October 5 2015 Ms. Leah Dawson, AICP, Senior Planner City Development Department City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, Colorado 80229-4326 RE: Case No. Z2015-012 - River Valley Village ODP/CSP Response to First Review Comments/Redlines Dear Leah. As requested, the response to City of Thornton and referral agency review comments/redlines for River Valley Village ODP/CSP is provided in this letter. In additional to the resubmittal of the revised ODP/CSP, Zoning and Utility exhibits, Traffic Report and the PD Standards; a Drainage Plan, Parking Plan, Mineral Affidavit, Prairie Dog Good Faith letter, and Prairie Dog management proposal have been submitted. Responses to the comments and redlines are organized in the following outline, beginning with the Current Planning Letter. A. CURRENT PLANNING (CP) LETTER COMMENTS Page 1 B. POLICY PLANNING Page 4 C. PLANNING REDLINES ZONING MAP Page 4 D. PLANNING PD STANDARDS REDLINE Page 5 E. PLANNING REDLINES CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Page 9 F. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (LA) Page 12 G. DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING (DE) REDLINES Page 14 H. TRAFFIC REPORT REDLINE Page 16 I. INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING REDLINE Page 17 J. THORNTON FIRE DEPARTMENT (TFD) COMMENTS Page 19 K. COLORADO AGRICULTURAL DITCH LETTER Page 19 L. XCEL LETTER Page 19 Response to Comments A. CURRENT PLANNING (CP) LETTER COMMENTS 1. Prior to approval of the ODP/CSP, the developer must submit a letter that serves as evidence of good faith efforts to relocate the prairie dogs. Further, to receive a grading permit, the developer must submit a letter indicating actions taken to remove prairie dogs from the site. Please visit the city s website for detailed information regarding the aforementioned process. Response: We have reviewed the City s Prairie Dog Relocation Information and followed-up on relocation potential. The good faith letter and preliminary contract for mitigation is attached. 2. The applicant will need to provide staff with Certification of Notice for the Affidavit of Mailing identifying the mineral estate owners, in which the applicant will need to sign, and notarize 30 days prior to the public hearing. Response: The Certification of Notice for Affidavit of Mailing is attached. 1
3. Staff will coordinate with the applicant to hold a community meeting within the next couple of weeks for the residents located within 1,500 feet of the proposed development. Response: Noted set for October 15, 2015. 4. Typically, the format for PD Standards submitted to the city is in portrait layout. Please revise these PD Standards from landscape to portrait format. Response: The PD Standards have been revised to a portrait format. 5. The correct title of all documents submitted as part of this application shall read: River Valley Village Overall Development Plan/Conceptual Site Plan. The Case Number associated with this project is: Case No. Z 2015-012 and should be updated on the plan submittal. Response: The title and case number have been has been updated on plan documents. 6. Please provide a parking plan for on-street guest parking with the next submittal. This should account for any sight-triangles and Fire Department NO PARKING throughout the development. Staff has concerns that there is the potential for parking issues throughout the site as a result of the smaller lot sizes and driveway locations. Please also depict a parking plan showing four on-street parking spaces along any cul-de-sacs. Please keep in mind that off-street parking shall meet the City s Code requirements as follows: SFD homes provide four spaces for each dwelling unit, and at least two of these shall be fully enclosed on the lot. SFA dwellings shall have two spaces for each lot, and at least one of these spaces shall be fully enclosed on the lot. Response: A parking plan for on-street guest parking, including spaces along cul-de-sacs has been provided as a separate exhibit, as per your direction. The plan will meet the off-street City Code requirements for SFA and SFD. 7. One of the Subdivision Quality Enhancements indicated on the ODP/CSP is detached sidewalks however they are only shown within the SFD Planning Area. Please note that in order to gain credit for this enhancement the detached walks shall be constructed throughout the entire development not just within the SFD Planning Area. During a recent Planning Session with Council for small lot development, detached sidewalks were encouraged in exchange for reduced lot widths by City Council. Response: The plan has been revised to include detached sidewalks. 8. Several of the Quality Enhancement Standards listed on the ODP/CSP do not qualify as they are existing Code requirements or are redundant. In addition, the Community Center was credited for the entire River Valley Village Public Land Dedication (PLD) as part of the approved Preliminary Plan, thus this cannot be applied towards a Subdivision Quality Enhancement. The following improvements will qualify as Subdivision Quality Enhancements : a. Landscaping in the subdivision exceeds City requirements, as defined by Code by at least 20%. Response: The plan complies with this enhancement - increasing plant material by 20%. b. The subdivision provides sidewalks that are detached from the curb by at least six feet, and includes landscaped tree lawns along all street frontages within the subdivision. Response: The plan complies with this enhancement revised to include detached sidewalks in Planning Area A - SFA. 2
