to determine what these are. I will provide
them to you when I have them.
Access easements for the sidewalk connections need to be dedicated across Outlot B.
Currently this tract is only defined as a utility and drainage easement.
If the desire is to continue the underdrain through this site than a subsurface water
investigation report will need to be provided along with the design.
Show that a barricade per detail 1413 is placed at the NW end (cul-de-sac) of Spruce
Creek Drive. This will help to indicate that the roadway maybe extended in the future.
Directional ramps need to be provided on both sides (east and west) of Tilden/ Zephyr
intersection that is being constructed by you.
For the lots that front onto Tilden Street the stationing for the driveway locations has
been provided. Do need to provide information someplace identifying what the width of
these driveways are to be.
General Note # 34 references Larimer County. This should be changed to City of Fort
Collins or Local Entity.
This is probably my biggest comment. After reviewing and discussing the plans with
Rick Richter the City will not accept the west end of Spruce Creek Drive as a permanent
cul-de-sac. The road needs to be designed and dedicated as a through road with a
temporary cul-de-sac provided at the end of it.
As a suggestion — to me it would make sense to move Outlot I to the north of Lot 12.
This would still facilitate a great future connection to the park. The bridge over the canal
would not need to be as long and the curves in and out of the bridge wouldn't need to be
so tight. Where the connection is located is doesn't line up with a pedestrian ramp, so
moving it to the north would not change that. Just an idea.
Phasing shown — The phasing is not shown on the site and landscape plans. It will be to
your benefit to show the phasing on the site and landscape plans since it will impact the
security that you will need to provide for the landscaping prior to CO's.
I don't know if this may not work because of drainage or other issues, but as far as streets
and water and sewer connections you could move the phase line so that all of Piney
Creek Drive is constructed and Spruce Creek Drive is constructed to Piney Creek. This
species or varieties must be approved by the City Forester.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please include all the tree utility information in note #6 found in LUC 3.2.1 K.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: These are some additional notes that the City requires on landscape plans.
-The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened
to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated
into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other
suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand
(1,000) square feet of landscape area.
-A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this
plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between
the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location
and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees
and a hold on certificate of occupancy.
-The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion
of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the
landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of
each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall
result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Check to see that numbers of tree used are within the Minimum species diversity
found in LUC 3.2.1 D 2
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Please provide repetition and diversity of street tree species groups as illustrated in
the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224-6152, dmartine(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
02/26/2013: Electric utiliity service will be provided by Fort Collins Light & Power Utility. The
developer will need to contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700 to coordinate power
requirements.
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
i
02/26/2013: Light & Power Engineering will need a copy of the preliminary landscaping plan as
soon as possible. This plan can be sent as a pdf to Doug Martine at DMARTINE@FCGOV.COM.
A streetlighting plan will be prepared and street tree locations then will need to be adjusted to
provide minimum clearances between the trees and lights.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
02/26/2013: Please send a copy of the preliminary utility plan to Doug Martine.
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 02/26/2013
02/26/2013: After the plat is finalized and recorded, please send a paper or pdf copy to Doug
Martine. Also, (when available) please send an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) of the recorded
plat to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM.
Acknowledged.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: In regards to sub -basin C3: A flow comparison should be provided comparing historic
drainage to the east with proposed. If the character or nature of the flow changes to the property to
the east, or any negative impact results in the design, than a off -site drainage easement would be
required. Also, the drainage can not flow along the back property line for more than 3 lots per our
criteria manual. This would suggest drainage should flow east off of each lot onto the neighboring
property.
Follow up with stormwater staff has been completed, and an understanding of the proposed
drainage design has been reached. The requested comparison is now provided as well.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: Permission from the Mail Creek Ditch Company is required. Letter of intents
should be provided as soon as possible, with formal agreements before signing of mylars.
Mail Creek Ditch Company is fully aware of the project, and have indicated their approval of
our proposed plans. Formal agreements will be provided as plans are finalized.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: Many elements of the design will be reviewed with the next submittal including
hydraulics, individual lot grading, etc. The development is meeting our criteria at a "PDP level"
and if in the City would be allowed to go to a hearing after comments 1 and 2 were addressed.
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/08/2013
03/08/2013: The development is responsible for a reimbursement to the Kechter Crossing
Development to use the outfall storm sewer to McClelland's Creek as shown on this submittal.
The City can assist in these negotiations if requested.
Acknowledged.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, IexAfcgoy.Com
Topic, General
Comment Originated: 0310712013
Comment Number: 6
py of the Utility Plans, Landscape Plans and Plat with the
03/07/2013: Traffic staff will need a co
next submittal.
