HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE PUD THIRD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-11-12V/
2 U)
c? C
G E
0VI
Z 3
ENO
U >
tr
Z >.
Y_ (n
JU o
O
1. N
M N,
of
IL a
U)
W aD
Y�
Q T
J �
J E
E
cn N
U
Q
7
c
O O a
Y 'ON
N N O L N J n
C N Q .0 _ N to
w
N (Dca
O ro L N N a)
m N uNi ° row c
u
o E a`ni w °>.
U
N N
ro Y U O ro J
c c ro c E c
N ro 3 ro �a N a) O
cu
N a m o y a
a) N Y> m a
'ON v,Ncuo.Nro
>>a m3a.-2 (1353
(0T 0) -
a
N
> a `o o m
u) � u)
N C O E O mw
Np
E6 N c Z r YO N
.O O a,C 73
N N D �`- N N T
E N L a) .>--
`
> L N N a) J 0 N O
(u a>i °m s_ o
L >_ E '� a
N J
3 .0 w N C
N a
> > a) O N to N ro
>o0
°MCO Ep x a.wm
E' �.
C N 0 C N C ro C
_) c1 N
a
E `� oiu� (° E� aEi
0 m >
EE
o `S m .o_ 3 u N
_T yi m a)
a) N O O -0 C J O C O ro N
L N N (6 O U N N
EEN QEtacoW°
0 0 0 N a) L C C
L L V -O >
0
°
ctl
3 L
Qt `
C L
U N
a) >
C N
c w
O s
�) ro
Air.
U'.
a'
O
F-
L
O)
J y O
_
L N
ro N
_
p N
L
�O N
C
m
m
3
3
ro
° m
o
In M
t4 N
C
N L
Y �
OU N
4 U
O p
inL
c
NAY
c 3 N
N
O N
O
i
(1)0)
a) ro
NJo
0 C
ro c
ro w
U>1 O
>N
1
N
o ro
N >
p.
N
O
O
ca
E N
aci�axi
C
E'N�
�
T O r
N (6
30
Y N L2) E
V) �
>
�
3 N
O
N
C N O
On
J
E?No
u0a�
N'Q a) _O
O fn L
J
L
o
-0 N
a
o
°o �
3 o aOi _�
m
co
L
N E o
�Eoa1)I�0N
(D
OD L
N�
o
w H
F m
a�
N
0
N
N
C
0
VL-
. 3
V!
y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
m
a3i
m
a3i
a
m
WFz
m
a3i
KEM Builders, LLC A Colorado Limited Liability Company
3000 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80525
June 4, 2001
Mr. Matt Lafferty
Larimer County Planning Department
P.O. Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
RE: Fossil Lake P.U.D. 3rd Filing
Dear Matt,
Telephone:(970) 223-4900
Fax:(970) 223-4901
Enclosed (Attachment 1) are summary responses to comments received from reviewing entities
other than the City, based on the comment sheets you have forwarded to us to date.
Also enclosed (Attachment 2) is an item -by -item response to the comments (dated June 1, 2001)
from the City of Fort Collins, via Troy Jones of Current Planning. These responses follow a
meeting between Troy, Brad Massey, and myself; and conversations with Traci Downs (County
Engineering), Sheri Wamhoff (City Engineering), Gary Huett (Public Service Company of
Colorado), and Janet McTague (City Light and Power). These response summaries are also
being provided directly to Troy Jones and Sheri Wamhoff (City Engineering) following Troy's
suggestion.
Per my discussions with you, we certainly hope that the necessary and positive recommendations
from County staff can be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the earliest
possible opportunity, perhaps even earlier than the aforementioned July 5 date. We are seeking
permission/authorization to begin site preparation just as soon as we possibly can.
I will call you later this week for your status and perspective. Please help us move the process
forward in anyway you can. I will facilitate, very promptly, anything you need. Some of the
previous communication delays have proven unnecessarily frustrating and costly. We feel we are
now in jeopardy, through little if any fault of our own, of not being able to commence hard
construction prior to the onset of winter conditions. Such a delay will indeed prove very costly,
serving no one well.
Sincerely,
KEM Builders, LLC
David S. Brown
Manager
DSB/s
Encls.
ATTACHMENT 1
KEM Builders, LLC (Applicant)
Responses to (Larimer County) Comments
relative to the Application dated April 30, 2001
Fossil Lake P.U.D. 3rd Filing
Poudre Fire Authority (February 12, and May 14, 2001)
Comments relative to sprinklers, water supply, and access roadway criteria have been
resolved with the realignment of the (east) cul-de-sac and the repositioning of Building E.
According to Mike Chavez of the PFA, they have no issues with the proposal.
2. Colorado Geological Survey (April 6, 2001)
1) Applicant's geological engineers will proceed with recommendations on underdrain(s) and
dewatering equipment. The associated expenses will not be incurred unless technically
necessary based upon actual engineering evaluations.
2) Applicant will, as always, use building -specific borings for baseline information for all
structuralengineering.
3. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (April 9, 2001)
No issues.
4. Fort Collins- Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District (April 11, 2001)
Utility (water and Sewer) installations for incoming portions of Fossil Lake 2nd are scheduled
to begin in the near future. Proposed sewer lines and connections have been developed in
concert with those (previously) approved for Fossil Lake 2nd. Applicant's final submission
will indicate "approved but yet to be installed and accepted by the District" where
appropriate.
5. Larimer County Department of Health and Environment (April 24, 2001)
Applicant will seek to include this proposal within the (present) Colorado Construction
Stormwater Discharge Permit. Verification of this inclusion, or a separate permit for Fossil Lake
3rd, will be included with any further submission required.
6. Larimer County Parks Open Lands and Fairgrounds Department (April 30, 2001)
No comments.
Mr. Matt Lafferty June 4, 2001
Larimer County Planning Department Attachment 1 - page 1
7. LarimerCounty Planning and Building Services Division (May 3, 2001)
No issues. No further TDUs required.
8. Larimer County Engineering Department (May 10, 2001)
1) Applicant submits the following (along with the formal request for Engineering Variance) in
support of a Larimer County staff recommendation or approval for a modified street
section. This information has also been provided to City Engineering staff.
Applicant agrees to provide an attached 5-foot sidewalk. A cross-section diagram is
attached. Applicant's conversations with both City and County Engineering staffs have
indicated a favorable recommendation on this basis.
• Applicant has discussed and diagramed (copy attached) gas and joint trench (electric,
cable, and telephone) locations with the parties involved. While final designs have not
been completed, all involved parties agree that the installations as diagramed present no
significant issues.
Applicant's proposal presents Tract D as a utility, drainage, and access easement
encompassing all areas outside of building envelopes, exclusive of street right-of-ways.
A 13-foot wide (back of attached 5-foot walk to building envelope) strip of Tract D has
been maintained In all instances where primary utility trenches or equipment are to be
placed. [An exception may arise at Building K, pending a final design for that transformer
location. It (the transformer) may be relocated to the (west), or left as indicated since it is
an end -point of primary runs rather than a continuing point.]
• As noted in the first bullet under this item 2, Applicant has attached a cross-section
diagram of the requested modified street profile. Applicant does request that both City
and County staffs make favorable recommendations, and that the modified profile be
accepted as a public (City of Fort Collins) street, as has been indicated in recent
discussions.
2) Applicant understands the status to be that, upon City's acceptance of the modified
street profile described above, the internal roads will be designated as publicly owned.
In such instance, the HOA would not privately maintain them.
In the event of any private designation, availability for public use will be specified in all
appropriate documents, and the project's Declarations and Covenants would clearly
provide for maintenance by the HOA. The Applicant's desire has always been that
public use and ownership would be achieved.
3) Applicant will install pedestrian ramps consistent with the Fossil Lake PUD 2nd Filing.
4) Applicant appreciates the consideration regarding no parking spaces in the cul-de-sac
islands. Applicant feels these landscaped islands will significantly enhance the
appearance of the cul-de-sac ends, greatly reducing the impact of the attendant
hardscape.
Mr. Matt Lafferty June 4, 2001
Larimer County Planning Department Attachment 1 - page 2
5) Applicant will ensure that general notes and construction notes will conform with those as
stated in Appendix E of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, with the
understanding that the applicability of some notes may be altered as a result of the
outcome of item 1) above.
6) Applicant understands the applicability of Transportation Capital Expansion Fees at time
of building permit issuance. Given the timing of this project and annexation to the City of
Fort Collins, Applicant will seek further clarification as to which fee schedule(s) and which
building review and inspection department (County or City) will ultimately control those
processes. Obviously, Applicant has no desire to be subject to the confusion of
submissions under parts of both (City and County) processes.
7) Applicant understands the applicability of (Fossil Creek Basin) drainage fees, with the
same comments as stated under item 6 above.
Mr. Matt Lafferty June 4, 2001
Larimer County Planning Department Attachment 1 - page 3
ATTACHMENT 2
KEM Builders, LLC (Applicant)
Responses to City of Fort Collins Comments of June 1, 2001
(revision of City comments dated May 2, 2001)
Fossil Lake P.U.D. 3rd Filing
Applicant understands, agrees, and appreciates that (County staff) has determined that
modification requests to the following supplemental regulations will not apply to this proposal:
• Section 111.B.3.e.(1) - pedestrian connection standard
• Section 11.8 - street design standard
• Section III.A.4.b.(2) -street tree standard
Applicant therefore understands that it will not be necessary to present modification requests
for the above to the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board.
2. Applicant has prepared, and delivered to City Engineering Department the following in
support of Applicant's formal request for a City staff recommendation to Larimer County for
approval for a modified street section:
• Applicant agrees to provide an attached 5-foot sidewalk. A cross-section diagram is
attached. Applicant's conversations with both City and County Engineering staffs have
indicated a favorable recommendation on this basis.
• Applicant has discussed and diagramed (copy attached) gas and joint trench (electric,
cable, and telephone) locations with the parties involved. While final designs have not
been completed, all involved parties agree that the installations as diagramed present no
significant issues.
Applicant's proposal presents Tract D as a utility, drainage, and access easement
encompassing all areas outside of building envelopes, exclusive of street right-of-ways.
A 13-foot wide (back of attached 5-foot walk to building envelope) strip of Tract D has
been maintained In all instances where primary utility trenches or equipment are to be
placed. [An exception may arise at Building K, pending a final design for that transformer
location. It (the transformer) may be relocated to the (west), or left as indicated since it is
an end -point of primary runs ratherthan a continuing point.]
• As noted in the first bullet under this item 2, Applicant has attached a cross-section
diagram of the requested modified street profile. A copy of Applicant's formal request to
the LarimerCounty Engineering Department for this Engineering Variance is also
attached hereto. Applicant does request that both City and County staffs make
favorable recommendations, and that the modified profile be accepted as a public street,
as has been indicated in recent discussions.
3. The 20-foot setback from back of walk to garage doors has been maintained in every instance
where driveways open onto the street. Buildings E, H, and I also have 20-foot driveways off
of the private access drives. Applicant's design staff will again verify these setbacks.
Mr. Matt Lafferty Attachment 2 - June 4, 2001
Larimer County Planning Department page 1
4. Applicant agrees, and drawings have been changed accordingly. Applicant's design staff will
verify.
5. The intended design is essentially more of a textural variation than a'wall' in the usual context.
The maximum wall height is projected at 30", tapering to 12". Applicant feels these and the
related plantings will significantly enhance the appearance of the cul-de-sac ends, greatly
reducing the impact of the attendant hardscape. The walls will provide textural break and
variety to the islands, without impairing visibility. Drawings more clearly reflecting the concept
will be submitted for further review.
6. Applicant is unclear as to any (erroneous) text cited and has asked for clarification from City
Engineering staff. Clearly, Applicant will correct any inconsistencies or errors. Site drawings do
reflect a 5-foot sidewalk width along Trilby Road and a 4.5-foot sidewalk width along all other
adjacent roads. Applicant's March 16, 2001, Review Criteria submission, under
Bicycle/Pedestrian Circulation, states, "... a 4' wide sidewalk to the east connecting to the
detached walk on Snowy Creek Drive, a 4-6" walk to the west connecting to the detached
walk on Trilby Road, and two different 4' wide walks connecting to the detached walk on
Shallow Pond Drive."
7. Applicant agrees and understands that its engineers are to provide a Drainage and Erosion
Control report with any subsequent submission.
8. Applicant agrees and understands that its engineers are to verifythat facilities designed with
previous Fossil Lake filings were designed /will accommodate flows from this proposal.
9. Applicant has agreed, and discussed with City Current Planning staff, to relocated the 8-foot
wide bike/ped path. The current submission ties the path to the end of the private drive area
shared by Buildings F and G. The resubmission (draft attached hereto) places the path back
in the location as originally submitted, through the'green belt' area between Buildings G and
H. This location removes the path from private vehicle and pedestrian spaces.
Mr. Matt Lafferty Attachment 2 - June 4, 2001
Larimer County Planning Department page 2
E EM Builders, LLC
3000 South College Avenue, Suite 103
Fort Collins, CO 80525
August 21, 2001
Mr. Matt Lafferty
Larimer County Planning Department
P. O. Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
HAND DELIVER
RE: Fossil Lake P.U.D. 3r° Filing
Submission for Final Plat and CDs
Dear Matt:
A Colorado Limited Liability Company
Telephone: (970) 223-4900
Fax: (970) 223-4901
Per our pre-app meeting on July 26, included herewith are the required documents for the Final
Plat and Construction Document submission for the Fossil Lake PUD, 3r° Filing.
As you know, we are seeking to move ahead as quickly as possible. Schmidt Earth Builders, Inc.,
will be doing our development work and has already begun site work for Everline, LLC, for the
remainder of Fossil Lake Second. We are/will be seeking clearances to proceed with initial work
(e.g., overlot grading and initial utility staking) just as soon as possible. Any assistance you can
provide in this regard will be most appreciated.
The following comments are relative to specific items on the Submittal Requirements checklist.
These comments may clarify any related questions at this time.
4. 8) Street Names: We understand that the street names reflected on the documents are
not yet approved. The names were selected from the County's database and were
available as of the date the plat and site plan were prepared for this submittal. It is
out desire to seek approval of these names as herein submitted.
12. Final Management Plan: The maintenance section from the draft Declarations and
Covenants for the Village at Fossil Lake Condominiums has been provided.
16. Final Geologic Hazard Mitigation Plan: Copies of the project soils report have been
included. There are no geologic hazards requiring mitigation beyond those
experienced in normal construction circumstances. We will adhere to the findings in
the report relative to all construction engineering, including the (private) streets.
9epkmbm 15, 2001
Ma. Tricis Kxoetch
Tomb Star Design
700 Automation Drive, Unit 1
Wiodeor, CO 80550
(0 sotmtFonrCOLIMsIANrrA MDMM-r
PwWr Fax Nots 7071
DM
, 10 1
0
ce owt
Flidte r
a.
Phone I
Fax #
Fw v
RE: Fossil Lake rMd Filte6
Dcar Trk*
The Fort Collins - Loveland Water Dosrict and the South Fort CoMns Sl ublim District have reviewed
the above man hmmd pmjed and submit the following 000063U.
Far comuaoo or d wW water service lines to Dieted mtu m that dw dsvdosoo t be M1da a
homoowaers asaomxboe and that the association is resparsible fir all costs aasoeiatad with the
www tints sad water use after the tap is pwdmscd-
The District requaw asomoub, on the Diebiet'e standard ewmmnt form, for all facilities that are
DM iocatod with in the pWAk ROW.
The Dixb ices srmusdsrd sipwture block is rngnved for District approval-
Tlss Distrjot Mum meta pas an tbo water sorrier lice !bf mutt family structures.
Tbc canerest thrust block typical needs to be cormckd. to indieato a test Art sure of 150 psi, W
too psi.
The out stop typical is to be deleted.
Please do to hesitate to eoattact roe at 226-3104. extmm 14, if you have 80Y Wrath s Of rMWN
additional infoamtioe.
RaepelxfilFly. K�-���� /j
Mr. ►Y W. Farrill
Syatoms ED&C"
sec Mr. Mkhael v. wivibui maw
5150 9arad Drive, Fat Cakes, CO W525
NLme(M)22W104 Fmt(M)U"Id6
EO/7,0'd 106b£ZZOL6 'ON M ONI S3WOH WIN 9b:91 M 10-OZ-ES
17
` INSTALL. 8- CRO$5,
8- GATE VALVE SOUTH
(8' GATE VALVE NORTH
8 EAST PERjPLANS
'-BY NORTHERN ENGINEERING)
_\ N 426732-97
?\ E2135354-18
ON
00.00
INa4683.72 (SW)
rINV IN-4883.52 (NW)
yNV OUT-4883.43 (SE)
426736.54 /
21 SM7.8y3S /
PORARY 8 xREDUCER
/ \ FIRE HYDRANT
N 426690.84
FUTURE WA 2135329.96
TO BE INSTALLED
IMPROVEMEN190
SA N . Y BENS \\ �/ AT Ir SLOPE
LL
INSTA4" SANITARY \
Q/ SEWER SERVICE (2) \ \
T 2.0X SLOPE MIN.Nl-
\ \`
STA 1+89.96
RIM - 4096.73
INV IN-4884.48
CORE RILL OTHER
INVERTS WITH FUTUR
EXTENSION,
� 36.54
/ / \ E 2135367.83
FUTURE SBE INSTALLED
WITH SITE
IMPROVEMENTS
106VCEZOd6 'ON Xdd ONI S3WOH WIN J: 91 AHl TO-OZ-d3S
Fossil Lakes PUD, 3 rd Filing
October 1, 2001
City of Fort Collins engineering comments
PLEASE RETURN ALL REDLINED PLANS WITH NEXT REVIEW.
Site Plan
Driveways need to intersect at 90 degrees with the street and the maximum driveway width e
1.
per detail 7-29B. A minimum 6 foot wide in is needed between the split drives (otherwisee they
exceed the 36 feet) and between the large drive in the northwest comer.
,2' Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the `T' intersection on the south side of the street. (16.3.I.A.2)
This ramp can be combined with a driveway cut as long as the ramp is built to ADA standards and has
the red square, scoring and other ramp standards.
3. The mailbox is not shown on the utility plans. It appears that this will be place right over the gas or
electric line. What kind of foundation does this facility require? Will it conflict with the utility?
4. You do not show the retaining wall that is shown on the utility plans in the southeast corner of the site
on the site and landscape plans. This needs to be shown and it needs to be outside of the trail
easement. (you can't have a trail where you have a retaining wall).
