- 1 -

September 6, 2017 Lori Hight, Senior Planner City of Thornton, Development Division 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 Re: Comment Responses to the Initial Review of Avilla Eastlake Station Zoning Amendment,

Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Overall Development Plan / Conceptual Site Plan Application

Dear Lori: Enclosed herein are the initial review comments that were provided to us on January 23, 2017, following the first formal submittal. The comments have been addressed and responses are included with this letter. Please contact me should you have any comments, questions, and/or requests for additional information. Sincerely, Norris Design

Diana Rael Principal

- 2 -

CURRENT PLANNING Senior Planner (Lori Hight, 303-538-7670) 1. In the city of Thornton, PD zone districts are intended to allow the development of innovative projects that

assist in the implementation of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and other development goals and objectives. a. The exceptions from the zoning regulations requested in the proposed PD should be warranted by

virtue of innovative design and amenities incorporated in the PD district. Response: The site plan has been significantly revised to address the City’s concerns regarding its design. The residences are now oriented on a grid with a central, pedestrian-oriented main street with homes facing a 25’-wide road with parallel parking on the north side and detached sidewalks. The majority of parking is now provided off two alleys with perpendicular surface parking and garages. The commercial center, which is still proposed to include two distinct uses, has been brought into the center of the residential community. The commercial center will be built by a future developer, and the Planned Development Standards require buildings that will frame adjacent streets and a plaza that will attract area employees and residents. The project is proposing a unique housing option in this market by providing higher-density, single-family and duplex units for lease. This type of project attracts young professionals and those people who don't want to live in apartment buildings, but want the convenience that a lease provides as well as the lack of required maintenance that comes with owning a home. Each unit provides private outdoor space and options for garage parking. The PD zoning allows for a unique design of the project that isn't permitted under the conventional zoning. Additionally, the project is well-amenitized and includes a pool/spa, bocce ball court, tot lot, dog park, open lawn areas, crusher fine trails, and a pedestrian bridge over the canal.

b. The proposed plan does not assist in the implementation of the city’s Comprehensive Plan but rather proposes a wholesale change from the Employment Center designation to a mostly residential development that is not integrated with a vague proposal for segregated office and retail uses. Refer to Policy Planning comments for further discussion of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Response: The revised site plan integrates residential and commercial future land uses with a centrally located commercial center that is walkable from all residences. NexMetro will develop the residential area and market the commercial area to future developers.

c. The ODP/CSP should demonstrate how the plan is Mixed Use. Mixed-use areas are subject to

more specific area plans that demonstrate interconnectedness of uses. Mixed-use areas should create integrated land use developments with common landscaping, architectural and design elements. Response: The revised site plan includes a horizontal mix of uses. The location doesn't lend itself to more intense vertical mixed-use. The commercial uses have been moved to a more central location that has created more interconnectedness among uses. Pedestrian

- 3 -

connections integrate the residential and commercial portions of the community and will help these distinct uses feel as though they are part of the same neighborhood.

d. Justification for any requested deviations from the Code must be provided through additional amenities and innovative design features. Response: The plan includes several recreational amenities, including a pool/spa, bocce ball court, tot lot, dog park, open lawn areas, crusher fine trails, and a pedestrian bridge over the canal. The overall project is innovative in that it offers a community of single-family homes for lease, maintained by an owner’s association.

e. Demonstrate how the residential property addresses noise and other potential impacts from the Infrastructure Maintenance Center (IMC) to the north. Providing examples of how similar developments have addressed noise concerns may be helpful. Response: The homes will be built to Code and are on average more than 25’ from the property line with evergreens proposed that are larger than Code requires, which will help dampen the noise. Prospective residents will be informed of potential noise impacts by a noise notice in all rental agreements.

f. It is doubtful that staff can support this plan as proposed.

Response: The site plan has been significantly revised based on subsequent discussions with Staff. We believe the revised plan is more in line with what Staff desires.

2. You are required to hold a community meeting for this project. We will provide the mailing labels and the

location unless you wish to provide your own location. We should set up a date for the meeting after further discussion and review of your plans. Response: Understood. A meeting will be held at the appropriate time as required.

3. The Thornton City Council has established a priority to provide recognition and special consideration for the men and women who have served or are serving in the US Military, particularly deserving of special consideration are all of those that have been wounded in the line of duty. Therefore, the city of Thornton formally requests and strongly encourages you to consider providing signed and reserved parking spaces for wounded veterans in a preferred location as a part of your site development plans. While this parking cannot be counted as a part of the federally required ADA parking, it would be counted as a part of the total number of spaces required by the city’s Development Code and therefore would not add significant cost, nor have a detrimental impact on the site design. Response: Comment noted. As we develop the plan further we will consider adding these spaces.