Acknowledged.
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221-6820, wstanford@fcaov.com
Topic: Easements
Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
Comment Number: 3
03106/2013: Do not see any sight distance easements on the curving roadways. Please evaluate
the intersection of Tilden and Spruce Creek, north side and also the lots on the north side of
Lodge Pole across from Tilden.
Sight distance easements have been provided where warranted.
Topic: General
b
Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
Comment Num er...
nanswered question from the earlier review.
03/06/2013: Continue the following u
1011812012: Concern with cut-thru traffic from the north leg of Tilden passing thru private
driveway on The Timbers Condo'e site to get to Owens. Anything on the Timbers driveway to
help deter that activity?612013:
Tilden Street has been re -aligned since this comment was made
Vehicular cut through traffic should be eliminated with this change.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: TIS states on page 19 that the Timberline/Kechter intersection operates acceptably
with timing adjustments. Please provide discussion of the various adjustments utilized and their
effects on the analysis. The analysis in the Appendix show numerous changes but time does
not allow the depth of review to dig out all the changes and determine, if appropriate, the reason
a given change/adjustment. Simple timing adjustments do not require discussion for their
change but other changes such as factors, lost time values or other similar type changes should
be accompanied with discussion.
Only timing adjustments were made.
Comment Originated: 03106/2013
Comment Number: 2
0310612013: TIS shows all westbound left turning traffic
n� using unsignalized Kechter intersection Zephyr and
westboundne
and zero traffic choosing the signalized Timberline a
left turns. I can't say I agree with that due to the difficulty of making left turns onto Timberline
during peak hours. With that said though, moving all 20 vehicles to the Timberline and Kechter
intersection (in the City model) does not cause much impact so whether traffic needing to go
southbound chooses to use Zephyr, Kechter or even Trilby the impact is negligible.
Any site generated traffic that finds it to difficult to make a left turn at the
Timberline/Zephyr intersection will likely go south on Tilden to the
Timberline/Trilby intersection. We have assigned a portion of traffic
heading south on Tilden.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/06/2013
03/06/2013: Traffic is unable to learn if the Kechter Crossing project is adding a west bound left
turn lane on Kechter at Tilden. If not this project would have the responsibility to provide it. Please
verify if the west bound left turn lane on Kechter at Tilden is being built with the Kechter Crossing
project.
It was verifed by City staff that this WB left -turn lane will be constructed with Kechter
Crossing
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington(cilfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/25/2013
02/25/2013: Water and wastewater services in this area are provided by the Fort
Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
Acknowledged.
/+ Community Development and
i _�f o' f PO Neighborhood Services
F-'rt
Collins North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
kgov.com/developmentreview
September 18, 2013
Responded to on: October 21, 2013
RE: Mail Creek Crossing PLD/PD Final Plat- County Referral, CRF130017, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for
your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may
contact the individual
commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or lex@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224-6143, lex fcggv.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/16/2013
Comment Originated:
09/16/2013: As you know, the majority of Planning's comments on this project has
related to the neighborhood park requirement. With the City's Parks Department and the
developer working out the agreement to place a park to the west of the project and north
of the elementary school, this issue has been resolved. 1.
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you
Comment Number: 2
09/16/2013
Comment Originated:
09/16/2013: Please contact me when you are ready to begin the annexation process. No
building permits can be pulled in the City prior to annexation.
RESPONSE: Understood. Thank you
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger .fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
09/16/2013
Comment Originated:
09/1612013: The City will need to review the designs for the box culverts and the
pedestrian bridge. I know that we will have notes and information that will need to be
added to the plans. Jin is out and I will work with our Capital group to determine what
these are. I will provide them to you when I have them.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Preliminary design of the box culverts is underway, and the
design will be provided once it is finalized. The specified notes will. be added at that time.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated:
09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Access easements for the sidewalk connections need to be dedicated across Outlot B.
Currently this tract is only defined as a utility and drainage easement.
RESPONSE: Pedestrian Access Easements have been added.
Comment Number: 3
09/16/2013
Comment Originated:
09/16/2013: If the desire is to continue the underdrain through this site than a subsurface water
investigation report will need to be provided along with the design.
RESPONSE: The subsurface water investigation is underway, and should be completed in the near future.
This study will be provided to the city as soon as it is available.
Comment Number: 4
09/16/2013: Show that a barricade per detail 1413 is placed at the NW end (cul-de-sac) of Spruce
Creek Drive. This will help to indicate that the roadway maybe extended in the future.
