HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK 2ND FILING - PDP - 49-98B - CORRESPONDENCE - (10)Topic: Transportation Planning
Number: 19 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] As a reminder, the new TIS requested by the City Traffic Engineer should also
include LOS analysis for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit - per current procedures outlined
in LCUASS, Chapter 4.
Number: 20 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04) The context map incorrectly states that "There are no bike paths or designated
bicycle routes in the area". This is incorrect. Mtn. Vista Dr. is currently signed and striped
with bicycle lanes. Please correct this error.
Number: 21 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] Does the applicant plan to stripe bike lanes on Little John Ln when the asphalt
work that is currently going on is completed? This street is a planned collector (with parking)
and should have 6 foot bike lanes.
Number: 23 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] 1 would like to reiterate Engineering Staffs comment (#9) concerning connectivity
and the spacing of streets in this development.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: J.R. Wilson
Topic: Plat
Number: 18 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] Comments from Technical Services:
-Boundary and legal close
-Plat sheet number is 1 of 1, not 2 of 26
-Call missing in legal - see redline
-Street names - see redline
-There should be a note about ownership and maintenance of tracts.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 14 Created: 10/22/2004
[10/22/04] Please note building height on elevations
Topic: ZONING
Number: 66 Created: 11 /26/2004
[11/26/04] No comments on the requested street modifications
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
Page 9
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic: General
Number: 34 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] No Comments
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
Number: 26 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Please provide a comparison for the detention volume required between the old
and current rainfall criteria. A determination will then be made as to if additional volume in
the pond needs to be provided. In general, a new PDP needs to meet all current criteria,
including rainfall criteria, even if a pond was built in a earlier filing for a particular piece of
developable land.
Number: 27 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04) The storm sewer can not be located in the parkway underneath all the street
trees. Please relocate the storm sewer to the street with at least 5 feet of separation from
the edge of gutter.
Number: 28 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Please include in the drainage report the amount of water quality volume
required for filing 2 and add this volume to the volume needed with the current rainfall
criteria. Is the water quality outlet structure built in accordance with this required volume?
Number: 29 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Backyard swales are not allowed, which is shown at section C-C. Please revise
grading to allow for the drainage to flow to the streets.
Number: 30 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Please combine grading plans and provide more clearly the flow patterns.
Number: 31 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Please coordinate the landscape plans with the utility plans, specifically the
storm sewer.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic: Modification Request
Number: 68 Created: 12/10/2004
[12/10/04] Comment on Mod. Of Std.: If after we get a chance to review the revised TIS
and we are sure that there will not be a negative impact resulting from these modifications,
I'll support the request as presented -with one clarifying point. At the prior meeting between
the City, the Applicant and the School District representative, it was not my intention to
suggest that vacation of the ROW reserved for a possible extension of Chesapeake to
would be automatic upon the school sites development. Rather, my thought process was
that if the road didn't go in, then we would try to get a pedestrian connection to the school
site at this location. Staff has no authority to guarantee that ROW will be vacated in this or
any other instance. It is something that can be explored, but decisions regarding vacation of
ROW lie with Transportation Services Area Management and ultimately City Council.
Page 8
[10/27/04] When locating utilities in the street, please remember the cover requirement: at
least 2' of cover between the top of pipe and scarified subgrade (approx 3' to the top of
asphalt for the road).
Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between 24%.
Number: 52 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/041 Grade breaks at curb returns can be allowed up to 3%, but only for extreme
circumstances (these are not extreme circumstances). Please revise.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore
Topic: General
Number: 5 Created: 10/12/2004
[10/12/041 The electric system must be shown on the utility plan and the proposed
streetlights must be shown on the landscape plan. Contact Monica Moore at 221-6700 to
initiate the design of the electric system.
Number: 6 Created: 10/12/2004
[10/12/04] Street trees must maintain minimum clearances from streetlights. 40-ft for shade
trees and 15-ft for ornamental trees.
Number: 7 Created: 10/12/2004
[10/12/04] The following minimum clearances from other utilities must be maintained: 10ft
from stormwater, wastewater and water, 5ft from gas.
Number: 8 Created: 10/12/2004
[10/12/04] Because of the tight site conditions, a utility coordination meeting is STRONGLY
suggested.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
Topic: General
Number: 15 Created: 10/25/2004
[10/25/04] PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Approved numerals or addresses shall be
provided for all new and existing building in such a position as to be plainly visible and
legible from the street or road fronting the property. 1997 UFC 901.4.4
Number: 16 Created: 10/25/2004
[10/25/04] WATER SUPPLY: Residential (Within GMA)
No Residential building can be greater then 400 feet from a fire hydrant.
Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 800 feet along an approved roadway.
Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1000 gallons of water per minute at a residual
pressure of 20 psi. 1997 UFC 901.2.2.2
Number: 17 Created: 10/25/2004
[10/25/04] STREET NAMES:
Street names shall be verified and reviewed by County / City Planning Dept. prior to being
put in service. 1997 UFC 901.4.5
NOTE: The following streets shall be designated with a "Court" name instead of "Drive",
Sherwood Forest Drive (Court), Friar Tuck Drive (Court), Maid Marian Drive (Court). Also,
the street name "Sherwood Forest Lane" can not be used.
Page 7
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: Street Design
Number: 54 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] The minimum flowline grade on any street is 0.5%.
Number: 55 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Certain vertical curve lengths do not meet the minimums required in Figures 7-17
and 7-18. Please revise.
Number: 56 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] For grade changes less than 1 %, gutter flowlines should not have vertical
curves, but should use grade breaks.
Number: 57 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Minimum allowable grade around curb returns is 0.5%, but minimum desirable
grade is 1%. Please revise where possible.
Number: 58 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] At the intersection of Friar Tuck and Little John, the shown grades do not match
the original plans and are off by almost a foot in spots. What is going on?
Number: 59 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive design does not match the approved design - why not? Isn't
part of Chesapeake already built?
Number: 60 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive has a temporary turnaround at the end - please note that the
easement for this will have to be vacated in Phase 2.
Number: 61 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest Lane (SFL), they should
use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL. With the current
design, a vehicle traveling south on SFL would bump up and down at each intersection,
which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. SFL should have normal cross -slopes for its full
length. Please see redlines for more information.
Number: 62 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive cross -sections.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 13 Created: 10/21 /2004
[10/21/04] Centerline stationing should be used on all street designs. Please show
stationing on plan views.
Number: 25 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] Please provide additional information regarding the pond along Mountain Vista.
Will the sidewalks be graded toward or away from the street along this pond? If they're
graded toward the pond, please show how they will transition to join walks that are graded
toward the street at the ends of the pond.
Number: 32
Created: 10/27/2004
Page 6
Topic: Modification Request
Number: 67 Created: 11 /29/2004
Before City Staff can properly evaluate the modification request, an acceptable TIS for the
project needs to be submitted to the City for review.
Please have someone read future modification requests prior to submittal to the City or at
least use grammar checking software; the writing quality of the modification request could
use improvement.
Please explain the statement that Little John Lane had to be moved to the west line of the
properties to the north and not affect school property. Is this something different than was
previously approved? If so, additional design of Little John will be needed, and possibly
reconstruction of a portion of what's already built if it does not work with this new alignment
to the north.
Please provide a new site plan showing what the site would look like if these modifications
are granted.
The extension of Deep Woods Lane to intersect with Mountain Vista Drive would need to
meet the separation requirement of 460-660' from Little John Lane, not the 1320' stated (the
1320' is used in areas within the City's GMA, but outside of its city limits). The extension of
Deep Woods would not result in a signalized, full -movement intersection (as discussed in
3.6.3C), it would be unsignalized, and possibly a limited -movement intersection.
The school district property is certainly developable at this time, so that argument should not
be included in the modification request, but the argument that the school district will
probably develop that property in the future and would not use the street connections might
be an argument to include.
Regarding the Chesapeake Drive connection: The ROW for the connection would need to
be dedicated to the City, and money given to the City to construct that connection. Should
the School District develop their property such that the street connection is needed, then the
funds and ROW would be used to construct that connection. If it is not needed, the City
would determine whether a bike/ped connection would be needed instead. If so, the City
would require that connection to be made, and use a portion of the street funds for that
connection. After this determination is made, the Developer may request from City Council
that any unnecessary ROW be vacated. Staff cannot guarantee the future actions of City
Council.
The meeting date of Nov 11 is wrong. Nov 11 was a holiday.
Topic: Phasing
Number: 63 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Lot 70 needs to be in either Phase One or Phase Two, not split down the middle.
Number: 64 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Please provide a temporary turnaround on Sherwood Forest Lane for Phase 1.