5. Need to indicate that the minimum garage door setback is 20 feet from the property line to the garage
door.
6. The easements you have indicated on the tracts do not match the plat.
Landscape Plan
I. The landscaping and structures on the island in the cul-de-sac need to meet sight distance restrictions.
Indicate this and place these restrictions on the landscape plan.
12. The wall height within the island doesn't meet the sight distance easement restrictions.
Plat
�I! The 6-foot drainage easement along the south portion of the property that is shown on the site an
utility plans is not shown on the plat.
2. 1 believe that the 15-foot access easement along the south property line might need to be a trail
easement. This easement should be dedicated to Park's standards and requirements.
_ 3 Per standards (7-24A) the radius for a center island in a cul-de-sac is 12 feet not what is shown.
4 Tracts B and C need to be identified as sight distance easements also. Provide sight distance easement
( restrictions on the plat.
1 SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS:
( " Sight Distance Easement —The sight distance easement is an easement required by
the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight
for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their
vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that
may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in
height with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct
the line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed
so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the
ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for
motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for
motorists shall be removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree
of visibility.
y Need to identify who is to own and maintain all of the tracts.
6. Provide the following note on the plat regarding private street maintenance:
cn
2N
C
Z
Oo
Z
Oa)
3
Ua)
acc
Z >
Li-
J_ U
a°
c'M (n
41
� O
aN
W
Y�
Q T
J �
J E
U)
O
U.
O_
F-
N
O
a
Z
O_
N
N
U
N
O
}
(n
W
U
Ir
D
O'
ro o
Y
> 33
(D
(D E E
C L 0, s C U O O O _6 N
N N N N N N U U a) a)N (D L
ro N a ?O O N (Q U T
Q a.N L
N(D �_ c 3 x ! �
y0 (R L- c N (R
R N O L C o E
N L N- c
`am �o�a °m3L oZ'
'O ro "O O C a.) (D a)a) `° E N o c� m e
o�� (u (n
N� N roa ai °� °-O O o
N (MDN Y> ono —� — a):� aW
N O .0 N j:jO O N i6 N
o'0 Z'a`roi o
c
as �._ $-W - N
> >- 6 a o �' o° o N
L .O O t .°' c .� ? N N p_L a'� N (D (DN m c o E o' N o N o N s is a)
�LN aN ULL
Uj
���°
a
C O C w y C N N
N m 0)N i� .ro 'c( �c i c y coi
�.> ro �I> a a o c m > ro N
a.N U O U.L
N N
N lq d d
J A L N ro a N a
Co
° ro N N w O E C t N Y C E
E L 2 0 .N o N Nn No o N o
mvo o-Em0E
N 0 0
3 3 mN Wcropp mE° �L°Dm, °
o aci o >N oN II m iv°
? .- N -
� 1N °
Co U, o o 0ai
roacas o.
o E ro co C o aN-a�= a)i
(D
a t
ro Tc O .m C N
E E>Yo roi N
(p .p_ >'
=D u N L 3 o ai N N W `° c 0 m C7 n O°
cx 3 vi L c L a N N m o_ .4 E u- m. w` >. a
L m- N .0 t° E N m- a) 0O N (U x
off " c ca a� -0 o m~ >; �- N as > w r N E' N N a N
N _N O U N L O O� C N N .n N
roL NTC NC CY roTa 0i aE NIL°ca
N L r N N 3 N 0 0 (6 C (d L_ L N N M N OI j ro U=
ago w= .> c o C7 No E �. F d E 3 aNi a s
.n .cz n w -3 m
N m E° N y
N ao OWL-. ro
Ly O a)
N C C
3 ro o O a)
O IDU W M E ro
m o a O E Y
J N C 0 T� N 3
X N (D
O
Y mY m E Tm
o 3 0 o -
LL
J C ro ai5 T .n O
n E as W rn (`-
Q o C7 L I O= O o
N w N D L N N
OI Y j Ot'CU N C
N O
n(D �
m a) �o
o
U U U
a) . � WO (DN U
E _ _. a ° _
M X o m
O N O O .-UW _
NtN
co a) a o" o a)U O aL U (DD uroi o E 3 ro N-o ro
'CacJ NmEo °Tw T- mro�rn
>YFco°�am_o°
I
N_ N N o
N
N w coo
C > O
�iQ3 o nE (Da)
ro N m n O O o C'
m m a N_- o o�
C O N N ro O Q
0 C, m N�� ro
gLLIaa)c
a)N ro N m o
a 'r N -W E >
ro
>�z
N a E L-E o D
N
L N
L N N N
ro E c c
N .-
76
Ca
U 0 o O L C
o 0 p N U
N C
_ N
(DN O U
0 > UN o m N
E
c a 0 c L N
aNi .0 3 (n rn
co
ME
D- O— N O N L
N E d L
N m 3 N 3 M CO
N O a)° � 'O
L N Q E C N N
UJ -6 t
coa`o
IOD
UJI.o
X
o
a O
a a)Q >
N o
ai
N C
0 co
O
I° d
c 3
N o
N
U
0 3
Q O M OO
�
am (1)ro
4
4t
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
0
0
0
>
D
`
O
N
N
N
Y
y
y
(e
m
m
N
N
N
°
p
_0
n
�
�
N
(n
cn
C
N
c
N
C
a
o
a
T
c
o
(a
F
F-
r m
A!
art from the other notes in a box labeled as "NOTICE" when
The following shall be placed on the plat set ap
private drives or streets are utilized on the property:
NOTICE
ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE
OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SHALL, I-IAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION
OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY
OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
DRIVES.
v"
t "=� C7! The radius at the ent to the cut -de -sac is too small. Per detail 7-24A the flowline radius is 50 feet
- and the row radius is equal to the flowline radius (50') minus the width from the flowline to the back --�`-r
of sidewalk. As this distance is not 16 or more feet the radius shown are not correct. Cf
Ca �.
Utility Plans
,8: Use current general notes (see attached).
A� Provide Indemnification statement per 3.3. LF on the cover sheet.
d 0. Provide Construction notes as applicable.
11. Utility Plan - need to show what is being installed with Shallow Pond Drive for the site as existing.
Grading and Drainage Plans - e
,Lj12. Off -site easements are needed for the grading and sidewalk work on the property to the northwest of
the site. . <`
I 3Per 9.4. I I no more than 500 square feet of sheet flow from a driveway can go across a sidewalk. Yo<, s
will need to adjust grades in many of the driveways so that the 500-foot threshold is not exceeded. �a ,
14. Is parks allowing the retaining wall within the trail easement? I doubt it (if all the parks department S`
received for review is the site and landscape plans they will have no idea that the wall is even proposed
as it is not shown on those plans).
15. The storm sewer system in the cul-de-sac has both inlets located within driveways. You can not have
an inlet in the driveway as the inlet will have a vertical face a thus not something easily driven over.
And per the inlet detail a 5-foot transition is needed to transition the vertical face to drive over curb or
even a curb cut.
Street plan and profile
��16. Driveways need to intersect at 90 degrees with the street and the maximum driveway width is 36 feet
per detail 7-29B. A minimum 6 foot wide median is needed between the split drives (otherwise they
exceed the 36 feet) and between the large drive in the northwest corner.
17. Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the `T' intersection on the south side of the street. (16.3.I.A.2)
This ramp can be combined with a driveway cut as long as the ramp is built to ADA standards and has
the red square, scoring and other ramp standards.
18: Provide design information in accordance with 3.3.4. Provide PI, PC, PT, curb return radii, curb return
information and other items as required by that section.
,-(19. Provide flowline profiles per 3.3.4.B.2 - C c.,.- ,-k
On Stonewater Court - min k value for a crest curve on a 25 mph is 20, and per detail 7-17 the min
curve length is 70 feet.
21. Per 7.4.1.B the minimum flowline grade in a cul-de-sac is 1%. Need to show that is being done and
provide enough information to be able to verify it.
22: What are the cul-de-sac radii? Minimum flowline radius is 40 feet. The center island radii are to be 12
feet per 7-24A.
23. Provide a curve table.
24. Provide intersection elevations in accordance with detail 7-32A
7S_ Indicate what the island median curb type is to be.
�6.) Not meeting 19 2.3 that requires I parking space for each residence that has frontage on the cut -de -sac.
2'7f. Provide a typical cross section. Nothing on here indicates the flowline to flowline width, curb type or
" � sidewalk width.
'2 � Provide station information for all driveways and indicate the driveway widths. 3.3.4.A.12
�9. From the elevations provided and an estimate of the pavement width, some of the x-slopes in the cul-
de-sacs do not meet minimum requirements. The x-slope needs to be between 2% and 3%.
Details
30. Per detail 16-1 all sidewalk in Fort Collins is to be 6 inches thick minimum. Provide this detail or
adjust with on detail 7-20B.
31. Provide detail 7-29A if you plan on using driveway cuts. It is recommended that driveway cuts are
used for at least the driveways shared by the 4 garages.
_32. Provide detail 7-29A modified to show how the pedestrian ramp is to be built as a part of this ramp at
the south side of the `T'.
33, Provide details 7-20C, 7-14, 7-33, 22-1 and 7-21 or 7-22.
Comments on `notice torospective purchasers of special conditions related to development use of
property in fossil lake 3`'
I . Page 2 — under roads and streets — There are no streets in this development that provide through access
to adjoining property. A more accurate statement would be: There are streets adjacent to this
development, which are intended to provide through access to adjoining properties. The adjacent
streets are technically not a part of this project.
Comments on the letter from Alter Lingle dated Aug 21, 2001 - review criteria for planned development.
I. The letter states that the path along the south boundary of the property is an 8-foot path when infact
this Trail will be 10 feet minimum and quite possibly will be a 12-foot Trail. (1" page 5th paragraph)
2. Under the vehicular circulation and parking section it is stated that an attached 5-foot walk is proposed
in lieu of a 4-Coot wide detached walk. The minimum requirements for a detached sidewalk are 4.5
feet. Therefore a 5 foot attached walk is proposed in lieu of a 4.5 foot detached walk. (2"d page 3rd
paragraph)
3. In the same section as mentioned above the reference to the width of adjacent street sidewalks is
incorrect. The adjacent streets (Shallow Pond Drive and Snowy Creek Drive) will have 4.5-foot
sidewalks not the 4-foot that they indicate. (2"d page 5°i paragraph) These references need to be
corrected.
Comments on Development agreement for fossil lake pud 3`d filing
1. In section 2 the reference to the width of the bicycle -pedestrian trail is incorrect, unless this is referring
to the connection they are making to the regional trail. If this is the case it needs to be clarified. The
regional trail will be a minimum of 10 feet wide and quite possibly could be 12 feet wide.
2. There is nothing in this agreement that indicates that the private streets and surrounding public streets
(a part of the 2"d filing) will need to be in place —curb, gutter, sidewalk and the first lift of pavement
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
3. Section 26 — at this time there is nothing indicated on the plans that is to be maintained by any other
entity that the development. Is this section really needed? We should be approving the plans if they
indicate anywhere that we are responsible for maintaining something on them. If this Section is kept
the following changes should be made. Revise a) to read: "Larimer County and the City of Fort
Collins have agreed that the City of Fort Collins will assume routine maintenance of public
improvements on the Property, at the end of the warranty period" Revise b) to read: "Upon the
expiration of the warranty (2 years from the date of final acceptance of completion of the public
improvements and in accordance with paragraph 22 of this Development Agreement) and upon
consummation of the intended annexation process, the maintenance of the public improvements
identified in the approved utility plans shall be the responsibility of the City of Fort Collins. If the City
of Fort Collins fails or refuses to perform its inspection or maintenance obligations, the county agrees
that it will cooperate with the Developer to compel performance by the City of Fort Collins of its
maintenance and inspection obligations in connection with this development."
4. Add the following in under section 10. Streets. "Any excavations in existing City of Fort Collins
rights -of -way, for utility connections or any other purposes, will only be allowed following the
5.
, 6.
8.
issuance of an Excavation Permit from the City of Fort Collins. The Developer agrees to obtain such
permit(s) as needed and to comply with all requirements associated with such permits."
Add the following into section 18. Erosion Control at the end of the first sentence. "and shall maintain
the erosion control facilities throughout the duration of construction activities."
Section 21.(e) Cost Estimates and Guarantee of improvements make the folowing changes as the City
will inspect the private street construction as it would for private streets constructed within the City
limits. "(NOTE:: As streets and sidewalks interior to the Property are designated as "private" City
inspection of said streets shall be required.)
Under section 22. Developer Guarantees and Warranty Collateral add "design," into the first sentence
after "defects in".
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
COUNTY REFERRAL
COMMENT SHEET
COMMENTS TO: Matt Lafferty FROM: Engineering - Sheri
TYPE OF MEETING: Board of County Commissioners
PROJECT: Fossil Lake PUD, 3rd Filing
THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department
PLANNER: Troy Jones
City comments must be received in Current Planning Department by:
October 4, 2001
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Fossil Lakes PUD, 3rd Filing (page l of 4)
October 1, 2001
City of Fort Collins engineering comments
PLEASE RETURN ALL REDLINED PLANS WITH NEXT REVIEW.
Site Plan
1. Driveways need to intersect at 90 degrees with the street and the maximum driveway width is 36 feet per detail -
29B. A minimum 6 foot wide median is needed between the split drives (otherwise they exceed the 36 feet) and
between the large drive in the northwest corner.
2. Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the'T' intersection on the south side of the street. (16.3.1.A.2) This ramp can
e ramp is built to ADA standards and has the red square, scoring and
be combined with a driveway cut as long as th
other ramp standards.
3. The mailbox is not shown on the utility plans. It appears that this will be place right over the gas or electric me.
What kind of foundation does this facility require? Will it conflict with the utility?
A. You do not show the retaining wall that is shown on the utility plans in the southeast corner of the site on the site
and landscape plans. This needs to be shown and it needs to be outside of the trail easement. (you can't have a trail
where you have a retaining wall).
5. Need to indicate that the minimum garage door setback is 20 feet from the property line to the garage door.
6. The easements you have indicated on the tracts do not match the plat.
(continued on next page)
Si
Date_ aiure
- .4G� �Z�i City of P�s
Fossil Lakes PUD, 3 rd Filing (page 2 of4) October 1, 2001
Landscape Plan
1. The landscaping and structures on the island in the cul-de-sac need to meet sight distance restrictions. Indicate this
and place these restrictions on the landscape plan.
2. The wall height within the island doesn't meet the sight distance easement restrictions.
Plat
1. The 6-foot drainage easement along the south portion of the property that is shown on the site and utility plans is
not shown on the plat.
2. I believe that the 15-foot access easement alone the south property line might need to be a trail easement. This
easement should be dedicated to Park's standards and requirements.
3. Per standards (7-24A) the radius for a center island in a cul-de-sac is 12 feet not what is shown.
4. Tracts 11 and C need to be identified as sight distance easements also. Provide sight distance easement restrictions
on the plat.
SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS:
Sight Distance Easement— The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at
some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to
see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The
following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for level
grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the
following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of
sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no
portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are
spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large
enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of visibility
5. Need to identify who is to own and maintain all of the tracts.
6. Provide the following note on the plat regarding private street maintenance:
The following shall be placed on the plat set apart from the other notes in a box labeled as "NOTICE" when private
drives or streets are utilized on the property:
I NOTICE I
ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE
OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SFIALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION
OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY
OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
DRIVES.
7. The radius at the entry to the cul-de-sac is too small. Per detail 7-24A the flowline radius is 50 feet and the row
radius is equal to the flowline radius (50') minus the width from the flowline to the back of sidewalk. As this
distance is not 16 or more feet the radius shown are not correct.
(continued on next page)
Fossil Lakes PUD, 3 rd Filing (page 3 of 4) October 1, 2001
Utility Plans
8. Use current general notes (see attached).
9. Provide Indemnification statement per 3.3. LF on the cover sheet.
10. Provide Construction notes as applicable.
11. Utility Plan - need to show what is being installed with Shallow Pond Drive for the site as existing.
Grading and Drainage Plans -
12. Off -site easements are needed for the grading and sidewalk work on the property to the northwest of the site.
13. Per 9.4.11 no more than 500 square feet of sheet Flow from a driveway can go across a sidewalk. You will need to
adjust grades in many of the driveways so that the 500-toot threshold is not exceeded.
14. Is parks allowing the retaining wall within the tmil easement? I doubt it (if all the parks department received for
review is the site and landscape plans they will have no idea that the wall is even proposed as it is not shown on
those plans).
15. The storm sewer system in the cul-de-sac has both inlets located within driveways. You can not have an inlet in the
driveway as the inlet will have a vertical face a thus not something easily driven over. And per the inlet detail a 5-
foot transition is needed to transition the vertical face to drive over curb or even a curb cut.
Street plan and profile
16. Driveways need to intersect at 90 degrees with the street and the maximum driveway width is 36 feet per detail 7-
29B. A minimum 6 foot wide median is needed between the split drives (otherwise they exceed the 36 feet) and
between the large drive in the northwest corner.
17. Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the 'T' intersection on the south side of the street. (16.3.1.A.2) This ramp can
be combined with a driveway cut as long as the ramp is built to ADA standards and has the red square, scoring and
other ramp standards.
18. Provide design information in accordance with 3.3.4. Provide Pl, PC, PT, curb return radii, curb return information
and other items as required by that section.
19. Provide flowline profiles per 3.3.4.13.2
20. On Stonewater Court - min k value for a crest curve on a 25 mph is 20, and per detail 7-17 the min curve length is
70 feet.
21. Per 7.4. LB the minimum flowline grade in a cul-de-sac is 1%. Need to show that is being done and provide
enough information to be able to verify it.
22. What are the cul-de-sac radii? Minimum flowline radius is 40 feet. The center island radii are to be 12 feet per 7-
24A.
23. Provide a curve table.
24. Provide intersection elevations in accordance with detail 7-32A
25. Indicate what the island median curb type is to be.
26. Not meeting 19.2.3 that requires I parking space for each residence that has frontage on the cul-de-sac.
27. Provide a typical cross section. Nothing on here indicates the flowline to flowline width, curb type or sidewalk
width.
28. Provide station information for all driveways and indicate the driveway widths. 3.3.4.A.12
29. From the elevations provided and an estimate of the pavement width, some of the x-slopes in the cul-de-sacs do not
meet minimum requirements. The x-slope needs to be between 2% and 3%.