RESPONSE: The barricade has been more clearly labeled on the Spruce Creek P&P, and is now shown on the utility
plan.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Directional ramps need to be provided on both sides (east and west) of Tilden/ Zephyr
intersection that is being constructed by you.
RESPONSE: Directional ramps are now provided.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: For the lots that front onto Tilden Street the stationing for the driveway locations has been
provided. Do need to provide information someplace identifying what the width of these driveways
are to be.
RESPONSE: The driveways along Tilden now have a width specified.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: General Note # 34 references Larimer County. This should be changed to City of Fort
Collins or Local Entity.
RESPONSE: The note has been updated.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: This is probably my biggest comment. After reviewing and discussing the plans with Rick
Richter the City will not accept the west end of Spruce Creek Drive as a permanent cul-de-sac. The road
needs to be designed and dedicated as a through road with a temporary cul-de-sac provided at the end of it.
RESPONSE: After several discussions and meetings with city staff, and alternative cul-de-sac design has been agreed
to, and is now included in the plans.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: As a suggestion — to me it would make sense to move Outlot I to the north of Lot 12. This
would still facilitate a great future connection to the park. The bridge over the canal would not need to be as
long and the curves in and out of the bridge wouldn't need to be so tight. Where the connection is located is
doesn't line up with a pedestrian ramp, so moving it to the north would not change that. Just an idea.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the suggestion — the site plan has been changed accordingly.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Phasing shown — The phasing is not shown on the site and landscape plans. It will be to your
benefit to show the phasing on the site and landscape plans since it will impact the security that you will
need to provide for the landscaping prior to CO's,
RESPONSE: Phasing Line has been added
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09116/2013: 1 don't know if this may not work because of drainage or other issues, but as far as streets and
water and sewer connections you could move the phase line so that all of Piney Creek Drive is constructed
and Spruce Creek Drive is constructed to Piney Creek. This would allow you to add 13 additional lots to
Phase 1 without much more infrastructure installation and you could do it without the need for temporary turn
arounds. Let me know if you want me to draw this out for you.
RESPONSE: Another great suggestion — thank you! The phasing has been modified as you described.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: With the phasing as shown on the plans temporary turnarounds will need to be constructed
and easements for these turnarounds will need to be provided at the phase line at Piney Creek Drive and
Spruce Creek Drive. These easements can be dedicated on the plat or by separate document,
RESPONSE: The phasing has been updated.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Phasing plan — Phase 2 will not have a second point of access until the adjacent Kechter
Farm is developed and Spruce Creek Drive is connected through and back over to Zepher Road. If this is
not what you had planned then I think that we need to sit down and talk with PFA and discuss how a 2nd
point of access can be provided to allow for the development of Phase 2 prior to Kechter Farm being
developed.
RESPONSE: An alternative emergency access will be provided on the north side of Lots 1 & 15, Block 10 in the event
the east end of Spruce Creek has not been connected to Kechter Farms. Notes and a detail have been added to the
phasing plan explaining the contingency plan and providing design information for the access road in the event that it is
needed.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Is the grading to be phased — or will all the grading and storm pipe work be constructed with
Phase 1?
RESPONSE: Currently, the plan is to complete all overlot grading and storm pipe work with the first phase.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Sheet PH1 — the scale on this sheet appears to be incorrect. Note #2 identifies town
engineering inspector — neither Fort Collins or Larimer County call the them town inspectors. This needs
to be updated.
RESPONSE: The scale and note have been corrected.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: 1 don't know if this impacts anything or not, but the outfall to McClelland's Creek has not
been dedicated to the City as a Public easement and the outfall is still considered a private system.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09116/2013: The sidewalk can be attached at the culvert. The minimum sidewalk width is to be a
minimum of 6.5 feet in width (this is measured from the flowline). I am not sure what is being proposed,
but I suggest that a section be provided.
RESPONSE: The attached sidewalk is proposed to be 6.5' from flowline to back of walk. Preliminary
information regarding the box culvert plan has been provided showing the proposed section. Please
note that this section likely will not appear on the plans once final design information for the box culvert
is received, as it is anticipated that the detailed culvert design will provide this information.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09116/2013: The wing walls for the culvert shall be built in accordance with CDOT detail M-601-20. This detail
will need to be provided on the plans and any information (values) needed to be able to
construct the wing walls will need to be provided. Information such as angles, lengths, heights, box slope
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The requested detail and information will be provided with the final culvert
design.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Need to provide information on the plans that identify the midblock cross pan widths and
depths. This can be done by notes or by providing a detail. Since the depth and dimensions are different
than a standard pan the intersection detail will not work.