c. The subdivision exceeds public land dedication requirement by at least 20 percent more than required. Note: detention ponds, floodplains, drainage ditches, steep slopes, and the like are not acceptable dedications to meet this standard. This is also where you can speak to the improvements along the Colorado Ditch. Please ensure this percentage is correct and located on the ODP/CSP. Response: The plan complies with provision of the landscape and recreation improvements along the Colorado Ditch. 9, Staff cannot support the reduction in the side setbacks for SFD units to four feet with a three-foot encroachment. At a minimum the 45 lots should provide for a five-foot side yard setback with a maximum two-foot encroachment for cantilevers, counterforts, window wells, and overhangs. In addition, the rear setback for SFD lots shall only encroach up to five feet since the applicant is requesting a reduced rear yard setback to 15 feet. Response: The plan has been revised to 50 wide lots. The PD Standards have been revised to reflect a 5 sideyard setback for SFD. The 2 sideyard encroachment has been accepted. 10. In some portions of the submittal, SFA lot sizes are labeled at 1,400 square feet. The original approved River Valley Village Subdivision Preliminary Plan, and the City Code requires a minimum of 2,000 square feet for SFA lots. There does not seem to be justification for such a reduction in SFA lot sizes. Response: The minimum size for SFA interior lots is 1,750sf. This is based on a 22 X80 module with some lots having 100 depths. The PD has SFA lots with different dimensions from the original plan for several reasons: a) revising the plan to accept detached sidewalks with ROW at back of sidewalk reduces the available area to include in lots; b) current plat does not have detached sidewalks; c) current plat has narrower lots (18 X110 ) with impractical outdoor space; d) current plat s narrow yards are difficult to maintain e) area not included in PD lots allocated to common area to benefit community; f) space allocated to common area will be maintained by the HOA; and, g) wider lots allow for two-car garages and larger rooms in the units. 11. Please remove the side setback provision for a zero-foot side yard setback when the opposite side yard is a minimum of 10 feet as this would then trigger the requirement for Use Easements between the lots. Response. The zero-foot sideyard provision has been removed. 12. Please ensure that the minimum lot sizes and minimum lot frontages contained within the PD Standards also correspond with those presented on the ODP/CSP. Response: The minimum lot sizes and frontage dimensions correlate with the ODP/CSP 13. Please ensure that the SFD lots located along any eyebrows shall meet the minimum lot frontages of 45 feet. Only lots along cul-de-sacs are permitted reduced lot frontages at the front property line. Response: The revised plan has 50 wide lots with minimum 50 lot frontages. 14. Staff requests that the detached sidewalks be placed within the right-of-way. Please use the typical city detail for detached walks. Response: The revised plan has detached sidewalks within right-of-way using the typical City detail for detached walks. 3
15. The fences along both Colorado Boulevard and Thornton Parkway shall be doubled sided with masonry columns every 75 linear feet. 18-565 (d) (1c)) City Code. Credit can be obtained for a Subdivision Quality Enhancement if the applicant chooses to provide a solid masonry or stone fence along all abutting major and minor arterial streets. 18-585 (b) (5)) City Code. Response: The plan note and detail have been revised to indicate a double sided wood fence with columns every 75. 16. Please see additional comments and red-lines contained within the ODP/CSP drawings and within the PD Standards. Response: All comments and redlines have been reviewed and included in this letter. B. POLICY PLANNING 1. This application complies with the 2012 Thornton Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is designated as Residential Medium on Figure 3-3, Future Land Use Map, found on page 3.13 of the 2012 Thornton Comprehensive Plan. This land use category allows for residential uses in a density range between 5 and 15 units per gross acre. C. PLANNING REDLINES ZONING MAP Sheet 1 1. Revise Title on all sheets. Response: All sheets have been revised with the correct title. 2. Use Case #Z2015-012. 3. Delete Consultant References. Response: Consultant references deleted. Sheet 2 1. Remove Case number. Response: Case number removed. 2. Delete City of Thornton and add MH labels to Pine Lakes. Response: Labels revised. 3. Delete City of Thornton and move zoning label below River Valley Village. Response: Labels revised. 4. Delete City of Thornton and move zoning label below Riverstone at Thornton Response: Labels revised. 5. Delete City of Thornton, revised SFD to PD and move zoning label below Cherrylane. Response: Labels revised. 6. Add square footages and acres under parcel zoning proposal. Response: Square footage and acre quantities have been added. 4
