HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK 2ND FILING - PDP - 49-98B - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)comment letter, being October 29, 2004) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A)
of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your red -lined plans when you
re -submit. The number of copies of each document to re -submit is shown on the
attached Revisions Routing Sheet.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to
this project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Katie Moore
Gary Mackey
Current Planning File #49-98B
Page 16
Stormwater:
1. The drainage report used 'old" rainfall criteria. It must be revised to
include the "new" rainfall criteria.
2. The storm sewer presently shown in the parkway (between curb and
sidewalk) must be located in the street.
3. The drainage plan needs to be revised to avoid any backyard drainage
swales.
4. There is a water quality issue associated with the current drainage plan
and report.
5. It is unclear as to the status of the off -site drainage easement to the
east.
6. The information on the Landscape Plan and utility plans is not
coordinated.
Transportation Planning:
1. The new Transportation Impact Study, required by the Traffic Engineer,
must include the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit Level Of Service (LOS)
information.
Current Planning:
1. There are 3 building elevation sheets, numbered 1 of 5, 3 of 5, and 1 of ?.
Some sheets appear to be missing, incorrectly numbered, etc.
This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at
this time. Additional comments and red -lined plans may be forthcoming. Another
round of staff review is determined to be necessary. This proposal is subject
to the 90-day revision re -submittal requirement (from the date of this
Page 15
-Subdivision 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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged and revised.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 14 Created: 10/22/2004
[10/22/04] Please note building height on elevations
Stewart d Associates Response: Okay
**********************************************************************
The following comments and concerns were expressed at staff review on
October 27, 2004:
Engineering:
1. There potentially are high swell soils in this area and, if so, necessary
mitigation measures must be taken.
2. The main concerns are about the street connectivity requirements to
adjacent developable or redevelopable properties and streets.
3. Mountain Vista Drive is identified on the City's Master Street Plan as a
2-lane arterial street, requiring a total width of 84' of ROW, not 115' as
shown on the Site Plan.
4. An additional 1' of width of ROW for the internal, local streets in the
development is needed because of the proposed roll-over curbs.
5. There is not enough cover over utilities in some areas of the
development.
6. The subdivision plat should be renumbered to be Sheet 1 of Knot 2 of
26). The plat is a reference sheet only in the utility plans but it is
recorded and filed separate from the utility plans in the City's filing
system.
Page 14
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke
Topic: Traffic
Number: 4 Created: 10/11/2004
[10/11/04] The Traffic Study submitted with this project is outdated and
inaccurate. A new TIS needs to be completed - one that is based on Chapter 4
of LUCASS. The new TIS needs to address the APF issue at East Vine Drive &
Lemay Avenue.
Stewart d Associates Response: Anew TIS has been submitted and okayed by
YOU.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic: Transportation Planning
Number: 19 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] As a reminder, the new TI5 requested by the City Traffic
Engineer should also include L05 analysis for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit
- per current procedures outlined in LCUASS, Chapter 4.
Stewart d Associates Response: New TIS submitted.
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. Mountain Vista
Drive is currently signed and striped with bicycle lanes. Please correct this
error.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
Number: 21 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] Does the applicant plan to stripe bike lanes on Little John Lane
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Little .Tohn will be striped. I think there was
a striping plan with the I" Filing.
Number: 23 Created: 10/26/2004
[10/26/04] I would like to reiterate Engineering Staff's comment (#9)
concerning connectivity and the spacing of streets in this development.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
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
Page 13
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 an earlier filing for a particular piece of developable land.
Stewart d Associates Response: Will redo on new city data.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Moved the storm sewer to the lip of the curb
per our discussions
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?
Stewart d Associates Response: Okay. The Water Quality Volume for Filing 2
was included in the original design.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Per our discussion the backyard swales shown
were okayed due to our walkout basement design.
Number: 30 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Please combine grading plans and provide more clearly the flow
patterns.
Stewart d Associates Response: Inlarged sheet 4 scale and added sheet 4A to
sheet 4. Moved details to sheet 4A.
Number: 31 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Please coordinate the landscape plans with the utility plans,
specifically the storm sewer.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
Page 12
Number: 8 Created: 10/12/2004
[10/12/04] Because of the tight site conditions, a utility coordination meeting
is STRONGLY suggested.
Stewart d Associates Response: After revisions are completed a utility
meeting would be fine with us
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
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
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
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
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
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
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" cannot be used.