RESPONSE: The mid -block pans and intersection pans are now labeled.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Are the bridge designs by others or are you stating that the bridge is to be installed by
others? This project will have the responsibility in installing these bridges so just want to clarify what the
intent in these notes are.
RESPONSE: The bridges will be designed by the manufacturer, and will be installed with this project.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: A project has the responsibility to provide payment in lieu for any portion of the infrastructure
improvements that cannot be constructed to the property limits. Paragraphs will be included in the
development agreement on this.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Street design — Curb return slopes(profile) and information need to be provided on the plans.
Either on the profile sheets or in the detail sheets.
RESPONSE: The curb return slopes are now provided on the intersection detail sheets.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Sheet rl — east curb line — it looks like the AD of the vc is 3.65 not 3.45 and if so it also looks
like the vc is too short.
RESPONSE: The design has been updated.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09116/2013: Street design — not all the PC/PCR sta and information is on all the plan and profile sheets.
RESPONSE: The requested information has been added.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Sheet R6 — Some of the sta on the plan portion do not match those on the profile near the
intersection with Tilden.
RESPONSE: The plans have been corrected.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Sheet R6 — the center midblock cross pan elevation doesn't match the intersection detail.
RESPONSE: The profile and the intersection detail now match.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09116/2013: Sheet R7 — some of the stationing and information has been cut off in the grid.
RESPONSE: The plans have been adjusted to show all of the information.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Sheet R7 — The center midblock cross pan elevation doesn't match the intersection detail
and as shown on the profile would be a high point in the pan.
RESPONSE The profile and the intersection detail now match and maintain positive drainage.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Sheet R9 — some of the stating and information has been cut off in the grid.
RESPONSE The plans have been adjusted to show all of the information.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Street design — curve information for the 90 degree bump outs needs to be provided on the
plans (radii and curve information as per detail).
RESPONSE: The curve information has been added to the appropriate intersection details.
Comment Number: 31
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Intersection details —
Zepher Road and Tilden Street — cross pan (if used) needs to have a minimum .5% slope. It looks as if a
cross pan is not needed in this location and that this intersection should be designed without it. Directional
ramps are needed on both sides of this intersection. What are the grades on Zepher Road that are being
tied into?
RESPONSE: The cross pan has been removed, and the direction ramps have been added. Existing cross
slopes on Zephyr are between 2% and 2.5%. Longitudinal grades are very flat, as the intersection is at the
top of a vertical curve.
Tilden Street and Spruce Creek Drive — the slopes shown in the pans don't match that shown on the
profiles.
RESPONSE: The profiles and details now match.
Spruce Creek Drive and Piney Creek Drive — The elevation in the cross pan is off from that shown on the
profile sheet. The elevation point out from the other corner has also not been shown yet. This elevation
will need to be a minimum of 47.93 (this is the lip of gutter elevation) in order for this area to drain into the
curb or it needs to be greater than the 47.83 so it will drain to the cross pan.
RESPONSE: The profiles and details now match.
Spruce Creek Drive and Yellow Creek Drive — The elevation in the cross pan is off from that shown on the
profile sheet. The centerline elevation of 45.67 also doesn't match the profile, The elevation point out
from the other corner has also not been shown yet, This elevation will need to be a minimum of 45.49 to
drain into the curb.
RESPONSE The profiles and details now match and positive drainage is provided.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Plat — The dedication language on the plat needs to be modified. Per the City Attorney's
office the plat needs to dedicate the easements to Larimer County rather than reserving them, If not
changed this will be an issue at time of annexation as our attorney's office has told me the plat will not be
annexed if the easements are not dedicated.
RESPONSE: The note has been revised.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09116/2013: Plat — Sight Distance Easement restriction notes need to be placed on the plat.
RESPONSE: The note has been added.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Plat — who is the ditch easement being dedicated to? I assume it is being dedicated to the
ditch company and if so they need to sign the plat accepting the easement.
RESPONSE: A note has been added,
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Plat - Need to identify who is to own and maintain the outlots.
RESPONSE: a note has been added.
would allow you to add 13 additional lots to Phase 1 without much more infrastructure
installation and you could do it without the need for temporary turn arounds. Let me
know if you want me to draw this out for you.
With the phasing as shown on the plans temporary turnarounds will need to be
constructed and easements for these turnarounds will need to be provided at the phase
line at Piney Creek Drive and Spruce Creek Drive. These easements can be dedicated on
the plat or by separate document.
