HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGENCY LAKEVIEW - PDP & APU - PDP120013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: The Drake Rd access does not meet City standards which are based on the
outdated 1990 AASHTO standards. The access looks to meet or very nearly meet the current
AASHTO (2004) standards. The City should consider revising its standards to the current
AASHTO standards. Until that is done though this project will need to submit for a variance to
the City sight distance standards.
Response: An Administrative LCUASS Engineering Variance Request Letter has been prepared by Delich Associates.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: TIS accepted. No comments.
Response: Acknowledged.
When using the reduce stall depth because of overhang the plans need to indicate the width of
the sidewalk or landscaped area the vehicle will overhang.
Response: The project complies with the requirement.
3.2.2(D)(2) Off street parking spaces shall be unobstructed vehicular access to and from public
street. Please remove tandem parking spaces from the plans and tables.
Response: The project complied with the requirement.
LUC 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) Bicycle parking is required at 5% of the total off street parking spaces
provided. With 63 bike spaces the development proposal does meet and exceed the
standard.
Response: The project complies and exceeds the requirement.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: Please provide elevations for all building types (Gazebo)
Response: The project omitted the Gazebo.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05/08/2012: LUC 3.2.5 and 3.5.1(1) Trash/recycling enclosures shall be on a concrete cement
pad, designed with walk-in access without opening the main service gate and at least 20 ft
away from a public sidewalk/street. Place note on plans that enclosures must be on concrete.
Response: The concrete pads are noted on the Sheet St.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05/08/2012: Plans should indicate mechanical/utility equipment locations with notes on how
they will be screened/painted.
Response: The mechanical/utility equipment areas are shown on the site plan. The screening is noted on sheet S1—
MechanicaUutility equipment shall be screened by landscape where clearances permit. Low screen walls using similar building
materials may be used as desired for overall architectural design intent.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05/08/2012: Reminder signs are not permitted as part of the PDP and FPD. All signs and their
locations are permitted and approved through separate sign permit.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221.6820, wstanford(afcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/1912012: Please revise all Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking notes that state "City
Engineer" to state City Traffic Engineer". Please make this a permanent change.
Response: The notes have been changed as requested.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/1912012: Please add an R1-1 (Stop) sign on the NE corner of the Drake access drive.
Response: The requested stop sign has been added.
each other along a street, street like -private drive or major walkway spine. Building shall be
considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape, architectural
elevations and entrance features, within a coordinate overall theme of roof forms, massing
proportions and other characteristic. To meet this standard, such variation shall not consist
solely of different combinations of the same building features.
Current proposal has three of the same building (Building D) next to each other along the street
like private drive. Also four buildings (3 of Building D and 1 of Building B) that are similar along
the street -like private drive.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: LUC 4.6(E)(3)(c) With more than 56 dwelling units there needs to be at least 3
distinct color schemes used on structures throughout the development and no more than 2
buildings next to each other can have similar colors.
(Will need to provide actual color renderings for each color scheme)
Response: Colored renderings are provided along with a color board.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: LUC 4.6(E)(3)(d) Entrances shall be made clearly visible from the streets and
public areas through the use of architectural elements and landscaping.
LUC 4.6(E)(3)(f) Each multi -family dwelling shall be articulated with projections, recesses,
covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar features,
dividing large facades and walls into human -scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single -
or two-family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, undifferentiated wall planes.
(An increase architectural articulation around the building entrances will help alleviate the
repetitiveness of the facades.)
LUC 4.6(E)(3)(e)5. Rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view by incorporating equipment
screens of compatible design materials.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: LUC 3.2.2(K) With 91 one bedroom, 68 two bedroom, and 16 three bedroom units
there needs to be at least 288 off street parking spaces.
Response: The project complies and exceeds the requirement.
If providing 301-400 off street parking spaces than at least 8 of those are required to be
accessibility spaces. If providing 201-300 off street parking spaces the at least 7 of those need
to be accessibility spaces. Such spaces shall be designated by a sign.
At least one of the accessibility spaces shall be designated as a van -accessible space and
must be a minimum of 8 feet wide and adjoin a minimum of eight foot wide access aisle.
Response: The project complies with the requirement when providing 201 to 300 off street parking spaces.