4. You will need to provide justification for the rezoning such as changed conditions in the area and/or market, difficult topography / size / shape of the land, or other valid rationalizations. Response: Despite the rapid development growth in Thornton and the surrounding areas, this property has remained undeveloped and vacant. According to the property owners, the land has garnered little to no interest from the development community for the development of employment uses as called out in the Comprehensive Plan. With the nearby Eastlake Light Rail Station under development, compatible development is in demand, especially residential. While this development is on the fringes of what is typically considered Transit Oriented Development (TOD) it still is near

- 4 -

enough to the station to have an impact. As evidenced by the recent development in and around light rail stations throughout the metro area, residential uses, especially those in the medium to higher density range are in demand in these areas. The proposed medium density residential is a unique product for a property with few other development prospects.

5. Following are the criteria that will be examined in the review of the rezoning request: a. The proposed PD zoning district is compatible with present and proposed development in this area,

and will not have a significant, adverse effect on the surrounding area. Response: The PD zone, consisting of residential and commercial uses, complements the existing and proposed senior housing to the south and the proposed Redhawk apartments to the east. The development will infuse the area with 253 medium-density residences within walking distance of the Eastlake Station, Thorncreek Crossing, and area employers. No significant, adverse effects are anticipated.

b. The proposed PD zoning district is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the use of land and its resources. Response: The PD zoning district and its associated standards will create an efficient, medium-density residential community with a pedestrian-oriented main street and commercial center, as well as numerous recreational amenities that promote public health. The community will be well lit and well maintained to ensure the safety and welfare of its residents and visitors.

c. The proposed PD District is consistent with the overall direction, intent, and policies of the city’s

Comprehensive Plan. Response: The Comprehensive Plan calls for the area to be a future Employment Center. However, the Eastlake Station Area Plan allows for a transit-oriented mix of uses on the property. The project proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for medium-density residential and commercial uses, with a requirement that the commercial center contain two distinct uses, such as a medical office building and a daycare. The list of allowed uses in the Planned Development Standards specifically prohibit auto-oriented commercial uses. The site design reinforces walkability with a pedestrian-friendly central street and pedestrian connections to perimeter roads to facilitate walking or biking to the station.

d. The proposed PD District provides for a creative and innovative design which could not otherwise

be achieved under the zoning regulations in Sections 18-186 to 18-197. Response: The proposed for-lease residential uses could not be developed as proposed under any existing standard zoning district within the City of Thornton. The mix of single and duplex units in a higher density setting requires reduced building separations and varying setbacks. The proposed rezoning will permit a project that is unique to this market.

e. The exceptions from the zoning regulations requested in the proposed PD are warranted by virtue

of innovative design and amenities incorporated in the PD District.

- 5 -

Response: The proposed project is a hybrid between multifamily and single-family developments that is not accommodated by current zoning regulations. Detached homes and duplexes are provided at 10 units per acre, which is high for single-family developments. The plan includes several recreational amenities, including a resort style pool/spa, bocce ball court, tot lot, dog park, open lawn areas, crusher fine trails, and a pedestrian bridge over the canal.

6. See the attached red-lined drawings for additional comments from Current Planning.

Overall Development Plan / Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 a. Planning areas 1 and 2 need to be included in this ODP/CSP Amendment showing internal

circulation; trails and connections; pedestrian areas; existing and proposed easements; pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress; landscape areas; location and dimensions of all existing and proposed right-of-ways, alleys, other public ways or private drives; proposed perimeter fence type, materials and heights; and retaining walls location, materials and heights. The plan must also show building locations, sizes, and parking areas. The residential plan can't stand on its own. This needs to be an integrated mixed use plan. Response: Through discussions with Staff the site plan has been revised. A main street has been provided through the site and the commercial uses have been relocated more central to the project with connectivity to the residential portion of the community as well as to adjacent areas.

b. Provide notes: Description of proposed architectural style and materials.

Response: A description of the architecture has been added.

Public Land Dedication (PLD) table or statement with calculations of PLD (required and provided). Response: A PLD table showing required and provided public land dedication has been added to the PD standards.

Residential subdivisions: List proposed Subdivision Quality Enhancements.

Response: The list of proposed subdivision quality enhancements / multifamily recreational amenities has been added to the cover sheet.

c. List owners’ names, addresses and telephone numbers.