7. Delete City of Thornton Public Land Dedication and add as River Valley Village with SFA below. Response: Labels revised. D. PLANNING PD STANDARDS REDLINE 1. Format document in portrait layout. Response: Reformatted in portrait layout. 2. Remove Cornerstone from titles. Response: Cornerstone removed. 3. Delete planning & development team references. Response: Planning & development team page removed. 4. Revise Table of Contents after removal of sheets has occurred Response: Table of Contents revised. 5. Page 1 Remove Project Overview. Response: Project Overview section removed. 6. Page 2 Remove Project Context & Community Center page. Response: Page removed. 7. Page 3 Remove Project Context & surrounding project photos pages. Response: Page removed. 8. Page 4 Remove Project Goals page. Response: Page removed. 9. Page 5 Remove Colorado Agricultural Ditch photo. Response: Photo removed. 10. Page 6 None. 11. Page 7 None. 12. Page 8 Revise CSP to ODP/CSP ; insert City text for administrative amendments; add Accessory structures cannot exceed 16 in height to 1.2(a) and (b). Response: All revisions and insertions made. 13. Page 9 Remove 1.3 Overall Site Plan page. Response: Overall Site Plan page removed. 14. Page 10 2.1(a) Revise first sentence with Single Family Attached units are arranged on individual lots with in Planning Area A. Response: Sentence replaced. 15. Page 10 2.1(b) Replace A with B at end of sentence. Response: Word replaced. 5
16. Page 11 2.2 Development Standards. Make lot size standards minimum not average and correlate lot sizes with CSP. Response: Lot size standards revised to minimum correlated with CSP. 17. Page 11 2.2 Development Standards. Building to Building Separation - replace 15 with 20. Response: After discussion and further review Leah Dawson approved 20 for ranch and 15 for two-story models in Planning Area A SFA for building to building separation. 18. Page 11 2.2 Development Standards. Front Setback - replace ROW or back of walk with from property line ; add 10 to a side loaded garage in SFD. Response: Revised. 19. Page 11 2.2 Development Standards. Side Setbacks - a) SFA replace 0 with 0 feet on that side of the lot for which the side lot line is coincident with the party wall between attached dwellings: or 5 for each attached end unit ; b) SFD, replace 4 minimum 10 building to building with 5 sideyard; c) delete; d) delete 3, replace with Max. 2 foot encroachment with a reduced sideyard of 5. Response: Revised. 20. Page 11 2.2 Development Standards. Rear Setback - b) fix spacing, replace 10 with 5 encroachment to property line. Response: Revised. 21. Page 11 2.2 Development Standards. Minimum Building Setback clarify that the setbacks are building setbacks from exterior property lines. Response: Clarification made. 22. Page 12 2.3 97 th Avenue Illustration revise Street Illustration. Response: Revised. 23. Page 13 2.4 Local Public Street Illustration revise Street Illustration (same as 97 th Avenue). Response: Revised. 24. Page 14 2.5 Roundabout Illustration dimensions and design standard to be set at plat. Response: Plan revised, roundabout removed. 25. Page 15 2.6 Local Private Street Illustration revised Illustration. Response: Revised. 26. Page 16 3.1(a) Elevations Replace Dwellings placed adjacent to or across the street (50% or more of a street frontage) from other dwelling shall have different front elevations with No three dwellings adjacent to one another shall have the same elevation of the same plan. No two dwellings across the street from one another shall have the same elevation of the same plan. Response: Replaced. 27. Page 16 3.1(a) Elevations 1 - Replace 40% with 50%. Response: Replaced. 27. Page 16 3.1(a) Elevations 2 Replace 1.5 with 2. Response: 1.5 replaced with 2. 6
28. Page 17 3.1(b) Garage Setbacks 1 replace 70% of front garage planes must be setback with 100% ; and replace min 1.5 with min 2. Response: After discussion, our request to reduce the 100% of all garages that must be setback to 70% was not approved. We have discussed this standard with builders and when combined with other PD Standard driven costs find that the costs are not commensurate with the aesthetic benefit and deserves further discussion. The text has been revised to 50% of all garages and we request that Staff accept this standard, coupled with the other garage and house setback requirements as a significant upgrade from the base Code requirements. 29. Page 17 3.1(b) Garage Setbacks 2 revise (min 1.5 ; plans may be flipped) replace with (min 2 ), delete plans may be flipped. Response: Revision made. 30. Page 17 3.1(b) Garage Setbacks 3 Delete. Response: After discussion Standard 3 to remain was allowed to remain. 