Phasing plan — Phase 2 will not have a second point of access until the adjacent Kechter
Farm is developed and Spruce Creek Drive is connected through and back over to Zepher
Road. If this is not what you had planned then I think that we need to sit down and talk
with PFA and discuss how a 2nd point of access can be provided to allow for the
development of Phase 2 prior to Kechter Farm being developed.
Is the grading to be phased — or will all the grading and storm pipe work be constructed
with Phase I?
Sheet PHI — the scale on this sheet appears to be incorrect. Note #2 identifies town
engineering inspector — neither Fort Collins or Larimer County call the them town
inspectors. This needs to be updated.
I don't know if this impacts anything or not, but the outfall to McClelland's Creek has
not been dedicated to the City as a Public easement and the outfall is still considered a
private system.
The sidewalk can be attached at the culvert. The minimum sidewalk width is to be a
minimum of 6.5 feet in width (this is measured from the flowline). I am not sure what is
being proposed, but I suggest that a section be provided.
The wing walls for the culvert shall be built in accordance with CDOT detail M-601-20.
This detail will need to be provided on the plans and any information (values) needed to
be able to construct the wing walls will need to be provided. Information such as angles,
lengths, heights, box slope
Need to provide information on the plans that identify the midblock cross pan widths and
depths. This can be done by notes or by providing a detail. Since the depth and
dimensions are different than a standard pan the intersection detail will not work.
Are the bridge designs by others or are you stating that the bridge is to be installed by
others? This project will have the responsibility in installing these bridges so just want to
clarify what the intent in these notes are.
A project has the responsibility to provide payment in lieu for any portion of the
infrastructure improvements that cannot be constructed to the property limits. Paragraphs
will be included in the development agreement on this.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Plat - the cul-de-sac on Spruce Creek Drive needs to be removed, the street designed
as extending through, and a temporary turnaround easement provided for the temporary turn around
at the end of this street.
RESPONSE: The cul-de-sac has been revised.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Plat — Pedestrian easements or access easements need to be provided from Spruce
Creek Drive to Zepher Drive where the pedestrian connections and bridges are to be located.
RESPONSE: An Easement has been added.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Overall Fence Plan and Notes — Add note to this plan regarding the sight distance
easement and that fences cannot be placed within these easement areas unless they meet the
easement parameters.
RESPONSE: A note has been added.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Need information for development agreement sheet filled out. Please contact me for a
copy of this.
RESPONSE
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tbuchanan(Mcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: If significant trees will be removed provide for mitigation as explained in LUC 3.2.1 F.
Contact the City Forester to provide mitigation numbers for any significant trees that will be removed.
If existing significant trees will be retained then please add the specification found in LUC 3.2.1 G.
RESPONSE: City Tree protection notes have been added
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013: Edit Landscape note number 26 to be consistent with the information shown in the tree
and shrub planting detail in terms of wire basket and burlap removal.
RESPONSE; Note and details have been revised to be more consistent.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
09/16/2013:
Please add this landscape note.
Landscaping must be secured with an irrevocable letter of credit, performance bond or escrow
account for 125% of the valuation of the materials and labor prior to issuance of building permits.
RESPONSE: Note has been added
Comment Originated: 09/16/2013
Comment Number: 3
09/16/2013: Add this note to the three at the bottom of the Plant Schedule.
The Developer/Builder shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final inspection and
acceptance of by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees must be established and of
acceptable condition prior to acceptance.
Also in the first note use Developer/Builder
RESPONSE: Note has been added / revised
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schiam, 970.218.2932, ischla n_@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
9/1012013: If completed in the City, something more comprehensive would be required than just
straw wattles for the outlet structures/culverts in the three detention basins. Seeing as straw floats
and these basins are designed to take large quantities of water that will render straw wattles
ineffective as a BMP a rock based BMP would be better applied in those locations.
RESPONSE: The straw wattles have been replaced with rock socks in the ponds.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, icountY@fcaov-com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Originated: 0911212013
Comment Number: 1
09/12/2013: Please remove the "S" from the sheet SS6 title in the sheet title on sheet CS1. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: The "S" has been removed.
Comment Number: 2
09/12/2013: Please add "Creek" to the title on sheet R8. See redlines.
RESPONSE: "Creek" has been added.
Comment Number: 3
09/12/2013: Please mask all text in the profiles on all applicable sheets.
RESPONSE: Masks have been added to all profile sheets.
Comment Number: 4
09/12/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet INT1. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The line over text issues have been corrected.
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 0911212013
over text issues on sheets FS 1.0 & FS 2.0. See
09/12/2013: FENCE PLANS: There are line
redlines.