Response: The cover sheet has been revised to list NexMetro Communities as both the Property Owner and Developer

d. Revise #1 in General Notes to not conflict with # 5. Add HOA or owner to # 5 in General Notes. Can't be certain that a Metro District will be approved. Response: General notes have been updated.

e. Make highlighted edits to Land Use Summary Chart.

- 6 -

Provide maximum floor area for PA 1 and 2. Response: A revised Land Use Summary Chart is provided with maximum commercial floor area set at 10,000 square feet.

Setbacks PA 1 and 2: What about the east property line? The residential proximity slope will

apply unless another method of buffering is proposed. Response: The revised site plan limits the height of commercial buildings to 30 feet and a 25’ wide road separates the commercial from residential.

Setbacks PA 3: Code requires a 25' setback at the boundary of the subdivision. This should be

better than Code. Response: There are several areas where the setback is greater than 25' but in order to create a pedestrian-oriented, dense development, the plan does not propose a setback greater than 25’.

Landscape Area: Commercial projects 15 acres and over require 30%. Most PD's provide

more than Code. Response: The commercial area is now 1.75 acres with 30% of landscaped area (including a plaza area) proposed. When this commercial area is planned for development this will be looked at with more finite detail.

Other edits as noted.

Response: Other edits have been incorporated into the revised ODP/CSP to the extent they are still applicable to the revised site plan.

Sheet 2 a. The pedestrian experience in the residential portion of this development leaves much to be

desired. There aren't sidewalks other than through the central green space that take people anywhere other than the alley, where they must then share the street with cars and see mostly garages and parking spaces, or possibly carports. This is not an acceptable plan. Response: The plan has been revised and now includes a central main street with tree lawn and accompanying sidewalk. Additional sidewalks and trails have been added to provide more internal connectivity and also connectivity to the adjacent areas.

b. Show the property line as a bold solid line, the darkest and thickest line on the plan. Response: The plan has been revised.

c. There are indications that this proposal will be a gated community. It is important that perimeter

fences and gates be shown on both the site plan and landscape plan. Response: This community will not be gated. Each unit will have a fenced rear yard.

d. Commercial will never be viable here if this is the only entrance. This needs to be a true mixed use project that can be accessed in numerous places. Response: Numerous connections are provided with this new plan.

- 7 -

e. Provide more pedestrian connections to the streets. Response: Additional pedestrian connections have been added.

f. The emergency access should be shown extending to the property line and with gates.

Response: The site plan has been revised. While no exclusive Emergency Access has been provided, there are three vehicular access points to the site.

g. Is there a proposed perimeter fence? Show and label type, materials, and heights. Response: No perimeter fence is proposed.

h. Show and label proposed retaining walls locations, materials, and heights.

Response: No retaining walls have been included with this submission. A more thorough grading analysis of the site shall be completed for the next submission in which walls will be designed and detailed

i. Five feet is much too small for a backyard along Washington Center Parkway. Response: The backyards are 8’ deep minimum.

j. See and make revisions on all other specifically labeled comments. Response: Comment noted.

Sheet 4 a. Show the property line as a bold solid line, the darkest and thickest line on the plan.

Response: The property line has been revised

b. Provide a better buffer from the IMC. 30' with evergreen trees, sound muffling construction techniques, etc. Response: The north buffer is an average of 30’ wide. Evergreen trees are shown within this buffer.

c. Where is the bridge that is discussed in the PD Standards? Response: The bridge connection is shown north of the central amenity space. This will be detailed during the Development Permit process.

d. Just a leasing office? The site plan calls this a clubhouse but no clubhouse is discussed in the PD Standards. Response: It is a leasing office. The label has been revised.

e. See and make revisions on all other specifically labeled comments. Response: The entire site plan has been revised.

Sheet 5 a. Sign locations can't be approved without more information regarding the size, height and setback.

Remove.

- 8 -

Response: Sign labels have been removed. Monument signs will be detailed during the Development Permit process.

b. The site plan labels the open lawn as a water quality pond. Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

c. What does this represent? Just landscape area?

Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

Sheet 6 a. Show the property line as a bold solid line, the darkest and thickest line on the plan.

Response: The property line has been revised

b. Sign locations can't be approved without more information regarding the size, height and setback. Remove. Response: Sign labels have been removed. Monument signs will be detailed during the Development Permit process.

c. Label the fence with type, material and height.

Response: A fencing plan and details have been added to the CSP set.

d. Label or remove all lines. Response: Setback lines have been removed from the landscape plan.

e. What does "community space" mean?

Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

f. There should only be one right-of-way / property line. Response: These labels have been revised.