Parking stall Dimensions for a standard space at 90 degrees is 9' x 19', compact at 90 degrees
is 8' xl5'
Response: The project complies with the requirements — please refer to Site Plan.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05/0812012: Required landscape separation distances for water/sewer mains are 10' for trees
and 4' for shrubs and for water/sewer services are 6' for trees and 4' for shrubs.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(c fcgov.com
Topic: General
Response: Responses to the Comments Numbers 1— 7 having to do with Land Use and Development Standards in the MMN
District are addressed in the revised Planning Objectives letter.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: In the petition for the Addition of Permitted Use it needs to include that the addition
of permitted use Multi -Family will comply with the Land Use Standards, Development
Standards, and Design Standards for multi -family dwellings found the MMN zone district.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: Land Use Code (LUC) 4.6(D)(3) At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all
development project shall be located within one -quarter (1/4) mile of either a neighborhood
park, a privately owned park or a central gathering place that is located within the project or
adjacent development.
LUC 4.6(D)(3) A privately owned park shall be at least 10,000 sq ft, highly visible, secure
settings, safely and easily accessible by pedestrians, open to the public, multiple -use turf
areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches, or other features for various
age groups to utilize.
LUC 4.6(D)(3)(b)6. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this
requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with
other recreational and civic purposes of the park.
(Need to see a contour map of the park area)
RESPONSE (from Northern Eng): The proposed design is compliant with the LUC citation. Please see Overall
Grading Plan Sheet C401 for contours.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: LUC 4.6(E)(1)(b) Block size shall be limited to a maximum size of 7 acres.
Current proposal shows one block exceeding 7 acres.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: LUC 4.6(E)(2)(c) Minimum setback from street right-of-way: none
LUC 4.6(E)(3)(a) Setbacks from the property line of abutting property containing single- and two
family dwellings shall be 25 ft.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: LUC 4.6(E)(3)(b) Requires that project with more than 7 buildings there shall be at
least 3 distinct building designs. There shall be no more than 2 similar buildings placed next to
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: There are two line over text issues on sheet S2.
Response: This has been corrected.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221.6197, emcardlena.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Currently no transit service is provide on this section of East Drake Road, but the
Transfort Strategic Plan designates that service will be provided in phase 1 improvements,
which are only partially completed at this time. Section 3.6.5 of the LUC states that any
development plans shall accommodate planned transit facilities. The applicant may either
choose to provide an accessible 12' x 18' pad adjacent to Drake Road for a future bus stop or
provide a 12' x 18' transit easement and escrow funds to pay for a pad at the time service on
Drake begins. Please coordinate with me regarding the exact location.
Response: The Applicant prefers to complete the bus stop pad during the project construction. The Applicant will meet with
Transportation Planning prior to Final Submittal. A 12'x18' transit easement'placeholder has been designated on plans.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffingtont7o.fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05/0812012: As noted in previous discussions, revisions to the sewer alignment are needed to
address maintenance access concerns. If it would be helpful, schedule a separate meeting to
work on this.
Response: The sewer alignment (and site/building layout) has been revised such that there are no manholes in landscaped areas.
All sanitary sewer manholes are accessible within paved drive aisles.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05/08/2012: Typically, buildings with more than 18 units would have a 2" domestic water
service. In Fort Collins, residential development fees are based upon lot/site area and number
of living units; therefore, a 2"service for the larger buildings will not affect the development
fees.
Response: Water meter sizing calculations will be provided by the mechanical/plumbing engineer during Final Design. The Utility
Plan layout should remain valid since both IY2" and 2" water meters use the same size pit.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05/0812012: See redlined utility plans for additional comments. Please return redlined plans
with next submittal.
Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: Easements
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2012
05108/2012: Minimum easement widths are: Water - 20 feet (10 feet each side); Sewer - 30 feet
(15 feet each side).
Response: Acknowledged. There is also one stretch of easement 35 feet in width containing both water and sewer in parallel.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/1412012: Please correct the Township on both sheets. See redlines.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please add a note referencing documents that affect usage of the property.
RESPONSE: See Note #3 added to the Cover Sheet of the Plat.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please provide monument records for the corners shown on this plat.
RESPONSE: The requested monument records have been provided.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please add an "s" to sheets in the sheet numbering on both sheets.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please label the basis of bearings line, and add the record bearing & distance.
RESPONSE: These labels have been added.
Response: Agreed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: All existing & proposed easements must be locatable.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: All easements recorded by seperate document should note the reception
number.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Additional detail will be provided during Final Compliance.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please label the point of beginning.