Department: Police
Topic: General
Number: 34
Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Created:10/27/2004
(10/27/04] No Comments.
Stewart dr Associates Response: Acknowledged
Page 11
[10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive
cross -sections.
Stewart d Associates Response: See your No. 10 comment.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Will revise phasing line.
Number: 64
Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Please provide a temporary turnaround on Sherwood Forest Lane
for Phase 1.
Stewart d Associates Response: Okay
Number: 65
Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional
comments.
Stewart d Associates Response: Okay
Department: Engineering
Topic: Soils
Number: 24
Issue Contact: Rick Richter
[10/26/04] High swell soils will need mitigation
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
Department: Light $ Power
Topic: General
Number: 5
Created: 10/26/2004
Issue Contact: Monica Moore
Created: 10/12/2004
(10/12/04] 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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Added electrical system to overall plan.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised street trees for requirement of 40
foot and 15 foot
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
Page 10
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Okay
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Okay
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?
Stewart dr Associates Response: Existing curb returns are to be removed and
graded to this project'F requirements
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?
Stewart d Associates Response: Chesapeake Drive is not built. Revisedgrade
to meet new grading.
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.
Stewart dr Associates Response: I do not find an easement dedication. The
easement is shown on the first filing Utility Plans only. How do we vacate thisP
Number: 61 Created: 10/29/2004
(10/29/04] When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest Lane
(5FL), 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.
Stewart dr Associates Response: We willgrade at the North -South Street
grade but we need to direct thegutter flow to the inlets to not exceed the two
year maximum gutter flow, therefore no cross pans We can show a taper of
30-feet.
Number: 62
Created: 10/29/2004
Page 9
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised Street ROW to 53' wide for drive -
over curb andgutter.
Number: 12 Created: 10/21/2004
[10/21/04] Please review the sconability requirements for all plans found in
Appendix E of LCUA55. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to
the City accepting them.
Stewart d Associates Response: Should be scanable.
Number: 22 Created: 10/26/2004
(10/26/04] Reminder: Storybook is responsible for maintaining its frontage
improvements (parkways, walks, etc) and stormwater ponds.
Stewart d Associates Response: Storybook has Homeowner's Association for
maintenance.
Topic: Soils
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Okay
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 13 Created: 10/21/2004
[10/21/04] Centerline stationing should be used on all street designs.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
Number: 52 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] Grade breaks at curb returns can be allowed up to 3%, but only for
extreme circumstances (these are not extreme circumstances). Please revise.
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised curb returns Existing curb returns
on Little ,7ohn need to be removed due to existing breakage.
Topic: Street Design
Number: 54 Created: 10/29/2004
[10/29/04] The minimum flowline grade on any street is 0.5%.
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised streets to be 0.57o.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised vertical curves to figures 7-17and 7-
18.
Page 8
[10/29/04] For under -walk drains, please use detail D-10 from the stormwater
manual.
Stewart d Associates Response: Added detail D-10 to plans for under -walk
drains
Topic: 6eneral
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Modification to code was approved.
Chesapeake now shown to East property line.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Mountain Vista Drive was designed and
approved with Storybook P" Filing. The developer escrowed to the City the
required monies to construct Mountain Vista Drive therefore satisfying his
development agreement. We showed Mountain Vista Drive in this Second Filing
for your information. My thinking is that Mountain Vista Drive is now the City'.s
and redesign should be paid by you. Therefore we did not change the street
design and cross sections for this submittal. If you feel otherwise, let me know
and we will revise our plans accordingly on the next submittal. Please call me,
I'm available most mornings Thanks
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.
Page 7
street has a directional change, then a new street name is required (See
Lorimer 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 Lorimer County Street Inventory System.
9�_ Stewart d Associates Response: Revised street names per your information.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged and adjusted trees
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised plans per ELCO requests
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: Drainage
Number: 32 Created: 10/27/2004
(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).
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised storm sewergrades to have 3-feet of
coverage from top of asphalt.
Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between
2-4%.
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised cross section to be 2% to 3%.
Number: 53 Created: 10/29/2004
Page 6
If the applicant had brought this proposed development plan to conceptual
review, as required in the LUC, this information would have been conveyed by
City staff to the applicant at that time.
Stewart d Associates Response: Modification have been requested and
by.- approved by the hearing officer.
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. The Building Envelope must be adjusted accordingly.
!)� Stewart d Associates Response: Revised building envelope to be B feet in the
back.