Sheet 7 a. Show architecture the way it would actually look. There won't be space for so many trees, and the

front yards aren't so large. Response: The architecture has been updated.

b. Provide a "streetscape" elevation, showing what someone on the private street would see for at least 1/2 a block. A perspective rendering would also be helpful. Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

c. Provide a color and material board showing the colors and materials proposed. Colored renderings

will be required for the public hearing. Response: Colored renderings and a pdf of proposed colors and materials are included with this submittal.

d. Show all 3 types of units.

- 9 -

Response: The architecture has been updated.

e. Also show the garage architecture. Response: The architecture has been updated.

f. Provide a written and graphic scale.

Response: The architecture has been updated.

g. The two types of architecture shown are almost exactly the same. There needs to be more variety between homes. Review the Residential Design Standards in the Code, Section 18-470 to see the minimum typically required. PD zoning requires better than Code. Response: The architecture has been updated.

h. Provide a dimension to the highest part of the roof only.

Response: The architecture has been updated.

Sheet 8 a. Show the property line as a bold solid line, the darkest and thickest line on the plan.

Response: The plan has been revised to depict the site property line as requested.

b. Show existing trees and shrub areas. Label the trees by species and size. Response: The approximate tree locations within the area of the site have been provided.

c. Show adjacent zoning, buildings, property lines, curb cuts, and topography.

Response: The plans have been revised to show applicable adjacent areas.

d. Label all existing easements with their width and purpose. Response: All easements were labeled and have been confirmed.

e. Show the ditch and the trail.

Response: The approximate ditch and trail locations within the area of the site have been provided.

f. There should only be one property line.

Response: All previous property lines have been removed and relevant lines to existing conditions have been labeled.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Sheet 1 a. The line on the Future Land Use Map doesn't follow the property line.

Response: The Future Land Use Map has been revised.

b. Make the proposed designations larger and bolder than the other text. Response: The proposed designations are now larger and bolder than the other text.

- 10 -

Zoning Map Sheet 1 a. Make the proposed designation larger and bolder than the existing.

Response: The proposed designations are now larger and bolder than the other text.

b. Update PD and CR labels. Response: The labels have been updated.

POLICY PLANNING Senior Planner (Rob Larsen, 303-538-7442) 1. Comprehensive Plan (Comments from April 2016 pre-application meeting):

a. The future land use classification of the 26 acre (+/-) site noted above is shown as ‘Employment

Center’ in the 2012 Comprehensive Plan. ‘Employment Center’ is intended to allow for the development of office, corporate campus, and light industrial uses that would promote job growth within the city of Thornton. Residential uses are not contemplated. Response: The Eastlake Station Area Plan allows for a transit-oriented mix of uses on the property. The project proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for medium-density residential and commercial uses, with a requirement that the commercial center contain two distinct uses, such as a medical office building and a daycare.

2. Eastlake Station Area Master Plan, preferred land use alternatives (Comments from April 2016 pre-application meeting):

a. Approved by City Council on October 27, 2015, the Eastlake Station Area Master Plan further

delineated allowable land uses in close proximity to the future commuter rail station slated for Eastlake. The 26-acre parcel noted above as ‘Eastlake Avilla Estates’ is included in this master plan as part of “Planning Area B: Northwest” and has specific land use recommendations associated with its future development: i. “For the portion of Planning Area B located along Washington Center Parkway the City

would also consider a residential/non-residential mixed-use master planned, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) community, consisting of higher density residential along with two or more non-residential preferably employment based uses. Senior/assisted housing could be counted as one of the non-residential uses. To be successful, an integrated mixed use development of this nature would specifically need to outline how negative impacts between land uses are mitigated through design or buffering in the Planned Development Zoning (PD). The master plan would have to identify adequate open space, trail and recreation amenities for the area and ensure that there are adequate safe connections to existing trails and sidewalks, particularly those that link to the nearby transit station.” Response: Distinct uses are proposed and are designed to be integrated and compatible with each other. The list of allowed uses in the Planned Development Standards specifically prohibit auto-oriented commercial uses. The site design

- 11 -

reinforces walkability with a pedestrian-friendly central street and pedestrian connections to perimeter roads to facilitate walking or biking to the station. Numerous recreational amenities are proposed, in excess of Code requirements for multifamily developments.

b. As proposed, the ‘Eastlake Avilla Estates’ development does not meet the intent of the recently

adopted Eastlake Station Area Master Plan, nor does it satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. Response: The plan and the PD Standards have been significantly revised.

c. Policy Planning suggests the developer consider redesigning the site to include three different land uses that will satisfy the ‘…mixed-use master planned…’ intent of the Eastlake Station Area Master Plan. Response: The plan and the PD Standards have been significantly revised.