Details
30. Per detail 16-1 all sidewalk in Fort Collins is to be 6 inches thick minimum. Provide this detail or adjust with on
detail 7-20B.
31. Provide detail 7-29A if you plan on using driveway cuts. It is recommended that driveway cuts are used for at least
the driveways shared by the 4 garages.
32. Provide detail 7-29A modified to show how the pedestrian ramp is to be built as a part of this ramp at the south side
of the 'T'.
33. Provide details 7-20C, 7-14, 7-33, 22-1 and 7-21 or 7-22.
Comments on 'notice to prospective purchasers of special conditions related to development use of property in fossil
lake 3`d'
I. Page 2 - under roads and streets - There are no streets in this development that provide through access to adjoining
property. A more accurate statement would be There are streets adjacent to this development, which are intended
to provide through access to adjoining properties. The adjacent streets are technically not a part of this project.
(continued on next page)
Fossil Lakes PUD, 3 rd Filing (page 4 of 4) October 1, 2001
Comments on the letter from Aller Lingle dated Aug 21, 200I - review criteria for planned development.
I- The letter states that the path along the south boundary of the property is an 8-foot path when infact this Trail will
be 10 feet minimum and quite possibly will be a 12-foot Trail. (I" page 5" paragraph)
2. Under the vehicular circulation and parking section it is stated that an attached 5-foot walk is proposed in lieu of a
4-foot wide detached walk. The minimum requirements for a detached sidewalk are 4.5 feet. Therefore a 5 foot
attached walk is proposed in lieu of a 4.5 foot detached walk. (2id page 3`d paragraph)
3. In the same section as mentioned above the reference to the width of adjacent street sidewalks is incorrect- The
adjacent streets (Shallow Pond Drive and Snowy Creek Drive) will have 4.5-foot sidewalks not the 4-foot that they
indicate. (2"d page 5"' paragraph) These references need to be corrected.
Comments on Development agreement for fossil lake pod 3`d filing
I. In section 2 the reference to the width of the bicycle -pedestrian trail is incorrect, unless this is referring to the
connection they are making to the regional trail. If this is the case it needs to be clarified. The regional trail will be
a minimum of 10 feet wide and quite possibly could be 12 feet wide.
2. There is nothing in this agreement that indicates that the private streets and surrounding public streets (a part of the
2"d tiling) will need to be in place -- curb, gutter, sidewalk and the first lift of pavement prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
3. Section 26 — at this time there is nothing indicated on the plans that is to be maintained by any other entity that the
development. Is this section really needed? We should be approving the plans if they indicate anywhere that we
are responsible for maintaining something on them. If this Section is kept the following changes should be made.
Revise a) to read: "Latimer County and the City of Fort Collins have agreed that the City of Fort Collins will
assume routine maintenance of public improvements on the Property, at the end of the warranty period." Revise b)
to read: "Upon the expiration of the warranty (2 years from the date of final acceptance of completion of the public
improvements and in accordance with paragraph 22 of this Development Agreement) and upon consummation of
the intended annexation process, the maintenance of the public improvements identified in the approved utility
plans shall be the responsibility of the City of Fort Collins. If the City of Fort Collins fails or refuses to perform its
inspection or maintenance obligations, the county agrees that it will cooperate with the Developer to compel
performance by the City of Fort Collins of its maintenance and inspection obligations in connection with this
development."
4. Add the following in under section 10. Streets. "Any excavations in existing City of Fort Collins rights -of -way, for
utility connections or any other purposes, will only be allowed following the issuance of an Excavation Permit from
the City of Fort Collins. The Developer agrees to obtain such permit(s) as needed and to comply with all
requirements associated with such permits."
5. Add the following into section I8. Erosion Control at the end of the first sentence. "and shall maintain the erosion
control facilities throughout the duration of construction activities."
6. Section 2 L(e) Cost Estimates and Guarantee of improvements make the folowing changes as the City will inspect
the private street construction as it would for private streets constructed within the City limits. "(NOTE: As streets
and sidewalks interior to the Property are designated as "private" City inspection of said streets shall be required.)
7. Under section 22. Developer Guarantees and Warranty Collateral add "design," into the first sentence after "defects
in".
1. All street, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water line construction, as well as power and
other "dry" utility installations, shall conform to The City of Fort Collins standards and
specifications current at the date of execution of the Development Agreement pertaining to
this development. Any construction occurring three years after the execution of the
Development Agreement shall require re-examination of the plans by the City Engineer who
may require that they be made to conform to the standards and specifications current at that
time. (Note: If there is no Development Agreement associated with the project, this note
needs to reference the approval of the Utility Plans.)
2. No street work including the placement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement shall begin
until the soils report and pavement design are approved by the City Engineer and meet the
requirements stated in the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards, and
Specifications For Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, and Other Public Ways" manual.
3. The type, size, location, and number of all known underground utilities are approximate as
shown on the drawings. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to verify the existence
and location of all underground utilities along the route of the work.
4. The contractor shall contact the utility notification center of Colorado (UNCC) at 1-800-922-
1987, at least 2 working days prior to beginning excavation or grading in the area of UNCC
registered lines to have those utility locations marked by member companies. All other utility
lines are to be located by contacting the respective representative. Utility service laterals are
also to be located prior to beginning excavation or grading. It shall be the contractor's sole
responsibility for locating and protecting all utilities during construction and for coordinating
with the appropriate utility company for any utility crossings required.
5. The engineer who has prepared these plans, by execution and/or seal hereof, does hereby
affirm responsibility to The City of Fort Collins, as beneficiary of said engineer's work, for any
errors and omissions contained in these plans, and approval of these plans by the City
Engineer shall not relieve the engineer who has prepared these plans of all such
responsibility. Further, to the extent permitted by law, the engineer hereby agrees to hold
harmless and indemnify the City, and its officers and employees, from and against all
liabilities, claims, and demands which may arise from any errors and omissions contained in
these plans.
6. When an existing asphalt street must be cut, the street must be restored to a condition equal
to or better than its original condition. The existing street condition shall be documented by
The City Construction Inspector before any cuts are made. Patching shall be done in
accordance with The City of Fort Collins Street Repair Standards. The finished patch shall
blend in smoothly into the existing surface. All large patches shall be paved with an asphalt
lay -down machine. In streets where more than one cut is made, an overlay of the entire street
width, including the patched area, may be required. The determination of need for a complete
overlay shall be made by The City Engineer and/or the City Inspector at the time the cuts are
made.
7. Prior to the commencement of any construction, the contractor shall contact all utilities to
coordinate schedules and contact The City Forester to schedule a site inspection for any tree
removal requiring a permit.
8. Prior to the commencement of any construction, the contractor shall give The City of Fort
Collins Engineering Department (221-6605) and The Erosion Control Inspector (221-6700)
twenty-four (24) hours advance notice.
9. All damaged existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be replaced prior to the acceptance of
completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
10. Prior to the commencement of any construction that will affect traffic signs of any type, the
contractor shall contact The City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department (221-), who will
temporarily remove or relocate the sign at no cost to the contractor; however, if the contractor
moves the traffic sign then the contractor will be charged for the labor, materials and
equipment to reinstall the sign as needed.
11.The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of storm drainage
facilities located on private property. Maintenance of onsite drainage facilities shall be the
responsibility of the property owner(s).
12.All recommendations of the final drainage and erosion control study (name of the study and
date) by (Engineering Firm) shall be followed and implemented.
13.The minimum cover over water lines is 4.5 feet and the maximum cover is 5.5 feet unless
otherwise noted in the plans and approved by the Water Utility.
14. Prior to final inspection and acceptance by The City of Fort Collins, certification of the
drainage facilities, by a registered engineer, must be submitted to and approved by the
Stormwater Utility Department. Certification shall be submitted to the Stormwater Utility
Department at least two weeks prior to the release of a certificate of occupancy for single
family units. For commercial properties, certification shall be submitted to the Stormwater
Utility Department at least two weeks prior to the release of any building permits in excess of
those allowed prior to certification per the Development Agreement.
15. If dewatering is used to install the utilities, a State Construction Dewatering Wastewater
Discharge Permit is required if the discharge is into a storm sewer, channel, irrigation ditch, or
any waters of the United States.
16.All construction activities must comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for
"Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity." For information, please
contact The Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, WQCD-PE-82,
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80222-1530. Attention: Permits and
Enforcement Section. ph.: (303) 692-3590. Identifying the need for a permit, preparing the
application, and paying for the review and submittal fees necessary to secure this permit, will
be the responsibility of the contractor.
17. Project Benchmark: City of Fort Collins, (Vertical Control).
18.Temporary erosion control during construction shall be provided as shown on the Erosion
Control Plan.
19. The Developer is responsible for all costs for the initial installation of traffic signing and striping
for the Development related to the Development's local street operations. In addition, the
Developer is responsible for all costs for traffic signing and striping related to directing traffic
access to and from the Development.
20.The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for any damages or injuries sustained in this
Development as a result of groundwater seepage, whether resulting from groundwater
flooding, structural damage or other damage unless such damage or injuries are sustained as
a result of The City of Fort Collins failure to properly maintain its water, wastewater, and/or
storm drainage facilities in the development.
21. No construction shall start until the Development Construction Permit (DCP) for this project is
issued.
22. All necessary permits for this project which may include, but are not limited to, state highway
access permits, excavation permits, and/or street cut permits must be obtained prior to
commencement of construction.
23.The contractor(s) shall keep a current, clean, dry set of the record drawings, the development
agreement and any amendment to it, and the development construction permit (DCP) on site
at all times. Contractor(s) shall redline actual locations and dimensions for vertical and
horizontal locations or proposed construction, utilities, structures, services and other details
not shown on the original drawings. Upon completion of the work, the contractor(s) shall
submit record drawings to the Engineer.
24.The contractor shall hire a licensed engineer or land surveyor to survey the constructed
elevations of the street subgrade and the gutter flowline at all intersections, inlets, and other
locations requested by the City inspector. The engineer or surveyor must certify in a letter to
the city that these elevations conform to the approved plans and specifications. Any
deviations shall be noted in the letter and then resolved with the city before installation of base
course or asphalt will be allowed on the streets.
25. If a conflict exists and/or a design modification is required the contractor shall coordinate with
the consulting engineer to modify the design and obtain approval from the City prior to
beginning construction.
T
-
o
- -
U
0
v
D
-
E
N
N
L U
v) 0)
a) Y c
G C
_ m C
°
�O O
a
�
3�
a)(D E
m
.c
-0
m-0 E
C\l
m�
L
T T
co
U
O.
pO G
C —
ro ro>
L N
T 0 E
6
C
s
L 0 n o
m N
`O
a o)
0 ro N
a
r
- N
N pp) — U
C m 3 N
Q
VI N
Y N
0
-0 'L'" O
O N S]
c
r0
O C7
'� T O
� OI tTU O
N
a��
1] d. U)
`�
O`O m'
�O 3 c
romm
wcu
N m
QL O C
N
cma)ro
>
Y
0 >. T N
Q 3 N
N
O Y U
3
_N
x 0L-
ro
E U Y
'«
�C c
U
? N N
aJ
m
O v m
_ro n
N
O) U
VENN
L
.p
Q C U
U
co
U
IN
COS
ro,
�QO
°)NLV
O
Q.
N c
U m -O L-.
O L
n
a Q-
N
E
N
O
TD ¢ a
o.
U
° v
o
m
ro
Y
N ami `�
N
m ELc°-.
s
ca
m
~
w
C
m
�°�N
dam
_�L0
v,roQm
O)NIron
.CL N
OIL
3
0
y L
C O �-
p
N> 0 3
?�
0
mo)v
a,
°
oOmaQmEm
�ro
m -0
._ U
N
ro
E > c>
0
a
N Y N
'o
O 0
ro
o `
N C N
T^
m
3 Q
ro
m
c m
N
m
3
p
Q
o
ICU n
N o ca
3
N N>
U .� N N
C
N N"
-° 0>
N
N N)
(O T O) >
.O
'� O) N N
U Q
Fz
N
C O N
N E O C
°�
'p
`�
m (`7 'C
-- L O
E
N�
-°
o o t
m a 3 0
ro a)
C i c N
g c 0
C m O
_� m
N C w C
o
N
`nd. ND
NNroE
c ^
m
ONN
O)
U
N t] N
U)
N a).UL
E
t«`6 U n
O Q
N
N U) i6
O p
U
O i T °)
m,
o Q
.0 > 0-0
O'
Y
.- O
E
,�
w
=
m L cD
D_ N Q
3 C_
o N L
O '� Ot -O
O
cA p C
N
W N .� CO
�O N
-- N 0�
a O D
c C _C N
N 0
_N
O)
C°
N N O U
Q
L
N
3
N
U
N -O N
C C
a
E
I--N n
N td
N
n
ro E L
`o
N
F- a)
o=
-O
(am E.
� E ro
c _ia
in F-- ro
-ccd
E m
N
IN
°) o
�
N
Y
m �
c
c a
o
0
U
« L
m O
N
N
COaj
aj
am
U
C
U O u i N
m n O)
N
O)
1) a) aim
m
3
3 0 o N
N
E m o
0
C
N x O N
N
o
m
n T 0
Y
0
Y
m j Q
C
�
mil
N
N
N
m
m
m
I
m
Im
m
N
N
N
a
a
a
N
N
N
0
O
0
O
0
C
C
C
Y
Y
Y
a
)n
i
T -o
O
aa)).ro
9 m
N
a
Q m
cNi
c
to
t o ro
p_
m.ro m
�, °
C)
O N
O C Q
A-(n
N N N
L •-
C
m 0
Cl
N N
x
N p
J
L OI
Q C
N
E -
N
N U m
in Q
a) in m
C
°
J ro
room
> Y
N QQ
O
VI N N
Q
C
.Q o 3
m a)
0 w
c o
ro
m-o-o
n
ID
-0
�� a)ro
c —
m-o�
a
a%
�po N
C J
a)'O U
O
a)>
m—
m ro
w
O° lam
w
0
�
p
3�
��
c
fl-
c 0
-0
c
`°EL
m
m
o
t°
c 0
N w(0
o
.> o
0
0
I
N
aNi.
w ro
ro 3 I
a`Ni o)
V
ro
c
N a`
_
a
m
m
ro
- -
-
-
v i
)n-
I
co
---
Basil Hamdan Re Fossil Lake PUD 3rd fill
Page 1
From: Basil Hamdan
To: Troy Jones
Date: Mon, Oct 8, 2001 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Fossil Lake PUD 3rd filing
Troy,
Here are the comments for Fossil Lake 3rd Filing:
Please label the proposed storm sewer and inlets on the Utility Plan.
Call out type size and class of pipe.
Please clarify who is responsible for maintaining the storm sewer from the
Private Street into the channel in Outlot K.
Please provide some permanent erosion protection at the outlet of the storm sewer
into Outlet K. Please call out storm sewer invert elevations at the outlet point into
the swale in Outlet K. Please call out Low Point elevations at the inlets in the private
street.
The Type R inlet on the north side of the private street conflicts with the proposed
driveway, please correct.
Please provide street flow line profiles with inlet elevations clearly called out.
This plan is impossible to review.
The crossings of the proposed water line and the storm sewer line, or the sanitary
line and the storm sewer are not shown on the the profile elevation.
Please show these crossings and maintain a minimum of 18" clear. Please
encase the stom sewer crossing of the water line per Colorado Department of Health
requirements.
Please provide a drainage summary table on the drainage plan.
>>> Troy Jones 10/08 2:36 PM >>>
Do any of you have any comments on this county referral? Please let me know.
Troy Jones, City Planner
Fort Collins Current Planning Department
(970)221-6206
KEM Builders, LLC A Colorado Limited Liability Company
3000 South College Avenue, Suite 103
Fort Collins, CO 80525
October 18, 2001
Mr. Matt Lafferty
Larimer County Planning Department
P. O. Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
HAND DELIVER
RE: Fossil Lake P.U.D. Third Filing
Comment responses from August 21, 2001, submission
Dear Matt:
Telephone: (970) 223-4900
Fax: (970) 223-4901
As you know, comments from the City of Fort Collins were significantly delayed. (They stated they
did not receive the plan sets for review.) Once again, we are faced with the very real need of
expediting this process to every extent possible.
As you and I have discussed, the following are our responses relative to specific comments
received from the departments indicated. (The responsible development teams member(s) are
indicated in italics following each response.) As noted in my conversations with you, we believe
several of the comments from City staff are unreasonable, particularly at this point in this review
process, and we are asking that you and your staff assist in ameliorating the impacts of such
requests. Please keep me advised of any additional input in this regard. We'll look forward to
finalizing these resolutions at the joint staff meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, and then
proceeding with all possible haste to actual construction.
Schmidt Earth Builders, Inc., will be doing our development work and is well under way with site
work for Everline, LLC, for the remainder of Fossil Lake 2nd. We are seeking clearances to
proceed with initial work (e.g., overlot grading and initial utility staking) just as soon as possible, and
I have already discussed this possibility with Traci Downs. Again, any assistance you can provide
in this regard will be most appreciated.
Also, following my discussions with Traci Downs and (via Traci) Sherri Wamhoff, Terry Farrill of
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation did approve changes to the
water and sewer stubs from Fossil Lake 2nd to our site, allowing that work to continue unabated
and avoiding any later need to tear up newly installed streets. The water and sewer lines into
Fossil Lake 3rd have been installed as so approved.
Concurrent with submission of this letter, the changes indicated are being made to the project
documents. It is our intent to have the completed, changed documents back in your hands as
Mr. Matt Lafferty
October 18. 2001
Page 2
quickly as possible following the October 23 meeting, and not later than October 26. We are then
asking that the necessary approvals be obtained just as quickly as is possible.
A copy of the revised Development Agreement (incorporating comments received to date) is also
attached.