RESPONSE. This label has been added.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: The bearings shown along the north right of way do not match the First Christian
Church PUD plat.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Does the monument symbol at the northeast comer of the plat mark the northeast
comer, the northwest corner of Lot 10 Silverwood Village Second Filing, or both?
Response: Additional notation has been added to the monument label for clarification.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please correct the Township in the legal description & the subtitle on sheet St.
See redlines.
Response: This has been corrected.
compliance.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: At final compliance, the detention pond landscaping will be reviewed to ensure
compliance with the Detention Pond Landscape Standards. The detention landscaping on the
preliminary landscape plan looks a little low on the proposed vegetation.
Response: This requirement will be met.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: The proposed water quality mitigation will need to be quantified during final
compliance to make sure the design is treated the entire area draining to the pond.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty(a.fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/1412012: Sheet A2 is incorrectly labeled as "Building 2 Elevations".
Response: This was corrected.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/1412012: Please correct the Township in the subtitle on sheet C000. See redlines.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/1412012: The basis of bearings doesn't match the subdivision plat.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets C400 & C401.
Response: This has been corrected.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/1412012: There are two line over text issues on sheet L1.
Response: This has been corrected.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/1412012: There are line over text issues on sheet PM1. Please move the north arrow &
sheet title out of the lighting values.
Response: This has been corrected.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: The boundary & legal description close.
Department: PFA
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221.6635, rgonzales(a.poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: 30 foot wide emergency access is required for all 3 story structures, or portions
thereof.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/1112012: water supply to be 1500 gpm at 20 psi supplied through a fire hydrant within 300
feet of all buildings.
Response: Acknowledged,
Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05111/2012: address numerals are to be visible from the street fronting the property.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: All 3-story portions and 3-story structures are to be fire sprinklered with a full 13 fire
sprinkler system.
Response: A full 13 fire sprinkler system will be provided for any 3-story building that exceeds the 150' hose length distance. For
any 3-story building that meets the hose length requirement, a 13R sprinkler system will be provided. For any 2-story or less building
or 2-story portion of a 3-story building, no fire sprinkler system is required.
Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: While the HMIA has been submitted, there is pool chemistry classified as Class 3
oxidizers requiring quantity limits of 10 Ibs only. The pool chemistry shall not be stored within
the pool equipment room (this is a mechanical room only). Pool chemistry cannot be stored
within flammable liquid storage cabinets —they must be in Haz.Mat Storage Cabinets.
Response: The Pool Chemicals submittal has been updated to reflect the above and is attached.
Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/1112012: Fire lane turns require a 25 foot radius inside and a 50 foot radius outside.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamaroue(a fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Stormwater is ready for a hearing.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Maintenance access is needed to the regional detention pond through this
development. Current access is through the site. This can be coordinated during final design.
Response: A portion of the concrete trail along the southern property line has been over -sized and will be designed to
accommodate maintenance vehicle loading. An access easement will also be dedicated for this same reach.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Please see the erosion control plans and report checklist for requirements at final
report with perhaps verification of any groundwater/well rights in the area that might claim to be
impacted by the proposed underdrain system.
Response: The proposed sand -filled vertical field drains are only designed to be 12"-18" deep, and therefore, will not create a
draw -down effect or otherwise alter the groundwater morphology of the general area. This will be documented with the Final
Drainage Report.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(a fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/04/2012
05/04/2012: Is the "wetland Plant" designation just the types of plants you are proposing, or do
you suspect this area will turn into a wetland? Also, it is confusing to say "Wetland Plants (Low
Water Use)" when I'm pretty sure you mean high water use? We'll need to make sure that the
plants proposed in this area are tolerant to both saturation and drought.
Response: The plants proposed in this area are tolerant to both saturation and drought— please see plant list on Final Landscape
Plan.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tuchanan cDfcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Are there any existing trees that will be impacted by this Project or in the detention
pond to the south of the development? If so please schedule an on site meeting with the City
Forester to review.
Response: There are no existing trees that will be impacted. All existing trees will be preserved and there are no trees within the
detention pond.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 04/23/2012
04/23/2012: In order to design the electric utility system, Light & Power Engineering needs a
Commercial Service Information (C-1) form completed relative to the clubhouse. It is assumed
that there will be no use of electric space heating. With that assumption, it appears that fewer
electric transformers will be necessary than what is shown on the utility plan. A utility
coordination meeting is encouraged. Please contact Doug Martine in Light & Power
Engineering at 224-6152 with any questions.