31. Page 17 3.1(c) Building Façade Treatments add 7. Sixty percent (60%) of the elevations offered shall extend along the building façade to an equal or greater width than the garage or driveway, approximately 50% of the main façade. The remaining homes shall have a covered front porch of a minimum 72sf. Response: After discussion a reduction of the porch area was approved and inserted requested text with a porch area to 60sf. 32. Page 17 3.1(c) Building Façade Treatments add 8. 100% of the homes shall have a covered front porch with roof column supports. Response: After discussion the following was approved: 8. 100% of the homes shall have a covered front porch (roof with column supports, alcove penetration into house volume, cantilevered overhang) with useable area (min 50sf). 33. Page 17 3.1(c) Building Façade Treatments add 9. All corner lots shall either incorporate a masonry wrap for the entire length of the street frontage, or porches which wrap around the side of the house that faces the side street. Response: Addition made. 34. Page 18 3.1(d) Roofs 1 - revise 25yr to 30yr. Response: Revised. 35. Page 18 3.1(d) Roofs 2 revise text to read: At least four visibly distinct colors of roofs shall be distributed evenly throughout the development. Response: Revision made. 37. Page 18 3.1(d) Roofs 3 revise text to read: 100% of the homes shall have a minimum pitch of the predominant roof of 4:12 (excluding dormers, porch roofs, and other extensions) and 50% of the plans offered shall have a minimum pitch of 5:12 or more. Response: Revisions made. 38. Page 18 3.1(d) Roofs 5 add new standard: Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 12. Response: Additional standard inserted. 7
39. Page 18 3.1(e) Colors and Materials delete 4 text; add Code masonry requirements. Response: Revision made masonry requirements added. 40. Page 18 3.1(e) Colors and Materials add 8: The subdivision will have a minimum of seven (7) different home models each with a minimum of three (3) different elevations. Each elevation shall have a minimum of seven (7) different color palettes. No two (2) dwellings adjacent to one another or across the street from each other shall have the same color palette. Response: After discussion a minimum of 5 different home models rather than 7 home models was approved. 5 home models remains a concern for this property. It is unlikely that interested builders will deploy more than four (4) models for a subdivision of this size, on this property in this market segment. We believe this circumstance requires further discussion and request that the City accept four (4) models for this project which meets the Code standard for 60 lots. 41. Page 19 3.1(f) Windows and Doors add new 2 text: 100% of the street facing facades of every home shall have at least 16sf of window glass area, and 75% of all of the homes offered will have a street facing facade with 24sf or more of window glass area. Response: Standards added. 42. Page 19 3.1(f) Windows and Doors 6 revise as 7: A minimum window area of 16sf of glass is required per elevation. Response: Revised. 43. Page 20 3.1(i) Menu of Architectural Features: delete Consider, replace with Shall select. Response: Revision made. 44. Page 20 3.1(i) Menu of Architectural Features: delete 3 Porches, Patios Balconies. Response: Deletion made. 45. Page 21-3.1(i) Menu of Architectural Features 4. Home Design: delete c, f, h, I, j, and k. Response: Deletion of standards made. 46. Page 22 3.2(a) Elevations delete sharing a minimum of 50% or more street frontage from 1 st sentence; add No more than 2 adjacent dwelling units shall have the same set back, and the setback between units shall be at least 1. Vertical modulation within each dwelling unit shall be a minimum of 1 in depth, and 4 in width and the sum of these dimensions shall be no less than 8. Response: Revision made. 47. Page 22 3.2(a) Elevations 1 revise 1 to 2. Response; Revised. 48. Page 22 3.2(b) Roofs 1 revised 25-year to 30-year ; delete metal. Response: Revisions made. 49. Page 22 3.2(b) Roofs 2 delete 2 nd sentence: Response: Deletion made. 50. Page 22 3.2(b) Roofs 3 replace Multi-family buildings with SFA. Response: Replacement made. 8
51. Page 23 3.2(b) Roofs 5 add and incorporate at least one of the following: a) vertical or horizontal changes in the roof lines; and/or b) varied roof forms. Response: Addition made. 52. Page 23 3.2(c) Colors and Materials 1 delete can be selected for compatible with the design intent and with the existing units; add shall be varied and contrasting dwelling units and provide variety and individuality. Architectural elements, such as trim, shall have contrasting colors. Response: Revisions made. 53. Page 23 3.2(c) Colors and Materials 2e. replace with City Code masonry requirement. Response: Masonry requirement replacement made. 54. Page 23 3.2(d) Windows & Doors 3: add At least 20% of the area of each floor on facades that face a street or common area shall be windows or pedestrian doors. Response: Addition made. 55. Page 23 3.2(d) Windows & Doors 4: add Windows shall provide relief, detail and variation on the façade through the use of trim and architecture styling that lends human scale to the façade. Response: Standard added. 