Comments received to date are from the following:
• Larimer County Engineering Department (Dale Greer) — September 14
1. Boundary monuments and descriptions per CRS 38-51-105 (1)(a) and —106 (f) have
been added as requested. (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
2. A Basis of Bearings statement per CRS 38-51-106(e) has been added as requested.
(King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
3. The monument record for the North quarter corner of Sec 9 has been reviewed and
revised as requested. (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
• Larimer County Planning &_Building Department (Katherine Huber) — September 17
The Plat and Site drawings have been revised to reflect the approved street name of Lost
Lake Place, and that the stub entering into the project is to remain at Stonewater Drive (as
opposed to "Court"). Eighteen (18) copies of the Plat will be provided as requested. (King
Surveyors — Larry Pepik) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alley -Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey)
• Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District (Terry
Farrill) — September 15
1. Verification of the formation of the Village at Fossil Lake Homeowners Association is
being provided to the District. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
2. We are providing the requested District easement forms. The Plat clearly provides
utility easements in all required areas. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
3. The District's signature block has been added to the construction drawings cover sheet,
as requested. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
4. Meter pits have been added for each of the 12 buildings, as requested. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
5. A corrected test pressure of 150 psi has been included, as requested, and thrust blocks
adjusted accordingly. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
6. The (typ) curb stop diagram has been eliminated, as requested. (North Star Design —
Patricia Kroetch)
Mr. Matt Lafferty Page 3
October 18. 2001
• Larimer County Engineering Department (Traci Downs) — September 26
1. A typical cross section detail for the internal roads and cul-de-sacs has been added to
the final plans, as requested. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
2. A horizontal control plan has been added to the final plans, as requested. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
3. Outfall curbs have been specified at the islands, as requested, and detail provided. The
Landscape Plan has been revised to indicate that sleeves will be provided for irrigation
water to the islands. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey)
4. The cross slope for the indicated curb has been re-evaluated and changed to ensure a
1 % minimum. (North Star Design —Patricia Kroetch)
5. The cited curb return grading has been re-evaluated and altered to ensure minimum
standards. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
6. Notes have been checked against Appendix E and altered where required. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
7. Calculations have been revised as requested. Riprap has been indicated. Calcs and
details have been included in the plan set, as requested. (North StarDesign—Patricia
Kroetch)
8. We understand that Transportation Expansion Fees (will be) required at the time of
building permitting. Since permitting (will) be under the auspices of the City of Fort
Collins, is this item properly clarified between the entities? (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave
Brown)
9. We understand that drainage fees (will be) required at the time of building permitting.
Since permitting (will) be under the auspices of the City of Fort Collins, is this item
properly clarified between the entities? (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
• City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning (Tom) — October 3
1. This project's connection to the (future) trail is shown at 8 feet, as previously agreed.
Drawings and the project narrative have been altered so as not to indicate any width for
the (future) trail, as this has not been determined nor is its installation our responsibility.
(KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Everline LLC, as developer of Fossil Lake 2nd, will provide the enhanced crosswalk as
requested. Applicant's drawings have been changed to so reflect. (North Star Design —
Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
October 18, 2001
Page 4
3. Previous discussions with the planning staffs resulted in an understanding that
connecting walks would be maintained at 4.0 feet with the exception of the walk
connecting to Trilby Road that is indicated at 4.5 feet. Applicant has not made any
changes in this regard from the plans submitted on August 21. (KEM Builders, LLC —
Dave Brown) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
City of Fort Collins Engineering (Sheri Wamhoff) — October 4
Site Plan
We do not believe these are valid comments for this project, and particularly at this
stage of the review. These are private streets, and the impetus for that was to enable
accommodation of the design elements integral to the site and product. These are
conceptual comments and should have been raised earlier in the review process.
Further, the enforcement of such details becomes quite arbitrary when overall density
and design requirements are considered, and such requirements at this juncture of the
process would require a very significant site re -design. We cannot discern any physical
(engineering) or health and safety implications relative to these standards on this site.
We are requesting that these unnecessary restrictions not be imposed. (KEM Builders,
LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey)
2. We agree to the installation of the ramp, in the same design and standard format as
consistent with the other portions of the Fossil Lake PUD. (North Star Design— Patricia
Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
3. The mailbox assembly is indicated on both the Utility and Site Plan drawings (on the
Building "A" side of Stonewater Drive). Its placement took utility installations into
account. The assembly requires a concrete pad only. There will be no utility conflicts.
A note has been added on the utility plans to further identify the installation. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
4. The retaining wall has been relocated closer to Building "I" and completely clear of the
access easement. Site and Landscape drawings have been coordinated with Utility
drawings to so reflect. (North Star Design —Patricia Kroetch) (Allen -Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey)
5. A note referencing a (typical) 20-foot set back from back edge of sidewalk to garage
doors has been added to the Site Plan. (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
6. The Plat and the Site Plan have been changed so as to reflect the following:
Tract "A" = Utility, Drainage, and Access Easement
Tracts "B" and "C = Utility, Drainage, Access, and Landscape Easement
Tract "D" = Utility, Drainage, Access, and Landscape Easement
(Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
Mr. Malt Lafferty
October 18, 2001
Landscape Plan
Page 5
1. These islands have been conceptually discussed previously. The arbitrary imposition of
generalized standards will not serve to facilitate and create a desirable and practical site
plans. These islands have been designed to moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts of
the necessary hardscape. We submit that these islands are not typical of those
configurations and locations for which the cited standards were developed (i.e., there
are no cross streets, very light traffic volume, etc.). Nonetheless, we have amended
Sheet LS2 to indicate that the designs meet line -of -sight requirements. (Aller-Lingle
Architects - Brad Massey)
2. The comments above apply again. Nonetheless, the landscaping wall height has been
reduced to a maximum of 24". (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Plat
1. The Plat properly reflects and effective re -platting of Fossil Lake Tract "B", whereby
individual and/or separate drainage easements have been included within the Tracts of
this submission (i.e., all of Tract "D" is properly designated as drainage easement).
The Site Plan and utility drawings have been revised so as not to reflect (any) separate
drainage easements. (North Star Design—PatriciaKroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
2. Our drawings have been changed to indicate this easement in a manner consistent with
the plat and plans already approved for Fossil Lake P.U.D. 2nd, which delineate this
easement as a 15 foot access easement. Everline LLC, as developer of Fossil Lake
2nd, would assume responsibility for any change in designation of this easement.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King
Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
3. The arbitrary imposition of generalized standards will not serve to facilitate and create a
desirable and practical site plan. These islands and cul-de-sacs were designed to
moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts of the necessary hardscape. The islands are not
typical of those configurations and locations for which the standards were developed
(i.e., there are no cross streets; very light traffic volume, etc.). The configurations and
dimensions of the cul-de-sac islands are an integral conceptual element. They have
been previously discussed at some length. Imposition of the indicated standards would
have a significant, cumulative, negative impact on the site plan. We desire the
somewhat tighter outside radii, which will serve to slow traffic down in these denser -use
cul-de-sacs (i.e., 10-12 units adjoining, as opposed to 6-7 in the usual residential cul-de-
sac). The Poudre Fire Authority has approved the radii indicated for the center islands.
As they are fully functional for the site conditions and meet the primary health and
safety requirements, we do not believe there is a viable issue here. We are requesting
that these unnecessary restrictions not be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown)
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King
Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
October 18, 2001
Page 6
4. We do not believe these requirements are necessary for this site. These are private
streets. They are low volume, low speed. There are no street intersections. We have
provided conceptual compliance as stated in accordance with Landscape Plan
comments # 1 and # 2 above. We are requesting that this sight distance easement
restriction be waived as unnecessary. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown) (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors —
Larry Pepik)
5. The following note has been added to the Plat:
"All maintenance of the various tracts described shall be the responsibility of the
Village at Fossil Lake Homeowners' Association."
(King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
6. The notice, as presented on the comment sheet, has been added to the Plat. (King
Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
The arbitrary imposition of generalized standards will not serve to facilitate and create a
desirable and practical site plan. These islands and cul-de-sacs were designed to
moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts of the necessary hardscape. The islands are not
typical of those configurations and locations for which the standards were developed
(i.e., there are no cross streets; very light traffic volume, etc.). The configurations and
dimensions of the cul-de-sac islands are an integral conceptual element. They have
been previously discussed at some length. Imposition of the indicated standards would
have a significant, cumulative, negative impact on the site plan. We desire the
somewhat tighter radii, which will serve to slow traffic down in these denser -use cul-de-
sacs (i.e., 10-12 units adjoining, as opposed to 6-7 in the usual residential cul-de-sac).
The Poudre Fire Authority has approved the radii indicated for the center islands. As
they are fully functional for the site conditions and meet the primary health and safety
requirements, we do not believe there is a viable issue here. We are requesting that
these unnecessary restrictions not be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave
Brown)('King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
Utility Plans
8. Current general notes have been used, where appropriate. (North Star Design —
Patricia Kroetch
The requested statement per 3.3.1.F has been added. (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch
10. Construction notes have been added, as appropriate. (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch
11. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District do
not allow non-existent utilities to be designated as existing. Utilities that do exist as of
the submission date will be indicated as existing. (North Star Design —Patricia Kroetch)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
October 18, 2001
Grading and Drainage Plans
Page 7
12. The property through which the connecting walk to Trilby Road is to be constructed is
fully developed. An easement will be platted and recorded by separate document to
accommodate this connecting walk. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (KEM
Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
13. We do not believe these are valid comments for this project, and particularly at this
stage of the review. These are private streets and driveways, and the impetus for that
was to enable accommodation of the design elements integral to the site and product.
These are conceptual comments and should have been raised earlier in the review
process. Further, the enforcement of such details becomes quite arbitrary when overall
density and design requirements are considered, and such requirements at this juncture
of the process would require a very significant site re -design. We cannot discern any
physical (engineering) or health and safety implications relative to these standards on
this site. We are requesting that these unnecessary restrictions not be imposed. (KEM
Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle
Architects — Brad Massey)
14. The retaining wall has been relocated closer to Building "I" and completely clear of the
access easement. Site and Landscape drawings have been coordinated with Utility
drawings to so reflect. (North Star Design— Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey)
`15. See item #10 under Stormwater comments.
Street Plan and Profile
16. We do not believe these are valid comments for this project, and particularly at this
stage of the review. This is a private street development, and the impetus for that was
to enable accommodation of the design elements integral to the site and product.
These are conceptual comments and should have been noted earlier in the process.
The enforcement of such details become quite arbitrary when overall density and design
requirements are considered. Such requirements at this juncture of the process would
require a significant site re -design. We cannot discern any physical (engineering) or
health and safety implications relative to these standards on this site. We are
requesting that these conditions not be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
17. We agree to the installation of the ramp, in the same design and standard format as
consistent with the other portions of the Fossil Lake PUD. (North Star Design— Patricia
Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
18. Spot elevations, as appropriate, and a horizontal control plan have been added to the
drawings. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
October 18, 2001
Page 8
19. We believe that County requirements (i.e. centerline profiles) are adequate and request
that the submission be approved as is in this regard. (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch)
20. The curve length has been changed to 70 feet. (North Star Design —Patricia Kroetch)
21. Actual in -the -field realities do not always allow strict compliance with extremely specific
standards such as this one. The flows are adequate as presented, but further
accommodation towards the 1% will be made where practical and possible given the
overall configurations. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
22. The horizontal control figures provided will verify the flowline radius at a minimum of 45
feet. Beyond this, the arbitrary imposition of generalized standards will not serve to
facilitate and create a desirable and practical site plan. These islands and cul-de-sacs
were designed to moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts of the necessary hardscape.
The islands are not typical of those configurations and locations forwhich the standards
were developed (i.e., there are no cross streets, very light traffic volume, etc.). The
configurations and dimensions of the cul-de-sac islands are an integral conceptual
element. They have been previously discussed at some length. Imposition of the
indicated standards would have a significant, cumulative, negative impact on the site
plan. We desire the somewhat tighter radii, which will serve to slow traffic down in
these denser -use cul-de-sacs (i.e., 10-12 units adjoining, as opposed to 6-7 in the usual
residential cul-de-sac). The Poudre Fire Authority has approved the radii indicated for
the center islands. As they are fully functional for the site conditions and meet the
primary health and safety requirements, we do not believe there is a viable issue here.
We are requesting that these conditions not be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave
Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
23. A curve table has been provided as requested, as part of the horizontal control data.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
24. The necessary data has been provided as requested, as part of the horizontal control
data. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
25. Island curbs have been specified as outflows; and spot elevations as appropriate and a
horizontal control plan have been added to the drawings. (North Star Design— Patricia
Kroetch)
26. This issue has been thoroughly discussed during earlier conceptual reviews, within the
context of logical site planning. There was clear conceptual assent that the parking
being provided was adequate. Once again, these are private streets and driveways.
The most significant issue here seems, frankly, to be an inane standard that, on the one
hand, requires a 20 foot driveway, 'so that vehicles can park without obstructing
walkways' and, on the other hand, will not allow the parking spaces thus created
(mandated) to be counted towards the parking requirements. We maintain that this
standard is totally unreasonable, particularly within the context of the elements often
required in a successful, aesthetically pleasing site. HOA rules require that garages be
used for vehicle parking only. In addition to the two spaces thus provided for each
Mr. Matt Lafferty
October 18, 2001
Page 9
residence via the garages (a total of 96), the Site Plan also provides for a total of 21
designated, marked parking spaces, and the design provides for an additional 54
driveway spaces. There are in reality, therefore, a total of 75 spaces other than garage
spaces. From any logical perspective, a total of 171 fully functional parking spaces for
48 dwelling units is, at the very least, adequate. That computes to over 3.5 spaces per
unit. Further imposition of this standard at this point in the review process will destroy
the entire site plan. We are requesting that this very unreasonable standard not be
imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
(Alley -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
27. A typical cross section detail for the internal roads has been added to the final plans, as
requested. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
28. Site and Utility Plans have been modified to indicate (typical) 18 foot wide driveway
widths. Station offset information has also been included. (North StarDesign— Patricia
Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
29. In a logical and practical engineering and site context, the cul-de-sac slopes presented
are fully adequate. Holding to a rigid, printed, minimum standard requirement in an
instance such as this is an example of how not to facilitate a logical, efficient planning
process. We are requesting that this standard not be so unnecessarily imposed. (KEM
Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Details
30. The non -applicable portion of the sidewalk drawing detail has been eliminated. (North
Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
31. We do not believe that driveway cuts will contribute any appreciable improvement to the
site. Costs, however, would be significantly increased. We also believe that the rollover
curb and gutter as planned will help in reducing vehicle speeds. Once again, as these
are private streets and driveways, we are requesting that this recommendation not be
imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown) (North Star Design —Patricia Kroetch)
32. We agree to the installation of the ramp, in the same design and standard format as
consistent with the other portions of the Fossil Lake PUD. (North StarDesign — Patricia
Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
33. Details of 7-20C, 7-14, 7-33, 22-1, and 7-21 or 22 have been added where applicable.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Notice to Prospective Purchasers ......
1. The statement on page 2 relative to roads and streets has been changed as suggested.
(KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
N
C
ZN
EI
00
Q U
Z
0 °',O
>
0�
_Z > c�
JUio
LL OI
'D w
M y
O
EL .-
LU N
Q T
/0
a)
a)
`0
ro
m
0)
w
3
0
V
Q
� T
� c-
m
oa o
a C ro L
U
O L aY J N 'D
a) Q C a) N m W
O J a
rn0
ro a) 00 _s >
0.0 E o a) O M a)
m c
ro C p C
O m cl
(6 '—' N U O)
_ N -0 ro0_ C
U—
aroi .o) m N J L o :o 2
0) m- U I> c m -0' m
N a) p y U ro
U) -0 0 0 N U a)
c C 0 I (,1 (1) 0 J a7 O
a1 a) -0 U) -0 L Y a)
%' n 0 0 3 c
� s o 0 - h o m
3roy.0 0 0 C
oro 0 c m O a�ci
O_ (V O '« 0 �
ro
CL
II14 _
cu
0 - N
V O T
C V! O a) a)
a) m a) Y O O
E J c m c
N V O V N >. 3 0 ro m
a > _
>' aa) a) c E 'oc
a) - c
a) N >. L a) - N a) V
0 O L a)
U m c 0 1 .0) 0 aa') a)O ro O a) '- C a) ...
L m a m a s
33 0c -0 oai roc
o 5 c c T- ro ro
ro w a) _0 I .- o .N 3 oo
c . a
�.CO Na)J cOmL� CO
p) N N rot6 'U — t6 �t CO C
ro o E m c m m ro
ro L C> a) O D_ L> N U L-, U
o c .o m l 0 0 o E U
ro E o a) m m l c a)
U Y O Y T Q ro
O
N N 6 N O C', c— a-
- U
3 c U> a as °) ro c
0 -J ro 0c ate) a� E U) a)
r om m .c m .� L E 0 o a)
H �.� Z ro Q m Q �,� >
ro of t
E
U
L
a N
N
J
c
o �,
0
o
fli7
_m
0
°
0 4
o ma °cb
N(n
0
a
N Y
m
C D ro
0 a o
m
3
o a d
0
O)
d
C
.n
c N 0
}
C aj
a)
O)
O O
r/) U O U) L
a C
>
C-0
0
U
O
U C >
o ro
a
c`o-
0(D
M - 0 ro0
E
N
E
o
c ro cn w aroi
O O
N
�.ro.>
0E
0�L
-() .-a aEro
a)
LL
0 0
o) E a') ui a) c
Ft
U
_0
I��n
�
o�
�m(D E
U L
o_3
c
L o.
U
J E Jj
mOc
Q1 m O o
mmrocmm °m
_
0...
UJ
U
c
c
c
Er
a)C
C
C
0,0) `)
c
3
m
c ro
ar
J J
�
a
_`m IL
a
a) aa)) a°)i
E
C
a C
C
¢ .0 C Q
o
m
> m
<a
O1 c' ro
U)
Q
Z W W Z
c
U
E
ro.m
C
iv
0
c
E
O
oo
Flo
a
m
a
a)
a)
N
O
ro
ro
ro
ro oilm
oJl
Ql
_
O
(V
N
N
0
J
ro
O
Z ..gym
Mr. Matt Lafferty Page 10
October 18, 2001
Aller-Lingle letter of 8/21/01 Review Criteria)
1. This project's connection to the (future) trail is shown at 8 feet, as previously agreed.
Drawings and the project narrative have been altered so as not to indicate any width for
the (future) trail. as this has not been determined nor is its installation the applicant's
responsibility. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
2. The narrative has been altered as indicated. (Alley -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
3. The narrative has been altered as indicated to reflect consistency in sidewalk width
statements. (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Development Agreement
The reference has been changed to read as follows: "Use of the open space is largely
passive, with the exception of an 8-foot bicycle -pedestrian path connecting the
development with the proposed regional trail at the southern boundary of the project."
Reference to any width for the (future) trail has been omitted from this submission, as
the width has not been determined nor is its installation the applicant's responsibility.
(KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
2. Section 24 of the Agreement has been altered to reflect that the necessary
improvements to adjacent portions of Fossil Lake 2nd must also be in place. (KEM
Builders, LLC —Dave Brown)
3. Section 26 of the Agreement has been slightly altered, as suggested. (KEM Builders,
LLC — Dave Brown)
4. Section 10 has been changed as requested. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
5. Section 18 has been changed as requested. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
6. If such an inspection statement were to be included, it would probably be better placed
under Section 10. However, since Section 10 already provides for inspections by
licensed engineers, the streets are private, all maintenance responsibilities are private,
and since (appropriately) the City is divesting itself of any and all responsibility for the
streets, why does the City inspect them? What action could be required subsequent to
such inspection under such conditions?
7. Section 22 has been changed as requested. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
Mr. Matt Lafferty Page 11
October 18, 2001
City of Fort Collins Current Planning (Troy Jones) — October 8
1. We do not anticipate that the County will issue any building permits. Given the timeline
we have been left with, and our understanding of immediate subsequent annexation, we
anticipate that all building plan reviews, permitting, and COs will be under the auspices
of the City. We certainly hope that the approval process will not be further delayed or
complicated such as to negate this anticipation. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown)
2. We agree to secure the Annexation Agreement upon final approval. (KEM Builders,
LLC — Dave Brown)
3. We believe the Plat properly reflects that Tract D, as relabeled as per comments above,
as a, "Utility, Drainage, Access, and Landscape Easement." That "access"
encompasses pedestrian use and no further delineation should be required. An
easement is being provided for that walk section (from between Lots 3 and 4) which
connects the subject property to Trilby Road. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown)
4. The suggested change has been added to the "Notice to Prospective Buyers ... ", to
the paragraph describing the Annexation Agreement. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave
Brown)
5. No comment
6-14 All comments from Stormwater are being resolved via direct conversation between
Basil Hamdan and Patricia Kroetch.
Relative to comment #11, our response is the same as under#19 in the preceding
section: We believe that County requirements (i.e. centerline profiles) are adequate
and we request that the submission be approved as is in this regard. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Larimer County Attorney (Jeannine Haag) — October 13
The clarifying sentence has been added as the fourth paragraph of the Agreement.
(KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
2. As we understand the process, the City is not a signatory, but has had full review and
consultation as to the adequacy of the Agreement. We also understand that the
Annexation Agreement for Fossil Lake PUD Third should be structured to address the
necessary Development Agreement elements, in a manner similar to the Annexation
Agreement being structured for Fossil Lake Second. If the County Attorney's office
feels that the City cannot be bound by the agreement as structured, perhaps in
combination with the Annexation Agreement, but should be, then we would suggest that
as an issue to be rectified jointly by the County and City attorney's offices--- (but not at
the expense offurther _delay on the approval of this___ rp ojectll). (KEM Builders, LLC —
Dave Brown)
3. A statement, as suggested, has been added under Section 3. (KEM Builders, LLC —
Dave Brown)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
October 18, 2001
Page 12
4. The minor changes under Sections 19, 26, and 27 have been made. (KEM Builders,
LLC — Dave Brown)
City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations (Ward Stanford) — October 15
Phases 1 and 2 of the Fossil Lake Second are just now being constructed. The CR 36 /
Trilby Road connection will be constructed, as all plans and agreements indicate, prior to
the (later) construction of Phases 3 and4. These are commitments of Everline LLC, as
developer of Fossil Lake Second. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
Thanks again, Matt, for your assistance. As soon as the October 23 meeting is concluded, I need
all of the assistance I can get in moving forward as quickly as possible. There really are no major
issues here of any sort. It's time to facilitate our being able to get to work.
Sincerely,
KEM Builders, LLC
David S. Brown,
Project Manager
DSB/s
Attachment
cc: Larimer County — Planning Department, Russ Legg
Larimer County — Engineering Department, Traci Downs
City of Fort Collins — Planning Department, Troy Jones
City of Fort Collins — Engineering Department, Sheri Wamhoff✓
North Star Design, Inc. — Patricia Kroetch
Aller-Lingle Architects PC — Brad Massey
King Surveyors, Inc. — Larry Pepik
KEM Builders, LLC
3000 South College Avenue, Suite 103
Fort Collins, CO 80525
November 2, 2001
Mr. Matt Lafferty
Larimer County Planning Department
P. O. Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
HAND DELIVER
A Colorado Limited Liability Company
Telephone: (970) 223-4900
Fax: (970) 223-4901
RE: Fossil Lake P.U.D. Third Filing
Comment responses from October 23, 2001, County/City staff work session
Resubmission of documents as requested
Dear Matt:
Included below are the responses to those items left open as a result of the work session held on October 23
with the County and City staffs. The numbers/format is as used on the summary letter of October 18. Items
we believe to be resolved, via changes made on drawings, etc., as submitted herewith, as agreed to in our
letter of October 18, and as discussed on October 23 have been shaded in this present letter.
As you requested, attached herewith are:
• Fifteen (15) copies of the Plat, Site Plan, and Construction Drawings.
• Eight (8) copies of additional documents:
✓ The re -drafted (10/19/2001) Development Agreement.
✓ The Notice to Prospective Purchasers ... .
✓ The (yet -to -be recorded) easement for the sidewalk connecting the project to the Trilby Road
area.
• A copy of the variance request letter to Roxanne Hayes and Sherri Wamhoff for four (4) variances
from standards, on the administrative basis, which was also discussed on October 23 We wish to
express our appreciation for processing these requests in this far more expeditious manner
• A copy of a memo (October 17, 2001) from the Poudre Fire Authority, clarifying their letter dated May
14, 2001 The memo confirms that none of the proposed buildings need be fitted with sprinklers.
• A draft of the proposed Annexation Agreement I understand that its approval process is through City
Current Planning. and I am providing the draft document for their review concurrently with this letter.
Status of the Review Comments is as follows Items that we believe to be resolved, via changes made on
drawings as submitted herewith, as acknowledged in our response letter of October 18, and as discussed on
October 23 have been shaded in this present letter.
Mr. Malt Lafferty Page 2
November 2, 2001
• Larimer County_ Engineering Department (Dale Greer) — September 14
1. Boundary monuments and descriptions per CRS 38-51-105 (1)(a) and —106 (0 have been added
to the Plat as requested. (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
2. A Basis of Bearings statement per CRS 38-51-106(e) has been added to the Plat as requested.
(King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
3. The monument record for the North quarter corner of Sec 9 has been reviewed and revised as
requested (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
• Larimer County Planning &Building Department (Katherine Huber) — September 17
The Plat and Site drawings have been revised to reflect the approved street name of Lost Lake Place,
and that the stub entering into the project is to remain at Stonewater Drive (as opposed to "Court').
Eighteen (18) copies of the (final) Plat will be provided as requested. (King Surveyors— Larry Pepik)
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District (Terry Farrill)—
September 15
1. Verification of the formation of the Village at Fossil Lake Homeowners Association is being
provided to the District (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
2 We are providing the requested District easement forms. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
(King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
3 The District's signature block has been added to the construction drawings cover sheet, as
requested. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
4 Meter pits have been added to the utility drawings for each of the 12 buildings, as requested.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
5. A corrected test pressure of 150 psi has been included, as requested, and thrust blocks adjusted
accordingly. (North Star Design —Patricia Kroetch)
6 The (typ) curb stop diagram has been eliminated, as requested. (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch)
• La rimer County Engineerinq Department (Traci Downs) —September 26
1. A typical cross section detail for the internal roads and cul-de-sass has been added to the final
plans, as requested. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
2 A horizontal control plan has been added to the final plans, as requested. (North Star Design —
Patricia Kroetch)
3 Outfall curbs have been specified at the islands, as requested, and detail provided. The
Landscape Plan has been revised to indicate that sleeves will be provided for irrigation water to
the islands. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 3
4. The cross slope for the indicated curb has been re-evaluated and changed to ensure a 1%
minimum. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
5. The cited curb return grading has been re-evaluated and altered to ensure minimum standards.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
6. Notes have been checked against Appendix E and altered where required. (North Star Design —
Patricia Kroetch)
7. Calculations have been revised as requested. Riprap has been indicated. Calcs and details
have been included in the plan set, as requested. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
8 We understand that Transportation Expansion Fees (will be) required at the time of building
permitting_ Since permitting (will be) under the auspices of the City of Fort Collins, is this item
properly clarified between the entities? (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
Neither the County nor the City has administratively clarified this item.
9. We understand that drainage fees (will be) required at the time of building permitting. Since
permitting (will be) under the auspices of the City of Fort Collins, is this item properly clarified
between the entities? (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
Neither the County nor the City has administratively clarified this item.
• City of _Fort Collins Transportation PI_a_nning (Tom) — October 3
1. This project's connection to the (future) trail is shown at 8 feet, as previously agreed. Drawings
and the project narrative have been altered so as not to indicate any width for the (future) trail, as
this has not been determined nor is its installation our responsibility. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave
Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
2. Everline LLC, as developer of Fossil Lake 2nd, will provide the enhanced crosswalk as
requested. Applicant's drawings have been changed to so reflect. (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch) (Alley -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
3 Previous discussions with the planning staffs resulted in an understanding that connecting walks
would be maintained at 4.0 feet with the exception of the walk connecting to Trilby Road that is
indicated at 4 5 feet. Applicant has not made any changes in this regard from the plans submitted
on August 21. (KEM Builders, LLC — Cave Brown) (Allen -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
• City of Fort Collins Engineering (Sheri Wamhoff) — October 4
Site Plan
(same comment as Street Plan and Profile #161 We do not believe these are valid comments for
this project, and particularly at this stage of the review These are private streets, and the
impetus for that was to enable accommodation of the design elements integral to the site and
product. These are conceptual comments and should have been raised earlier in the review
process Further the enforcement of such details becomes quite arbitrary when overall density
and des an requirements are considered, and such requirements at this juncture of the process
would require a very significant site re -design. We cannot discern any physical (engineering) or
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 4
health and safety implications relative to these standards on this site. We are requesting that
these unnecessary restrictions not be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown) (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
[A variance request is being submitted relative to this comment.]
Relative to detail 7-29B, we have altered the driveway angles for buildings 2-3, 8, and 11. The
angle for the common drive between 10 and 11 has not been altered because of the designated
parking space indicated there (North Star Design— Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey)
Relative to the required 6-foot wide medians between driveways, Appendix 'A' to this letter
visually expresses the practical circumstances The condominium structures have attached
double garages, side -by -side. The median spaces are 3'-3" or 2'-9' (dependent on building
elevation) with each 17'-0' driveway pad extending 6" beyond each side of the door opening
(which is a standard configuration). The total space possible between garage door rough
openings is 4'-0". The maximum separation between drives, then, might be 3-'9" (practically
speaking, a drive slab must abut at least 3" beyond the edge of the door opening). From a
practical site and product standpoint, it does not seem feasible/reasonable to require medians
larger than the (present) T-0" (average), and we much prefer to leave them as presently
designed We do agree to ensure that non sight -impairing landscaping is placed within the
medians, and have so depicted on the Landscape Plan.
Narrowing the drive connections at the street would only serve to satisfy a mathematically stated
standard (e g , 36') and would certainly diminish both the practical and safe use of the drives. We
do agree to ensure that non sight -impairing landscape is placed within the medians, and have so
depicted on the Landscape Plan (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
We would once again state that this standard should not be so strictly applied in the case of a
multi -family development such as the proposed (which configuration has been built before and
with which residents and all concerned are most pleased). We are requesting that this standard
essentially be waived. We believe we have done an excellent job of mitigating the impact of
hardscape wherever possible, and the strict imposition of this standard (once again, especially at
this point in the review process) would effectively destroy both this product and this site plan
2. We agree to the installation of the ramp, in the same design and standard format as consistent
with the other portions of the Fossil Lake PUD. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
3. The mailbox assembly is indicated on both the Utility and Site Plan drawings (on the Building "A"
side of Stonewater Drive). Its placement took utility installations into account. The assembly
requires a concrete pad only There will be no utility conflicts. A note has been added on the
utility plans to further identify the installation. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle
Architects — Brad Massey)
4. The retaining wall has been relocated closer to Building " I' and completely clear of the access
easement Site and Landscape drawings have been coordinated with Utility drawings to so
reflect (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Allen -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
5. A note referencing a (typical) 20-foot set back from back edge of sidewalk to garage doors has
been added to the Site Plan (AlterLingleArchitects— Brad Massey)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 5
6. The Plat and the Site Plan have been changed so as to reflect the following:
Tract "A" = Utility, Drainage, and Access Easement
Tracts "B" and "C" = Utility, Drainage, Access, Landscape Easement, and Sight
Distance Easement
Tract "D" = Utility, Drainage, Access, and Landscape Easement
(Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
Landscape Plan
These islands have been conceptually discussed previously. The arbitrary imposition of
generalized standards will not serve to facilitate and create a desirable and practical site plans.
These islands have been designed to moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts of the necessary
hardscape. We submit that these islands are not typical of those configurations and locations for
which the cited standards were developed (i.e., there are no cross streets; very light traffic
volume, etc ). Nonetheless, we have amended Sheet LS2 to indicate that the designs meet line -
of -sight requirements. (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
2 The landscaping wall height has been reduced to a maximum of 24". (Aller-Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey)
Plat
The Plat properly reflects an effective re -platting of Fossil Lake Tract "B", whereby individual
and/or separate drainage easements have been included within the Tracts of this submission
(i.e., all of Tract "D" is properly designated as drainage easement) The Site Plan and utility
drawings have been revised so as not to reflect (any) separate drainage easements. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry
Pepik)
Our drawings have been changed to indicate this easement in a manner consistent with the plat
and plans already approved for Fossil Lake P.U.D 2nd, which delineate this easement as a 15-
foot access easement Everline LLC, as developer of Fossil Lake 2nd, would assume
responsibility for any change in designation of this easement. (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
[essentially the same comment as Street and Profile #221 The strict imposition of such standards
will not necessarily serve to facilitate and create a desirable and practical site plan. These islands
and cul-de-sacs were designed to moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts of the necessary
hardscape The islands are not typical of those configurations and locations for which the
standards were developed (i e_ there are no cross streets, very light traffic volume, etc.). The
configurations and dimensions of the cul-de-sac islands are an integral conceptual element. They
have been previously discussed at some length. Imposition of the indicated standards would
impose a significant, cumulative, negative impact on the site plan We desire the somewhat
tighter outside radii, which will serve to slow traffic down in these denser -use cul-de-sacs (i_e-, 10-
12 units adjoining, as opposed to 6-7 in the usual residential cul-de-sac). The Poudre Fire
Authority has approved the radii indicated for the center islands. As they are fully functional for
the site conditions and meet the primary health and safety requirements, we do not believe there
is a viable issue here. We are requesting that these unnecessary restrictions not be imposed
(KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle
Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
Mr. Matt Lafferty Page 6
November 2, 2001
[A variance request is being submitted relative to this comment.]
We do not wish to eliminate the islands. As agreed, we are submitting a variance request for
administrative action. Poudre Fire Authority supports the islands as designed Further, we are
submitting an additional diagram detail with the request which clearly demonstrates that the
islands and cul-de-sacs as designed provide for more truck turning space than the dimensions
specified in the standard (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects— Brad
Massey)
4. We do not believe these requirements are necessary for this site. These are private streets.
They are low volume, low speed. There are no street intersections. We have provided
conceptual compliance as stated in accordance with Landscape Plan comments # 1 and # 2
above. We are requesting that this sight distance easement restriction be waived as
unnecessary. (KEMBuilders,LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design— Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
As agreed, Tracts "B" and "C" have been given additional designation as sight distance
easements. The sight distance easement restriction statement has been added to the Plat. (Aller-
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
5. The following note has been added to the Plat:
"All maintenance of the various tracts described shall be the responsibility of the Village at
Fossil Lake Homeowners' Association." (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
6. The notice, as presented on the comment sheet, has been added to the Plat. (King Surveyors —
Larry Pepik)
The strict imposition of such standards will not necessarily serve to facilitate and create a
desirable and practical site plan. These islands and cul-de-sacs were designed to moderate the
visual/aesthetic impacts of the necessary hardscape. The islands are not typical of those
configurations and locations for which the standards were developed (i.e , there are no cross
streets, very light traffic volume, etc)_ The configurations and dimensions of the cul-de-sac
islands are an integral conceptual element. They have been previously discussed at some
length Imposition of the indicated standards would have a significant, cumulative negative
impact on the site plan We desire the somewhat tighter radii, which will serve to slow traffic
down in these denser -use cul-de-sacs (i.e., 10-12 units adjoining, as opposed to 6-7 in the usual
residential cul-de-sac) The Poudre Fire Authority has approved the radii indicated for the center
islands. As they are fully functional for the site conditions and meet the primary health and safety
requirements, we do not believe there is a viable issue here. We are requesting that these
unnecessary restrictions not be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown) (King Surveyors —
Larry Pepik)
[A variance request is being submitted relative to this comment.]
Utility Plans
8 Current general notes (to match Appendix 'E') have been used, where appropriate. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Staff will provide the desired construction notes to the project engineer for incorporation.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 7
9. The requested statement per 3.3.1.F has been added. (North Star Design —Patricia Kroetch
10. Construction notes have been added, as appropriate.
Staff will provide the desired construction notes to the project engineer for incorporation. (North
Star Design — Patricia Kroetch
11. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District do not allow
non-existent utilities to be designated as existing. Utilities that do exist as of the submission date
will be indicated as existing (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Grading and Drainage Plans
12, The property through which the connecting walk to Trilby Road is to be constructed is fully
developed. An easement will be platted and recorded by separate document to accommodate
this connecting walk. (North StarDesign— Patricia Kroetch) (KEMBiilders, LLC— Dave Brown)
(King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
13 We do not believe these are valid comments for this project, and particularly at this stage of the
review These are private streets and driveways, and the impetus for that was to enable
accommodation of the design elements integral to the site and product. These are conceptual
comments and should have been raised earlier in the review process. Further, the enforcement of
such details becomes quite arbitrary when overall density and design requirements are
considered, and such requirements at this juncture of the process would require a very significant
site re -design. We cannot discern any physical (engineering) or health and safety implications
relative to these standards on this site. We are requesting that these unnecessary restrictions not
be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
[A variance request is being submitted relative to this comment.]