Response: A C-1 form will be provided during the Final Plan phase. A Utility Coordination Meeting was held on 0412512012.
There will be no electric space heating. The transformer layout has been coordinated with Light & Power.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/23/2012
04/2312012: After the site plan is final, please send an AutoCad version 2008 to Terry Cox at
TCOX(ab.FCGOV.COM.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Prior to the scheduling of a public hearing for the project, letters of intent should
be provided from the church indicating their willingness to provide easements for access,
emergency access, utilities, and drainage as well as the offsite construction taking place (such
as the mill and overlay of the existing roadway).
Response: The Seller's Letter of Intent is forthcoming.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/0912012: Clearly label the PDP boundary which should ideally coincide with the platted
boundary of the subdivision plat.
Response: This labeling has been revised as requested.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/0912012: Note that the intent with the previous comment is that the City would establishment
a development plan approval for the area being encompassed by the Regency Lakeview
subdivision plat which would coincide with the boundary on the site/landscape plans. The work
on the church property would be considered offsite and not a part of this project. If the applicant
is considering using area within the church property for a use (such as temporary sales trailers),
the applicant should contact City Zoning for verification on whether such a use could be allowed
outside of the development plan boundary.
Response: The Applicant will not be using the church property for temporary sales trailers. The Applicant has discussed with the
church the use of a portion of their property for construction staging — construction trailer and materials. The Applicant and Church
understand that the church property is considered offsite to Regency Lakeview.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: LCUASS Figure 7-16 specifies the amount of sight distance easement required at
intersections. The required sight distance along Drake Road based upon the 50 mph design
speed is 1030 feet. Adherence to this requirement would require offsite easement from the
homeowner at the southwest comer of Dorado Court and Drake Road (with the house appearing
to be partially in the easement) and an offsite easement from the property owner(s) of
Parkwood Lake. The actual existing sight distance easements are less than the standard due to
existing landscaping, and benning. The existing sight distance easements should be
documented and compared against the standard through a variance request for evaluation of
the impact resulting from non -adherence to this provision, any concerns as a result, and how
those concerns may need to potentially be mitigated.
Response: An Administrative LCUASS Engineering Variance Request Letter has been prepared by Delich Associates. The
corresponding sight distance easements are shown on the 0611312012 submittal documents.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Please confirm whether the proposed underdrain system on the south end of the
property is intended to address saturated soil conditions and will not intend to alter groundwater
morphology of the general area. A statement to that effect should be included in the drainage
Reading (June 5, 2012). This new standard, while not applicable to this project due to submittal
prior to adoption) should be carefully considered. As proposed, the new standard calls for
one bike space per bedroom and that 80% be enclosed and 20% be fixed. For this project,
this would required a total of 275 spaces with 220 enclosed and 55 fixed. Definitions of
enclosed and fixed are available in draft form for your information.
Response: The project has increased bike storage to 283 (63 exterior and 220 interior). The locations for the interior bike parking
are shown on the Site Plan.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Serious consideration should be given to establishing an undulating earthen berm
along the eastern edge. Section 3.5.1(H) calls for effective use of buffer yards in order to allow
dissimilar uses next to each other.
Response: The proposed design aims to achieve a similar effect by partially burying (berming against the foundation) the eastern
edges of the garages. Not only does this lower the perceived height of the garage ends and facilitate planting for additional
screening, but it also allows an interceptor swale to be graded in to ensure runoff does not encroach onto neighboring properties.
Comment Numbe : 11 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Wi here be anew fence along the east property line? Has there been any
dialogue with the adjoining property owners as to the status of the existing fences? Fencing
issues should be resolved with the affected property owners at the P.D.P. stage.
Response: The Applicant invited all 21 adjoining neighbors to meet. The Applicant met with 5 owners and is expecting a fence <"
request from two owners.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: On the Lighting Plan, there are several foot-candle measurements that exceed 0.1
that spillover the property line. There should be no spillover of illumination. Staff suggests that
the 10 eastern most BB fixtures be eliminated. Also, the use of the BB fixtures (Kichler -
Benton Outdoor Wall) along the east edge may not be the best selection. A better selection
would be a fully -shielded fixture that is sharp cutoff and down directional.