RESPONSE, Acknowledged.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: The title of sheet 2 does not match the title shown in the index on sheet 1. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and corrected
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets 2, 3 & 4. See redlines.
RESPONSE Acknowledged
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: The boundary closes.
RESPONSE: acknowledged
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please add the recording information for the Lehman -Timberline MLD. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The information has been added.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please change "know" to "known" in the Certification Of Ownership And Dedication.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: Note has been revised.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Are there any Lienholders for this property?
RESPONSE: No Lienholders.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Is there a newer title commitment for this Plat?
RESPONSE: Note has been revised.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: If restrictions are placed on the usage/enjoyment of the lots by other documents such as a
Development Agreement, etc., make a note referencing those documents on the Plat.
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please provide current monument records for the public land corners shown.
RESPONSE: acknowledged
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please add a note stating who will own and maintain the Outlots.
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please add Site Distance Easement Restrictions.
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please label each Outlot note with "See Outlot Land Use Table (Sheet 1)", or label each with (U &
DE) or (UD & PAE) as appropriate. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 18
09/12/2013: Who is the Fence Line Easement for?
RESPONSE: Owner has been added.
Comment Number: 19
09/12/2013: Please label the widths of all streets.
RESPONSE: added.
Comment Number: 20
09/12/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 3. See redlines.
RESPONSE: revised
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: There is text sheet 3 that needs to be rotated 180. See redlines.
RESPONSE: revised
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please check the easements on Blocks 9 & 10. Are there easements needed on Lot 2 on both
Blocks? See redlines.
RESPONSE: revised.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please label all easement widths and types, See redlines.
RESPONSE: revised.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: There is a confusing bearing & distance on sheet 3. Please move it closer to the line it is for. See
redlines.
RESPONSE: revised.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford(Mcgov-com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/18/2013
09/18/2013: There doesn't appear to be any signing or striping plans or that information in the Utility plans. Each
roadway should have R1-1 (Stop) signage with street name signage above. Please provide any necessary signing
and striping in the plans.
RESPONSE: A signage plan has been added.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: The title of sheet 2 does not match the title shown in the index on sheet 1. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged and corrected
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets 2, 3 & 4. See redlines.
RESPONSE Acknowledged
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 8
09/12/2013: The boundary closes.
RESPONSE: acknowledged
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please add the recording information for the Lehman -Timberline MLD. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The information has been added.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please change "know" to "known" in the Certification Of Ownership And Dedication.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: Note has been revised.
Comment Number: 11
09/12/2013: Are there any Lienholders for this property?
RESPONSE: No Lienholders.
Comment Number: 12
09/12/2013: Is there a newer title commitment for this Plat?
RESPONSE: Note has been revised.
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: If restrictions are placed on the usage/enjoyment of the lots by other documents such as a
Development Agreement, etc., make a note referencing those documents on the Plat.
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please provide current monument records for the public land corners shown.
RESPONSE: acknowledged
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please add a note stating who will own and maintain the Outlots.
RESPONSE: Note has been added,
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 09/12/2013
09/12/2013: Please add Site Distance Easement Restrictions.
RESPONSE: Note has been added.
Street design — Curb return slopes(profile) and information need to be provided on the
plans. Either on the profile sheets or in the detail sheets.
Sheet rl — east curb line — it looks like the AD of the vc is 3.65 not 3.45 and if so it also
looks like the vc is too short.
Street design — not all the PC/PCR sta and information is on all the plan and profile
sheets.
Sheet R6 — Some of the sta on the plan portion do not match those on the profile near the
intersection with Tilden.
Sheet R6 — the center midblock cross pan elevation doesn't match the intersection detail.
Sheet R7 — some of the stationing and information has been cut off in the grid.
Sheet R7 — The center midblock cross pan elevation doesn't match the intersection detail
and as shown on the profile would be a high point in the pan.
Sheet R9 — some of the stating and information has been cut off in the grid.
Street design — curve information for the 90 degree bump outs needs to be provided on
the plans (radii and curve information as per detail).
Intersection details —
Zepher Road and Tilden Street — cross pan (if used) needs to have a minimum .5% slope.
It looks as if a cross pan is not needed in this location and that this intersection should be
designed without it. Directional ramps are needed on both sides of this intersection.
What are the grades on Zepher Road that are being tied into?
Tilden Street and Spruce Creek Drive — the slopes shown in the pans don't match that
shown on the profiles.