56. Page 24 none 57. Page 24 3.2(g) Menu of Architectural Features 6 add new text All rooftop equipment, including without limitation HVAC units, evaporative coolers, and antennas, shall not be placed on the street facing portion of the roof and shall be fully screened. Response: Standard added. 58. Page 25 3.3(a) replace Multi-family with SFA and Single Family with SFD. Response: Revisions made. 59. Page 26 3.4 Recreational Trail Loop & Open Space Illustration rescale plan and remove contours. Response: Plan rescaled and contours removed. 60. Page 27 4.3 Signage delete. Response: Deleted. E. PLANNING - CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN REDLINE RESPONSES Sheet 1 1. Revise title on all sheets: Overall Development Plan /Conceptual Site Plan Response: All sheets have been revised with the correct title. 2. Delete Purpose Statement Response: Purpose statement deleted. 3. Revise and correlate Land Use Table with PD Standards. Response: The Land Use Table correlates with the PD Standards as revised. 4. Identify percentage of landscaping define for SQE purposes. Response: The landscape is 20% more than required and meets the SQE requirement. 9
5. Remove Streetscape Elevations from ODP/CSP. Response: Removed. 6. Delete General Notes. Response: Deleted. 7. Delete Quality Enhancement Standards 1, 4, 7, part of 8, 9, 10 and 11. Response: Quality Enhancement Standards have been revised to meet the requirement. 8. Clarify Quality Enhancement Standards 2 and 3 relating to open space and landscape standards. Response: Quality Enhancement Standards have been revised to meet the requirement. Sheet 2. 1. Coordinate minimum lot sizes for SFA and SFD with PD Standards. Response: Minimum Lot sizes for SFA and SFD are in sync with PD Standards. 2. Replace Standard Flexibility Statement with text provided by City. Response: City text inserted. 3. Add School Site to Public Dedication label. Response: Label revised. 4. Add Detention to Pond label. Response: Label revised. Sheet 3 1. Incorporate detached sidewalks throughout entire subdivision to receive credit for required SQE s. Response: Detached sidewalks have been incorporated through entire subdivision. 2. Label fence: Double sided fence with masonry columns. Response: Label revised. 3. Confirm with the Ditch company that parking is permitted within their easement. Response: Parking is currently permitted within Ditch company easement in the approved plat. Phone messages have been left with the Ditch Company to discuss. 4. Show building layout on all SFA lots. Response: Representative SFA buildings are shown on plan. The building footprints are conceptual and may change at the time of plat and are dependent on the final design. 5. Revise regional trail dimension to 10. Response: Dimension revised. 6. Revised single-sided to double-sided perimeter fence. Response: Label revised. 7. Clarify legend with Landscape Plan indicate open 3-rail fence and 6 privacy fences on both. Response: Open 3-rail and 6 privacy fences have been clarified on each plan. 10
Sheet 4 1. Reconcile frontage lot widths on eyebrows. Widths can be smaller at cul-de-sacs but not eyebrows. Ensure the lot widths are a minimum of 45. Response: Lot widths have been revised to 50 and conform to 50 in eyebrows. 2. Reconcile lot sizes. Minimum stated in PD Standards for lot sizes with the SFD Planning Area is 4,600sf. Response: SFD lots sizes have been revised to a minimum of 4700sf (50 lots) and the PD Standards and plan correlate. 3. Remove any references to utility easements on the ODP/CSP, thee will e shown on the Plat. Response: Utility easement references have been removed. 4. Are the mail kiosks shown on the plans? Response: The kiosk locations have been identified on the plan. 5. Regional trail should be 10 wide revise legend. Response: Legend revised. 6. Double sided fences are required revise legend. Response: Legend revised. 7. Add wood to 6 high privacy fencing in legend. Response: Label revised. 8. Add designation for open three rail wooden fence to be installed along areas abutting the Colorado Ditch and park/open space. Response: Designation added to plan. Sheet 5 1. Revise Multi-family labels to Single Family Attached (SFA). Response: Labels revised. 2. Revise Single Family label to SFD. Response: Labels revised. 3. Line work for fencing and sidewalks are not clear, and shows the fence through the lots. Response: Line work cleaned-up. Sheet 6 1. Revise fencing labels in legend. Response: Fencing labels revised. Sheet 7 1. Revise perimeter fence to open 3-rail beginning at Lot 24 SFD. Response: Perimeter fence transitioned to open 3-rail. 2. Fix fencing line work. Response: Fencing line work fixed. 3. Clean-up line work within Lots 1 and 3, peripheral to Lot 4 SFD. Response: Line work cleaned-up. 11