Response: The Lighting Plan has been updated and there is no longer any spillover. In addition, the eastern most BB fixtures were
removed and the original BB fixture was replaced with a fixture offering a sharper light cutoff. The single pole light on the east side
of the detention area was omitted.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/1912012: Please indicate the size of the detention pond / multi -use Feld.
Response: Please refer to additional dimensions provided on the Site Plan. (, 3 r. ppt C' —n-rR L S i'a t
a� a.o yam?
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: On all architectural elevations, the building entrances appear to be very
non-descript and featureless. Building entrances, especially those facing east, need to be
upgraded with accent features, projecting overhangs, weather protection, or other architectural
embellishments that highlight the entrances. In addition, second floor stairwells could be upgraded.
Response: Please see revised architectural elevations. These items were addressed and landscaping at entries has been
enhanced.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: For Building B, please provide height dimensions.
Response: This was corrected.
continuing walkway. In general, walkways should be prioritized and widened where possible and enhanced
trees in grates.
Reponse: The tandem parking spaces were removed from the garage sides of the buildings and a continuing sidewalk/walkway
across this area is provided. On the south side of buildings 8 and 9, the sidewalk has been added.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/1912012: Based on the above, the site plan would benefit by clearly labeling the building
entrances. In general, entrances need to connect to the walkway system and the tandem
spaces should be re-evaluated as they appear to disrupt the walkways.
Response: The Site Plan now labels building entrances and the tandem parking spaces have been removed.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: The walkway in front of the clubhouse should be widened to eight to ten feet. This
is a highly visible destination and a six foot wide walk with vehicle overhang is really only a four
foot wide walk.
Response: The sidewalk has been widened — please see Site Plan.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: The aforementioned walk should softened and made more direct and continuous as
it joins the walk along the street like private drive.
Response: Please see updated Site Plan.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/1912012: The north -south walkway, in the area on the east side of Building Three, should
feature raised crosswalks so that the pedestrian is more visible and on equal status, not
subordinate, to the driver.
Response: The crosswalk will be raised where it crosses the 30' drive isle as called out on site plan.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: The site plan should clearly label the tuck -under garages.
Response: The Site Plan now labels the tuck under garage parking spaces.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/1912012: If the garages are to be leased separately, at a rate over and above the base unit
lease,. then they cannot be counted towards meeting the minimum required number of spaces.
[Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)).
Response: The garages will not be leased separately.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: The trash enclosures are located relatively close to the adjoining residents. If
these locations are to remain as indicated, then the pick up service must be restricted to
normal business hours to avoid disturbance. Per Section 3.5.1(J), these hours will need to be
specified and made a part of the P.D.P.
Response: The trash enclosures were modified (one enclosure moved further south from Building 2). The Owner will be hiring a
Valet Trash service (see attached). This is a great amenity for residents and ensures trash enclosures and the trash is properly
handled, deposited, and ready for collection. The Owner will restrict trash collection to normal business hours.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: A new minimum bicycle parking standard has been recommended for approval by
the Planning and Zoning Board (May 17, 2012) and is being forwarded to City Council for First
Fort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins. CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 • fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
May 19, 2012 (Applicant Responses submitted 6-13-12)
RE: Regency Lakeview PDP with Addition of Permitted Use, PDP120013, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies and utilities for your
submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or
tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepardpfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: The street like private drive would be more street like if there were on -street
parking. Please explore adding either parallel or angled parking along the east side.
Response: Angled parking has been added — refer to Site Plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Buildings 5,7 and 9 could be better connected to the street like private drive with a
major walkway spine versus a connecting walkway. The area of the lawn framed by Buildings 4
and 6 should be enhanced with the features of a major walkway spine.
Response: Major walkway spine has been added with trees & enhanced landscape — refer to Site Plan and Landscape Plan.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: For Buildings 5,7 and 9, access to the street like private drive is impeded by the
garage access to the tuck -under parking. For Buildings 6 and 7, the driveways to the garages
appear to be on the back side of the buildings. But, it is not clear if these buildings have
entrances on the north. For Buildings 8 and 9, these buildings have double frontage with
driveways and there appears to be no walkway along the south. The site plan indicates this
area is seven feet wide and the landscape plan indicates plant material, but no walkway? Are
there no building entrances along the south? If the only entrances to these buildings are on the
north, then opportunity for the tandem parking should be eliminated and replaced with a