We seek an appeal to 9.4.11 on the following bases:
• The standard is arbitrary. We question the viability of its application, especially in a strict
context, to multi -family developments. Upon discussion at the October 23 work session,
there was no clear response from staff as to the basis for the 500 sq. ft., nor is the standard
clarified/justified by any quantitative flow c_ alculations
• We believe that conceptual drainage and stormwater plans for this site were submitted for
review with the Preliminary Plat on March 20, 2001. We believe any concerns related to this
standard could have and should have been raised in comments at that time, and/or during
the subsequent County and City staff work session held on June 12. We do not believe
raising this issue at this stage of the review process is fair, equitable, or practical.
• Given the overall site plan and configuration, meeting this standard in a strict context will
require a very significant site redesign_ When the (proposed) drainage plans were
developed, practical knowledge and awareness of drainage flows were fully considered. We
believe we have done everything practically feasible, given the site configuration and product
nature, to accommodate this requirement while also establishing adequate drainage
configurations throughout the site and maintaining compliance with the approved site
drainage plan for Fossil Lake, as provided by Northern Engineering.
14. The retaining wall has been relocated closer to Building T' and completely clear of the access
easement. Site and Landscape drawings have been coordinated with Utility drawings to so
reflect (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
COUNTY REFERRAL
COMMENT SHEET
COMMENTS TO: Matt Lafferty FROM: Engineering
TYPE OF MEETING: Urban Growth Area Review Board
PROJECT: Fossil Lake PD 3rd Filing
THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department
City comments must be received in Current Planning Department by:
April 18, 2001
❑ No Problems
VProblems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Fossil Lakes 3" Filing -
I . The City might be willing to support a variance for the attached sidewalk if the attached walk was a minimum of 5 feet.
It should be noted though that if this project was in the City of Fort Collins the variance would not be granted as the
detached sidewalk system is in keeping with the neighborhood character design.
2. The 20-foot setback for the garages from the back of walk needs to be maintained. The City would not support a
variance to this. A clear walk area needs to be provided. Allowing shorter driveways would cause the sidewalk to be
blocked when somebody parked in the drive.
3. Have not shown the standard 9-foot utility easement behind the sidewalk. How are the utilities going to serve the site?
With attached sidewalk a greater than 9-foot easement is typically needed. A 13 foot easement was the requirement
when attached sidewalks were a part of the standards to accommodate the utilities behind the walk. Need to show how
the utilities can serve this site and get the utilities to agree that the standard easement is not needed.
4. For this site, with the amount of parking provided by there plan and on the adjacent streets the City Engineering
department would support a variance to Section 19.2.3 of the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards for the
requirement to provide I off -site parking space for each residence that has frontage on the cul-de-sac.
5. Provide a concrete to the property line with the pan at Stonewater and Shallow Pond.
6. Would like to see the design of the faux stone walls within the Cul-de-sac islands. Maybe a safety concern depending
on the design. Walls are not normally allowed within medians.
7. It should be noted that the statements in your text regarding the sidewalk widths are incorrect. Trilby ro ' '
5 foot detached sidewalk and all other adjacent roads will have a 4.5-foot min detached sidewalk. k
Date, yl�'06 Signaturgl- ���r.- Zle City of P s
Mr. Matt Lafferty Page 8
November 2, 2001
15. See item #10 under Stormwater comments.
Street Plan and Profile
16 [same comment as Site Plan #1] We do not believe these are valid comments for this project,
and particularly at this stage of the review. These are private streets, and the impetus for that
was to enable accommodation of the design elements integral to the site and product These are
conceptual comments and should have been raised earlier in the review process. Further, the
enforcement of such details becomes quite arbitrary when overall density and design
requirements are considered, and such requirements at thisjuncture of the process would require
a very significant site re -design. We cannot discern any physical (engineering) or health and
safety implications relative to these standards on this site. We are requesting that these
unnecessary restrictions not be imposed. (KEM Builders. LLC— Dave Brown) (North Star Design
— Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
[A variance request is being submitted relative to this comment.]
We have altered the driveway angles for buildings 2-3, 8, and 11 The angle for the common
drive between 10 and 11 has not been altered because of the designated parking space indicated
there. Once again, we go on record —particularly in the case of the building 2-3 drive-- that
altering the plan to meet this standard carries no practical value and, indeed, will serve only to
create an unsightly and maintenance -intensive areas which will be constantly run over by
automobiles.) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Relative to the required 6-foot wide medians between driveways, Appendix 'A' to this letter
visually expresses the practical circumstances. The condominium structures have attached
double garages, side -by -side. The median spaces are 3'-3" or 2'-9" (dependent on building
elevation) with each 17'-0' driveway pad extending 6" beyond each side of the door opening
(which is a standard configuration). The total space possible between garage door rough
openings is 4'-0". The maximum separation between drives, then, might be 3-'6" (practically
speaking, a drive slab must abut at least 3" beyond the edge of the door opening). From a
practica' site and product standpoint, it does not seem feasible/reasonable to require medians
larger than the (present) 3-0" (average), and we much prefer to leave them as presently
designed We do agree to ensure that non sight -impairing landscaping is placed within the
medians, and have so depicted on the Landscape Plan.
Narrowing the driveway widths at the street would only serve to satisfy a mathematically stated
standard (e g , 36') and would certainly diminish both the practical and safe use of the drives. We
do agree to ensure that non sight -impairing landscape is placed within the medians, and have so
depicted on the Landscape Plan.
We would once again state that this standard should not be so strictly applied in the case of a
multi -family development such as the proposed (which configuration has been built before and
with which residents and all concerned are most pleased) We request that this standard
essentially be waived. We believe we have done an excellent job of mitigating the impact of
hardscape wherever possible, and the strict imposition of this standard (once again, especially at
this point in the review process), would effectively destroy both this product and this site plan
17 We agree to the installation of the ramp, in the same design and standard format as consistent
with the other portions of the Fossil Lake PUD. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 9
18. Spot elevations, as appropriate, and a horizontal control plan have been added to the drawings.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
19. We believe that County requirements (i.e. centerline profiles) are adequate and request that the
submission be approved as is in this regard. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Flowline profiles will be provided as further requested.
20 The curve length has been changed to 70 feet. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
21 Actual in -the -field realities do not always allow strict compliance with extremely specific standards
such as this one. The flows are adequate as designed and meet the standard as closely as is
practical Any variance that does remain is inconsequential (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch)
22. [essentially the same comment as Landscape #3] The strict imposition of such standards will not
necessarily serve to facilitate and create a desirable and practical site plan. These islands and
cul-de-sacs were designed to moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts of the necessary hardscape
The islands are not typical of those configurations and locations for which the standards were
developed (i_e there are no cross streets, very light traffic volume, etc.)_ The configurations and
dimensions of the cul-de-sac islands are an integral conceptual element. They have been
previously discussed at some length Imposition of the indicated standards would impose a
significant, cumulative, negative impact on the site plan. We desire the somewhat tighter outside
radii, which will serve to slow traffic down in these denser -use cul-de-sacs (i.e., 10-12 units
adjoining, as opposed to 6-7 in the usual residential cul-de-sac) The Poudre Fire Authority has
approved the radii indicated for the center islands. As they are fully functional for the site
conditions and meet the primary health and safety requirements, we do not believe there is a
viable issue here. We are requesting that these unnecessary restrictions not be imposed (KEM
Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects —
Brad Massey) (King Surveyors — Larry Pepik)
[A variance request is being submitted relative to this comment.]
We do not wish to eliminate the islands As agreed, we are submitting a variance request for
administrative action Poudre Fire Authority supports the islands as designed. Further, we are
submitting an additional diagram detail with the request which clearly demonstrates that the
islands and cul-de-sacs as designed provide fro _more truck turning space than the dimensions
specified in the standard (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Aller-Lingle Architects— Brad
Massey)
23 A curve table has been provided as requested, as part of the horizontal control data. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
24 The necessary data has been provided as requested, as part of the horizontal control data.
(North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
25 Island curbs have been specified as outflows, and spot elevations as appropriate and a horizontal
control plan have been added to the drawings. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
26 This issue has been thoroughly discussed during earlier conceptual reviews, within the context of
logical site planning There was clear conceptual assent that the parking being provided was
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 10
adequate. Once again, these are private streets and driveways The most significant issue here
seems, frankly, to be an inane standard that, on the one hand, requires a 20 foot driveway, 'so
that vehicles can park without obstructing walkways' and, on the other hand, will not allow the
parking spaces thus created (mandated) to be counted towards the parking requirements. We
maintain that this standard is totally unreasonable, particularly within the context of the elements
often required in a successful, aesthetically pleasing site. HOA rules require that garages be
used for vehicle parking only. In addition to the two spaces thus provided for each residence via
the garages (a total of 96), the Site Plan also provides for a total of 21 designated, marked
parking spaces, and the design provides for an additional 54 driveway spaces There are in
reality, therefore, a total of 75 spaces other than garage spaces From any logical perspective, a
total of 171 fully functional parking spaces for 48 dwelling units is, at the very least, adequate.
That computes to over 3.5 spaces per unit. Further imposition of this standard at this point in
the review process will destroy the entire site plan. We are requesting that this very
unreasonable standard not be imposed (KEM Builders, LLC—Dave Brown) (North Star Design
— Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
[A variance request is being submitted relative to this comment.]
As agreed at the October 23 work session, a variance request is being submitted relative to
19.2.3, seeking approval as submitted based upon the spaces provided by the Site Plan in
combination with those additional on -street spaces that will be available on Swallow Pond Drive
and Snowy Creek Drive. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
27. A typical cross section detail for the internal roads has been added to the final plans, as
requested. (North Star Design — Patdcia Kroetch)
28 Site and Utility Plans have been modified to indicate (typical) 17-foot wide driveway widths.
Station offset information has also been included. (North StarDesign— Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
29 In a logical and practical engineering and site context, the cul-de-sac slopes presented are fully
adequate. Holding to a rigid, printed, minimum standard requirement in an instance such as this
is an example of how not to facilitate a logical, efficient planning process. The slopes are
adequate as designed and meet the standard as closely as is practical. Any variance that does
remain is inconsequential (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia
Kroetch)
Details
30. The non -applicable portion of the sidewalk drawing detail has been eliminated. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
31 We do not believe that driveway cuts will contribute any appreciable improvement to the site.
Costs, however, would be significantly increased. We also believe that the rollover curb and
gutter as planned will help in reducing vehicle speeds. Once again, as these are private streets
and driveways, we are requesting that this recommendation not be imposed. (KEM Builders, LLC
— Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
32 We agree to the installation of the ramp, in the same design and standard format as consistent
with the other portions of the Fossil Lake PUD. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -
Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 11
33 Details of 7-20C, 7-14, 7-33, 22-1, and 7-21 or 22 have been added where applicable. (North Star
Design — Patricia Kroetch)
Notice to Prospective Purchasers ......
1. The statement on page 2 relative to roads and streets has been changed as suggested. (KEM
Builders, LLC —Dave Brown)
Alter -Lingle letter of 8/21/01 (Review Criteria)
This project's connection to the (future) trail is shown at 8 feet, as previously agreed. Drawings
and the project narrative have been altered so as not to indicate any width for the (future) trail, as
this has not been determined nor is its installation the applicant's responsibility. (KEM Builders,
LLC — Dave Brown) (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch) (Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad
Massey)
2. The narrative has been altered as indicated. (Aller-Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
3. The narrative has been altered as indicated to reflect consistency in sidewalk width statements.
(Alter -Lingle Architects — Brad Massey)
Development Agreement
1. The reference has been changed to read as follows: "Use of the open space is largely passive,
with the exception of an 8-foot bicycle -pedestrian path connecting the development with the
proposed regional trail at the southern boundary of the project." Reference to any width for the
(future) trail has been omitted from this submission, as the width has not been determined nor is
its installation the applicant's responsibility. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
2 Section 24 of the Agreement has been altered to reflect that the necessary improvements to
adjacent portions of Fossil Lake 2nd must also be in place. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown)
3 Section 26 of the Agreement has been slightly altered, as suggested (KEM Builders. LLC —
Dave Brown)
4. Section 10 has been changed as requested. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
5 Section 18 has been changed as requested. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
6- If such an inspection statement were to be included, it would probably be better placed under
Section 10. However, since Section 10 already provides for inspections by licensed engineers,
the streets are private, all maintenance responsibilities are private, and since (appropriately) the
City is divesting itself of any and all responsibility for the streets, why does the City inspect them?
What action could be required subsequent to such inspection under such conditions?
7 Section 22 has been changed as requested. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
City of Fort Collins Current Planning (Troy Jones) — October 8
We do not anticipate that the County will issue any building permits. Given the timeline we have
been left with, and our understanding of immediate subsequent annexation, we anticipate that all
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2. 2001
Page 12
building plan reviews, permitting, and COs will be under the auspices of the City. We certainly
hope that the approval process will not be further delayed or complicated such as to negate this
anticipation. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
2 We agree to secure the Annexation Agreement upon final approval. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave
Brown)
A draft of the proposed Annexation Agreement is being submitted to the City's Current Planning
office concurrently with this letter.
3. We believe the Plat properly reflects that Tract D, as relabeled as per comments above, as a,
"Utility, Drainage, Access, and Landscape Easement." That "access" encompasses pedestrian
use and no further delineation should be required. An easement is being provided for that walk
section (from between Lots 3 and 4) which connects the subject property to Trilby Road. (KEM
Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
4. The suggested change has been added to the "Notice to Prospective Buyers .. ", to the
paragraph describing the Annexation Agreement. (KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown)
5. No comment
6-14 All comments from Stormwater are being resolved via direct conversation between Basil Hamdan
and Patricia Kroetch.
Relative to comment #11, our response is the same as under #19 in the preceding section: We
believe that County requirements (i.e. centerline profiles) are adequate and we request that the
submission be approved as is in this regard. (North Star Design — Patricia Kroetch)
• Larimer_County Attorney (Jeannine Haag) — October 13
The clarifying sentence has been added as the fourth paragraph of the Agreement. (KEM
Builders, LLC — Dave Brown)
As we understand the process, the City is not a signatory, but has had full review and
consultation as to the adequacy of the Agreement We also understand that the Annexation
Agreement for Fossil Lake PUD Third should be structured to address the necessary
Development Agreement elements. in a manner similar to the Annexation Agreement being
structured for Fossil Lake Second If the County Attorney's office feels that the City cannot be
bound by the agreement as structured, perhaps in combination with the Annexation Agreement,
but should be then we would suggest that as an issue to be rectified jointly by the County and
City attorney's offices-- (but not at the expense of further delay on the approval of this project!I).
(KEM Builders, LLC— Dave Brown)
3 A statement, as suggested, has been added under Section 3. (KEM Builders, LLC — Dave
Brown)
4. The minor changes under Sections 19, 26, and 27 have been made. (KEMBuilders, LLC—Dave
Brown)
• City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations (Ward Stanford) — October 15
Phases 1 and 2 of the Fossil Lake Second are just now being constructed The CR 36 / Trilby Road
Mr. Matt Lafferty
November 2, 2001
Page 13
connection will be constructed, as all plans and agreements indicate, prior to the (later) construction
of Phases 3 and4. These are commitments of Everline LLC, as developer of Fossil Lake Second.
(KEM Builders, LLC —Dave Brown)
Following the October 23 work session, Matt, I believe you indicated to me that the variances being sought
could be processed in very short order. Under the circumstances, we're hoping for one week. I am copying
the variance requests directly to Sherri Wamhoff in hopes of facilitating that processing. Certainly, either
Roxanne or Sherri can contact anyone on the development team to expedite the process if need be.
I also believe you indicated that, assuming the variances being sought were approved, the remaining
approvals for this project could be obtained, again, in very short order. We hope that all final approvals can be
obtained not later than November 26 to enable us to proceed without further delays. To this end, I am also
requesting once again that the Larimer County Engineering Department authorize us to immediately initiate
overlot grading on this project. Such clearance might effectively enable us to proceed with the remaining
sewer and water installations, pending the District's final signoff on the administrative items listed earlier in this
letter.
Once again, we're in the position of asking that you please do all that can possibly be done to expedite ail P:^a'
approvals. This is a well -planned, thoughtfully designed, attractive project, and we need to get to work.
Sincerely,
KEM Builders, LLC
David S. Brown,
Project Manager
DSB/s
Attachments
ccLarimer County — Planning Department, Russ Legg
Larimer County — Engineering Department, Roxanne Hayes
Larimer County — Engineering Department, Traci Downs
City of Fort Collins — Planning Department, Troy Jones
City of Fort Collins — Engineering Department, Sheri Wamhoff
North Star Design, Inc. — Patricia Kroetch
Aller-Lingle Architects PC — Brad Massey
King Surveyors, Inc. — Larry Pepik
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
•
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
MEMO TO:
Matt Lafferty, Latimer
FROM: Traci Downs
DATE:
St J 13KC-I':
November 15, 2001
Fossil Lake PD Third
(09-06-68)
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
1'ro6ect Description/Background:
This is a review of a proposed Planned Development for the 5.8 acre Tract B portion of the Fossil Lake PUD.
The development will have 48-unit condominiums situated on 12 lots. The proposed project is within the City of
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Planning Area. 'Fhe applicant is asking for tour
specific variances from the Urban Area Street Standards.
Review Criteria:
As stated in section 1.9.2 of the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards, the local entity engineer through a
variance process must approve any design that does not conform to the standards. The local entity engineer
considers variances on a case-bv-case basis following a written request by the Professional Engineer. The
materials submitted need to provide adequate information to specifically substantiate and justify the variance
request while still adequately meeting the drainage and transportation needs for the site.
Comments:
I. Variance from Detail 7-29B:
It is my understanding that the applicant is requesting a variance from two of the standards for a typical
standard drive. They are requesting a variance for the drive between buildings 10 and 11, which will not be
90-degrees to the street because a 90-degree angle would involve eliminating one parking space. lie other
variance request is relative to the requirement that no single opening shall be greater than 36' wide and wider
drives will need to be divided with a minimum 6' median. The condominium attached double garages will
have drives wider than 36' and they are only proposing a 3'-3" median or a 2'-9" median to divide the drives.
They feel that the smaller medians are preferred from a practical site and product standpoint.
Our department appreciates that the applicant has modified a majority of the drives to meet the 90-degree
standard and can support a variance for the drive between buildings 10 and 1 I since we would prefer to not
have the parking space eliminated. Since the drives appear to only exceed the 36' standard by 1'-3", a 3'-3"
median or a 2'-9" median to divide the drives does not seem too unfavorable and therefore we could also
support this variance.