Spruce Creek Drive and Piney Creek Drive — The elevation in the cross pan is off from
that shown on the profile sheet. The elevation point out from the other corner has also
not been shown yet. This elevation will need to be a minimum of 47.93 (this is the lip of
gutter elevation) in order for this area to drain into the curb or it needs to be greater than
the 47.83 so it will drain to the cross pan.
Spruce Creek Drive and Yellow Creek Drive — The elevation in the cross pan is off from
that shown on the profile sheet. The centerline elevation of 45.67 also doesn't match the
profile. The elevation point out from the other corner has also not been shown yet. This
elevation will need to be a minimum of 45.49 to drain into the curb.
Plat — The dedication language on the plat needs to be modified. Per the City Attorney's
office the plat needs to dedicate the easements to Larimer County rather than reserving
them. If not changed this will be an issue at time of annexation as our attorney's office
has told me the plat will not be annexed if the easements are not dedicated.
Plat — Sight Distance Easement restriction notes need to be placed on the plat.
Plat — who is the ditch easement being dedicated to? I assume it is being dedicated to the
ditch company and if so they need to sign the plat accepting the easement.
Plat - Need to identify who is to own and maintain the outlots.
Plat - the cul-de-sac on Spruce Creek Drive needs to be removed, the street designed as
extending through, and a temporary turnaround easement provided for the temporary turn
around at the end of this street.
Plat — Pedestrian easements or access easements need to be provided from Spruce Creek
Drive to Zepher Drive where the pedestrian connections and bridges are to be located.
Overall Fence Plan and Notes — Add note to this plan regarding the sight distance
easement and that fences cannot be placed within these easement areas unless they meet
the easement parameters.
Need information for development agreement sheet filled out. Please contact me for a
copy of this.
Mail Creek Crossing October 18, 2012
Engineering Comments
I have not received a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for this project. I need to get a TIS for
this project so it can be reviewed.
I also did not receive site or landscape plans with this submittal.
The City will need to review the designs for the box culverts and the pedestrian bridge.
The entire culvert (wing walls, headwalls, etc) will need to be within the row, so once we
information about the proposed design and agree upon a proposed design there maybe
some changes to the row limits being dedicated around the culverts.
In addition to the pedestrian connections that you have shown on the utility plans, a
pedestrian connection off of Owl Creek Drive to the north and one through Block 7 is
needed to meet the standard requiring pedestrian connections every 660 feet along a
block face.
Will ultimately need to provide a detail in these plans for the transition from vertical curb
and gutter to drive over curb and gutter.
Sight distance easements may be needed at some intersections and pedestrian
connections. Right now it looks like easements will be needed at the intersection of
Tilden Road and Spruce Creek Drive.
As indicated in the information the two developments will need to coordinate plans so
that the streets match and meet between this development and Kechter Farms.
Spruce Creek Drive (west end) needs to be designed so that it can eventually extend into
the adjacent developable property. It can have a cul-de-sac at the end of it, but it would
be a temporary cul-de-sac. This project will need to provide funds for the portion of the
street not built to the property line and the ultimate removal of the cul-de-sac and changes
needed at such time as the road is extended north.
Piney Creek Drive (considered a connector roadway) — It doesn't look as if the vertical
curves on this street were designed to meet connector standards. Three of the curves do
not meet minimum required length for a design speed and algebraic difference. The most
southern one also does not meet the minimum K value.
Will need off site road design for Spruce Creek future extension to the north.
Sheet R8 — missing information on the vertical curve shown at the east end of Lodgepole
Creek Drive.
The storm pipe under Owl Creek Drive is not meeting the minimum cover requirements.
Mail Creek Crossing - PLD
Response to Sketch Plan Comments
RE: Mail Creek Crossing PLD/PD and Change Zone, CRF130004, Round Number 1
Response to Comments
Date: May 17, 2013
State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Comments (Joanna Williams):
Department: Division of Water Resources
Contact: Joanna Williams, 303-866-3581
Water Supply Demand
The application did not include a water supply estimate. Using the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District
("District") average tap water use of 0.57 acre-feet per year, the water demand for the subdivision would
be 78 acre-feet per year.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the analysis. We expect to continue to work with the Fort
Collins -Loveland Water District to calculate the water needs for the project. We also expect
to work with our builder(s) and the District to ensure that there is adequate water to serve
the project.