4. Check placement of fence in relation property line shown behind Lot 5. Response: Fence location revised to conform to property line. 5. Revise fence labels double sided in legend. Response: Labels revised. Sheet 8 1. Revise fence labels double sided in legend. Response: Labels revised. Sheet 9 1. Please use City detail for open three rail fencing. Response. City detail referenced in legend. 2. Double sided adjacent to major and minor arterials Thus along Colorado Boulevard should be depicted differently than interior privacy fences. Response: Double sided fence symbol clarified in legend. 3. Revised fence labels double sided in legend. Response: Labels revised in legend. Sheet 10 1. Remove this sheet from the ODP/CSP. Response: Sheet removed. 2. The detached sidewalks should be within the ROW vs. on the lots. Response: ROW relocated to be outside sidewalks. 3. Should be detached sidewalks for the entire development in order to gain credit for SQE s and to help justify small lot development with the PD. Response: Detached sidewalks have been placed throughout development to qualify for SQE credit. F. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (LA) Sheet 1 1. Need an existing conditions sheet to detail trees to remove and maintain conceptually. Response: Tree conditions information has been added to the Existing Conditions Exhibit. Sheet 2 - None Sheet 3 1. Regional trails must be 10 and it also doubles as the ditch rider which is 10. Response: Trail width listed in legend revised to 10. Sheet 4. 1. Regional trails require easement for repair and replacement. We would need a minimum of 2 between trail and property lines. Response: 2 separation between trail and property boundary noted in Legend. 2. Code requires double-sided revise fence label in legend. Response: Label revised. 12
Sheet 5 1. Trees on north boundary and along ditch to be should be shown on Existing Conditions sheet. Response: Trees to be removed included on Existing Conditions exhibit. 2. Clean-up line work on Lots 1,2,3,4 in SFD. Response: Line work cleaned-up. 3. An arborist is required to evaluate the safety condition of the old Cottonwood trees. Response: Arborist to evaluate Cottonwood trees at MDP noted in Legend. Sheet 6 1. There is more room for play in the open space area north of 97 th Avenue and it could also go north of the Ditch and it gives them more separation. Response: Discussed with Heidi and she approved maintaining the current location of the playground recognizing that the current location serves the SFD best. 2. Please provide 4 swings at one of the play areas, Use play equipment for 6-12 year olds with accommodations for 2-5 year olds. Response: Noted on detail sheet. Sheet 7 1. Many of the trees in the Colorado Ag Ditch corridor are unhealthy and hazardous, and will have to be removed. They will need evaluation to be submitted with MDP. Response: Noted the Cottonwoods will be evaluated by an Arborist during the MDP process as noted in Legend. 2. Please significantly lighten the hatch in the Colorado Ag Ditch area. Response: Hatch lightened on drawing. 3. Provide more differentiation between the symbols for existing deciduous to remain and to be removed. Response: Existing deciduous trees have been removed from plan and placed on Existing Conditions exhibit. 4. Show removal of existing deciduous trees on Existing Conditions Plan. Only show proposed landscaping on Landscape Plan. Response: Existing deciduous trees removed from Plan and indicated on Existing Conditions sheet proposed deciduous trees indicated on Plan. 5. The Colorado Ag Ditch area will require reseeding, tree removal and planting of additional trees. Response: Noted on Existing Conditions exhibit. 6. Existing trees back of curb along Thornton Parkway have not been maintained. Only large disease free trees will be allowed to remain. Response: Noted and indicated on Plan. 7. Dead or new shrub/trees? Response: Understood, trees on the Thornton Parkway ROW will be evaluated during the MDP application process. 8. Clean-up line work on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 SFD. Response: Line work cleaned-up. 13
Sheet 8 None. Sheet 9 1. Tot lots will require benches and trash receptacles; and concrete sidewalks to get to the play areas. Response: Noted plan revised to indicate these elements and noted on detail sheet. 2. Move play area south of 97 th Avenue north of 97 th Avenue. Response: Play area will remain in present location to serve the SFD neighborhood approved by Heidi. 3. Use City detail for open space fencing. Response: City detail referenced in Legend. Sheet 10 1. Verify edge treatment of roundabout meets City Code. Response: Plan has been revised and roundabout has been removed and replaced with typical intersection. G. DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING (DE) REDLINES Sheet 1 1. See CSP Checklist for additional engineering exhibits and associated requirements. 2. See attached redlines and discussion. Sheet 2. - None Sheet 3 1. Show intersection sight triangles for intersections and for radii less than 150. Response: Sight triangles added to intersections & radii less than 150. 2. Clarify/label ROW and private roadways and associate limits. Response: Public and private roadway ROW s labeled. 3. Remove corner radii labels typically evaluated with the CD s. Response: Radii labels removed. 4. Identify exclusive easements for water and sewer (TYP). Response: Water and sewer easements identified on Utility Plan. 5. Detach sidewalks in SFA area. Response: Plan revised for detached sidewalks. 6. Add Colorado Agriculture to Ditch label. Response: Label added. 7. Use 100 approach tangent on Birch Court. Response: Plan revised, Birch Court removed. 14