3. Policy Planning response to Avilla Eastlake Comp Plan Amendment map, 11-18-16 (New Comments,

December 2016):

a. After reviewing Norris Design’s most recent submittal, the developer is proposing two future land use designations on the entirety of the parcel, as opposed to one mixed-use master planned community. The developer is depicting the ‘Mixed Use’ future land use designation on approximately 7+/- acres and ‘Residential Medium’ on the balance of the site, which is approximately 19+/- acres. This proposal does not meet the intent of the Eastlake Station Area Master Plan. Response: The plan and the PD Standards have been significantly revised.

b. By applying the future land use designation of “mixed use” to only seven acres in the proposed 11-18-2016 development scenario, the developer is suggesting they will deliver three distinctly different land uses within a limited land area. Based on drawings submitted to date, the “mixed use” portion of this proposal lacks any detail. Response: The plan and the PD Standards have been significantly revised.

c. The balance of the site is proposed as an atypical medium density subdivision, with units that turn their backs on the proposed seven-acre mixed use area. Limited connectivity between the proposed residential use and the proposed mixed use areas is not enhanced by reading the PD standards that accompanied the zoning request. For instance, page nine of the Planned Development standards portrays an “enhanced public space”, centered within the proposed “mixed use” area. Why isn’t this enhanced public space well connected to the more completely illustrated public spaces found within the residential portion of this overall development plan? Response: The plan and the PD Standards have been significantly revised.

d. In addition, within the legend on page nine, the mixed use area is expressed as a “future commercial development”, intimating that the future will bring limited opportunity to achieve the mixed use environment suggested by the developer. Response: The commercial area will be marketed to commercial developers who will have to meet the PD Standards.

- 12 -

e. In closing, this submission is not in conformance with the above noted long range planning

documents. Response: The plan and the PD Standards have been significantly revised.

THORNTON FIRE DEPARTMENT (TFD) Fire Protection Engineer II (Dan Biro, 303-538-7663) 1. Provide a B-40R turning template exhibit that shall depict the apparatus moving through all turns including

all entrances to the site. Provide this as a separate document, not part of the ODP drawing set. Response: A more in-depth analysis of the roads for emergency vehicle access shall be submitted for next submission.

2. Provide the area of the largest building to be constructed. The area shall include all floors within the exterior walls and under the horizontal projections of the roof. Response: The duplex structure (two single-bedroom units) is the largest building at 1,275 SF.

3. Install NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs per the attached site plan. This is just FYI - do not show these signs on the ODP. Response: NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs shall be provided throughout the site and shall be depicted in next submission

4. Confirm if security gates will be installed. Provide the location and type (i.e. manual or automatic). Response: The property shall not be gated.

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING (DE) Civil Engineer (Nate Hatleback, 303-538-7694) 1. See the attached red-lined drawings for comments from the Civil Engineer and the Traffic Engineer.

Drainage Plan Response: An updated Drainage Plan is not included as part of this submittal. As discussed with Staff, this submittal does not include fully engineered items. If Staff approves the revised materials included with this submittal, amended reports will be part of future submittals. Sheet 3 a. Make label transparent so the grading is shown.

b. Where does the underground detention go? It cannot go under any structures.

c. How will this area work for water quality? What are the limits of detention? Since this will be

relatively low flow, how will an area this flat properly drain to the outlet structure? It will most likely be very swampy for a long time after storms and not useful for park area. Does the water reach the dog park? This may cause storm water contamination. Where does the water go in a clogged condition?

- 13 -

d. Show storm sewer.

e. Submit at least a preliminary drainage report that at least outlines the type of underground

drainage used and how it will be sized.

f. How will detention in this area be accomplished in the developed condition? Since this is considered one development, it should be accounted for in the underground system or a pond should be shown on site somewhere.

Overall Development Plan / Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 2 a. The site is not pedestrian friendly. Most sidewalks terminate in the street with no connection to

other sidewalk. The layout is unsafe for pedestrians moving through the site, especially children. Response: The site has been revised to provide better paths for pedestrian access throughout the site, to the leasing center and to the surrounding areas. Sidewalks now run along streets as well as terminate into the street to provide both access to parking and to site facilities.

b. How is traffic controlled at the intersections on site? How much sight distance is there in areas that are not stop controlled? If COT standards are applied, there could be conflicts with the garages. Response: The site shall be stop controlled and detailed in next submission.

c. This access is required as a second point of access to the commercial site. It must be permanent and not emergency only. Response: The commercial site has not been designed and will be detailed in the next submission.

d. How is traffic controlled at the drive from Washington Center Parkway? Is it a right turn and left turn lane? Response: The traffic control onto Washington Center Parkway shall be designed and detailed in next submission.

e. The Lafayette access needs to be coordinated with the Redhawk Ranch apartment project. Response: Plans and information on the development of Lafayette Street have been incorporated with this site design provided by the developer and engineer of the adjacent future development.