Number: 65 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Rick Richter
Topic: Soils
Number: 24 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] High swell soils will need mitigation.
Page 5
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 47 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy indicated that no trees may be planted within 4.'
of gas mains or services to the homes.
Number: 48 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Mike Scheid of East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) indicated that his
comments have been made on red -lined utility plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: Drainage
Number: 53 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] For under -walk drains, please use detail D-10 from the stormwater manual.
Topic: General
Number: 9 Created: 10/21/2004
[10/21/04] The street layout for the project does not meet connectivity standards required in
the Land Use Code. Public streets must be stubbed to adjacent properties at least every
660'. Sherwood Forest Lane should be continued to the north property line and south to
Mountain Vista Drive. Friar Tuck and/or Chesapeake should be continued to the east
property line. If access is taken off of these street stubs, then temporary turnarounds 100' in
diameter must be provided at the ends of the stubs. If no access is taken off of the stubs,
then Type III barricades need to be provided across the stub and adjacent walks. Design for
these stubbed streets should extend 500' beyond the property line per LCUASS.
Number: 10 Created: 10/21/2004
[10/21/04] Mountain Vista Drive appears as a 2-lane arterial on the Master Street Plan,
requiring a total ROW of 84'. This amount, plus 12' of ROW for a right turn lane from
Mountain Vista to Little John (if a RTL is needed), is the amount that should be dedicated on
the plat.
Number: 11 Created: 10/21/2004
[10/21/04] The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards should be used to design the
public improvements for this project. LCUASS calls out that, when drive -over curb and
gutter is used on a residential local street, 53' of ROW is required on those streets to
accommodate the additional width of the drive -over curb and gutter over vertical curb and
gutter. Please revise the plans accordingly.
Number: 12 Created: 10/21/2004
[10/21/04] Please review the scanability requirements for all plans found in Appendix E of
LCUASS. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to the City accepting them for
filing.
Number: 22 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] Reminder: Storybook is responsible for maintaining its frontage improvements
(parkways, walks, etc) and stormwater ponds and needs to do this now. Also, since the
development of Storybook 1st is done, all landscaping and street trees should be installed
now.
Page 4
to unusual topopgraphic features, existing development or a natural area or feature".
Section 3.6.3(F) of the LUC states that "All development plans shall incorporate and
continue all sub -arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by
previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans
shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by
providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660)
feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or
redevelopable land".
Number: 40 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] On the TYP. BLDG. ENVELOPE DETAIL on the Site Plan, the Bldg. Enve. Line
is shown to go out to the 5' utility & drainage easement line on the rear of lots. The required
minimum rear yard setback is 8' from the rear property line.
Number: 41 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Under Site Data it is noted that 62 of the 77 lots are Solar -Oriented Lots,
equaling 80%. Actually, 61 lots meet the definition of Solar -Oriented Lot, which is 79% of the
total of 77 lots.
Number: 42 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Section 3.5.2(B)(1) & (2) deals with Housing Model Variety. Variety can be
accomplished by .......
Number: 43 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] What do GL, WO, and 8' WO, as shown in the building footprints, mean?
Number: 44 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] The garage door setbacks from back of sidewalks for Lots 1, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30,
31, 40, 46, and 47 range from 15' to 19'. Section 3.5.2( ) of the LUC requires a minimum of
20' between garage door and back of sidewalk.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Ginger Dodge
Topic: Street Names
Number: 1 Created: 10/8/2004
[10/8/04] Sherwood Forest Drive and Sherwood Forest Lane are not acceptable street
names. Sherwood Forest Drive should be Sherwood Forest Court since it is an extension of
the existing Sherwood Forest Court in the 1st Filing. With the street direction change,
Sherwood Forest Lane is not acceptable. If a street has a directional change, then a new
street name is required (See Larimer County "Rules of the Street, Standardization of Road
Naming Criteria" http://www.co.larimer.co.us/streets/rules.htm).
Rule #15 states: " Anytime that a street makes a directional change of approximately ninety
degrees, the street name shall change. A directional change of approximately ninety
degrees shall mean a horizontal curve where a reduction in the design speed is required
(i.e. a sharp turn vs. a sweeping curve). New street names will be required."
Perhaps Will Scarlet Lane? Locksley Lane? Please submit new street name so it can be
reserved in the Larimer County Street Inventory System.