2. Variance from Detail 7 24A:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the standard cul-de-sac detail. They are requesting a variance to
have larger radii than those stated on the detail. The detail requires a 12' internal radius and a 40' flowline
radius. The applicant wishes to have a17' internal radius and a 45' flowline radius. They justify the variance
by stating that the roads cant' low volume traffic, there are no cross -streets and the Poudre Fire Authority has
approved the design. They submitted a diagram that indicates that the larger radii provide more turning
movement than provided with the standard.
Our department appreciates the diagram that was submitted and that the applicant has gained the approval of
the local fire authority. We are inclined to support this variance based on the applicant'sjustification.
I lowcver prior to our final approval of this variance request, we will need the applicant to submit evidence
2
that shows that the new design can provide the same turning movements for the largest design vehicle as the
standard cul-de-sac dimensions will provide. Submitting a turning template with the same vehicle for both
designs should accomplish this. Also, our department would like to add a condition that parking should not
be allowed along the cul-de-sac flowline. This is referenced kj variance request number 4 below as well.
3. Var lance from Section 9.4.1 1:
The applicant is requesting a variance from n, which states that no surface drainage from
Private property shall he within any drivewa e - flow for a driveway up to 500 square feet.
The applicant has several areas greater that 0 q are f will be sheet Flowing across the sidewalks.
fhcy believe thev have done everything fea e 'ne configuration and overall drainage plan.
Our department is also willing to consider request. however prior to our decision, a more
dclailed justification is needed as part of t e request. As stated in section 1.9.2 of the I,arimer
County Urban Area Street Standards, the e needs to state why the standard is unfeasible or is not in
the public interest. It also needs to identify e proposed alternative design and provide a thorough
description of how the proposed design compares to the standard. The engineer needs to stale that the
variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare, and will not reduce design life of the
improvements nor cause increased maintenance costs. The engineer should state as part of thejustitication
and reasoning for the variance the areas that do not meet the standard and describe by how much the standard
is being exceeded. They should explain in detail why they can not meet the standard in these areas and
suggest reasons why certain alternatives may not be options. For example, due to maintenance issues and
concerns, sidewalk chases may not be a feasible option.
4. Variance from Section 19.2.3:
'file applicant is requesting a variance from the parking in cul-de-sacs section, which states that at Zest one
off -site parking space needs to be provided for each residence that has frontage on a cul-de-sac bulb. The
applicant feels that there is adequate parking provided with the on -site spaces in conjunction with the
available spaces on the adjacent roads.
Our department can support this variance request. As stated in variance request number 2 above, our
department would like to omit any parking along the cul-de-sac flowline.
Other Maior Concerns and issues:
As stated in Section 1.9.2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, the local entity engineer considers
variances on a case -by -case basis following a written request by the Professional Engineer. David Brown, who is
the project manager and not a Professional Engineer, prepared the variance requests. The revised variance
requests will need to be prepared or at least signed and stamped by his Professional Engineer
Staff Recommendation:
We will need the applicant to provide additional information on variance request 2 and 3 above prior to our final
determination on the requests. We are in support of variance request 1 and 4 at this time, however, a revised
variance request packet will need to be submitted to our office that is prepared or at least signed and stamped by
his Professional Engineer.
Please feel free to contact me directly at (970) 498-5701 if you have any questions. Thank you.
c: Kcm Builders, Dave Brown, 3000 South College Avenue, Suite 103, Fort Collins, CO 80525
North Star Design, Tricia Kroetch, 1194 West Ash Street, Suite B, Windsor, CO 80550
file
h:AdevrevAplanchk\varAfossil lake pd third filing.doc
COUNTY REFERRAL
City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET
Current Planning
COMMENTS TO: Matt Lafferty FROM: Engineering
TYPE OF MEETING: Board of County Commissioners
PROJECT: Fossil Lake PUD, 3rd Filing
TH RU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department
PLANNER: Troy Jones
City comments must be received in Current Planning Department by:
November 21, 2001
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Fossil Lakes PUD, 3 rd Filing Page I of November 19, 2001
City of Port Collins engineering comments
PLEASE RETURN ALL REDLINED PLANS WITH NEXT REVIEW.
Site Plan
I . Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the `T' intersection on the south side s the street. (reds square,
This ramp can e
combined with a driveway cut as long as the ramp is built to ADA standards and has the red square, scoring and other
ramp standards.
landscape Plan
1. The landscaping and structures on the island in the cul-de-sac need to meet sight distance restrictions. Indicate this and
place these restrictions on the landscape plan.
Plat
I . "I he notice at the bottom of the sheet should be bored or otherwise made noticeable per the City of Fort Collins
Attorneys office.
Utility Plans
2 Should provide two bench marks
3. Indicate the private streets that are a part of this development in general note 47.
Continued on neat page
Dale: //�C01 Si
r, �e City of Port Collins
Fossil bakes PUD, 3 rd Filing Page 2 of 2 November 19, 2001
4. List the variance approved under note 48 when they are approved.
Grading and Drainage Plans -
5. Off -site casements are needed for the grading and sidewalk work on the property to the northwest of the site.
Street plan and profile
6. '1 lie variance request stated that the driveway width for the garages facing the street were to be 17 feet wide the
horizontal control plan shows them to be 18 feet wide. ??
7. Response note stated that the curb return information was provided on the horizontal control plan - only the radii
information is provided here.
8. The curb return radii are to be 20 feet per Table 8-2. You are showing them at 15 feet and 25 feet.
9. Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the `T' intersection on the south side of the street. (16.3.1.A2) This ramp can be
combined with a driveway cut as long as the ramp is built to ADA standards and has the red square, scoring and other
ramp standards. Ramp needs to line up with the ramp opposite.
10. Provide design information in accordance with 3.3.4. Provide Pl, PC, PT, curb return radii, curb return information
and other items as required by that section. Missing the curb return information.
1 1. Not meeting the min flowline grade on Stonewater Drive on the west side and on the east side the vertical curve
doesn't meet minimum requirements. The curve needs to be longer or the algebraic difference reduced, see 7-17.
11 'fhe south profile for lost lake place doesn't appear to match the grades and elevations shown on the plan view.
13. An undrainablc low spot is shown in the intersection of Stonewater Drive and Lost Lake Place. The PCR elevations on
Stonewater Drive do not scan to match the profile.
14. Greater than allowed grade breaks on Lost Lake Place.
15. Provide intersection elevations in accordance with detail 7-32A. Missing some elevations and need to provide the
transition elevation and length.
'file following arc comments that relate to items that the variance request was submitted on. They are being repeated until
such time as the variance requests are approved or denied. The City of Fort Collins agrees with and supports the
memorandmn from "Traci Downs at Larimer County Engineering regarding the variance requests. As indicated in the
inemorandum additional information is needed on variance requests 2 and 3 in order to fully consider those requests, a
revised variance request packet needs to be submitted and in accordance with section 1.9.2 of the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards shall be written, signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer.
VIl1
16. Driveways need to intersect at 90 degrees with the street and the maximum driveway width is 36 feet per detail 7-29B.
A minimum 6 foot wide median is needed between the split drives (otherwise they exceed the 36 feet) and between the
large drive in the northwest corner.
V42
17. Per standards (7-24A) the radius for a center island in a cul-de-sac is 12 feet not what is shown.
18_ 'I he radius at the entry to the cul-de-sac is too small. Per detail 7-24A the towline radius is 50 feet and the row radius
is equal to the flowline radius (50') minus the width from the flowline to the back of sidewalk. As this distance is not
16 or more feet the radius shown are not correct.
V P I
19, Per 9.4.1 1 no more than 500 square feet of sheet flow from a driveway can go across a sidewalk. You will need to
adjust grades in many of the driveways so that the 500-foot threshold is not exceeded.
V+14
20. Not meeting 19.2.3 that requires 1 parking space for each residence that has frontage on the cul-de-sac.
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City ut Fort Collins
June 1, 2001
Matt Lafferty
Lorimer County Planning Department
P.O. Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522-90
City staff has revised our comments for Fossil Lake P.U.D. 3rd Filing based on a
conversation I had with Russ Legg on May 31, 2001. I asked Russ Legg whether or
not the supplemental regulations for the Fossil Lake Reservoir Area apply to this
project, and after some research, Russ indicated that those regulations do not
apply for this project. That being the case, the comments sent on May 2nd need to
be revised. Also, I met with the applicant, Dave Brown, on May 29'h, and he
committed to make many of the changes that we had requested. Please see our
revised comments below:
1. Current Fanning - There is no longer a need to bring the modification requests
to the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board since the supplemental regulations
for the Fossil Lake Reservoir Area do not apply to this application.
2. Current Panning / Engineering - The proposed plan has a modified street design
that differs from the required local street standard. Our Engineering
Department has indicated that in order for the project to obtain a City Staff
recommendation of approval for this modified street section, the following
issues should be addressed:
• Normally, a detached sidewalk is required (see the attached diagram D-
2-1)), but if the proposed attached sidewalk is at least 5 feet wide, then
the Engineering Department may consider supporting a variance to the
standard. In my conversation with Dave Brown, he indicated that he will
supply a street cross section diagram of the proposed street design.
• Normally, a 13 foot wide utility easement is required to be dedicated
adjacent to local streets when such local streets have attached
sidewalks. If there are any locations where a 13 foot wide utility
easement is not being provided adjacent to the attached sidewalk, City
Engineering Staff may consider supporting a variance to this requirement
if it can be shown in a diagram that all the utilities can be accommodated
without such easement. In my conversation with Dave Brown, he
indicated that he will supply a diagram of the utility lines as requested.
'� i (11( c•c _A%"nur • '( ). Roy *0 • loll (Ahlli , C (' O h,H • 0-0) —1 o75o • F-AS (9 0) 4In-202U
Fossil Lakes PUD, 3 rd Filing November 19, 2001
City of Fort Collins engineering comments
PLEASE RETURN ALL REDLINED PLANS WITH NEXT REVIEW.
Site Plan
I . Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the `T' intersection on the south side of the street. (16.3.I .A2)
This ramp can be combined with a driveway cut as long as the ramp is built to ADA standards and has
the red square, scoring and other ramp standards.
Landscape Plan
I . The landscaping and structures on the island in the cul-de-sac need to meet sight distance restrictions.
Indicate this and place these restrictions on the landscape plan.
Plat
I . The notice at the bottom of the sheet should be boxed or otherwise made noticeable per the City of
Fort Collins Attorneys office.
Utility Plans
2. Should provide two bench marks
3. Indicate the private streets that are a part of this development in general note 47.
4. List the variance approved tinder note 48 when they are approved.
Grading and Drainage Plans -
5. Off site casements are needed for the grading and sidewalk work on the property to the northwest of
the site.
Street plan and profile
6. The variance request stated that the driveway width for the garages facing the street were to be 17 feet
wide the horizontal control plan shows them to be 18 feet wide. ??
7. Response note stated that the curb return information was provided on the horizontal control plan -
onk the radii information is provided here.
8. The curb return radii are to be 20 feet per Table 8-2. You are showing them at 15 feet and 25 feet.
9. Need to provide a pedestrian ramp at the `T' intersection on the south side of the street. (16.3.1.A2)
']'his ramp can be combined with a driveway cut as long as the ramp is built to ADA standards and has
the red square, scoring and other ramp standards. Ramp needs to line up with the ramp opposite.
10. Provide design information in accordance with 3.3.4. Provide PI, PC, PT, curb return radii, curb return
information and other items as required by that section. Missing the curb return information.
I L Not meeting the min Flowline grade on Stonewater Drive on the west side and on the cast side the
vertical curve doesn't meet minimum requirements. The curve needs to be longer or the algebraic
difference reduced, see 7-17.
12. The south profile for lost lake place doesn't appear to match the grades and elevations shown on the
plan view.
13. An undrainable low spot is shown in the intersection of Stonewater Drive and Lost Lake Place. The
PCR elevations on Stonewater Drive do not seem to match the profile.
14. Greater than allowed grade breaks on Lost Lake Place.
15, Provide intersection elevations in accordance with detail 7-32A. Missing some elevations and need to
provide the transition elevation and length.
The following are comments that relate to items that the variance request was submitted on. They are being
repeated until such time as the variance requests are approved or denied. The City of Fort Collins agrees
with and supports the memorandum from Traci Downs at Larimer County Engineering regarding the
variance requests. As indicated in the memorandum additional information is needed on variance requests
2 and 3 in order to fully consider those requests, a revised variance request packet needs to be submitted
and in accordance with section 1.9.2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards shall be written,
signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer.
V41
16. Driveways need to intersect at 90 degrees with the street and the maximum driveway width is 36 feet
per detail 7-2913, A minimum 6 Root wide median is needed between the split drives (otherwise they
exceed the 30 feet) and between the large drive in the northwest corner.
V42
17. Per standards (7-24A) the radius for a center island in a cul-de-sac is 12 feet not what is shown.
M The radius at the entry to the cul-de-sac is too small. Per detail 7-24A the flowline radius is 50 feet
and the row radius is equal to the flowline radius (50') minus the width from the flowline to the back
of sidewalk. As this distance is not 16 or more feet the radius shown are not correct.
V43
19, Per 9.4.1 1 no more than 500 square feet of sheet flow from a driveway can go across a sidewalk. You
will need to adjust grades in many of the driveways so that the 500-foot threshold is not exceeded.
V il4
20. Not meeting 19.2.3 that requires 1 parking space for each residence that has frontage on the cul-de-sac.
1 North Star
'01 **Aw design, inc.
December 6, 2001
'Traci Downs
Latimer County Engineering Department
P. O. Box H 90
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
HAND DELIVER
RI.: Fossil lake P.U.D. Third Filing
Variance requests (09-06-68); ref. your memo to Matt Lafferty, I U16101
Dear Traci:
I hese are additional responses / comments relative to the cited variance requests. The numbers used below
reference the requests as numbered in your memo to Matt Lafferty. Italicized sections are repeated from
the variance reyaesi submission of.November 10, 2001.
Variance from Detail 7-29B
We request a variance on the basis that a strict application of this standard would necessitate
the redesign of both the dwelling structures and the site. Given the timeline of the project's
review (e.g., that this comment is conceptual and could have / should have been made a
number of months ago); and, given that the product and site designs for multi -family
development will often not meet the letter of specific standards, we ask that the following be
accepted.
We have altered the driveway angles to 90 degrees for buildings 2-3, 8, and 11. The angle
for the common drive between buildings 10 and 11 would not be altered because a 90-
degree angle would essentially negate the designated parking space indicated there.
Relative to the required 6-foot wide medians between driveways, Appendix 'A' to this letter
visually expresses the practical circumstances. The condominium structures have attached
double garages, side -by -side. The median spaces are 3'-T or 2'-9" (dependent on building
elevation) with each 17'-0" driveway pad extending 6" beyond each side of the door opening
(which is a standard configuration). The total space possible between garage door rough
openings is 4'-0". The maximum separation between drives, then, might be 3-'9" (practically
speaking, a drive slab must abut at least 3" beyond the edge of the door opening). From a
practical site and product standpoint, it does not seem feasible/reasonable to require
medians larger than the (present) 3'-0" (average), and we much prefer to leave them as
presently designed. We do agree to ensure that non sight -impairing landscaping is placed
within the medians, and have so depicted on the Landscape Plan.
We suggest that any narrowing of the drive connections at the street would only serve to
satisfy a mathematically stated standard (e.g., 36) and would clearly diminish both the
practical and safe use of the drives.
According to the memo of November 16, our request has been considered and approved.
We appreciate this support.
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-686-6939 Phone 9 970-686-1188 Fax
2. Variance from Detail 7-24A
We request a variance on the following basis
The strict imposition of such standards will not necessarily serve to facilitate and create a
desirable and practical site plan in all instances. We believe this is such an instance.
We do not wish to eliminate these islands. The consensus at the work session is that they are a
desirable element. The islands and cul-de-sacs were designed to moderate the visual/aesthetic impacts
of the necessary hardscape. The islands are not typical of those configurations and locations for
which the standards were developed (i.e-, there are no cross streets; very light traffic volume, etc.).
The Poudre hire Authority has approved the radii indicated. Attachment "B" to this letter provides
that confirmation from PFA, as well as an additional diagram demonstrating that the configurations
as proposed provide for more turning room than would the cited standard.
As they are fully functional for the site conditions, are more aesthetically pleasing than would be the
.strict standard, and meet the primary health and safety requirements, we ask for a variance to allow
the islands and radii to be constructed as proposed.
Your response memo of November 16 requested our provision of (a template) further demonstrating
that the dimensions requested can provide the same turning movements as would the stated standards.
Because the specifics of (the template) remained unclear to us, we asked Ron Gonzales of the Poudre
Fire Authority to meet with you and Sherri Wamhoff of the City Engineering staff to further discuss
the matter. According to Ron, he met with you on December 4, and all parties have agreed that the
island and cul-de-sac dimensions are satisfactory as presented.
Parking along the cul-de-sac flowlines will not be allowed. Such parking is not indicated on the Site
Plan, and would be wholly impractical. We will post signage and/or markings to that effect.
Our understanding, then, is that this variance request is approved, and we appreciate this support
3. Variance from Section 9.4.11
We believe we have done everything practically feasible, given the site configuration and product
nature, to accommodate this requirement while also establishing adequate drainage configurations
throughout the .site and maintaining compliance with the approved site drainage plan, by Northern
Engineering, for the overall Fossil Lake master plan.
Anv requirement to meet this standard in a strict context will require a significant site redesign. We
request that the submission in regard to 9.4.11 be approved as is.
Drainage basin boundaries were already adjusted (Sheet 4 of 10, November 10 variance submission) to
considerable degrees, being mindful of the overall site drainage requirements and grade slopes
associated with the individual structures. We have made slight additional adjustments to some of these
boundaries, as indicated below, but any further adjustments will necessitate re -engineering the entire
site and changing (most) building elevations. This would also force yet additional drainage into
unpaved areas, which action tends to create far more problems than it solves.
For the purposes of this variance request, we are including herewith (Attachment B) a supplemental
drainage plan drawing which:
• numbers the areas in question for clear reference
• indicates directions of sheet drainage achieved by slab crowning and sloping
• indicates the actual square footage area being drained across the sidewalks from the
driveways, based upon the adjusted basin lines and the detailed slab adjustments.