Sheet 4 a. Show sight triangles on landscaping plans.

Response: Site triangles have been added to the plan.

Traffic Impact Report

- 14 -

Response: An updated Traffic Report is not included as part of this submittal. As discussed with Staff, this submittal does not include fully engineered items. If Staff approves the revised materials included with this submittal, amended reports will be part of future submittals. Sheet 3 a. Did you do volumes for 120th and Wash. Center Pkwy? Sheet 4 a. Include background traffic from Karmel apartment property.

b. Include background volumes from the Bonaventure project Traffic Study. It will be finished in 2018.

c. By 2018, assume Lafayette St. will be built and Traffic should be assigned through here for the

Eastlake Station. Sheet 5 a. I understand this is zero due to your traffic counts not getting any movements here, but something

needs to be assumed due to planned traffic from the Karmel apartment development to the East as well as cut through traffic from future Lafayette St.

Page 6 a. Include trip generation for the proposed commercial development to the West

Page 7 a. The site CSP shows an access to this development on Lafayette St. It will need to be built with this

development or the apartment development to the East. Sheet 9 a. Site plan shows commercial access here. Access will be combined with an access for the

residential side.

b. There should be some through traffic for vehicles avoiding the 120th and Wash. intersection.

c. Include 120th and Washington Center Pkwy. in trip distribution analysis.

d. The site plan shows an access at Lafayette St.

Sheet 10 a. See labeled comments.

Page 8 a. Make revision to table 2

Preliminary Utility Plan

- 15 -

Response: An updated Utility Plan is not included as part of this submittal. As discussed with Staff, this submittal does not include fully engineered items. If Staff approves the revised materials included with this submittal, amended reports will be part of future submittals. Sheet 2 a. This sheet is printed half size. Scales don't match.

b. Show proposed easements. Combined easements must be at least 30' and single easements must

be 20'

c. Show water connections to the buildings. 10' separation from San. service must be maintained after the meter.

d. Covered carports cannot be in easements. Sheet 5 a. Show water services to the buildings to ensure that maintaining a 10' separation from the sewer is

possible.

b. Has the location of this storm sewer been coordinated with the adjacent property?

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (LA) Sr. Landscape Architect (Heidi Feigal, 303-538-7363) 1. See the attached red-lined drawings for comments from the Landscape Architect.

Overall Development Plan / Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 a. Residential is proposed for Planning area 1?

Response: The revised site plan now proposes Planning Area 1 as residential and Planning Area 2 as commercial.

Sheet 2 a. See specifically labeled comments.

Response: The plan has been updated. Sheet 3 a. Specify Planning areas 1 and 2 under landscape area calculations.

Response: The Landscape Area Calculations table has been revised.

Sheet 4 a. All 4 fences should be described in PD Standards. Pool and Private are not included.

Response: All fence types have been described in the PD Standards.

- 16 -

b. The area on North side will need to be heavily landscaped with trees. What are all the lines? We need to know now if there are restrictions to trees in the buffer. Response: Line work has been cleaned up and labeled

b. Move crossing location to west so commercial area can be included.

Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

c. Revise and update labels identified. Response: Entire site plan has been revised.

Sheet 5 a. This is so much area that will be restricted to no trees. This area will be wet much of the time. City

does not support using this area as PLD credit. Dog park may not be allowed in water quality area. Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

b. Show location of existing bridge and crossing.

Response: The approximate location of the existing bridge has been labeled on the landscape plan.

Sheet 6 a. If you put a tree or shrub in the tiny backyards, the resident wouldn't be able to get past it to the

rest of the yard. Response: One small tree will be in each backyard. Trees are placed in the corners of the backyards so that residents will not have to walk past them.

b. Typical: Are sidewalk not connected because that is the only way you create space for trees? There is no way to travel east/west without walking in drive aisle. This is problem throughout project. Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

c. Remove identified trees.

Response: No longer applicable with revised site plan.