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.
b�. Stewart d Associates Response: Revised Solar data.
Number: 42 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Sections 3.5.2(8)(1) & (2) deal with Housing Model Variety. Variety
can be accomplished by ..... (see comment•#50 in this letter).
9*- Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
Number: 43 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] What do GL, WO, and 8' WO, as shown in the building footprints on
the Site Plan, mean?
6�, Stewart d Associates Response: All building and RE, GL and ECT removed.
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(D)(2) of the
LUC requires a minimum of 20' between garage door and back of sidewalk.
Stewart d Associates Response: All setbacks are 20-feet per code. All
b�-- building removed from site plan.
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 first filing.
With the street direction change, Sherwood Forest Lane is not acceptable. If a
Page 5
directly on public streets without being recessed at all as required in Section
3.5.2(E)(1) of the LUC.
Stewart & Associates Response Removed note.
Number: 36 eated: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Maid Marian Drive, Friar Tuck Drive, and Sherwood Forest Drive
must all be changed to Courts. This change must be done on all the development
plans.
Stewart d Associates Response: Changed names
Number: 37
Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Sherwood Forest Lane must be renamed to "something else" Lane.
Stewart d Associates Response: Changed Sherwood Forest Lane to Deep
Woods Lone.
Number: 38 Created: 10/27/2004
[10/27/04] Is the Park Area in Storybook PDP a private or public park?
g�. Stewart dr Associates Response: Park filed with First Filing and is private.
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:
"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 to unusual
topopgraphic features, existing development or a natural area or feature."
Section 3.6.3(F) of the LUC states:
"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."
Page 4
C
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Ginger Dodge
Topic: Genera/
Number: 2 Created: 10/8/2004
[10/8/04] On the Site Plan, north arrow by the Vicinity Map points west, not
north. Please correct (the north arrow above scale bar is correct).
,Stewart dr Associates Response: The north arrow referenced it for the Vicinity
Map. We will move it into the border for the Vicinity Map.
Number: 3 Created: 10/8/2004
[10/8/04] On the Site Plan site data, dwelling type should read single-family
detached and single-family attached.
Stewart d Associates Response: Revised to read as requested.
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged - rear easements are in place.
TPlan
E
ber: 35 Created: 10/27/2004
27/0 A note on the Site Plan, associated with the TYP. BLDG. ENVELOPE
AIL, states:
"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 Co&—noBuilding Code;
�A second, Lots 1,10, 111 20, 21,30, 31, 40, 46, 47, and 53 do not comply with this
(9 section\7f the LUC. The garage doors for the buildings on all of these lots face
Page 3
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 POP, Second Filing Planning Objectives, as
submitted by the applicant, makes the following statement:
"Also, 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 POP in September,
1998 discussed a project containing 74 single-family attached dwelling units on
12.4 acres (ultimately being the Storybook POP for 66 dwelling units on 16
acres). There was no discussion about potential future phases. Also, the
Storybook POP was not a phased plan. It was a POP only for 66 dwelling units on
16 acres. 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, POP 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 (somewhat reluctantly) the development application without the
applicant having met the conceptual review requirement. That did not negate,
however, the fact that the Storybook, 2nd Filing, POP is a brand new,
independent development proposal and is subject to all of the requirements set
forth in the applicable sections of Article 2 - Administration, Article 3 -
General Development Standards, and Division 4.4 - Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District of the LUC.
Stewart dr Associates Response: We apologize for the assumption that this site
was originally master planned in 1998. I wasgoing on the premise that it was
Also Steve, you and I discussed the need for a conceptual review prior to my
submittal and I felt the conclusion was to go to preliminary. Iguess that if we
knew at that time it was not part of the original plan we would have started at
conceptual review.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Stewart & Associates
c/o Jack Blake
103 South Meldrum Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80526
Date: 10/29/2004
Staff has reviewed your submittal for STORYBOOK, 2nd FILING, PDP -
Type I, Land Use Code (LUC), and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning
Topic: Building Plans
Issue Contact: Steve Olt
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.
Stewart d Associates Response: Acknowledged
Topic: General
Number: 50 Created: 10/28/2004
[10/28/04] Section 3.5.2(8)(1) of the LUC states, in part:
"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."
Stewart d Associates Response: Owner has the different housing models
b Section 3.5.2(8)(2) of the LUC states:
"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 aforementioned sections of the LUC are being addressed
Page 1