Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK 2ND FILING - PDP - 49-98B - CORRESPONDENCE - (9)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 #49-988 Page 15 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 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. Page 14 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 V 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 1 (not 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. 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. Page 13 Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill 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 LCUA55, 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. Mountain Vista Drive 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 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. Number. 23 Created: 10/26/2004 [10/26/04] I would like to reiterate Engineering 5taff's 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 -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. Department: Zoning Topic: Utility Plans Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Number: 14 Created: 10/22/2004 [10/22/04] Please note building height on elevations Page 12 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. 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: 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. Page 11 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" cannot be used. Department: Police Topic: General Number: 34 (10/27/04] No Comments. Department: Stormwater Utility Topic: Drainage Number: 26 Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Created:10/27/2004 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque 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 Page 10 Number: 62 Created: 10/29/2004 (10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive cross -sections. 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 Department: Light & Power Topic: General Issue Contact: Monica Moore Number: 5 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. 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: loft from stormwater, wastewater and water, 5ft from gas. Page 9 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. Page 8 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. LCUAS5 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 LCUAS5. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to the City accepting them. Number: 22 Created: 10/26/2004 (10/26/04] Reminder: Storybook is responsible for maintaining its frontage improvements (parkways, walks, etc) and stormwater ponds. 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. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 13 Created: 10/21/2004 [10/21/04] Centerline stationing should be used on all street designs. 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. Page 7 Department: Current Planning Topic: Utility Plans Number: 47 Issue Contact: Steve Olt 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 Topic: Drainage Issue Contact: Katie Moore 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). Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004 [10/27/04] Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between 2-4%. Number: 53 Created:10/29/2004 [10/29/04] For under -walk drains, please use detail b-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. Page 6 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] Sections 3.5.2(8)(1) & (2) deal with Housing Model Variety. Variety can be accomplished by ..... (see comment #50 in this letter). 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? 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 reouires a minimum of 20' between garage door and back of sidewalk. Department: Current Planning Topic: Street Names Number. 1 Issue Contact: Ginger Dodge 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 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 5 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 PDP 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. "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." 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. 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. Page 4 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. Department: Current Planning Topic: P/ot Number: 45 Issue Contact: Steve Olt 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: "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, not Building Code; 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 Courts. This change must be done on all the development plans. 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. Department: Current Planning Topic: 6enerol Number: 2 Issue Contact: Ginger Dodge 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). Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins 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 Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Building Pons 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: 6eneroi 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." Section 3.5.2(B)(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