Planned Development Standard Comments (See PDF) INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING City Surveyor (Steve Dynes, 720-977-6269) 1. See the attached red-lined drawings for comments from the City Surveyor.

Overall Development Plan / Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 a. Make specified revisions to Legal Description.

Response: The legal descriptions have been updated.

- 17 -

b. The two title commitments as submitted don't cover all the land that is included in this development. Response: Updated Title Commitments are not included as part of this submittal. As discussed with Staff, this submittal does not include fully engineered items. If Staff approves the revised materials included with this submittal, amended reports will be part of future submittals.

Sheet 2 a. Note where row is to be vacated and dedicated and dimension.

Response: The 8’ section of the project property site has been dimensioned as the area to be dedicated for the Lafayette Street ROW and the area of the existing ROW to be vacated has also been listed.

b. Change to (80' - 100' ROW). Response: Washington Center Parkway has been listed as an 80’-100’ ROW.

Sheet 6 a. Why are there two right of way lines?

Response: The plan has been updated.

Sheet 8 a. Need to show all the area as included in the legal description that will be a part of this

development. Response: The full project area is shown on the Existing Conditions plan.

b. The bearings should all be the same. Response: Bearings have been revised to match.

c. Note the title commitment and ordinance 3092 make reference to a 30' access and utility easement, but the 30 strip isn't depicted on the exhibit A as mentioned in the ordinance making the strip undefined at this time. Response: It has been noted that there is an undefined 30’ access and utility easement.

d. Label the record information to show the discrepancies.

Response: Plan shows both recorded and resolved bearings and distances of the site boundary.

e. Edit/add identified labels. Response: Labels have been revised accordingly.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Sheet 1 a. Make specified revisions to Legal Description.

Response: The legal description has been revised.

- 18 -

b. The heavy line as drawn does not match the courses in the legal description. Response: The line has been revised to match the courses in the legal description.

c. Need to label and depict the courses as described in the legal description on the drawing. Response: The line has been revised to match the courses in the legal description.

Zoning Map Sheet 1 a. Make identified revisions to Legal Description.

Response: The legal description has been revised.

b. The heavy line as drawn does not match the courses in the legal description. Response: The line has been revised to match the courses in the legal description.

c. Add legend describing line work.

Response: A legend has been added.

d. Need to label and depict the courses as described in the legal description on the drawing. Response: The line has been revised to match the courses in the legal description

e. The courses between the CSP and zoning legal are 38.00' and they need to be 40.00'.

Response: The distance has been revised to 40’.

f. Edit/add identified labels. Response: The labels have been updated.

GIS COMMENTS GIS Analyst (Valorie Plesha, 303-538-7640) 1. Street Names:

a. Remove Ogden Street from the vicinity map on the Zoning document. Refer to attached red-lines. Response: Ogden Street has been removed from the vicinity map.

2. Addressing:

a. Addresses will be assigned later in the development process. Response: Comment noted.

XCEL ENERGY Contract Right of Way Referral Processor (Donna George, 303-571-3306) 1. Public Service Company of Colorado’s (PSCo) Right of Way and Permits Referral Desk has determined

there is a conflict with the above captioned project. Public Service Company has an existing electric transmission line and associated land rights as shown within this property. Any activity including grading, proposed landscaping, erosion control or similar activities involving our existing right-of-way will require

- 19 -

Public Service Company approval. Encroachments across Public Service Company’s easements must be reviewed for safety standards, operational and maintenance clearances, liability issues, and acknowledged with a Public Service Company License Agreement to be executed with the property owner. PSCo is requesting that, prior to any final approval of the development plan, it is the responsibility of the property owner/developer/contractor to contact Mike Diehl, Siting and Land Rights Manager at (303) 571-7260 to have this project assigned to a Land Rights Agent for development plan review and execution of a License Agreement. Response: Comment noted. PSCo also has primary and secondary electric distribution facilities within the subject property. The property owner/developer/contractor must contact the Builder's Call Line at 1-800-628-2121 or https://xcelenergy.force.com/FastApp (Register so you can track your application) and complete the application process for any new gas or electric service, or modification to existing facilities. It is then the responsibility of the developer to contact the Designer assigned to the project for approval of design details. Additional easements may need to be acquired by separate document for new facilities. For planning purposes and to ensure that adequate utility easements are available within this development and per state statutes, PSCo requests the following:

a. Six-foot utility easements for natural gas installation including space for service trucks to drive b. Eight-foot utility easements for electric facility installation including transformers, pedestals, and

cabling

As a safety precaution, PSCo would like to remind the developer to call the Utility Notification Center at 1-800-922-1987 to have all utilities located prior to any construction. Response: Updated easements are not included as part of this submittal. As discussed with Staff, this submittal does not include fully engineered items. If Staff approves the revised materials included with this submittal, amended reports will be part of future submittals.