8. Use 150 between T s on local streets. Response: Plan revised to fit 150 distance. 9. Add raised pedestrian crossing on E 97 th Avenue and Colorado Agricultural Ditch. Response: Raised pedestrian crossing indicated on plan. Sheet 4 1. Eliminate eyebrow on Albion Lane in front of SFD Lots 29 and 30. Response: Eyebrow removed on Albion Lane. 2. If SFA mostly travels on northern subdivision connection then this could meet the policy (8 SFD N of knuckle). 3. Use 90 radii at Albion Lane/E 96 th Place knuckle. 4. Provide exhibit showing SSD in accordance to AASHTO at all radii less than 150. Areas within lots impacted by sight lines will need to be in tracts with sight visibility restrictions. (TYP). Response: SSD s provided at all radii les than 150. 5. Use City details and locate sidewalk in ROW (TYP). Response: ROW revised to include sidewalk (TYP). 6. Does not meet Spec nor policy for knuckles w/ 90 radii. Use 150 radius E 96 th Place and Clermont Lane curve. Response: Plan revised to accept 150 radius. 7. Use 60 ROW for local road in SFD area. Response: Plan revised to 60 ROW in SFD area. 8. Relocate E 96 th Drive access (Clermont St to Clermont Lane) south to meet Code. Response: Plan revised E 96 th Drive relocated. 9. Use 100 tangent for approach to E 96 th Drive. Response: Plan revised to conform to 100 tangent as closely as possible approximately 85. 10. Roadway/intersection grading and drainage to be evaluated further on CD s. 11. Standards and Specs require minimum 40 for trail access at E 96 th Avenue & Clermont Lane anything less would have to go through Heidi Fogel. Response: Heidi Fogel was consulted and approved a narrower trail access width as part of plan revision. 12. Traffic Report will need to determine if intersection will now meet warrants. The report should assume that Cherry Lane is constructed. 15
Sheet 5 1. Show Sight Lines. Response: Sight Lines have been added. Sheet 6 1. Show Sight Lines. Response: Sight Lines have been added. Sheet 7 1. Clean-up line work on Lots 1,2,3 SFD Response: Line work cleaned-up. Sheet 8 None. Sheet 9 None Sheet 10 Sheet 10 with street sections removed as requested. 1. On Local entry cross-section use Collector section C4 of 500-3. Response: Collector section revised in PD Standards. 2. On Private cross Use typical Section 2 of Detail 500-9. Adjust X-section accordingly (check with Planning if attaché d sidewalks or detached for credit) Response: Private street cross section revised in PD Standards. 3. On Local cross-section Mountable curb is 11, maintain a minimum of 6 behind curb; 60 ROW 60. 4. On Roundabout cross section this will e dependent on turning template. Also reference FHWY for design. Remove detail form CSP. Response: Plan has been revised and roundabout has been removed and replaced with common intersection. H. TRAFFIC REPORT REDLINE 1. Page 1: Clermont Street Section prior Clermont access approval clarified. Response: Text revised. 2. Page 2: Clermont Street Section modeling to establish length of queing on Clermont not required if 150 minimum taper length is used for improvement. Response: Added statement that City s 150 taper is sufficient for queing at Clermont Street and Thornton Parkway 3. Page 2: Street Classifications Where is the time path analysis? How were daily trips determined? What reference was used? Response: Explanation of daily trip calculation with a reference to added to text. 4. Page 2: Horizontal Curves on Interior Streets cross out. Response: Report revised. 5. Page 3: Text on page crossout. Response: Page of text deleted as requested. 16
6. Traffic Report: Provide site generation table and reference appropriate ITE land use codes. Response: A site generation table and ITE land use codes reference have been included. 7. Traffic Report: Provide supporting calculations and references to address the 97 th Avenue roadway classification (volumes and associated support/references for calc and lesser classification local) Response: Supporting calculations and references have been included to address the 97 th Avenue roadway classification. 8. Traffic Report: Provide a trip distribution exhibit. Response: A trip distribution exhibit has been included in the report. 9. Traffic Report: Identify public and private streets in the exhibits. Response: Public and private streets have been identified on the exhibits. 10. Traffic Report: Evaluate Thornton Parkway and Claremont intersection for signal warrants and if any are tripped with the proposed development. Consider Cherry Lane development to the south and the rest of the RVV townhomes to the east as complete in your analysis. Response: Thornton Parkway and Claremont intersections have been evaluated for signal warrants the previous TIS reports have been confirmed and with the reduction of trip generation at RVV warrants have been found not to be met. 11. Traffic Report: Verify conformance with previous reports/studies, including the more recent Cherry Lane development. Provide any supporting tables, calculations, etc in the appendix from these reports. See Attached. Response: Conformance with the Cherry Lane development report has been verified. 