• Area 1 -- The cited area is now approximately 442 s.f
• Area 2 -- "There are two basins involved. While the total area draining to the street remains
at 725 s.f. Slab tilting related to contour lines will minimize the flows across the driveway
approach.
• Area 3 -- The cited area is now approximately 454 s.f.
• Area 4 -- The cited area is approximately 964 s.f. The drive approach will be slightly
crowned to direct a majority of the flow to the grassed areas and minimize the flows across
the actual approach.
• Area 5 -- The boundary has been moved slightly to the (north), reducing the drainage area to
676 s.f. Slab tilting related to contour lines will minimize the flows across the driveway
approach and direct some runoff into the grassed areas.
• Area 6 -- The cited area is now approximately 572 s.f. Slab tilting related to contour lines
will minimize the flows across the driveway approach and direct some runoff into the grassed
areas.
• Area 7 -- The cited area is now approximately 1160 s.L Overall site requirements do not
permit our taking drainage to the (north). We would consider using the (now required) space
between this area 7 and area 8 as a "drainage Swale". However, if so, we suggest again that
this strip space in between be paved as a pan to facilitate the drainage. We would be very
reluctant to install a sidewalk chase in this location due to the inevitable traffic over it. We
submit that drainage across the driveway approach is actually the best alternative in this
instance.
Area 8 -- 'The cited area is now approximately 875 s.f. Overall site requirements do not
permit our taking drainage to the (north)_ We would consider using the (now required) space
between this area 7 and area 8 as a "drainage Swale". However, if so, we suggest again that
this strip space in between be paved as a pan to facilitate the drainage. We would be very
reluctant to install a sidewalk chase in this location due to the inevitable traffic over it. We
submit that drainage across the driveway approach is actually the best alternative in this
instance.
Area 9 -- The cited area is now approximately 503 s.f. Slab tilting related to contour lines
will reduce the actual flows across the driveway approach and direct a majority of the
remaining runoff to flow across grassed areas prior to entering the street.
In every instance possible, we wish to avoid sidewalk chases and other disruptions to the primary
surface installations. Such installations very often exacerbate the problems they are thought to
avoid (especially when related to winter conditions) because they tend to concentrate flows which
may then flow and/or freeze into even less manageable and longer lasting masses. Such
installations are also generally much more maintenance intensive than standard surface
installations because they must be cleaned out, washed out, re -aligned, repaired, etc.
4. Variance from Section 19.2.3
As agreed at the October 23 work session, a variance request is being sought relative to 19.2.3,
seeking approval as submitted based upon the parking spaces provided by the Site Plan in combination
with those additional on -street spaces that will be available on Swallow Pond Drive and Snowv Creek
Drive.
According to the memo of November 16, our request has been considered and approved. We
appreciate this support.
As noted under request No. 2 above, parking along the cul-de-sac flowlines will not be allowed. Such
parking is not indicated on the Site Plan, and would be wholly impractical. We will post signage
and/or markings to that effect.
As you know, KEM Builders, LLC, is making every attempt to complete this review process and
obtain clearance to begin initial site work. Based on my discussions with Sherri and you on the
engineering comments, and on the reconsideration of these variance requests, we have indicated
to Matt Lafferty that mylars (signed by Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins
Sanitation District) will be delivered to the County on December 11. Matt has asked that you
send him an e-mail or other written notice that all items (engineering comments and variance
requests) have been remedied and approved. Any assistance you can provide in our meeting
this goal is sincerely appreciated.
l
signetch, E.
Attachments
cc: Larimer County — Planning Department, Matt Lafferty
City of Fort Collins — Engineering Department, Sherri Wamhoff
KEM Builders, LLC. — Dave Brown
Aller-Lingle Architects PC — Brad Massey
King Surveyors, Inc. — Larry Pepik
J
—+ FOSSIL LAKE P.U.D., THIRD FILING
DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
'North Star
I dftbn. iz.
KEM Builders, LLC
3000 South College Avenue, Suite 103
Fort Collins. CO 80525
December 11, 2001
Mr. Matt Lafferty
Larimer County Planning Department
P O Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
HAND DELIVER
A Colorado Limited Liability Company
Telephone: (970) 223-4900
Fax: (970) 223-4901
RE Fossil Lake P.U.D. Third Filing
Status of comments to 3rd Set of Final Plans (from submission of 11/02/01)
Dear Matt.
Below are the responses to comments received relative to our submission of November 2. In particular, the
comments from City Engineering have been resolved and verified in conference between Traci Downs, Sherri
Wamhoff, and Tricia Kroetch [The resolution of the variance requests is under separate cover and process
from this letter, as detailed below I
As requested, we have also asked Traci Downs to provide you with written confirmation that all open items
have been remedied At the same time I am requesting clearance from Engineering to proceed with our site
development work as soon as we can mobilize
Mylars have been delivered to Fort Collins-Loveland/South Fort Collins for their signatures. We anticipate
having them back not later than Monday. December 18 at which time we will be prepared to meet the
County's final submission requirements. As y, and I discussed on December 4, 1 am awaiting a call from you,
following your meeting with Russ Legg, to determine just what quantities of what documents you need. We
are aware that (Katherine Huber) requires 18 copies of the "final plat', but we are unclear as to hctyfina: is
d-Cned in this case, i e with all signatures, as approved but without signatures, or??
Also attached hereto is page one of the latest (12/11/01) draft of the Development Agreement, which I also
faxed to you on December 4 for your meeting with Russ Legg. (The page one information is the only change
since the December 4 fax ) As I told you. in a conference with Troy Jones, City of Fort Collins Current
Planning on November 29, 1 was advised that the City's review of the Development Agreement was sufficient
and comol-ted.
Also attached hereto is a copy of t1-'e (second) variance request letter, from North Star Design to Larimer
County Engineering (Traci Downs), for four (4) variances from standards, on the administrative basis that was
agreed to on Octobe- 23 We have received verbai confirmation thot all four requested variances have been
approved
Comment status on the open items is as follows.
Mr. Matt Lafferty Page 2
December 11, 2001
• Larimer County Engineering_Department (Dale Greer) — November 15
Per his memo dated November 15, the plat is acceptable.
• Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District (Terry Farrill)
The requested District easement forms have been executed and provided to the districts.
Mylar signatures on the Lit ilily_plans will be obtained by December 18.
• Larimer County Engineering Department (Traci Downs) — November 20
The notation and number discrepancies on the Sheet 5 of 10 and Sheet 6 of 10, per the redlines, have
been corrected in consultation with the Project Engineer and are reflected on the mylars. (North Star)
The minor redline comments on Sheets 1 and 4 of 10 have been corrected in consultation with the Project
Engineer and are reflected on the mylars. (North Star)
We have received_ verbal confirmation that Larimer County Engineering has no further issues.
City of Fort Collins Stormwater (Basil Harridan) — November 20
The cited flowfjne and related data have been revised to eliminate confusion. (North Star)
All cover sheet references have been changed to read "Larimer County". (North Star)
Sheet 7 of 10 has been revised to reflect Class III piping. (North Star)
We have received verbal confirmation that City of Fort Collins Stormwater has no further issues.
• City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning (Tom Reiff) — November 21
As stated in previous review responses, discussions with the planning staffs resulted in an
understanding that connecting walks would be maintained at 4.0 feet with the exception of the walk
connecting to Trilby Road that is ind'cated at 4.5 fe-t However, applicant agrees to increase the
walkway connection 'c Snowy Creek Drive to the requested width of 4.5 feet. [Sheet SD1] (North
Star, Aller-Lingle)
Applicant also agrees with the requested realignment and has changed the plans accordingly North
Star. A--L,.1,V
2 (see also #1 under City of Fort Collins Enging S,te Plan — Sherri Wamhoff: and #9 under City of
Fort Collins Engineenna Street Plan and Profile — Sherri Wamhoff) -- Ramps, as required by
standards and as a,,proved and installed in the remainder of the Fossil Lake PUD have been
Mr. Matt Lafferty
December 11, 2001
Page 3
indicated as requested at a 90-degree cross -street angle from the (southeast) corner of Stonewater
Drive and Lost Lake Place, and, at the connection of the (north -south) bike-ped path where it
connects to Lost Lake Place. (Alter -Lingle; North Star)
We have received verbal confirmation that City of -Fort Collins Transpor_tat_io-n_Plan_ning has no further
sues
• City of Fort Collins Engineering (Sheri Wamhoff) - November 21
Site Plan
(see also #2 under City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning, Tom Reiff, and #9 under City of Fort
Collins Engineering, Street Plan and Profile - Sherri Wamhoff) - Ramps, as required by standards
and as approved and installed in the remainder of the Fossil Lake PUD have been inuicated as
requested at a 90-degree cross -street angle from the (southeast) corner of Stonewater Drive and
Lost Lake Place and, at the connection of the (north -south) bike-ped path where it connects to Lost
Lake Place (Alter -Lingle: North Star)
Landscape Plan
1 A note on Sheet LS2 clearly specifies that sight distance restrictions apply. A similar note has been
added to Sheet LS1 for further clarification (Alley -Lingle)
Plat
The notice regarding maintenance of private streets has been boxed, as requested (Sheet 1 of 10]
(King Surveyors)
Utility Plans
2 A second bench mark has been added, as requested [Sheet 1 of 10, (North Star, King Surveyors)
3 Private street names have been added to Note 47 [Sheet 1 of 10] (North Star)
4. Note 48 has been changed to read as follows. "Variances to The Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards have been granted as follows Detail 7-29B, Detail 7-24A; Section 9 4 11, Section 19 2 3"
(North cr-r
Grading and Drainage Plans
Both the �iai and Sheet SD1 reflect that an easement has been reco,ded for the sidewalk connecting
the project to Tribly Road at the northwest of the site A notation has also been added to Sheet 3 of
10 (North Star; King Surveyors; Aller-Lingle)
Street Plan and Profile
The variance request and Site Plan dimension of 17 feet is correct The label on the Horizontal
Control Plan [Sheet 5 of 10] has been changed to indicate a typical driveway width of 17 feet- The
scales of the utility and drainage drawings (i e 1 30) make it difficult to properly depict these scale
elr ments Sheet LS2 that provides more detail (North Star)
The. applicant should submit a formal request for an Engineering Variance
to the Lorimer County Engineering Department for the "residential local
street" design depicted in diagram D-2-b of the "Design and Construction
Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and
Other Public Ways," which is the design used for all other local streets in
the Fossil Lake P.U.D. (see attached copy of diagram D-2-b). The
applicant should submit a copy of this variance request and supporting
diagrams to the Fort Collins Engineering so that City Staff can
forward the County Engineering Department a recommendation on the
issue.
3. Engineering - The 20-foot setback for the garage doors from the back of walk
needs to be maintained. The City would not support a variance to this. A clear
walk area needs to be provided. Allowing shorter driveways would cause the
sidewalk to be blocked when somebody parked in the drive. The applicant has
verbally indicated to city staff that they intend to provide the said garage door
setback, however we would like it to be double checked with the next round of
revisions.
4. Engineering - Provide concrete to the property line with the pan at Stonewater
and Shallow Pond. The applicant has verbally indicated to city staff that they
intend to provide said concrete to property line, however we would like it to be
double checked with the next round of revisions.
5. Engineering - Would like to see the design of the faux stone walls within the
Cul-de-sac islands. Maybe a safety concern depending on the design. Walls are
not normally allowed within medians. In an informal meeting with city staff, the
applicant has agreed to provide a sketch of the walls in cul-de-sac islands. We
would like safety concerns regarding the design of these wall to be double
checked with the next round of revisions.
6. Engineering - It should be noted that the statements in the text regarding the
sidewalk widths are incorrect. Trilby road will have a 5 foot detached sidewalk
and all other adjacent roads will have a 4.5-foot min detached sidewalk. The
applicant has indicated to city staff that they intend to fix this discrepancy in
the text. however we would like it to be double checked with the next round of
revisions.
7. Stormwater - Drainage and Erosion Control report should be provided.
8. Stormwater - Need to show that facilities designed with previous Fossil Lake
filings were designed to accommodate flows from this parcel.
9. Advance Planning / Current Planning / Transportation Planning - The 8 foot wide
pedestrian path connecting the project with the path along the southern
property ine funnels all pedestrian traffic through a private driveway area. We
highly recommend that the layout of the pedestrian path as it goes through this
private drive area be designed with a little more sensitivity to the issue of
avoiding awkward public space vs. private space experiences. We suggest that
Mr. Matt Lafferty
December 11. 2001
Page 4
7. The tables (already) provided on the Horizontal Control Plan [Sheet 5 of 10] would seem to provide
more than enough of the requested data. (North Star)
8 FL 5, FL 6, FL 7, and FL 8 have all been changed to 20 feet The variable radii resulted from a
coordination oversight In our planning (N`o h St=r King Surveyors: Allen -Lingle)
9 (see also #2 under City of Fort Collins Transportation Pianning, Tom Reiff and #1 under City of Fort
Collins Engineering, Site Plan — Sherri Wamhoff) -- Ramps, as required by standards and as
approved and installed In the remainder of the Fossil Lake PUD have been indicated as requested, at
a 90-degree cross -street angle from the (southeast) corner of Stonewater Drive and Lost Lake Place,
and, at the connection of the (north -south) bike-ped path where it connects to Lost Lake Place (Aller-
Lingle, North Star)
10_ Sheet 6 of 10, as subm.tted includes all PCR and PC information. as required. Sheet 6 of 10 also
carries a note referring to the additional horizontal control information on Sheet 5. The project
engineer and City staff have conferred and agree that the data is adequate as presented (North
Star)
11. The cited flowline and related data have been revised to eliminate confusion. (North Star)
12 An incorrect profile was included in the previous submission. The profile has been changed and all
data rechecked for proper correlations (North Star)
13 PCR elevat,ons and profiles have been re-evaluated and corrected to properly (North Star)
14, Vertical curves have been added at the requested locations (North Star)
15_ Additional intersection elevation data has been added on Sheet 5 of 10- (North Star)
We have received verbal confirmation that City of Fort Collins Engineering has no further issues
• City of Fort Collins Current Planninn (Troy Jones) — November 27
Comments refer to the Development agreement and annexation This status summary is included here
for reference purposes only The County does not relate the status of the annexation agreement to the
approval of the project submission.
The City (Planning and Attcmey) have agreed that a simplified statement on the City Annexation
Ordinance will provide all of the required linkage references, and that the annexation document itself (will
not) include extensive reference to conditions stated in the Development Agreement
Troy Jones of Current Planning stated (in conference with Dave Brown of KEM Homes on November 29)
that the City's review of the Development Agreement has been completed.
We have received verbal confirmation that City of Fort Collins Current Plannin__has no further issues
Mr. Matt Lafferty
December 11, 2001
Page 5
Latimer County_ Attorney (reviewer's name illegible) — November 28
Development Agreement
1. (pg. 1,. para. 4) -- The recordation information (has been) added as requested.
2. Section 3 -- The requested notification statement has been added as requested.
3 Section 6 -- Section title has been added
4 Section 18 -- Deleted word has been added.
5 Section 24 -- Word has been deleted.
Please let me know immediately should you require further clarification on any of the above information.
Sincerely,
KEM Builders. LLC
David S Brown,
Project Manager
D S B/s
Attachments 2
cc: Larimer County — Engineering Department, Traci Downs
Larimer County — Attorney
City of Fort Collins — Planning Department Troy Jones
City of Fort Collins — Engineering Department, Sheri Wamhoff
North Star Design. Inc — Patricia Krcetch
Alter -Lingle Architects PC — Brad Massey
King Surveyors, Inc — Larry Pepik
COUNTY REFERRAL
City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET
Current Planning
COMMENTS TO: Matt Lafferty FROM: Engineering
TYPE OF MEETING: Sketch Plan
PROJECT: Fossil Lake Ranch Condos PD
THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department
PLANNER: Troy Jones
City comments must be received in Current Planning Department by:
December 22, 2000
❑ No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Dale: 1 z-e4)
Citv of Fort Collins
some sort of clearly depicted sidewalk go through this private drive area so
that pedestrians and bicycles don't get the sense that they are intruding on the
private space of the units on either side of the private drive. We feel this
would also help to make the residents of the units on either side of the private
drive understand that the bikes and pedestrians are expected to be allowed to
go through there.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me or any of
the departments listed above.
Sincerely,
i
Troy ones
City Manner
RESIDENTIAL
LOCAL STREET
7.0
51' ROW CMIN.) c
45'
30' F
U* 6. ROADWA 6• cwrAL
' TL l G' ray. SCTmc7C
tin. TO TO racE
_SttT 19• i
tr2
� 16" CSMT�
TRAM
r rapt ;
345'
ROADWAY_—_ MOTH, 30".
RIGHT OF WAY WIDTM+ 5I"
TRAVF_ LANE WIDTH, IG'.
PARKNG� Two lanes 7" wide.
WHERE USED All residential local streets where traffic volume Is antlUpated to be 1C00 vpd or
less. Curless the Narrow Reside Local Street er RLrI Resldentla, Local Street standards are used
SPEED LJR l`T� 25 MPH '
GARAGE DOOR SETBACK, 20" from the back of sidewak.
FENCES, Fences Shag be setback a mbtrwm of G, Fran the parkway edge of the sideway.
PARKWAY LANDSGAPNG, Parkways sha➢ be landscaped in grass mulch, annuals and herbaceous
Perennials. maxium 18" height and Incorporate xeriscaae proclpals, whenever appropriate. In
accordance with the requirements of the City Forester.
TREE PLANTINGS Canopy shade trees shag be panted at 40 foot spactigs In the center of a➢
Parkways- Individual trees shag! not be closer than 20 feet from the next street tree. Canopy
shade trees shag be, placed no closer than 30 feet from roadway htersec.lons. 8' from driveways and
coat=Rayand shag be no e closer than 40 feet from any street fight ions.
Minimum tree se shall be 125' caliper
shade tree fist. or belled end buriapped. Species ➢ b shag selected from the Gty approved canopy
shade
51DEWdI K' 45' minimum width. Additional width may be required for pedestrian routes to
schools. parks. or other activity areas.
.RC AN a, Bicyc➢sts to share travel lane with motor vehicles. Additional street width up to 4"
wider, may be required in the travel lane to acco
as schools and parks. mmodate bike traffic to serve activity areas. such
CURB AND GLITTER, Vertical curb and gutter or drive over curb and gutter.
D-2-b