SCHOOL DISTRICT ADAMS 12 Planning Manager (Matthew Schaefer, 720-972-4289) Thank you for submitting the Washington Center Avilla Eastlake PD Zoning Development Referral to the School District. The District has reviewed the development proposal in terms of (1) available school capacity, (2) required land dedications and/or cash-in-lieu fees and (3) transportation/access considerations. After reviewing the above proposal, the School District requests that the developer enter into an agreement with the School District to provide cash-in-lieu of land dedication for public school sites prior to approval of the final plat. The reason for this position follows: 1. School Capacity:

School Capacities Compared to Student Enrollment (based on October count):

- 20 -

2014 Program Capacity without/

with modulars

Actual Count

Projected Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 Hunters Glen Elementary* 504/720 444 434 446 450 Century Middle 1,175/1,220 1,018 981 1,001 987 Mountain Range High 2,000 1,967 1,969 1,949 1,967

*Hunters Glen’s projection is likely to grow after a boundary change process planned for 2017.

Hunters Glen Elementary has experienced a trend of declining enrollment the last six years. Some new developments are expected to be assigned there through a boundary change process planned for 2017 which will increase enrollment at the school. The capacity of the school is expected to be sufficient to serve the proposed subdivision.

Century Middle School is experiencing a trend of decreasing enrollment. Capacity is expected to be sufficient to serve the proposed subdivision.

Mountain Range High School is experiencing a trend of stable enrollment. Capacity is expected to be sufficient to serve the proposed subdivision.

Specific Impact: Avilla Eastlake with approximately 208 single-family detached for-rent units is located within the current attendance boundaries of Hunters Glen Elementary, Century Middle and Mountain Range High. The district has not experienced this type of development and is willing to work with the developer to refine the student yield estimates. Using our estimates for single-family detached units, construction would be expected to result in a growth in enrollment of 60 elementary school, 29 middle school and 40 high school students by project build out. Using our estimates for single-family attached units, construction would be expected to result in a growth in enrollment of 31 elementary, 17 middle school and 21 high school students by project build out. Response: The site plan has been revised and now includes 253 single-family detached and attached for-lease units. Similar developments by NexMetro typically attract young professionals and baby boomers. The Developer will continue to coordinate with the school district.

2. Land dedication or cash-in-lieu:

The School District would like to support the proposed development but cannot do so until an agreement has been made to provide land dedication or cash-in-lieu of land dedication for school sites. The size and location of the development indicate that the school district land requirement should be made in the form of cash-in-lieu of land dedication. Adams 12 is committed to working with the developer to refine the student yield estimates used in the cash-in-lieu calculation. An exhibit containing the School District’s cash-in-lieu methodology as well as two examples of our cash-in-lieu calculations (one using our standard SFD and the other our standard SFA calculations) is included with this letter. The district requests that the developer contact the School District at the number below in order to work together to determine an appropriate student yield and to make arrangements to provide cash-in-lieu of land dedication. Response: Comment noted; the developer will coordinate with the School District.

- 21 -

3. Transportation/Access Considerations

Elementary students would live within the safe walk distance to Hunters Glen Elementary Middle School students would live within the safe walk distance to Century Middle. High school students would require bussing to Mountain Range High. We recommend street lighting at all bus pick-up points to assist wintertime safety.

Response: Comments noted. RTD COMMENTS Senior Service Planner/Scheduler (Nataly Erving, 303-299-2059) 1. At this time, we are not planning to have bus service along Washington north of 120th; however, with the

opening of the N Line in 2018, we are looking at a route extension for route 120 from Wagon Road PnR to the new station at 124th/Eastlake. We can take into consideration to operate the route along Washington and then 128th to the station from the north side, rather than via 120th and Claude Court. We will have to see how it would affect running time operationally. Also, we will need to look at the residential development that is occurring/to occur along Claude Court, to see what routing would be better/more warranted and effective for the area. Response: Comment noted.

2. That said, just to be proactive and not preclude potential effective transit service along Washington in this

area, we would want to make sure that along Washington, between 120th and 128th, we would be able to place proper bus stops, which are ADA compliant and then could serve the adjacent Mixed Use and already existing Institutional development. Response: Comment noted.

3. As per our Board approved Service Standards, we require a minimum density of 12 persons per acre for a

base hourly, local, suburban/urban connective route. Response: Comment noted.