Source of Water Supply
The proposed water source is the District. On February 22, 2013, the District provided a letter stating
that they are willing and able to provide service to the development provided all District requirements are
met.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
On March 6, 2013, the District provided information about their water supplies. The largest fraction of the
District's water supply is from Colorado -Big Thompson (C-BT) units, although they own shares of other
surface water rights. The District's average and dry year yields are 15,797 AF and 17,258 AF,
respectively. The dry year yield is greater than average year due to the higher allocation of C-BT units In
dry years.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Total 2012 water demand for the District was estimated at 10,097 acre-feet. The District has committed
to supply 4,386 additional taps (including Mail Creek Crossing) increasing future committed demand by
2,500 acre-feet per year. Therefore, total committed demand is about 12,600 acre-feet per year. The
Districts demands are well below estimated supplies in both average and dry conditions.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
State Engineer's Office Opinion
Based upon the above and pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S., the State Engineer's office
offers the opinion that with the District as the water supplier for the development, the proposed water
supply can be provided without causing material injury to existing water rights and the supply is expected
to be adequate.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Colorado Geological Survey Comments (Jill Carlson):
Department: Colorado Geological Survey
Contact: Jill Carlson, 303-866-2611 est. 8316, jill.carlson@state.co.us
Colorado Geological Survey has completed its site visit and review of the above -referenced planned
land division and PD zoning application. I understand the applicant proposes to rezone and subdivide a
39.6-acre parcel to develop 137 SF residential lots. With this referral, I received a Planned Land
Division- Project Description (TB group, February 11, 3013), a Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control
Report (Northern Engineering, February 11, 2013), a set of four PLD drawings (King Surveyors, Inc.,
January 8, 2013), a Rezoning Map (King Surveyors, Inc., January 10, 2013), a Site Inventory Map (TB
Group, February 11, 2013), and a Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report (EEC, January 4, 2013).
Expansive and compressible soils, and expansive bedrock. EEC's geotechnical report contains a valid
description of subsurface conditions based on the results of eight borings and limited laboratory testing.
Their preliminary site preparation and foundation design recommendations to address the site's variably
soft, loose, low strength, expansive and compressible soils and expansive bedrock conditions are
appropriate. I agree that additional, lot -specific, design -level geotechnical investigations including drilling,
sampling, lab testing and analysis will be needed, once grading plans and lot layouts are finalized, to
better characterize soil and bedrock engineering properties such as depth to bedrock, groundwater
levels, density, strength, swell and consolidation potential, and bearing capacity, to refine EEC's
preliminary geotechnical recommendations.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Shallow groundwater, perched water, and feasibility of basements. EEC observed groundwater at shallow
depths of seven to 14 feet below the ground surface. It should be noted that these water level
observations were made in December and early January, a time of year when water levels tend to be
relatively low compared to other seasons. Even shallower groundwater levels should be expected, at
least seasonally and when Mail Creek Ditch contains water, and perched water conditions are likely to
form above less permeable soil layers, on top of the bedrock surface, and within foundation excavations(
which tend to be more loosely backfilled), as a result of landscape irrigation and runoff from roofs and
paved areas.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Since lowermost floor levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated groundwater
levels, full -depth basements may not be feasible on this site, and should not be considered unless site
grading and/or an overall subsurface drainage system are designed and constructed to ensure that the
required separation distance can be maintained year-round. If full -depth basements are planned, the
applicant needs to submit more detailed grading plans, and an explanation of how the shallow
groundwater condition will be mitigated or otherwise addressed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Several methods will be considered to avoid the concerns
described. Slab -on -grade or crawl space foundations, fill in areas of high water table,
underdrain systems and possible lining of the ditch in certain areas are possibilities and
will be explored further as the approval process proceeds. The final plat and associated
design drawings will address these concerns.
An underdrain system may be appropriate for this site, but proper design, grading to a positive discharge
point, a permanent outfall, and ongoing maintenance are critical to the acceptable performance of an
underdrain system.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. If an underdrain is installed it will be designed according to
the requirements of the City of Ft. Collins. The existing neighborhood to the North (Keckter
Crossing) has an underdrain installed and this system was permitted and oversized to
accommodate any anticipated flows from Mail Creek Crossing. Data is being collected from
water table monitoring wells to determine the degree and location of underground water,
and this data will help determine the need for mitigation.
Individual foundation drains should be constructed on all lots to prevent infiltration of perched water (on
lots where basements or crawl spaces are planned and are determined to be feasible), reduce the risk of
wet or moist conditions in the soils immediately surrounding basement walls and foundations, and help
control wetting of potentially expansive and collapsible soils in the immediate vicinity of foundation
elements and floor slabs. It is critical that the individual foundation drains are sloped to discharge to
either the underdrain system (if constructed) or interior pumped sump pits or gravity outlets that
ischarge water as far as possible away from all structures.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Mail Creek Crossing Sketch Plan Responses 5.17.13 Page 2