Page 3
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Ginger Dodge
Topic: General
Number: 2 Created: 10/8/2004
[10/8/04] On site plan, north arrow by the vicinity map points west, not north. Please correct
(the north arrow above scale bar is correct).
Number: 3 Created: 10/8/2004
[10/8/04] On site plan site data, dwelling, type should read single family detached and single
family attached.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Plat
Number: 45 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Carl Jenkins of the Post Office indicated that he has no concerns with the
development plans as submitted.
Number: 46 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Dennis Greenwalt of Comcast Cable TV offered the following comments:
a. Comcast Cable sees no problems with the subdivision plat for this project.
B. Comcast Cable would like to ask the developer to allow them to go in a joint trench with
telephone to place their facilities to service this area. They would prefer a rear lot trench for
this development.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 35 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] A note on the Site Plan, associated with the TYP. BLDG. ENVELOPE DETAIL,
states that "All lots comply with Sub -Section (1) of Section 3.5.2 (E) of the Building Code.
First of all, Section 3.5.2(E) is in the City's Land Use Code (LUC); second, Lots 1,10, 11, 20,
21,30, 31, 40, 46, 47, and 53 do not comply with this section of the LUC. The garage doors
for the buildings on all of these lots face directly on public streets without being recessed at
all as required in Section 3.5.2(E)(1) of the LUC.
Number: 36 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Maid Marian Drive, Friar Tuck Drive, and Sherwood Forest Drive must all be
changed to Court. This change must be done on all the development plans.
Number: 37 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Sherwood Forest Lane must be renamed to "something else" Lane.
Number: 38 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Is the Park Area in Storybook, 1 st Filing a private or public park?
Number: 39 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Per Sections 3.6.3(D) & (F) of the LUC, there must be provisions for street
connections from this development to Mountain Vista Drive, the undeveloped property to the
east, and the undeveloped property to the north. Section 3.6.3(D) of the LUC states that
"Additional nonsignalized, potentially limited movement, collector or local street intersections
with arterial streets shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet
between full movement collector or local street intersections, unless rendered infeasible due
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Citv of Fort Collins
STEWART & ASSOC. Date: 12/15/2004
JACK BLAKE
103 S. MELDRUM
FT. COLLINS, CO 80526
Staff has reviewed your submittal for STORYBOOK, 2ND FILING PDP - TYPE I (LUC), and
we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Building Plans
Number: 49 Created: 10/28/2004
[10/28/04] Rick Lee of the Building Department indicated that there are no Uniform Building
code issues associated with this development submittal.
Topic: General
Number: 50 Created: 10/28/2004
[10/28/04] Section 3.5.2(B)(1) of the LUC states, in part, that "Any development of fewer
than one hundred (100) single-family or two-family dwelling units shall have at least three (3)
different types of housing models. The applicant shall include in the application for approval
of the project development plan documentation showing how the development will comply
with the foregoing requirement". Section 3.5.2(B)(2) of the LUC states that "Each housing
model shall have at least three (3) characteristics which clearly and obviously distinguish it
from the other housing models, including different floor plans, exterior materials, roof lines,
garage placement, placement of the footprint on the lot, and/or building face". The Site Plan
and Building Elevations as submitted do not provide sufficient evidence that these 2
sections of the LUC are being addressed and satisfied. The Site Plan reflects a very
repetitive residential project from the standpoint of building footprint, building placement and
orientation, building materials and color, setbacks, and block faces.
Number: 51 Created: 10/28/2004
[10/28/04] The Storybook PDP, Second Filing Planning Objectives makes the statement
that being a continuation of the original plan, there has been no conceptual review and or
neighborhood meeting for this phase to date. The rationale for this project is that the first
phase is nearly completed. Therefore, it is time for the second phase. The conceptual
review that was done for the Storybook PDP in September, 1998 discussed a project
containing 74 single-family attached dwelling units on 12.4 acres (ultimately being the
Storybook PDP for 66 dwelling units on 16 acres). There was no discussion about potential
future phases. Therefore, this development proposal is not just a continuation of the original
plan, it is its own separate and new development plan. A conceptual review should have
been held for the Storybook, 2nd Filing - PDP development proposal prior to formal
submittal of development plans; however, the applicant showed up at the Current Planning
Department window without prior consultation or a scheduled submittal appointment. At that
time staff agreed to accept the development application without the applicant having met the
conceptual review requirement. That did not negate, however, the fact that the Storybook,
2nd Filing - PDP is a brand new, independent development proposal.
Page t