12. Traffic Report: Provide conformance statement (Section 104.4, pg. 100-26). Include supporting references/exhibits from previous reports. Response: A statement of conformance has been included in the report with supporting references and exhibits. 13. Traffic Report: Provide separate exhibits with turning templates for each one in both directions and showing parking locations. How will this work with driveways? Response: Turning templates have been provided for each 90 radii/eyebrow curve and parking locations have been indicated on a separate Visitor Parking Plan (as per Leah). 14. Traffic Report: Provide separate basin map exhibit w/ tables/calculations for trip distribution at the various curves that are less than 150 for consideration with regard to knuckles/90 radii policy (TYP). Response: A basin map exhibit has been included in the report with tables/calculations for trip distribution at the curves less than 150. I. INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING REDLINE 1. See CSP Checklist for further water and sewer requirements including but not limited to zone and pressure information, etc. 2. Provide a separate Drainage Plan per CSP Checklist requirement. 17
3. Clarify scale. Response: Scale symbol has been clarified. 4. Details for CD s but must cross water and sewer perpendicularly and maintain minimum 10 separation between utilities, including storm sewer infrastructure. 5. Water services and fire sprinkler lines for high density residential areas shall be constructed from looped systems. 6. No more than 18 SF units can be located off of a dead end main per standards and specs. Any variance would need to be approved by the Fire Department. 7. FYI Construction plans will have to be submitted to the Ditch company and they will need to approve any impacts to the ditch. 8. A seepage analysis will be required for the existing Ditch. 9. CD s show median tee WL at 97 th Avenue and Albion Lane.. 10. Roadway taper lengths shall meet Section 500 (TYP). Response: Plan revised to meet Section 500 (TYP). 11. Eliminate Eyebrow at Albion Lane and Colorado Ag Ditch. Response: Plan has been revised and eyebrow removed. 12. Perpendicular pedestrian crossing required on 97 th Ave at existing roundabout. Response: Revised roundabout removed. 13. Existing storm sewer, water line, and sanitary sewer not consistent with asbuilt update. Response: Drawing updated to reflect asbuilt. 14. Roadway grading and drainage at 96 th Drive to be evaluated further on CD s. 15. Sidewalk conflicts with PRV west side of Clermont near Thornton Parkway. Response: Sidewalk plan revised to avoid PRV. 16. Extend ROW beyond sidewalk (TYP). Response: ROW (TYP) has been incorporated in to plan revision. 17. Maintain 10 separation between utilities. 18
J. THORNTON FIRE DEPARTMENT (TFD) COMMENTS 1. Please provide the total area of the largest townhome and SFD home to be constructed. The total area includes the total floor area of all floors within the exterior walls and under the horizontal projections of the roof. Response: The total area of the largest SFA is estimated to be approximately 2,000sf; and SFD is estimated to be approximately 2,300sf. 2. Fire Department access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the townhome building. Please provide a footprint for the townhome buildings on the site plan so building access can be verified. Response: Footprints for SFA townhomes buildings have been provided on the site plan. 3. The slope of the ground within 15 feet of the perimeter of the building, as measured from the edges of roof eave overhangs shall not exceed the following: a. Five percent as measured parallel to the face of the exterior walls. b. Ten percent as measured perpendicular to the face of the exterior walls. Response: Noted and incorporated at a conceptual level into ODP/CSP. 4. If this project will be completed in phases, the Fire Department normally requires two points of access during all phases of construction. Response: The project will be completed in phases, and interim secondary access roads will be necessary. 5. Please show where guest parking spaces will be provided. Response. Guest Parking spaces have been indicated on the revised plan. 6. Access roads that have a width of at least 26 feet but less than 32 feet are permitted to have street parking on one side of the road. NO PARKING FIRE LANE signage determined at a later date. Response. Noted. K. COLORADO AGRICULTURAL DITCH COMPANY LETTER Response: Noted. Phone messages have been left at contact number to engage the District on the project and necessary coordination. L. XCEL ENERGY Response: Noted. If you require additional clarification or information please contact me. Thank you. Jack Bestall 19